I am more interested in the cooked up excuse our Praetors have for breaking their own law, Senator. The Praetors have shown themselves willing to violate the law when it benefits their friends and they should be held accountable for such action. Clearly the law means nothing when applied to their buds.

vale,

Sulla

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Titus Iulius Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...> wrote:
>
> SALVE!
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Woolwine" <l_cornelius_sulla@> wrote:
>
> > It seems the two month moderation rule is total BS.
> > How do I know this?
> > the Candidate for CA - Cato Minimus joined the ML on 4/24
> > He did a post on the ML about dignitas on 5/11>>>
>
> For the moderation rules question, the involved and responsible magistrates must answer.
>
> From my part, I want to ask you, why you use that nickname "Minimus" for the current candidate to aedilitas? You consider is correct attitude and educate behavior from your part, Senator?
>
> VALE,
> T. Iulius Sabinus
>

Why was he removed off of moderation in the first place? Who authorized it? Who is held accountable for violating the edict in the first place. Who is being terminated (if it was a scribe)?

Why was he being held to a different standard then I was? why was he being held to a different standard that Felix - who is a governor of a provincia?

I want you to post the activity in regards to Cato here in the chatroom so the people can see who is responsible for breaking the law.

Vale,

Sulla

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Publius Memmius Albucius" <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
> Cornelio s.d.
>
> Your right observation underlines if needed the necessity of reviewing the whole corpus of our members' status.
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato should have remained under moderation til next May 26, for he joined on Mar 25, 2009, according my Yahoo! datas (the difference is probably due to the considered time - Rome for me).
>
> For your information and all our members and cives' one, I have corrected the error and replaced Hon. Coruncianius under the normal "new member moderation" status (2 months), til next May 26.
>
> There is no difference, concerning our law, between the members of our Forum.
>
> Naturally, Coruncianius has been informed.
>
>
> Vale,
>
>
> P. Memmius Albucius
> praetor
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Woolwine" <l_cornelius_sulla@> wrote:
> >
> > It seems the two month moderation rule is total BS.
> >
> > How do I know this?
> >
> > the Candidate for CA - Cato Minimus joined the ML on 4/24
> >
> > He did a post on the ML about dignitas on 5/11
> >
> > From: Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_cato@>
> > Reply-To: l.coruncanius_cato@
> > Subject: about Dignitas
> > X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=341223610; y=B2PIpsVT7sXw5FYkeJSBaonoNdm0CcMQBZ1L7_2lsXhCZ0tkUXemauJYGPWM
> > X-Yahoo-Profile: l.coruncanius_cato
> >
> > He is unmoderated!!!!
> >
> > Yet he joined the ML on:
> >
> > l.coruncaniu...
> > Offline Offline
> > Send Message Send Message
> > -name- -age- -gender-
> > -location-
> > l.coruncaniu... l.coruncanius_cato@ Mar 24, 2009
> >
>

SALVE PRAETOR!   This is diplomatic answer but it doesn’t respond to the question in cause.   VALE BENE, T. Iulius Sabinus "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...> wrote: From: Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Hon. Coruncanius' posting status To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 1:45 AM Cornelio s.d. Your right observation underlines if needed the necessity of reviewing the whole corpus of our members' status. L. Coruncanius Cato should have remained under moderation til next May 26, for he joined on Mar 25, 2009, according my Yahoo! datas (the difference is probably due to the considered time - Rome for me). For your information and all our members and cives' one, I have corrected the error and replaced Hon. Coruncianius under the normal "new member moderation" status (2 months), til next May 26. There is no difference, concerning our law, between the members of our Forum. Naturally, Coruncianius has been informed. Vale, P. Memmius Albucius praetor --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Robert Woolwine" <l_cornelius_ sulla@... > wrote: > > It seems the two month moderation rule is total BS. > > How do I know this? > > the Candidate for CA - Cato Minimus joined the ML on 4/24 > > He did a post on the ML about dignitas on 5/11 > > From: Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_ cato@> > Reply-To: l.coruncanius_ cato@ > Subject: about Dignitas > X-Yahoo-Group- Post: member; u=341223610; y=B2PIpsVT7sXw5FYke JSBaonoNdm0CcMQB Z1L7_2lsXhCZ0tkU XemauJYGPWM > X-Yahoo-Profile: l.coruncanius_ cato > > He is unmoderated! !!! > > Yet he joined the ML on: > > l.coruncaniu. .. > Offline Offline > Send Message Send Message > -name- -age- -gender- > -location- > l.coruncaniu. .. l.coruncanius_ cato@ Mar 24, 2009 >

Salvete! No I won't answer :) By the way, Praetor Albucius informed that I'm from now on under moderation until the probation period finishes: May 26th. I told the praetores that, if needed, I will be glad to be under moderation as much time as necessary, counting the whole 2 months period beyond 26 May. PS: censorship! woof woof! free beer! woooof! free willy!! -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis --- El mié, 13/5/09, Titus Iulius Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> escribió: De: Titus Iulius Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Double standard in NR again - with the Praetors Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: miércoles, 13 mayo, 2009 12:22 SALVE! --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Robert Woolwine" <l_cornelius_ sulla@... > wrote: > It seems the two month moderation rule is total BS. > How do I know this? > the Candidate for CA - Cato Minimus joined the ML on 4/24 > He did a post on the ML about dignitas on 5/11>>> For the moderation rules question, the involved and responsible magistrates must answer. From my part, I want to ask you, why you use that nickname "Minimus" for the current candidate to aedilitas? You consider is correct attitude and educate behavior from your part, Senator? VALE, T. Iulius Sabinus

That is ok. I plan to put the person who illegally unmoderated you on trial for breaking the law.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_cato@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete!
>
> No I won't answer :)
> By the way, Praetor Albucius informed that I'm from now on under moderation until the probation period finishes: May 26th.
> I told the praetores that, if needed, I will be glad to be under moderation as much time as necessary, counting the whole 2 months period beyond 26 May.
>
> PS: censorship! woof woof! free beer! woooof! free willy!!
>
> --
>
> Di te incolumem custodiant.
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato
>
> Candidate to Aedilis Curulis
>
> --- El mié, 13/5/09, Titus Iulius Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> escribió:
> De: Titus Iulius Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>
> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Double standard in NR again - with the Praetors
> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Fecha: miércoles, 13 mayo, 2009 12:22
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SALVE!
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Robert Woolwine" <l_cornelius_ sulla@ > wrote:
>
>
>
> > It seems the two month moderation rule is total BS.
>
> > How do I know this?
>
> > the Candidate for CA - Cato Minimus joined the ML on 4/24
>
> > He did a post on the ML about dignitas on 5/11>>>
>
>
>
> For the moderation rules question, the involved and responsible magistrates must answer.
>
>
>
> From my part, I want to ask you, why you use that nickname "Minimus" for the current candidate to aedilitas? You consider is correct attitude and educate behavior from your part, Senator?
>
>
>
> VALE,
>
> T. Iulius Sabinus
>

The only people who should be moderated are people who cause undo disruptions and unidentified people.  If someone is know then they shouldn't be moderated.  The edict should be changed.

Regarding Felix.  Why is he on moderated status?  It might help for someone to correct his syntax before sending it to the list (Oh, dyslexic -- yeah I get it -- I'm dyslexic also and spell checker is my friend), but he doesn't need to be moderated.

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:

Why was he removed off of moderation in the first place? Who authorized it? Who is held accountable for violating the edict in the first place. Who is being terminated (if it was a scribe)?

Why was he being held to a different standard then I was? why was he being held to a different standard that Felix - who is a governor of a provincia?

I want you to post the activity in regards to Cato here in the chatroom so the people can see who is responsible for breaking the law.

Vale,

Sulla

The only people who should be moderated are people who cause undo disruptions and unidentified people.  If someone is know then they shouldn't be moderated.  The edict should be changed.

Regarding Felix.  Why is he on moderated status?  It might help for someone to correct his syntax before sending it to the list (Oh, dyslexic -- yeah I get it -- I'm dyslexic also and spell checker is my friend), but he doesn't need to be moderated.

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

Cato Cornucanio sal.

Salve!

The first part of this post does you great honor and serves your dignitas well.

The barking and connection between censorship, beer and captive Killer Whales has me a little mystified, though - assuming that's what the "free willy" was referring to :)

Vale!

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_cato@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete!
>
> No I won't answer :)
> By the way, Praetor Albucius informed that I'm from now on under moderation until the probation period finishes: May 26th.
> I told the praetores that, if needed, I will be glad to be under moderation as much time as necessary, counting the whole 2 months period beyond 26 May.
>
> PS: censorship! woof woof! free beer! woooof! free willy!!
>
> --
>
> Di te incolumem custodiant.
>
> L. Coruncanius Cato
>
> Candidate to Aedilis Curulis
>
> --- El mié, 13/5/09, Titus Iulius Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...> escribió:
> De: Titus Iulius Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@...>
> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Double standard in NR again - with the Praetors
> Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Fecha: miércoles, 13 mayo, 2009 12:22
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SALVE!
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Robert Woolwine" <l_cornelius_ sulla@ > wrote:
>
>
>
> > It seems the two month moderation rule is total BS.
>
> > How do I know this?
>
> > the Candidate for CA - Cato Minimus joined the ML on 4/24
>
> > He did a post on the ML about dignitas on 5/11>>>
>
>
>
> For the moderation rules question, the involved and responsible magistrates must answer.
>
>
>
> From my part, I want to ask you, why you use that nickname "Minimus" for the current candidate to aedilitas? You consider is correct attitude and educate behavior from your part, Senator?
>
>
>
> VALE,
>
> T. Iulius Sabinus
>

M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
this is something I and others think is one of the main reasons for Nova Roma - to recreate an alternate authentic Western ancient pagan culture for modern people. Currently all our beliefs are referenced against mainstream judeo-christian morality and beliefs.
If we research and live a coherent and authentic culture we're providing an alternative.
This to me is what NR is all about and not the silly time-wasting political feuding and game-playing. We really can be part of something incredible.
Join in and let's discuss this
bene valete in pacem deorum
Marca Hortensia Maior

Salve, et salvéte,

In my town I belong to a group of well informed concerned educated citizens, academians, professionals (including Attorneys) who are addressing this pervasive mindset. In order to provide alternatives to the "mainstream" religious culture it is important for those of other cultures and beliefs to make these alternatives known in their individual communities and to look at the influences and laws for example.
Communities should also be made aware of what is not exactly representing all citizens' rights; their freedoms. There is no true separation of state and church; we are far from being a secular society that upholds every citizen's right to worship, or not, according to their beliefs, or non-beliefs.
Article 9 Section 2 of the Tennessee constitution says, " No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
This law is in effect today, this very moment. So if one does not believe in God in accordance to section 2 they can lose their office, if they ever had it to begin with. That kind of stacks the deck against individuals' rights being represented by the state.
This is an obvious violation of the religious freedoms protected in the First Amendment as well as violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The egregious Article 9 Section2 of the Tennessee constitution discriminates against those who do not worship any deity, those sects who have no concept of a heaven or hell, those who are multi theists and those who have no concept of an afterlife. This group consists of Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, various Pagan groups and yes, the Religio.
This is direct contradiction of the United States Constitution Article VI Clause 3 which states:
"... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
And the Amendment I of the US Constitution which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
None of us should think that for one moment because one does not reside in Tennessee they are relieved of such discrimination or violation of an inherent human right. Here is an update for those in other states and for those in other countries:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Laws_and_other_rules_against_atheists_and_agnostics

We must also be careful to avoid being intolerant ourselves and within our particular culture this will take a sensitive balance between upholding a culture with the Religio at its center and upholding the rights of all our citizens who do not practice the Religio or hold other beliefs.

We must be very careful to not fall in the traps that many societies find themselves mired in. We must carefully evaluate the lessons learned from the "mainstream" religious culture. On May 1st 2009 Earl Wilson of The New York Times stated in an article:
"Most people are religious because they're raised to be. They're indoctrinated by their parents."
Influence in but one factor and this may not be truly accurate.
Earlier this week a study involving a cross section of 3,000 people titled "Faith in Flux" was issued by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, found that most children raised unaffiliated with a religion chose to join one later on.
By contrast only 4 percent of those raised Catholic and 7 percent of those raised Protestant later became unaffiliated and of this smaller group of Catholics and Protestants approx 25% were identified as atheist or agnostic with the rest stating that they held to no particular religion.
Of those who were raised unaffiliated the most-cited reason for choosing their current religion was the sense of community they enjoyed.
We, as Novi Romani, should appeal to the ethereal part of our humanity, that wondrous, precious part where compassion reigns, craves companionship, affirmation and fellowship. Novi Romani should be regularly surrounded by a community that shares their convictions and reinforces them through such offerings as literature, art and ritual.

Vale, et valéte,
Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd;
> this is something I and others think is one of the main reasons for Nova Roma - to recreate an alternate authentic Western ancient pagan culture for modern people. Currently all our beliefs are referenced against mainstream judeo-christian morality and beliefs.
> If we research and live a coherent and authentic culture we're providing an alternative.
> This to me is what NR is all about and not the silly time-wasting political feuding and game-playing. We really can be part of something incredible.
> Join in and let's discuss this
> bene valete in pacem deorum
> Marca Hortensia Maior
>

Salvéte,

Although not poetry but timely prose, after a fashion, and appropriate nonetheless although rather than professors we have a faction seeking discord at every turn, here is this hour's selection from Petronius' Satyricon 1-2:

"Our professors of rhetoric are hag-ridden in the same way, surely, when they shout "I got these wounds fighting for your freedom! This eye I lost for you. Give me a hand to lead me to my children. I am hamstrung, my legs can't support me." We could put up even with this stuff if it were a royal road to eloquence. But the only result of these pompous subjects and this empty thunder of platitudes, is that when young speakers first enter public life they think they have been landed on another planet. I'm sure the reason such young nitwits are produced in our schools is because they have no contact with anything of any use in everyday life. All they get is pirates standing on the beach, dangling manacles, oracles advising sacrifice of three or more virgins during a plague - a mass of cloying verbiage: every word, every move is just so much poppycock. People fed on this kind of thing have as much chance of learning sense as dishwashers of smelling clean."

Valéte,
Julia

Q Caecilius Metellus Quiritibus salutem dicit.

Saluete, Quirites.

M Curiatius has seen fit to bring three things to us for approval into law in
the upcoming session of the Comitia Centuriata. Among them is a proposal which
I urge you to reject, the Rogatio Curiatia Iulia de Ratione Comitiorum
Centuriatorum, for several reasons.

In the first place, Quirites, the proposed section 5.B.4., as written, strikes
me as an abrogation of one duty of our custodes, namely to report the results to
the presiding magistrate after certifying the count. It would strike me as
nothing less than irregular that the consul seeks to make this change in
supersedence of preceding legislation creating and detailing the duties of this
office only in the one comitia. Equally, and as my previous experience as
diribitor has taught me, this will neglect the fact that some additional time
must be allowed for the custodes to certify the count as reported to them by the
diribitores. It too strikes me as pointless to allow only a one day difference
in the time allowed for the completion of a vote, as written no less than eight
days but no more than nine. Perhaps the cousul would be so kind as to enlighten
us on why such specificity is necessary, and why the scant difference here?

In the second place, I have to object to the removal of true sequential voting,
which will become the case if this rogatio becomes law. One of the most
debilitating plagues that exists in this organisation is the lack of seriousness
given it by many of its members. Certainly time needs to be allowed for
individuals to cast their votes, but if one can not be bothered to make time in
their own schedule to sit down and cast their vote, that one should be
considered *solely* to have abrogated the right to vote on the issue, just as
was the case in Antiquity. Our continued catering to the laziness of some (and
I include myself here) will only help continue to drag Nova Roma further and
further down into a self destructive hole. Measures such as what is proposed
will only negate the seriousness of our activities; as the time line for voting
is expanded further and further, and procrastination sets into our citizens, so
few will be bothered to vote that the electoral process will become a pointless
enterprise in itself. But if it is something which requires diligence, if it
requires effort in its exercise, indeed it will be valued, and those who value
it will do what is necessary to exercise their ability and right to vote.
Sequential voting must be required to remain, and even made stricter, wherever
possible.

Quirites, the measure proposed here does nothing to improve the processes,
activities, or well-being of our organisation. For those reasons alone, it
should be rejected. Yet further, the proposal will continue in the debilitation
and degradation of our organisation, and for those reasons, I must urge you to
cast your votes against the measure.

Di nos Romanos incolumes custodiant!

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus

L. Coruncanius Cato omn. spd That's great! And for this, I think one simple first step could be taken. "Pagan" was a word used by early christians to define the "false gods" and their worshippers. It is a despective word, so I would not use a despective word to define myself. So let's call things by their name: cultores deorum, followers of the roman Gods, followers of the true Gods or anything else than "pagans". -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis --- El mié, 13/5/09, Maior <rory12001@...> escribió: De: Maior <rory12001@...> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Nova Roma: rebirth of pagan culture Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: miércoles, 13 mayo, 2009 5:01 M. Hortensia Quiritibus spd; this is something I and others think is one of the main reasons for Nova Roma - to recreate an alternate authentic Western ancient pagan culture for modern people. Currently all our beliefs are referenced against mainstream judeo-christian morality and beliefs. If we research and live a coherent and authentic culture we're providing an alternative. This to me is what NR is all about and not the silly time-wasting political feuding and game-playing. We really can be part of something incredible. Join in and let's discuss this bene valete in pacem deorum Marca Hortensia Maior

L. Coruncanius Cato Equitio Catoni spd. When someone speaks about something, it has to be based in true observance and practice :) For the PS, I was sarcasming a bit about past moderation issues. -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis --- El mié, 13/5/09, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> escribió: De: Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Double standard in NR again - with the Praetors Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: miércoles, 13 mayo, 2009 2:16 Cato Cornucanio sal. Salve! The first part of this post does you great honor and serves your dignitas well. The barking and connection between censorship, beer and captive Killer Whales has me a little mystified, though - assuming that's what the "free willy" was referring to :) Vale! Cato --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_ cato@...> wrote: > > Salvete! > > No I won't answer :) > By the way, Praetor Albucius informed that I'm from now on under moderation until the probation period finishes: May 26th. > I told the praetores that, if needed, I will be glad to be under moderation as much time as necessary, counting the whole 2 months period beyond 26 May. > > PS: censorship! woof woof! free beer! woooof! free willy!! > > -- > > Di te incolumem custodiant. > > L. Coruncanius Cato > > Candidate to Aedilis Curulis > > --- El mié, 13/5/09, Titus Iulius Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@ ...> escribió: > De: Titus Iulius Sabinus <iulius_sabinus@ ...> > Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Double standard in NR again - with the Praetors > Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > Fecha: miércoles, 13 mayo, 2009 12:22 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > SALVE! > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Robert Woolwine" <l_cornelius_ sulla@ > wrote: > > > > > It seems the two month moderation rule is total BS. > > > How do I know this? > > > the Candidate for CA - Cato Minimus joined the ML on 4/24 > > > He did a post on the ML about dignitas on 5/11>>> > > > > For the moderation rules question, the involved and responsible magistrates must answer. > > > > From my part, I want to ask you, why you use that nickname "Minimus" for the current candidate to aedilitas? You consider is correct attitude and educate behavior from your part, Senator? > > > > VALE, > > T. Iulius Sabinus >

I used to think the same way. There was this annoying evangelical Christian by the name metacrock who I would butt heads with. He spelled just as bad if not worse than Felix did. I feel bad making fun of his garbled posts now, because he really did have a disability.

And you, you should be ashamed of yourself. I'm so lucky that I don't have dyslexia with regards to words, but if you are, and you have problems, then a little understanding should be your reaction, not your abuse. Why don't you go push someone in a wheelchair down the stairs while you're at it?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> The only people who should be moderated are people who cause undo
> disruptions and unidentified people. If someone is know then they shouldn't
> be moderated. The edict should be changed.
>
> Regarding Felix. Why is he on moderated status? It might help for someone
> to correct his syntax before sending it to the list (Oh, dyslexic -- yeah I
> get it -- I'm dyslexic also and spell checker is my friend), but he doesn't
> need to be moderated.
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Robert Woolwine <
> l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Why was he removed off of moderation in the first place? Who authorized it?
> > Who is held accountable for violating the edict in the first place. Who is
> > being terminated (if it was a scribe)?
> >
> > Why was he being held to a different standard then I was? why was he being
> > held to a different standard that Felix - who is a governor of a provincia?
> >
> > I want you to post the activity in regards to Cato here in the chatroom so
> > the people can see who is responsible for breaking the law.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

You don't stop do you?  You keep pushing, and pushing.  You are becoming such an irritating person, I'm going to have to get into the habit of deleting your posts before even reading them. 

Like Felix I too have a learning disability, dyslexia.  But I do not hide behind it, and I do not use it as an excuse.  It can be overcome with due diligence, and this I understand.  Graduating college with two degrees and a 3.5 GPA was not easy, but possible with due diligence; and holding a 3.7 GPA in graduate school likewise has not been easy -- and I'm certain that when I apply for a PhD program I cannot use "oh, but I have dyslexia so be gentle."  But that is my struggle and I'm not going to use any disability as a mandate to justify poor communication.  What it requires is me being more attentive, checking myself, and using spell checkers.  I use Firefox and Gmail and both have built in spell checkers.  Felix could utilize the same -- then no one would ever have to know he has dyslexia and then his pals wouldn't need to come to the defense of his poor spelling.

You make "fun" of a lot of people before you know the facts.  You make extremely hurtful comments, and likely think nothing of them.  Your sarcasm is boorish.

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

M. Moravius Piscinus cultores Deorum, Quiritibus et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Di Deaeque vos ament.

Hodie est ante diem III Eidus Maiae; haec dies nefastus est: LEMURIA; Rosaria; Fidis mane oritur, significat tempestatem.

Lemuria

For the third time, in the hours between Midnight and Dawn, this morning a pinch of sulfur added to the incense, beans offered over the left shoulder, bronze clashes, expiated are the Lemures from your house. The boundaries set once more, now is the time to restore your home with your family, beginning with your Lares.

At Capua a Rosaria was held in the amphitheatre (CIL 10, 3792). The name suggests that this was a public festival to honor the Lares. In Rome the day might have been marked with rites performed at family tombs, picnicking with the ancestors. Otherwise, at home, bringing the images of your family Lares to the supper table for a family feast; fragrant incense inviting the Lares to enjoy their now purified home; a feast welcoming them to remain a part of your family; this day is marked by a thanksgiving to your Lares.

"Lares preserve! While young and still nursing, you guided me when I played at your feet. Let none profane your antique images: rough-hewn wooden statues set upon altars of upturned sod then dwelled among our grandfathers. In those days humble reverence provided you with sweet honey alone, you stayed in meager shrines made of twigs, in tattered robes the gods were pleased with offerings of grapes and wreathes of wheat set upon carved heads. Granted his wish, a man would bring you honey cakes and set his virgin daughters to attend your little shrines." ~ A. Tibullus 1.10.15-24

"Lares, and you Gods also, who earlier made our household fruitful and fortunate, may you guard and bless the little that remains today on our farm. Lares, accept what your kindred present to you." ~ A. Tibullus 1.1.19-24

"Holy Father, give me the strength and courage to try to do you credit so that I may teach my children those lessons you once taught to me." ~ Valerius Flaccus Argonautica 6.288-91

"And you Lares, care for our house that you established." ~ Q. Ennius, Annales 1 fr. 141

"I adorn our Lar with a garland, so that we and our house may have good fortune, happiness and prosperity." ~ T. Maccius Plautus, Trinummus 39-41


Our thought for today is from L. Annaeus Seneca minor, De Consolatione ad Marciam 9.4:

"Snatch the pleasures your children bring, let your children in turn find delight in you, and drain joy to the dregs without delay."

Salvete

The results of the election for aedilis plebis are in. A special thank you goes out to the custodes and diribitores for their work in this election.

Marcus Arminius Maior is elected to the office. He carried 28 of the tribes to 6 for Quintus Gratius Acacius. Congratulations to the winner and thanks to both candidates for their willingness to serve the republic.

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Tribunus Plebis

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus L. Coruncanio Catoni salutem dicit

Your words are very kind, thank you.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Lucius Coruncanius Cato <l.coruncanius_cato@...> wrote:

L. Coruncanius Cato omnibusque salutem plurimam dicit, For the next coming elections in the Comitia Centuriata for a Censor Suffectus, I reccomend to vote for Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus. He is a respectabe and honourable civis, with great experience in Nova Roma internal procedures, a basic quality to the correct handle of the Censor's office. The Censor's office responsible for the appointment or dismissal of senators, for safeguard of public morality and honor. Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus has the wisdom to accomplish perfectly all the duties for this respectable office, so I put all my confidence in him. -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis

SALVETE!   Congratulations to M. Arminius Maior, a person of great honor, modesty and excellent commitments to Nova Roma. I wish him success in his office. With him and Caecilius Metellus, as aediles plebis, Nova Roma will benefit of two good magistrates.   VALETE, T. Iulius Sabinus "Every individual is the architect of his own fortune" - Appius Claudius --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa <canadaoccidentalis@...> wrote: From: Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa <canadaoccidentalis@...> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Election results for aedilis plebis To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com, novaroma-announce@yahoogroups.com, "Comitia Plebis" <comitiaplebistributa@yahoogroups.com> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 3:53 PM Salvete The results of the election for aedilis plebis are in. A special thank you goes out to the custodes and diribitores for their work in this election. Marcus Arminius Maior is elected to the office. He carried 28 of the tribes to 6 for Quintus Gratius Acacius. Congratulations to the winner and thanks to both candidates for their willingness to serve the republic. Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa Tribunus Plebis

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Tito Flavio Aquilae salutem dicit

I am flattered by your kind words, thank you.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@...> wrote:

Salvete Quirites,

 

I would kindly like to ask you to vote for Caeso Fabius  Buteo Modianus in the upcoming elections in the Comitia Centuriata for Censor Suffectus .

 

As well I call upon all my friends to vote for Caeso Fabius  Buteo Modianus .

 

I had the honour to work for Modianus as scriba in his Cohors Censoris responsible for the German applications for citizenship.

 

I had the pleasure of working with him and particpate from his great experience and knowledge as Censor. I always have found in him a fair, helpful and open minded person providing me and the whole Cohors Censoris with his continued support.

 

The Censor's office is one of the highest and most respected offices in our res publica , I am absolute confident that with 

Caeso Fabius  Buteo Modianus we will have again a reliable, capable and honourable Censor.

 

 

Valete optime

 

Titus Flavius Aquila

Ave,

I wonder just how much vetting the consuls do when a candidate announces his/her attention to run for office? Honestly, it dos not look like they do any vetting - because we have a situation here folks. Again, it involves magistrates either ignoring or simply not following the law. I leave it to you to determine which one is most likely.

About two weeks ago Modianus decided to throw his hat in the ring for Censor. (TWO WEEKS AGO). He was pretty much immediately accepted by the Consuls as an acceptable candidate. No surprise there. No concerns that he was Censor for the previous two years (and that Laenas replaced him). Sure, Modianus paid his tax. Sure Modianus is a citizen in good standing - but was that all that needed to be vetted? My friends, unfortunately that is not the case.

Why is that not the case? Well - there is an 8 year old law that has been conveniently ignored/overlooked!

Which law do you ask?

The Lex Cornelia Iunia de definitione intervallorum magistratuum!

Why this law?

This law shall regulate the amount of times a person may hold certain elected magistracies during a specified time period.

1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than twice in a five-year period. This exception to this provision shall be any censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office.


http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Cornelia_Iunia_de_definitione_intervallorum_magistratuum_(Nova_Roma)

So, with this law in effect. Modianus is unable to stand for the Censorship. Because he did not serve less than 6 months of the previous term - nor is there only 6 months remaining in Laenas's term. Modianus must be removed as a candidate for Censor, immediately.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Salve Maior!!!

Congratulations to the honorable M. Arminius Maior, a man of dignitas!

Vale,
Julia

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa <canadaoccidentalis@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salvete
>
> The results of the election for aedilis plebis are in. A special thank you goes out to the custodes and diribitores for their work in this election.
>
> Marcus Arminius Maior is elected to the office. He carried 28 of the tribes to 6 for Quintus Gratius Acacius. Congratulations to the winner and thanks to both candidates for their willingness to serve the republic.
>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> Tribunus Plebis
>

On Wed, 13 May 2009, Robert Woolwine wrote:

>
> 1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than twice
> in a five-year period. This exception to this provision shall be any censor
> suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office.

No, it says "more than twice". A second term is not "more than twice", though
a third term would be.

--
Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/

No,

That is not correct, Octavius.

This is a matter of consecutive.

The law states: No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively OR.

Since Modianus was censor last term and his term expired on Dec. 31st 2008 - Laneas took over and now Modianus is running for Laneas's term - which WOULD make it CONSECUTIVE.

Therefor, legally, this law is applicable. Modianus cannot run for Censor. He would need to wait until Galerius's term to expire then he could run for censor then - at that point it would no longer be consecutive.

Vale,

Sulla

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Robert Woolwine wrote:
> >
> > 1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than twice
> > in a five-year period. This exception to this provision shall be any censor
> > suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office.
>
> No, it says "more than twice". A second term is not "more than twice", though
> a third term would be.
>
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
> author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/
>

Cn. Iulius Caesar SPD.

The critical part is "No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively". Having completed a full two year term, Modianus cannot then move into this censorial term. He would have to wait until the current censorial period he was candidating for ended. The only exception to the rule is the suffectus clause and that doesn't apply as in total including his own term of office, Modianus would end up having been Censor for 3 years 7 months, clearly not permitted under the law.

Optime valete.

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:

> From: Matt Hucke <hucke@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Problem with Censor Candidate
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 10:39 AM
> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Robert Woolwine
> wrote:
> >
> >    1. No person shall hold the office of
> censor consecutively or more than twice
> > in a five-year period. This exception to this
> provision shall be any censor
> > suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his
> predecessor's term of office.
>
> No, it says "more than twice".  A second term is not
> "more than twice", though
> a third term would be.
>
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@...),
> programmer.
> author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

Caesar Octavio SPD.

I'll post this here too as I think I should have stressed on my post to this list that the consecutive condition is the first one, as it ends "or", then the law deals with the timing of holding the office with the set period of years. The first condition is an absolute one though. No consecutive office holding.

---------------------------
"No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or"

Its states or, so the first condition is a stand alone one, not dependent on 2nd or 3rd terms etc. This is true of other magistracies. No one can run from one year to the next, unless the suffectus provision applies.

Actually as the law is written, the suffectus clause ONLY applies if one is suffectus BEFORE the substantive 2 year term. Either way having looked at the law it is clear, that he cannot serve as Censor. He would end up witha consecutive term of just over 3 years 7 months.

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

Optime valete.

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Problem with Censor Candidate
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 10:47 AM
>
> Cn. Iulius Caesar SPD.
>
> The critical part is "No person shall hold the office of
> censor consecutively". Having completed a full two year
> term, Modianus cannot then move into this censorial term. He
> would have to wait until the current censorial period he was
> candidating for ended. The only exception to the rule is the
> suffectus clause and that doesn't apply as in total
> including his own term of office, Modianus would end up
> having been Censor for 3 years 7 months, clearly not
> permitted under the law.
>
> Optime valete.
>
> --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Matt Hucke <hucke@...>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Matt Hucke <hucke@...>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Problem with Censor
> Candidate
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 10:39 AM
> > On Wed, 13 May 2009, Robert Woolwine
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >    1. No person shall hold the office of
> > censor consecutively or more than twice
> > > in a five-year period. This exception to this
> > provision shall be any censor
> > > suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his
> > predecessor's term of office.
> >
> > No, it says "more than twice".  A second term is not
> > "more than twice", though
> > a third term would be.
> >
> > --
> > Matt Hucke (hucke@...),
> > programmer.
> > author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> > CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 -
> http://cynico.net/
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

Would it not count as consecutively since he was Censor last year?

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Robert Woolwine wrote:
> >
> > 1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than twice
> > in a five-year period. This exception to this provision shall be any censor
> > suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office.
>
> No, it says "more than twice". A second term is not "more than twice", though
> a third term would be.
>
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
> author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/
>

L. Coruncanius Cato omn. spd. My sincere congratulations to Marcus Arminius Maior. May the Gods help him in his office. -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis --- El mié, 13/5/09, Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa <canadaoccidentalis@...> escribió: De: Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa <canadaoccidentalis@...> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Election results for aedilis plebis Para: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com, novaroma-announce@yahoogroups.com, "Comitia Plebis" <comitiaplebistributa@yahoogroups.com> Fecha: miércoles, 13 mayo, 2009 2:53 Salvete The results of the election for aedilis plebis are in. A special thank you goes out to the custodes and diribitores for their work in this election. Marcus Arminius Maior is elected to the office. He carried 28 of the tribes to 6 for Quintus Gratius Acacius. Congratulations to the winner and thanks to both candidates for their willingness to serve the republic. Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa Tribunus Plebis

On Wed, 13 May 2009, Q. Valerius Poplicola wrote:

> Would it not count as consecutively since he was Censor last year?

...but there *was* another Censor in between, G. Popilius Laenas.

As to whether that counts as "consecutive", I leave that to those who get off on
endlessly arguing over the meaning of a word. The play-lawyers should be
arriving any minute now...

--
Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/

Salve amice.

I think I can answer that. Yes it would. The law itself allows for this case:

SUFFECTUS (For 6 months or less) + 2 YEAR TERM = OK

The law strictly speaking doesn't even allow for this:

2 YEAR TERM + SUFFECTUS (For 6 months or less)

for it talks of a suffectus then moving to a substantive 2 year term. However even if you generously, but with no foundation in the law as it is written, interpret that to mean a suffect term followed by a substantive term OR a substantive followed by a suffect term, Modianus is still looking at 1 year 7 months as suffect for a total of 3 years 7 months.

The guidance for term means is in the law. Remember that the law actually ONLY allows for a suffect followed by substantive term, so on thsoe grounds alone Modianus cannot serve as Censor. However the law says "served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office". So the term of the predecessor is the term the suffect steps into - it is one and the same. Suffect means replacement, stand in, BUT the term remains the same. Laenas' term followed Modianus' term, so that is consecutive.

Again, noting that the law ONLY strictly speaking allows for a suffect period followed by substantive, not the case re. Modianus where it is the opposite, it was:

MODIANUS TERM (2yrs) followed by LANEAS term (2yrs). One term is consecutive to the other. Modianus doesn't step into a new term, he steps into fill Laenas' shoes - a term which ran directly after Modianus'. Hence suffectus.

Also the logic of the law is to prevent a magistrate candidating for a double term. You can't consider the gap as breaking the continuity, for that defeats the purpsoe of the law. The law specifically prevents Modianus from candidating for a consecutive term. Laenas had only served one day or one hour as Censor and then resigned, would that qualify as a break allowing Modianus to stand again? 4 months, 4 days, 4 hours, 4 minutes, 4 seconds 4 nanoseconds - it is all the same. It is a consecutive term and it is forbidden by law, forbidden because he is substantive followed by suffect (not the exemption the other way around) and due to it being consecutive and for 3 years 7 months or so.

Yes it does count as consecutive.

Vale bene
Caesar

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Q. Valerius Poplicola" <q.valerius.poplicola@...> wrote:
>
> Would it not count as consecutively since he was Censor last year?
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Hucke <hucke@> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 13 May 2009, Robert Woolwine wrote:
> > >
> > > 1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than twice
> > > in a five-year period. This exception to this provision shall be any censor
> > > suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office.
> >
> > No, it says "more than twice". A second term is not "more than twice", though
> > a third term would be.
> >
> > --
> > Matt Hucke (hucke@), programmer.
> > author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> > CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/
> >
>

This is a new trend I'm noticing also in the macronational world - the idea that those who call for the law to actually be followed are somehow radical or on the fringe.

If that's the case, why don't we just dispense with laws altogether? After all, who needs those stuffy old intellectuals who care about things like the meanings of words or the applicability of laws. Let's all just do what we want!

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Q. Valerius Poplicola wrote:
>
> > Would it not count as consecutively since he was Censor last year?
>
> ...but there *was* another Censor in between, G. Popilius Laenas.
>
> As to whether that counts as "consecutive", I leave that to those who get off on
> endlessly arguing over the meaning of a word. The play-lawyers should be
> arriving any minute now...
>
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
> author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/
>

A term limit is a legal restriction that limits the number of terms a person may serve in a particular elected office.

Consecutive: Which follows or happens without interruption to other. Which follows immediately to something else. Following one after another without interruption; successive: was absent on three consecutive days. Without interruption.

Modianus has been out of office. By that fact alone any office he entered now could not be consecutive with the one he held previously.

C. Petronius Cn. Caesari s.p.d.,

> Yes it does count as consecutive.

It is not consecutive, Laenas was censor and Modianus is a single citizen as candidate. He is not a censor which stand for a new censorship.

But the best is to follow the ancient Romans' custom. Paulinus step down because of the resignation of Laenas and he cannot be alone censor.

Then, the consuls convene the comitia which proceed to a new election of a new pair of censors, nor Paulinus neither Laenas.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

I wrote the law. It is crystal clear. Modianus cannot run for Censor in Lanea's seat. The soonest he could run and be in compliance with the Lex Cornelia Iunia is when Galerius's seat is free. If he wants the job that bad. Let him run when Galerius steps down from the Censorship at the end of the year.

Right now is legally prevented from running and you as Consul should have vetted him thoroughly with all applicable laws and regulations. Why did you not vet him properly?

Your justification on consecutive sounds like Bill Clinton trying to DEFINE the word IS. What does the word is mean? LOL

Follow the law - remove Modianus from candidacy, own up to your mistake for not vetting him properly and be done with it. Advise Modianus to run when Galerius's seat is up.

Vale,

Sulla

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, M•IVL• SEVERVS <m.iul.severus.consul@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> We should read carefully the law, but we must understand the spirit of the
> law.
>
> A term limit is a legal restriction that limits the number of terms a person
> may serve in a particular elected office.
>
> Consecutive: Which follows or happens without interruption to other. Which
> follows immediately to something else. Following one after another without
> interruption; successive: was absent on three consecutive days. Without
> interruption.
>
> Modianus has been out of office. By that fact alone any office he entered
> now could not be consecutive with the one he held previously.
> I am interested in hearing all opinions, but I hope that such opinions will
> be delivered with civility and real knowledege of the law...
>
> Valete,
> M•IVL•SEVERVS
> CONSVL•NOVƕROMÆ
>
> SENATOR
> CONSVL•PROVINCIƕMEXICO
>

If the Censors served terms at the same time, your rationale would be correct. But there was a reason we staggered the terms because of new and potential citizens. Nr would not be able to process any new applicants for citizenship if we had no censors in office. But hey if that is what NR wants to do - we need to amend the constitution. But until that happens, the law is the law and the law must be properly enforced.

Vale,

Sulla

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Cn. Caesari s.p.d.,
>
> > Yes it does count as consecutive.
>
> It is not consecutive, Laenas was censor and Modianus is a single citizen as candidate. He is not a censor which stand for a new censorship.
>
> But the best is to follow the ancient Romans' custom. Paulinus step down because of the resignation of Laenas and he cannot be alone censor.
>
> Then, the consuls convene the comitia which proceed to a new election of a new pair of censors, nor Paulinus neither Laenas.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

> If that's the case, why don't we just dispense with laws altogether? After all,
> who needs those stuffy old intellectuals who care about things like the
> meanings of words or the applicability of laws. Let's all just do what we want!

That *would* be nice. Imagine, if the energy of the people of Nova Roma were
channeled into something *useful*!


--
Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/

Caesar Dextero SPD

Of course its consecutive! The law was designed to prevent just this happening - a magistrate going from one term to another, and the term is measured not by who occupies the office but the period of time the office runs from.

2007 - 2008: 2009 - 2010: 2011 - 2012: and so on.

As far as what should happen ideally, well that's a matter for a another day and irrelevant to what the law says NOW.

Optime vale

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:

> From: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 2:17 PM
> C. Petronius Cn. Caesari s.p.d.,
>
> > Yes it does count as consecutive.
>
> It is not consecutive, Laenas was censor and Modianus is a
> single citizen as candidate. He is not a censor which stand
> for a new censorship.
>
> But the best is to follow the ancient Romans' custom.
> Paulinus step down because of the resignation of Laenas and
> he cannot be alone censor.
>
> Then, the consuls convene the comitia which proceed to a
> new election of a new pair of censors, nor Paulinus neither
> Laenas.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

C. Petronius L. Sullae s.p.d.,

> I wrote the law.

The law says nothing about a censorship held by one censor. This situation is not constitutional. According the Romans' Custom censorship is a magistracy held by a pair of colleagues.

The Romans says by custom that if a censor means alone in function he must step down and the Comitia elect a "new" pair of censors. "New" id est nor Paulinus neither Laenas as candidates, in our case.


Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Caesar Dextro SPD

What it does say is that Modianus cannot become censor again until the expiration of the term he seeks to fill which began when he left office and Laenas took his place. That will end on December 31st 2010. Until then he is barred from office as Censor. Whose feet rest in the shoes of the Censorship is irrelevant, Laeans, Modianus - matters not - the term is the term, and the law is the law is the law.

Attempting to say that Paulinus should have resigned has no basis in Nova Roman law as it is written. If you want that law - get it passed. Until then what we have is what is what is law. Anything else is smoke.

Optime vale

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:

> From: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 2:47 PM
> C. Petronius L. Sullae s.p.d.,
>
> > I wrote the law. 
>
> The law says nothing about a censorship held by one censor.
> This situation is not constitutional. According the Romans'
> Custom censorship is a magistracy held by a pair of
> colleagues.
>
> The Romans says by custom that if a censor means alone in
> function he must step down and the Comitia elect a "new"
> pair of censors. "New" id est nor Paulinus neither Laenas as
> candidates, in our case.
>
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

Salve


Looking at the dictionary, there is that 1."consecutive" means "following, in succession, without interruption" or 2."having some logical sequence". In relation with "1.", in the case of election of G. Modianus for censorship, it will be not consecutive because it was "interrupted" between the end of his mandate and the confirmation of his election; and "2." dont apply.

Besides, the "spirit of the law" is to allow for a experient former magistrate to be available in the case of emergency. I believe that it is the case here.


Vale
Marcus Arminius


--- Em qua, 13/5/09, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> escreveu:
Caesar Dextero SPD

Of course its consecutive! The law was designed to prevent just this happening - a magistrate going from one term to another, and the term is measured not by who occupies the office but the period of time the office runs from.

2007 - 2008: 2009 - 2010: 2011 - 2012: and so on.

As far as what should happen ideally, well that's a matter for a another day and irrelevant to what the law says NOW.

Optime vale

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@yahoo. fr> wrote:

> From: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@yahoo. fr>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 2:17 PM
> C. Petronius Cn. Caesari s.p.d.,
>
> > Yes it does count as consecutive.
>
> It is not consecutive, Laenas was censor and Modianus is a
> single citizen as candidate. He is not a censor which stand
> for a new censorship.
>
> But the best is to follow the ancient Romans' custom.
> Paulinus step down because of the resignation of Laenas and
> he cannot be alone censor.
>
> Then, the consuls convene the comitia which proceed to a
> new election of a new pair of censors, nor Paulinus neither
> Laenas.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter



Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com

Salve:
Modianus is out of office right now. So he can't be 'concurrent.' End of legal discussion. Eheu
Maior

>
>
> Salve
>
>
> Looking at the dictionary, there is that 1."consecutive" means "following, in succession, without interruption" or 2."having some logical sequence". In relation with "1.", in the case of election of G. Modianus for censorship, it will be not consecutive because it was "interrupted" between the end of his mandate and the confirmation of his election; and "2." dont apply.
>
> Besides, the "spirit of the law" is to allow for a experient former magistrate to be available in the case of emergency. I believe that it is the case here.
>
>
> Vale
> Marcus Arminius
>
>
> --- Em qua, 13/5/09, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> escreveu:
> Caesar Dextero SPD
>
> Of course its consecutive! The law was designed to prevent just this happening - a magistrate going from one term to another, and the term is measured not by who occupies the office but the period of time the office runs from.
>
> 2007 - 2008: 2009 - 2010: 2011 - 2012: and so on.
>
> As far as what should happen ideally, well that's a matter for a another day and irrelevant to what the law says NOW.
>
> Optime vale
>
> --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@yahoo. fr> wrote:
>
> > From: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@yahoo. fr>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 2:17 PM
> > C. Petronius Cn. Caesari s.p.d.,
> >
> > > Yes it does count as consecutive.
> >
> > It is not consecutive, Laenas was censor and Modianus is a
> > single citizen as candidate. He is not a censor which stand
> > for a new censorship.
> >
> > But the best is to follow the ancient Romans' custom.
> > Paulinus step down because of the resignation of Laenas and
> > he cannot be alone censor.
> >
> > Then, the consuls convene the comitia which proceed to a
> > new election of a new pair of censors, nor Paulinus neither
> > Laenas.
> >
> > Vale.
> > C. Petronius Dexter
>
>
>
> Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
> http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com
>

Well there you have it then, an open admission that you care nothing for either the laws of the "republic" or the rules of this organisation.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote:
>
>
> > If that's the case, why don't we just dispense with laws altogether? After all,
> > who needs those stuffy old intellectuals who care about things like the
> > meanings of words or the applicability of laws. Let's all just do what we want!
>
> That *would* be nice. Imagine, if the energy of the people of Nova Roma were
> channeled into something *useful*!
>
>
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
> author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/
>

L. COruncanius Cato Cornelio Ciceroni spd You are right. There are people used to defend the law only when it's interpretation serves their needs. On this particular case, there is another Censor between, so there is no continuity or consecutive anything. Law is law, words are words. No interpretation. Another thing to have in mind is that there are two elected magistrates in charge of checking elegibility. If they approved Modianus, so be it. Anything beyond this facts, is nothing more than desire of revenge (and this is an admitted fact), bad faith and willingness to thrash as much as possible. And this is pitiful. -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis --- El mié, 13/5/09, Lucius Cornelius Cicero <Cicero@...> escribió: De: Lucius Cornelius Cicero <Cicero@...> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: miércoles, 13 mayo, 2009 10:03 This is a new trend I'm noticing also in the macronational world - the idea that those who call for the law to actually be followed are somehow radical or on the fringe. If that's the case, why don't we just dispense with laws altogether? After all, who needs those stuffy old intellectuals who care about things like the meanings of words or the applicability of laws. Let's all just do what we want! --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Matt Hucke <hucke@...> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 May 2009, Q. Valerius Poplicola wrote: > > > Would it not count as consecutively since he was Censor last year? > > ...but there *was* another Censor in between, G. Popilius Laenas. > > As to whether that counts as "consecutive" , I leave that to those who get off on > endlessly arguing over the meaning of a word. The play-lawyers should be > arriving any minute now... > > -- > Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer. > author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards. com/ > CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico. net/ >

Salve.

The law says consecutive. It means by consecutive terms term of office that run by periods of one year. All the winning candidate in this election is doing is stepping into the place left by Laenas. Same term, different face.

Otherwise under your interpretation, there would be no point in this law would there? We might as well have a law saying "As long as at least one nano second has elapsed this is a different term". The law exists to prevent the same face doing the same job from one censorial term to the next.

Modianus served 2007 - 2008. He cannot stand for the term 2009 - 2010 because the term is consecutive.

It really is very simple and of course I think it is clear that if this was Cato in Modianus' position, many saying "ITS NOT CONSECUTIVE" would be saying "OF COURSE ITS CONSECUTIVE!!"

Ah but such is politics :)

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, M Arminius Maior <marminius@...> wrote:

> From: M Arminius Maior <marminius@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 3:07 PM
>
> Salve
>
>
> Looking at the dictionary, there is that 1."consecutive"
> means "following, in succession, without interruption" or
> 2."having some logical sequence". In relation with "1.", in

> Well there you have it then, an open admission that you care nothing for
> either the laws of the "republic" or the rules of this organisation.

Exactly right. I've been saying that for years - weren't you listening?

This wretched mass of "law", and the obsession that some people have with it,
is the reason I'm no longer active, and no longer contributing my skills to
the web site or any other activity here.

Down with law! Down with bureaucrats! Freedom!

Vale, Octavius.

--
Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/

Salve Caesar,
no, actually if it was Cato in the same position, still none of us would have thought of denying that "consecutive" means "consecutive".
As a member of the consular cohors, I can assure you that the issue was addressed, and Modianus' candidacy was found to be perfectly legal.

"Consecutive" is an adjective that derives from Latin, and, luckily for us, has the same meaning in all neolatin languages and in English, so any misunderstanding can be ruled out.

Modianus was a censor. Now he is not a censor. He will be a censor again if elected. Ergo, his two terms will not be consecutive.
They would be consecutive if he was running for censor while he is still a censor.

Vale,
Livia

>
> It really is very simple and of course I think it is clear that if this was Cato in Modianus' position, many saying "ITS NOT CONSECUTIVE" would be saying "OF COURSE ITS CONSECUTIVE!!"
>
> Ah but such is politics :)
>
> Vale
> Cn. Iulius Caesar
>
> --- On Wed, 5/13/09, M Arminius Maior <marminius@...> wrote:
>
> > From: M Arminius Maior <marminius@...>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 3:07 PM
> >
> > Salve
> >
> >
> > Looking at the dictionary, there is that 1."consecutive"
> > means "following, in succession, without interruption" or
> > 2."having some logical sequence". In relation with "1.", in
>

Salve Octavi:
actually I think this is a symptom of our cultural problem. If you don't care about the cultus deorum, not interested in studying Latin, or understanding the totality of Republican culture; what do you do?
Focus on politics and law-making...that was just a part of the Roman republican experience, but it's turned into a non-productive time-wasting game.
Marca Hortensia Maior

>
>
> > Well there you have it then, an open admission that you care nothing for
> > either the laws of the "republic" or the rules of this organisation.
>
> Exactly right. I've been saying that for years - weren't you listening?
>
> This wretched mass of "law", and the obsession that some people have with it,
> is the reason I'm no longer active, and no longer contributing my skills to
> the web site or any other activity here.
>
> Down with law! Down with bureaucrats! Freedom!
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> Matt Hucke (hucke@...), programmer.
> author, Graveyards of Illinois - http://graveyards.com/
> CYNICO.NET - hosting from $8.33/month; domains $13 - http://cynico.net/
>

Dexter Caesari s.p.d.,

>> the term is the term, and the law is the law is the law.

But as you can see this law is not clear. It is written in the law about a censor suffectus :

"This exception to this provision shall be any censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office."

Modianus stand for the office of Censor suffectus not of censor. He is citizen not censor, and he has served 6 months of Laenas' term of office. Term of office of Laenas began on the 1st january 2009.

A term of office is from the beginning untill the ending.

>>> Attempting to say that Paulinus should have resigned has no basis in Nova Roman law as it is written.

Roman custom is Roman custom.

>>If you want that law - get it passed. Until then what we have is what is what is law. Anything else is smoke.

It is not smoke, custom is history and precedent.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Salve,

The term is not defined by the presence or absence of a particular individual, but by the calendar. Notice the language in the Constitution IV.A: "Should an office in mid-term become vacant and suitable candidates be at hand, an election shall be held in the appropriate comitia to elect a successor to serve out the remainder of the term within thirty days of the vacancy." Notice the phrases "in mid-term become vacant" and "remainder of the term". The implication is that office holders and terms are not identical.

See also V.D: "Should a magistrate's office become vacant during the course of his term, the Senate may appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of the term should there be less than three months remaining therein." Notice the phrases "during the course of his term" and "to serve out the remainder of the term". Here again the same definition of "term" is implied as in IV.A.

Now, the law "Lex Cornelia Iunia de definitione intervallorum magistratuum" may at first seem somewhat unclear because it states "No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than twice in a five-year period" without explicit mention of "term". However, in the following sentence it mentions "predecessor's term of office". This is crucial because here an exception is being listed:

"This exception to this provision shall be any censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office".

If limitation according to "term" and not "person" were the implication of the law then the exception would not have mentioned "term of office". Indeed, if one interprets the law to be operating by "person" and not "term" then this exception is in fact no exception at all and the law become self-contradictory.

One must assume that the spirit of the law was not self-contradictory; therefore, the more explicitly worded exception must be understood as reflecting the entire context as dealing with regulation of consecutive "terms" and not consecutive personal presence in a particular office. Since it has already been established that a "term" is calendrically defined, it follows that were Modianus elected, he would be coming into the same term that Laenas had occupied, which would be consecutive to the term that Modianus had filled in years MMDCCLX-XI, which is prohibited by the above law.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, M•IVL• SEVERVS <m.iul.severus.consul@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> We should read carefully the law, but we must understand the spirit of the
> law.
>
> A term limit is a legal restriction that limits the number of terms a person
> may serve in a particular elected office.
>
> Consecutive: Which follows or happens without interruption to other. Which
> follows immediately to something else. Following one after another without
> interruption; successive: was absent on three consecutive days. Without
> interruption.
>
> Modianus has been out of office. By that fact alone any office he entered
> now could not be consecutive with the one he held previously.
> I am interested in hearing all opinions, but I hope that such opinions will
> be delivered with civility and real knowledege of the law...
>
> Valete,
> M•IVL•SEVERVS
> CONSVL•NOVƕROMÆ
>
> SENATOR
> CONSVL•PROVINCIƕMEXICO
>

Oops, small error. The sentence that begins "If limitation according to "term" and not "person"..." should say "If limitation according to "person" and not "term"..."

-Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "gualterus_graecus" <waltms1@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve,
>
> The term is not defined by the presence or absence of a particular individual, but by the calendar. Notice the language in the Constitution IV.A: "Should an office in mid-term become vacant and suitable candidates be at hand, an election shall be held in the appropriate comitia to elect a successor to serve out the remainder of the term within thirty days of the vacancy." Notice the phrases "in mid-term become vacant" and "remainder of the term". The implication is that office holders and terms are not identical.
>
> See also V.D: "Should a magistrate's office become vacant during the course of his term, the Senate may appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of the term should there be less than three months remaining therein." Notice the phrases "during the course of his term" and "to serve out the remainder of the term". Here again the same definition of "term" is implied as in IV.A.
>
> Now, the law "Lex Cornelia Iunia de definitione intervallorum magistratuum" may at first seem somewhat unclear because it states "No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than twice in a five-year period" without explicit mention of "term". However, in the following sentence it mentions "predecessor's term of office". This is crucial because here an exception is being listed:
>
> "This exception to this provision shall be any censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office".
>
> If limitation according to "term" and not "person" were the implication of the law then the exception would not have mentioned "term of office". Indeed, if one interprets the law to be operating by "person" and not "term" then this exception is in fact no exception at all and the law become self-contradictory.
>
> One must assume that the spirit of the law was not self-contradictory; therefore, the more explicitly worded exception must be understood as reflecting the entire context as dealing with regulation of consecutive "terms" and not consecutive personal presence in a particular office. Since it has already been established that a "term" is calendrically defined, it follows that were Modianus elected, he would be coming into the same term that Laenas had occupied, which would be consecutive to the term that Modianus had filled in years MMDCCLX-XI, which is prohibited by the above law.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gualterus
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, M•IVL• SEVERVS <m.iul.severus.consul@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete omnes,
> >
> > We should read carefully the law, but we must understand the spirit of the
> > law.
> >
> > A term limit is a legal restriction that limits the number of terms a person
> > may serve in a particular elected office.
> >
> > Consecutive: Which follows or happens without interruption to other. Which
> > follows immediately to something else. Following one after another without
> > interruption; successive: was absent on three consecutive days. Without
> > interruption.
> >
> > Modianus has been out of office. By that fact alone any office he entered
> > now could not be consecutive with the one he held previously.
> > I am interested in hearing all opinions, but I hope that such opinions will
> > be delivered with civility and real knowledege of the law...
> >
> > Valete,
> > M•IVL•SEVERVS
> > CONSVL•NOVƕROMÆ
> >
> > SENATOR
> > CONSVL•PROVINCIƕMEXICO
> >
>

Salve Livia

Surely you have to agree that the current term of office is the one that follows on the term that ended at the end of 2008? Any holding of office in 2009 falls in the term of 2009, which is consecutive to 2008. Obviously the law doesn't consider each instance of holding office as a "term", but considers a term to be that period from one year to the next wherein a certain magistracy can be held. This is made clear by the very existence of suffecti. Otherwise someone taking office once a position had been prematurely vacated would serve a full year or "term" from that date on. But they do not, as the "term" has nothing to do with who and how many people occupy a magistracy.

If this was not so, there would be no point in the suffectus system and all the rules surrounding it.

Your interpretation goes counter to the letter and the spirit of the law, which can once again be deduced clearly by reference to the law in question and the regulations governing suffecti.

Vale,

Cicero

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Caesar,
> no, actually if it was Cato in the same position, still none of us would have thought of denying that "consecutive" means "consecutive".
> As a member of the consular cohors, I can assure you that the issue was addressed, and Modianus' candidacy was found to be perfectly legal.
>
> "Consecutive" is an adjective that derives from Latin, and, luckily for us, has the same meaning in all neolatin languages and in English, so any misunderstanding can be ruled out.
>
> Modianus was a censor. Now he is not a censor. He will be a censor again if elected. Ergo, his two terms will not be consecutive.
> They would be consecutive if he was running for censor while he is still a censor.
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
> >
> > It really is very simple and of course I think it is clear that if this was Cato in Modianus' position, many saying "ITS NOT CONSECUTIVE" would be saying "OF COURSE ITS CONSECUTIVE!!"
> >
> > Ah but such is politics :)
> >
> > Vale
> > Cn. Iulius Caesar
> >
> > --- On Wed, 5/13/09, M Arminius Maior <marminius@> wrote:
> >
> > > From: M Arminius Maior <marminius@>
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 3:07 PM
> > >
> > > Salve
> > >
> > >
> > > Looking at the dictionary, there is that 1."consecutive"
> > > means "following, in succession, without interruption" or
> > > 2."having some logical sequence". In relation with "1.", in
> >
>

I'm certainly in agreement with you on this Hortensia.  When I was consul I didn't present any new legislation.  I regret not appealing some of the laws we had, but at least I'm pleased that I didn't pass any new legislation.  We need less, not more, laws.

Valete;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

Salve Octavi:
actually I think this is a symptom of our cultural problem. If you don't care about the cultus deorum, not interested in studying Latin, or understanding the totality of Republican culture; what do you do?
Focus on politics and law-making...that was just a part of the Roman republican experience, but it's turned into a non-productive time-wasting game.
Marca Hortensia Maior

Salve Livia

So a break of four months in your definition makes it a different term?

How about one nanosecond? Still a different term? No doubt :)

Fortunately the law states consecutive terms and all that the winning candidate in this election is doing is stepping into an established term, which was consecutive with the one Modianus occcupied, ergo he cannot serve as Censor.

It doesn't matter also who looked at it or didn't. It doesn't matter if X approved of his candidacy. It is irrelevant. The law is the law is the law. He can't serve this time around as Censor.

Somehow I knew that some of you were going to end up redefining "consecutive" in the same tortured and embarassing way that a number of you tried to redefine "restore". Neither attempt is convincing.

And of course people would be yelling it was consecutive it was Cato! Are you seriously trying to tell me after all the vitriol that was poured on his head in here, that you fine fellows would all lift him shoulder high and champion his right to stand? Nonsense! You would be at his political grave shovelling the earth in as fast as you could, as would others.

Its the same old double standards. "X" candidate is 'approved" Oh the law says Y. Oh dear oh dear oh dear, let's redefine the law to mean whatever necessary in order that X gets elected.

And for tomorrows trick, black will now be defined as white, with a sound argument based on latin and who says it is white.

Yep.. that's politics ;)

Vale
Caesar

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, livia_plauta <livia.plauta@...> wrote:

> From: livia_plauta <livia.plauta@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 3:30 PM
> Salve Caesar,
> no, actually if it was Cato in the same position, still
> none of us would have thought of denying that "consecutive"
> means "consecutive".
> As a member of the consular cohors, I can assure you that
> the issue was addressed, and Modianus' candidacy was found
> to be perfectly legal.
>
> "Consecutive" is an adjective that derives from Latin, and,
> luckily for us, has the same meaning in all neolatin
> languages and in English, so any misunderstanding can be
> ruled out.
>
> Modianus was a censor. Now he is not a censor. He will be a
> censor again if elected. Ergo, his two terms will not be
> consecutive.
> They would be consecutive if he was running for censor
> while he is still a censor.
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
> >
> > It really is very simple and of course I think it is
> clear that if this was Cato in Modianus' position, many
> saying "ITS NOT CONSECUTIVE" would be saying "OF COURSE ITS
> CONSECUTIVE!!"
> >
> > Ah but such is politics :)
> >
> > Vale
> > Cn. Iulius Caesar
> >
> > --- On Wed, 5/13/09, M Arminius Maior
> <marminius@...> wrote:
> >
> > > From: M Arminius Maior <marminius@...>
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor
> Candidate
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 3:07 PM
> > >
> > > Salve
> > >
> > >
> > > Looking at the dictionary, there is that
> 1."consecutive"
> > > means "following, in succession, without
> interruption" or
> > > 2."having some logical sequence". In relation
> with "1.", in
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

Ave Caesar,

>>> Fortunately the law states consecutive terms and all that the winning candidate in this election is doing is stepping into an established term, which was consecutive with the one Modianus occcupied, ergo he cannot serve as Censor.

But as law says the exception is the censor suffectus.

Modianus is not a censor which stand for a new consecutive censorship. He is a citizen which stand for being censor suffectus.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

Salve Dexter

Exactly. The ONLY exception to the rule is a censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less. Modianus is indeed not that. Therefore he cannot serve as Censor.

The terms are consecutive. No amount of wriggling around will manage to redefine what consecutive terms are. The term Modianus is a candidate for is the term Laenas was elected to. All we are doing is changing the face behind the wheel of the censorial ship. It is still the same ship. it is still the same term. One censor resigns, a suffectus steps in. Same term Dexter. Same term :) Same term and CONSECUTIVE to the one Modianus completed. Therefore he cannot serve.

You all keep trying though, I just knew this would happen as soon as I saw this posted :)

Vale
Caesar

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:

> From: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 4:07 PM
> Ave Caesar,
>
> >>> Fortunately the law states consecutive terms
> and all that the winning candidate in this election is doing
> is stepping into an established term, which was consecutive
> with the one Modianus occcupied, ergo he cannot serve as
> Censor.
>
> But as law says the exception is the censor suffectus.
>
> Modianus is not a censor which stand for a new consecutive
> censorship. He is a citizen which stand for being censor
> suffectus.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

Salve


--- Em qua, 13/5/09, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> escreveu:
Salve.
The law says consecutive. It means by consecutive terms term of office that run by periods of one year. All the winning candidate in this election is doing is stepping into the place left by Laenas. Same term, different face.

M.Arminius: It seems that there is much division about this.

-*-

Otherwise under your interpretation, there would be no point in this law would there? We might as well have a law saying "As long as at least one nano second has elapsed this is a different term". The law exists to prevent the same face doing the same job from one censorial term to the next.

M.Arminius: It would be more than a nanosecond. An elected Censor needs to resign, a new election need to be called; that will cost weeks.
And i believe that the point of this interval is to block a Censor to stand for re-election in the same year; since the censorship is supposed to be the "end of the ladder" in the Cursus Honorum, the former censor could answer for eventual misbehavior in office; even if elected for another office, he would need to resign before stand for censor again.
In short, i think that to have an interruption, without blocking a former censor to run as suffectus, was a desired outcome with this law; at least, it was was i thought when i read it.

-*-

[..]

Ah but such is politics :)

M.Arminius: Yes.


Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, M Arminius Maior <marminius@yahoo. com.br> wrote:
> Salve
>
> Looking at the dictionary, there is that 1."consecutive"
> means "following, in succession, without interruption" or
> 2."having some logical sequence". In relation with "1.", in


Vale
Marcus Arminius


Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados
http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com

Salve,

I fear you have misunderstood the wording of the exception. The exception reads "This exception to this provision shall be any censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office."

Notice "who has served". This is the present perfect tense. It is referring to someone who is *already* a censor suffectus who might want to run for a new term. It is not about a future censor suffectus, which is what Modianus would be here.

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Ave Caesar,
>
> >>> Fortunately the law states consecutive terms and all that the winning candidate in this election is doing is stepping into an established term, which was consecutive with the one Modianus occcupied, ergo he cannot serve as Censor.
>
> But as law says the exception is the censor suffectus.
>
> Modianus is not a censor which stand for a new consecutive censorship. He is a citizen which stand for being censor suffectus.
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Salve Armini Maior.

Ultimately is the term consecutive? Yes. Why? Because a term of office is measured in blocks of 12 months or in the case of the Censors 24 months. Modianus' block of 24 months was consecutive to the block of 24 months that followed. Laenas was sitting on that block. he got off. Now someone has to get on it.

But Modianus can't get on it as this block is consecutive to the one he sat on for 24 months. Some people are trying to saw a little bit of the block off and claim that firstly you can do that, which you can't (same term - different face which is what a suffectus is) and then claim it is a different block.

That's nonsense. It isn't even creative nonsense to attempt to say it isn't the same term, but this is politics so they are going to try.

Vale
Cn. Iulius Caesar

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, M Arminius Maior <marminius@...> wrote:

> From: M Arminius Maior <marminius@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 4:26 PM
>
> Salve
>
>
> --- Em qua, 13/5/09, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> escreveu:
> Salve.
> The law says consecutive. It means by consecutive terms
> term of office that run by periods of one year. All the
> winning candidate in this election is doing is stepping into
> the place left by Laenas. Same term, different face.
>
> M.Arminius: It seems that there is much division about
> this.
>
> -*-
>
> Otherwise under your interpretation, there would be no
> point in this law would there? We might as well have a law
> saying "As long as at least one nano second has elapsed this
> is a different term". The law exists to prevent the same
> face doing the same job from one censorial term to the
> next.
>
> M.Arminius: It would be more than a nanosecond. An elected
> Censor needs to resign, a new election need to be called;
> that will cost weeks.
> And i believe that the point of this interval is to block a
> Censor to stand for re-election in the same year; since the
> censorship is supposed to be the "end of the ladder" in the
> Cursus Honorum, the former censor could answer for eventual
> misbehavior in office; even if elected for another office,
> he would need to resign before stand for censor again.
> In short, i think that to have an interruption, without
> blocking a former censor to run as suffectus, was a desired
> outcome with this law; at least, it was was i thought when i
> read it.
>
> -*-
>
> [..]
>
> Ah but such is politics :)
>
> M.Arminius: Yes.
>
>
> Vale
> Cn. Iulius Caesar
>
> --- On Wed, 5/13/09, M Arminius Maior <marminius@yahoo.
> com.br> wrote:
> > Salve
> >
> > Looking at the dictionary, there is that
> 1."consecutive"
> > means "following, in succession, without interruption"
> or
> > 2."having some logical sequence". In relation with
> "1.", in
>
>
> Vale
> Marcus Arminius
>
>
>       Veja quais são os assuntos do momento
> no Yahoo! +Buscados
> http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

Salve Caesar,
the thing ir that the law says this:

1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than twice in a five-year period. This exception to this provision shall be any censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office.

Notice that it mentions "office", not "term" in the first sentence. The second sentence mentions "term", but it doesn't refer to the case in question.

Now, if it said: "No person shall hold the office of censor for two consecutive *terms*, or for more than two *terms* in a five-year period", then your reasoning would be valid. As it is, nowhere it defines a "term", and nowhere it says a term is the same even if filled by two different people. These are just your illations and interpretations.

When Modianus presented his candidacy the consuls read the law: they noted that Modianus wouldn't be holding the office consecutively,(check) and he would be holding it for the second time in a five-year period (not more) if elected. Check. The second sentence does not refer to Modianus' case. Check. Candidacy accepted.

It's interesting enough that, if you really had concerns about this, you didn't announce them when Modianus' candidacy was accepted.

To me this looks a lot as if a council was held by some people to find some way to make sure Cato had no rival, so, after long discussions, they decided to make up this matter about terms.
Why, are you so afraid Cato cannot stand his place in the elections?

Vale,
Livia

>
>
> Salve Dexter
>
> Exactly. The ONLY exception to the rule is a censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less. Modianus is indeed not that. Therefore he cannot serve as Censor.
>
> The terms are consecutive. No amount of wriggling around will manage to redefine what consecutive terms are. The term Modianus is a candidate for is the term Laenas was elected to. All we are doing is changing the face behind the wheel of the censorial ship. It is still the same ship. it is still the same term. One censor resigns, a suffectus steps in. Same term Dexter. Same term :) Same term and CONSECUTIVE to the one Modianus completed. Therefore he cannot serve.
>
> You all keep trying though, I just knew this would happen as soon as I saw this posted :)
>
> Vale
> Caesar
>
> --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> > From: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 4:07 PM
> > Ave Caesar,
> >
> > >>> Fortunately the law states consecutive terms
> > and all that the winning candidate in this election is doing
> > is stepping into an established term, which was consecutive
> > with the one Modianus occcupied, ergo he cannot serve as
> > Censor.
> >
> > But as law says the exception is the censor suffectus.
> >
> > Modianus is not a censor which stand for a new consecutive
> > censorship. He is a citizen which stand for being censor
> > suffectus.
> >
> > Vale.
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>

Livia you are assuming the consuls read this law. They did not. If they did they would have not been caught off guard with this and now resort to emotional appeal. Which is the last refuge of an argument.

The law is clear. Modianus cannot serve as Censor.

The Censors should have properly vetted him - they did not. Now they need to actually lead NR - by removing Modianus from the list of candidates and we move forward with elections.

Vale,

Sulla

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Caesar,
> the thing ir that the law says this:
>
> 1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than twice in a five-year period. This exception to this provision shall be any censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office.
>
> Notice that it mentions "office", not "term" in the first sentence. The second sentence mentions "term", but it doesn't refer to the case in question.
>
> Now, if it said: "No person shall hold the office of censor for two consecutive *terms*, or for more than two *terms* in a five-year period", then your reasoning would be valid. As it is, nowhere it defines a "term", and nowhere it says a term is the same even if filled by two different people. These are just your illations and interpretations.
>
> When Modianus presented his candidacy the consuls read the law: they noted that Modianus wouldn't be holding the office consecutively,(check) and he would be holding it for the second time in a five-year period (not more) if elected. Check. The second sentence does not refer to Modianus' case. Check. Candidacy accepted.
>
> It's interesting enough that, if you really had concerns about this, you didn't announce them when Modianus' candidacy was accepted.
>
> To me this looks a lot as if a council was held by some people to find some way to make sure Cato had no rival, so, after long discussions, they decided to make up this matter about terms.
> Why, are you so afraid Cato cannot stand his place in the elections?
>
> Vale,
> Livia
> >
> >
> > Salve Dexter
> >
> > Exactly. The ONLY exception to the rule is a censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less. Modianus is indeed not that. Therefore he cannot serve as Censor.
> >
> > The terms are consecutive. No amount of wriggling around will manage to redefine what consecutive terms are. The term Modianus is a candidate for is the term Laenas was elected to. All we are doing is changing the face behind the wheel of the censorial ship. It is still the same ship. it is still the same term. One censor resigns, a suffectus steps in. Same term Dexter. Same term :) Same term and CONSECUTIVE to the one Modianus completed. Therefore he cannot serve.
> >
> > You all keep trying though, I just knew this would happen as soon as I saw this posted :)
> >
> > Vale
> > Caesar
> >
> > --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 4:07 PM
> > > Ave Caesar,
> > >
> > > >>> Fortunately the law states consecutive terms
> > > and all that the winning candidate in this election is doing
> > > is stepping into an established term, which was consecutive
> > > with the one Modianus occcupied, ergo he cannot serve as
> > > Censor.
> > >
> > > But as law says the exception is the censor suffectus.
> > >
> > > Modianus is not a censor which stand for a new consecutive
> > > censorship. He is a citizen which stand for being censor
> > > suffectus.
> > >
> > > Vale.
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

If the CONSULS vetted. Corrected.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Woolwine" <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:
>
> Livia you are assuming the consuls read this law. They did not. If they did they would have not been caught off guard with this and now resort to emotional appeal. Which is the last refuge of an argument.
>
> The law is clear. Modianus cannot serve as Censor.
>
> The Censors should have properly vetted him - they did not. Now they need to actually lead NR - by removing Modianus from the list of candidates and we move forward with elections.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Caesar,
> > the thing ir that the law says this:
> >
> > 1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than twice in a five-year period. This exception to this provision shall be any censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office.
> >
> > Notice that it mentions "office", not "term" in the first sentence. The second sentence mentions "term", but it doesn't refer to the case in question.
> >
> > Now, if it said: "No person shall hold the office of censor for two consecutive *terms*, or for more than two *terms* in a five-year period", then your reasoning would be valid. As it is, nowhere it defines a "term", and nowhere it says a term is the same even if filled by two different people. These are just your illations and interpretations.
> >
> > When Modianus presented his candidacy the consuls read the law: they noted that Modianus wouldn't be holding the office consecutively,(check) and he would be holding it for the second time in a five-year period (not more) if elected. Check. The second sentence does not refer to Modianus' case. Check. Candidacy accepted.
> >
> > It's interesting enough that, if you really had concerns about this, you didn't announce them when Modianus' candidacy was accepted.
> >
> > To me this looks a lot as if a council was held by some people to find some way to make sure Cato had no rival, so, after long discussions, they decided to make up this matter about terms.
> > Why, are you so afraid Cato cannot stand his place in the elections?
> >
> > Vale,
> > Livia
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Dexter
> > >
> > > Exactly. The ONLY exception to the rule is a censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less. Modianus is indeed not that. Therefore he cannot serve as Censor.
> > >
> > > The terms are consecutive. No amount of wriggling around will manage to redefine what consecutive terms are. The term Modianus is a candidate for is the term Laenas was elected to. All we are doing is changing the face behind the wheel of the censorial ship. It is still the same ship. it is still the same term. One censor resigns, a suffectus steps in. Same term Dexter. Same term :) Same term and CONSECUTIVE to the one Modianus completed. Therefore he cannot serve.
> > >
> > > You all keep trying though, I just knew this would happen as soon as I saw this posted :)
> > >
> > > Vale
> > > Caesar
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@>
> > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 4:07 PM
> > > > Ave Caesar,
> > > >
> > > > >>> Fortunately the law states consecutive terms
> > > > and all that the winning candidate in this election is doing
> > > > is stepping into an established term, which was consecutive
> > > > with the one Modianus occcupied, ergo he cannot serve as
> > > > Censor.
> > > >
> > > > But as law says the exception is the censor suffectus.
> > > >
> > > > Modianus is not a censor which stand for a new consecutive
> > > > censorship. He is a citizen which stand for being censor
> > > > suffectus.
> > > >
> > > > Vale.
> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Salve Livia

Ahh - it was my job to validate Modianus' candidacy? :) Nope.

No person shall hold the office of Censor consecutively. Indeed. And how do we measure the censorial office? By blocks of 24 months. That is also the "term" as you full well know :)

So as I say, a one nanosecond difference makes it ok? By your logic it does.

The Constitution -

Section IV.A:

" Should an office in mid-term become vacant and suitable candidates be at hand, an election shall be held in the appropriate comitia to elect a successor to serve out the remainder of the term within thirty days of the vacancy. "

Section IV.A.1:
"1. Censor. Two censors shall be elected by the comitia centuriata to serve a term lasting two years, to be elected in alternate years so as to have a one-year overlap of terms."

Section IV.B.2:
"The Interrex shall organize new elections in the comitia centuriata to elect two new consuls to serve out the remainder of the previous consuls' term of office."

"term of office" - the two words are used together in the last example - or are you going to try to tell me that's a special case? ;) Come on - go for it <lol>.

No person shall hold the office of Censor consecutively. Consecutive to what Livia? A one nano second break is ok? A one second? A one minute? A one day? A one week? Nonsense. utter nonsense. I don't care who looked at this. claerly they can't read the law. The law is designed to prevent run on terms of office in the block of time the office is held for, be it 12 months or 24 as in this case.

So if 4 months is ok then 4 nanoseconds as a break is ok? Logically it must be no? It is a break. In which case the whole purpose of the law is defeated. But that is the point now isn't it? We don't care about the law, we just care about getting Modianus elected so we will bend and twist the law to mean all sorts of nonsense.

Carry on. This what brings the law in Nova Roma into total and utter disrepute and why few have any confidence in the imaprtiality of those in charge of the law to adminster it fairly. bend away Livia, bend away.

Vale
Caesar

--- On Wed, 5/13/09, livia_plauta <livia.plauta@...> wrote:

> From: livia_plauta <livia.plauta@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 4:50 PM
> Salve Caesar,
> the thing ir that the law says this:
>
> 1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively
> or more than twice in a five-year period. This exception to
> this provision shall be any censor suffectus who has served
> 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office.
>
> Notice that it mentions "office", not "term" in the first
> sentence. The second sentence mentions "term", but it
> doesn't refer to the case in question.
>
> Now, if it said: "No person shall hold the office of censor
> for two consecutive *terms*, or for more than two *terms* in
> a five-year period", then your reasoning would be valid. As
> it is, nowhere it defines a "term", and nowhere it says a
> term is the same even if filled by two different people.
> These are just your illations and interpretations.
>
> When Modianus presented his candidacy the consuls read the
> law: they noted that Modianus wouldn't be holding the office
> consecutively,(check) and he would be holding it for the
> second time in a five-year period (not more) if elected.
> Check. The second sentence does not refer to Modianus' case.
> Check. Candidacy accepted.
>
> It's interesting enough that, if you really had concerns
> about this, you didn't announce them when Modianus'
> candidacy was accepted.
>
> To me this looks a lot as if a council was held by some
> people to find some way to make sure Cato had no rival, so,
> after long discussions, they decided to make up this matter
> about terms.
> Why, are you so afraid Cato cannot stand his place in the
> elections?
>
> Vale,
> Livia
> >
> >
> > Salve Dexter
> >
> > Exactly. The ONLY exception to the rule is a censor
> suffectus who has served 6 months or less. Modianus is
> indeed not that. Therefore he cannot serve as Censor.
> >
> > The terms are consecutive. No amount of wriggling
> around will manage to redefine what consecutive terms are.
> The term Modianus is a candidate for is the term Laenas was
> elected to. All we are doing is changing the face behind the
> wheel of the censorial ship. It is still the same ship. it
> is still the same term. One censor resigns, a suffectus
> steps in. Same term Dexter. Same term :) Same term and
> CONSECUTIVE to the one Modianus completed. Therefore he
> cannot serve.
> >
> > You all keep trying though, I just knew this would
> happen as soon as I saw this posted :)
> >
> > Vale
> > Caesar
> >
> > --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter
> <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Gaius Petronius Dexter
> <jfarnoud94@...>
> > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor
> Candidate
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 4:07 PM
> > > Ave Caesar,
> > >
> > > >>> Fortunately the law states
> consecutive terms
> > > and all that the winning candidate in this
> election is doing
> > > is stepping into an established term, which was
> consecutive
> > > with the one Modianus occcupied, ergo he cannot
> serve as
> > > Censor.
> > >
> > > But as law says the exception is the censor
> suffectus.
> > >
> > > Modianus is not a censor which stand for a new
> consecutive
> > > censorship. He is a citizen which stand for being
> censor
> > > suffectus.
> > >
> > > Vale.
> > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

Salve Sulla,
I am in the consular cohors. I know they read the law. They also asked the rogatores for their opinions. After that, they accepted the candidacy.

Vale,
Livia

>
> Livia you are assuming the consuls read this law. They did not. If they did they would have not been caught off guard with this and now resort to emotional appeal. Which is the last refuge of an argument.
>
> The law is clear. Modianus cannot serve as Censor.
>
> The Censors should have properly vetted him - they did not. Now they need to actually lead NR - by removing Modianus from the list of candidates and we move forward with elections.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Caesar,
> > the thing ir that the law says this:
> >
> > 1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than twice in a five-year period. This exception to this provision shall be any censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor's term of office.
> >
> > Notice that it mentions "office", not "term" in the first sentence. The second sentence mentions "term", but it doesn't refer to the case in question.
> >
> > Now, if it said: "No person shall hold the office of censor for two consecutive *terms*, or for more than two *terms* in a five-year period", then your reasoning would be valid. As it is, nowhere it defines a "term", and nowhere it says a term is the same even if filled by two different people. These are just your illations and interpretations.
> >
> > When Modianus presented his candidacy the consuls read the law: they noted that Modianus wouldn't be holding the office consecutively,(check) and he would be holding it for the second time in a five-year period (not more) if elected. Check. The second sentence does not refer to Modianus' case. Check. Candidacy accepted.
> >
> > It's interesting enough that, if you really had concerns about this, you didn't announce them when Modianus' candidacy was accepted.
> >
> > To me this looks a lot as if a council was held by some people to find some way to make sure Cato had no rival, so, after long discussions, they decided to make up this matter about terms.
> > Why, are you so afraid Cato cannot stand his place in the elections?
> >
> > Vale,
> > Livia
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Dexter
> > >
> > > Exactly. The ONLY exception to the rule is a censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less. Modianus is indeed not that. Therefore he cannot serve as Censor.
> > >
> > > The terms are consecutive. No amount of wriggling around will manage to redefine what consecutive terms are. The term Modianus is a candidate for is the term Laenas was elected to. All we are doing is changing the face behind the wheel of the censorial ship. It is still the same ship. it is still the same term. One censor resigns, a suffectus steps in. Same term Dexter. Same term :) Same term and CONSECUTIVE to the one Modianus completed. Therefore he cannot serve.
> > >
> > > You all keep trying though, I just knew this would happen as soon as I saw this posted :)
> > >
> > > Vale
> > > Caesar
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@>
> > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate
> > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 4:07 PM
> > > > Ave Caesar,
> > > >
> > > > >>> Fortunately the law states consecutive terms
> > > > and all that the winning candidate in this election is doing
> > > > is stepping into an established term, which was consecutive
> > > > with the one Modianus occcupied, ergo he cannot serve as
> > > > Censor.
> > > >
> > > > But as law says the exception is the censor suffectus.
> > > >
> > > > Modianus is not a censor which stand for a new consecutive
> > > > censorship. He is a citizen which stand for being censor
> > > > suffectus.
> > > >
> > > > Vale.
> > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

The spirit of the law is clear. NO CONSECUTIVE TERMS. How hard is that to understand? Therefore Modianus cannot serve. The text of the law is clear. You are trying to get a camel to fit on the top of a pinhead in order to get your way. Follow the law. Don't try to appeal to people to try to twist the law. Follow the law. Remove Modianus's name. Why don't you try to change and show some leadership. Right now you are making a tempest in a teacup get worse because you are trying to find any legal loophole to squeeze him through.

How hard is it to simply follow the law in NR?

Vale,

Sulla

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, M•IVL• SEVERVS <m.iul.severus.consul@...> wrote:
>
> Sulla,
>
> Off guard? Emotional appeal? What are you talking about?
> I wrote about a careful reading of the law, and to understand the spirit of
> the law.
> How do you know that we didn't read the law, Sulla? Do you have some special
> powers, maybe?
> And just who might be those Censors who should have properly vetted K.
> Fabius Buteo Modianus candidacy?
> Yes, the law is clear. You are not. You are quite confusing.
> Modianus candidacy was approved by the Rogatores and wasn't vetoed by the
> Tribuni Plebis. Why don't you ask them?
>
> Vale,
>
> M•IVL•SEVERVS
> CONSVL•NOVƕROMÆ
>
> SENATOR
> CONSVL•PROVINCIƕMEXICO
>

Dexter Sullae s.p.d.,

> The spirit of the law is clear. NO CONSECUTIVE TERMS.

If the spirit of the law is clear why do you shout?

Modianus is not a censor, he is a citizen, is not he?

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

A careful reading shows that he shouldn't be allowed to be a candidate. Understanding the spirit of the law makes that clear as well! And if you were wondering, just ask the person who drafted the law what the spirit behind it was!

All this talk of "interpreting the spirit of the law" is nothing but an attempt to try and get away with breaking the law. It's a word game and nothing else.

> I wrote about a careful reading of the law, and to understand the spirit of
> the law.

Because as the author of the law - I think I would be an expert as to its rationale and spirit. Yet, when the consul talks about the spirit - I get the distinct feeling that he is trying to find a way to contort the law in ways it was not intended.

The law was intended to be the first step in institution a VERY Roman Concept of the Mos Maiorum. No consecutive offices. This was a baby step in the hope that eventually NR would be able to implement more of the Mos Maiorum. Eventually, I hoped, there would be laws similar to the ancients where no one could hold the same office in a decade. That we have not even expanded the Mos Maiorum is quite depressing.

So, in review (from the author of the law), the text is clear. The spirit is clear. There is no ambiguity. Modianus cannot run for Censor this time around.

Vale,

Sulla

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> Dexter Sullae s.p.d.,
>
> > The spirit of the law is clear. NO CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
>
> If the spirit of the law is clear why do you shout?
>
> Modianus is not a censor, he is a citizen, is not he?
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Cato omnibus in for SPD

Salvete!

I must strongly disagree with you, Modianus.

The existence of the law - or a very many laws - is not the root and cause of all the evils of this Republic. The Romans had heaps and piles of laws, and would certainly look at anyone who denied the law its proper place with horror - it's a very integral part of being a Roman to have law and to make law. It's one of the greatest legacies ancient Rome has given the Western world, and to think otherwise is a terrible mistake.

I have heard over and over again that we should not have "so many" laws, when in fact it is the *quality* of some laws which bring challenges to the Republic; it is putting the law in a Roman mind frame, a Roman cultural context, that presents us with a challenge, one to which we have only partially risen and with very mixed results.

So no, we don't have too many laws. We have too many *poorly written* laws. We have too many laws written with an 18th-century understanding of government in mind then stretched over a 2500-year-old frame of government. Although the Consular committee has become moribund after my attempt to revive it, I have been endeavoring to correct this, and will continue to do so.

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> I'm certainly in agreement with you on this Hortensia. When I was consul I
> didn't present any new legislation. I regret not appealing some of the laws
> we had, but at least I'm pleased that I didn't pass any new legislation. We
> need less, not more, laws.
>
> Valete;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve Octavi:
> > actually I think this is a symptom of our cultural problem. If you don't
> > care about the cultus deorum, not interested in studying Latin, or
> > understanding the totality of Republican culture; what do you do?
> > Focus on politics and law-making...that was just a part of the Roman
> > republican experience, but it's turned into a non-productive time-wasting
> > game.
> > Marca Hortensia Maior
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Equitio Catoni salutem dicit

Of course you strongly disagree with me.  I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato omnibus in for SPD

Salvete!

I must strongly disagree with you, Modianus.

The existence of the law - or a very many laws - is not the root and cause of all the evils of this Republic. The Romans had heaps and piles of laws, and would certainly look at anyone who denied the law its proper place with horror - it's a very integral part of being a Roman to have law and to make law. It's one of the greatest legacies ancient Rome has given the Western world, and to think otherwise is a terrible mistake.

I have heard over and over again that we should not have "so many" laws, when in fact it is the *quality* of some laws which bring challenges to the Republic; it is putting the law in a Roman mind frame, a Roman cultural context, that presents us with a challenge, one to which we have only partially risen and with very mixed results.

So no, we don't have too many laws. We have too many *poorly written* laws. We have too many laws written with an 18th-century understanding of government in mind then stretched over a 2500-year-old frame of government. Although the Consular committee has become moribund after my attempt to revive it, I have been endeavoring to correct this, and will continue to do so.

Valete,

Cato

Even though I have been posting on the boards for three months with my official citizenship I would like to properly introduce myself.
My name is ({Vaughn C Hubbard} Riku) Gaius Iunius Nero (RGIN) Bracketed name is my birth name and the Riku is my Japanese name which is the name I've used for two years and the last part is my Roman name. I could go into explenation of my Roman name which I chose with great care with each aspect of my personality(the Nero part being an aspect of his more benevolent qualities Yes he did have them.) And if you want to know just ask:). I joined Nova Roma because in all honest truth there is not a more perfect group in existence for me. Anywho if there is any more you'de like to know just ask.
Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant.
GIN
GAIVS IVNIVS NERO.

Cato Iuliae Aquilae Marcae Hortensiae omnibusque in foro SPD

Salvete!

Maior, you do realize that the Judeo-Christian culture which you have such hatred for is the actual "coherent" and "authentic" culture which grew out of ancient polytheism, right? We *live* in the result of the transformation from a pagan power based system to a Christian power based system. It is both coherent and authentic. You just don't *like* it. What I *think* you mean is that you want to create a culture that strips Christians of their power to define it (I'm dropping the "Judeo" bit because 1) you claims to be a Jew when it suits you, and 2) you only really care about squishing Christians in any case, as you have made blatantly obvious).

The problem is that most cultures have certain similarities with regard to social constructs and moral values and to dismiss anything that smacks - to you - of Christianity is shooting yourself in the foot, as you did with your discussion of the idea of "mercy" or "clementia" on the Back Alley as well in fact with the whole idea of a set of "virtues".

Point in case is the whole idea of an ultimate legal authority in our current NR Constitution. Totally un-Roman, but also totally necessary in the minds of 21st century humans with the American Republican system in place. It is almost impossible for us to think of a society or community *without* a foundational legal document.

Iulia Aquila, Nova Roma is not the place to begin a protest against the practices of the State of Tennessee - or the United States government - no matter how strongly you feel about it.

We do not live in a society or culture that makes it possible to start with a tabula rasa; that's simply a fact, and no amount of hoping or fulminating will change that. To claim that you can simply segregate yourself - or that you can segregate the citizens of Nova Roma - from two thousand years of Western ethical and social evolution is simply irresponsible. This also tastes more than a little of the introduction of some kind of orthodoxy, in direct contradiction to the well-established basis of the religio Romana in orthopraxy.

What I am *not* seeing here is an appeal to our religious authorities - specifically the College of Pontiffs - to find out how the practice of the religio Romana can be best served within Nova Roma. That might be the better place to start.

Valete,

Cato

Hortensia Modiano omnibusque spd;
we're a small group of what 108 Assidui, we don't need a billion laws, and this nit-picking over the meaning of 'consecutive' is just plain ridiculous...

I was stuck calling & discussing with Equestria Laeca the affair of the Maine Attorney General, which left me no time to prepare and celebrate the Bona Dea on May 1. Over what? Sulla's complaint.

This legal & political wrangling produces nothing for Nova Roma. It is a sterile activity; we need to stop it. And engage in real life positive activities.

And now I'm going to labour over my Latin exam:)
bene valete in pacem deorum
Marca Hortensia Maior

I

>
> Cato omnibus in for SPD
>
> Salvete!
>
> I must strongly disagree with you, Modianus.
>
> The existence of the law - or a very many laws - is not the root and cause of all the evils of this Republic. The Romans had heaps and piles of laws, and would certainly look at anyone who denied the law its proper place with horror - it's a very integral part of being a Roman to have law and to make law. It's one of the greatest legacies ancient Rome has given the Western world, and to think otherwise is a terrible mistake.
>
> I have heard over and over again that we should not have "so many" laws, when in fact it is the *quality* of some laws which bring challenges to the Republic; it is putting the law in a Roman mind frame, a Roman cultural context, that presents us with a challenge, one to which we have only partially risen and with very mixed results.
>
> So no, we don't have too many laws. We have too many *poorly written* laws. We have too many laws written with an 18th-century understanding of government in mind then stretched over a 2500-year-old frame of government. Although the Consular committee has become moribund after my attempt to revive it, I have been endeavoring to correct this, and will continue to do so.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm certainly in agreement with you on this Hortensia. When I was consul I
> > didn't present any new legislation. I regret not appealing some of the laws
> > we had, but at least I'm pleased that I didn't pass any new legislation. We
> > need less, not more, laws.
> >
> > Valete;
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> >
> > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Maior <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve Octavi:
> > > actually I think this is a symptom of our cultural problem. If you don't
> > > care about the cultus deorum, not interested in studying Latin, or
> > > understanding the totality of Republican culture; what do you do?
> > > Focus on politics and law-making...that was just a part of the Roman
> > > republican experience, but it's turned into a non-productive time-wasting
> > > game.
> > > Marca Hortensia Maior
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

L. Coruncanius Cato Cornelio Sullae spd. Senator, your lack of understanding of what you cluck to defend is really amazing. "A" declares its candidacy. The rogatores chek "A"'s eligibility and inform the consuls. The consuls confirm the candidacy. If there is no veto by any magistrate capable of placing it, the candidacy stands. Period. You talk so much about a law that you don't obey. Four magistrates specially in charge of this were involved, but all they are wrong, and you are right, just because you wrote that law? Please, step aside and accept decisions, even if you don't like them. This is called "obeying the law". One thing you pray for, but one thing you don't practice. And, as your lack of comprehension of laws and internal procedures in NR has been very well proved, you should step aside and let space for more capable people instead of breaking all you can just for a childish revenge, as you admitted so many times. Accept the facts instead of living in a fantasy world. Show some dignitas Senator. -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis --- El jue, 14/5/09, Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> escribió: De: Robert Woolwine <l_cornelius_sulla@...> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: jueves, 14 mayo, 2009 1:04 Livia you are assuming the consuls read this law. They did not. If they did they would have not been caught off guard with this and now resort to emotional appeal. Which is the last refuge of an argument. The law is clear. Modianus cannot serve as Censor. The Censors should have properly vetted him - they did not. Now they need to actually lead NR - by removing Modianus from the list of candidates and we move forward with elections. Vale, Sulla --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@ ...> wrote: > > Salve Caesar, > the thing ir that the law says this: > > 1. No person shall hold the office of censor consecutively or more than twice in a five-year period. This exception to this provision shall be any censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less of his predecessor' s term of office. > > Notice that it mentions "office", not "term" in the first sentence. The second sentence mentions "term", but it doesn't refer to the case in question. > > Now, if it said: "No person shall hold the office of censor for two consecutive *terms*, or for more than two *terms* in a five-year period", then your reasoning would be valid. As it is, nowhere it defines a "term", and nowhere it says a term is the same even if filled by two different people. These are just your illations and interpretations. > > When Modianus presented his candidacy the consuls read the law: they noted that Modianus wouldn't be holding the office consecutively, (check) and he would be holding it for the second time in a five-year period (not more) if elected. Check. The second sentence does not refer to Modianus' case. Check. Candidacy accepted. > > It's interesting enough that, if you really had concerns about this, you didn't announce them when Modianus' candidacy was accepted. > > To me this looks a lot as if a council was held by some people to find some way to make sure Cato had no rival, so, after long discussions, they decided to make up this matter about terms. > Why, are you so afraid Cato cannot stand his place in the elections? > > Vale, > Livia > > > > > > Salve Dexter > > > > Exactly. The ONLY exception to the rule is a censor suffectus who has served 6 months or less. Modianus is indeed not that. Therefore he cannot serve as Censor. > > > > The terms are consecutive. No amount of wriggling around will manage to redefine what consecutive terms are. The term Modianus is a candidate for is the term Laenas was elected to. All we are doing is changing the face behind the wheel of the censorial ship. It is still the same ship. it is still the same term. One censor resigns, a suffectus steps in. Same term Dexter. Same term :) Same term and CONSECUTIVE to the one Modianus completed. Therefore he cannot serve. > > > > You all keep trying though, I just knew this would happen as soon as I saw this posted :) > > > > Vale > > Caesar > > > > --- On Wed, 5/13/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@ > wrote: > > > > > From: Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@ > > > > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Problem with Censor Candidate > > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com > > > Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009, 4:07 PM > > > Ave Caesar, > > > > > > >>> Fortunately the law states consecutive terms > > > and all that the winning candidate in this election is doing > > > is stepping into an established term, which was consecutive > > > with the one Modianus occcupied, ergo he cannot serve as > > > Censor. > > > > > > But as law says the exception is the censor suffectus. > > > > > > Modianus is not a censor which stand for a new consecutive > > > censorship. He is a citizen which stand for being censor > > > suffectus. > > > > > > Vale. > > > C. Petronius Dexter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------ > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatu red@yahoogroups. com > > > > > > > > > > > >

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

Precisely. 

A.  I was elected censor, ending office at the end of 2008.
B.  Then Laenas was elected censor and took office as I was leaving office.
C.  Laenas was censor for several months and resigned.
D.  If I am elected censor again then I will assume office after Laenas; however, the service date (and my oath) will not be retroactive to January 1st, but rather the day of the results of the election.
E.  Therefore, it is not consecutive -- that is without interruption.
F.  IF... the oath of office was retroactive to January 1st I would agree with what some folks are advocating.  But this is not the case, and the date of office is assumed when the oath is made and the new censor assumes responsibilities as a magistrate.  The term of service for a censor normatively is two years; however, because of the resignation of Laenas the term of censor suffectus is modified to consist only of the time remaining of the normative term. 

Valete:

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM, livia_plauta <livia.plauta@...> wrote:

Salve Caesar,
no, actually if it was Cato in the same position, still none of us would have thought of denying that "consecutive" means "consecutive".
As a member of the consular cohors, I can assure you that the issue was addressed, and Modianus' candidacy was found to be perfectly legal.

"Consecutive" is an adjective that derives from Latin, and, luckily for us, has the same meaning in all neolatin languages and in English, so any misunderstanding can be ruled out.

Modianus was a censor. Now he is not a censor. He will be a censor again if elected. Ergo, his two terms will not be consecutive.
They would be consecutive if he was running for censor while he is still a censor.

Vale,
Livia

C. Petronius L. Sullae s.p.d.,

>>> Because as the author of the law - I think I would be an expert as to its rationale and spirit.<<<

In a law, it is not that you should want to say which is important, but what you say. The law is written, words are the meaning of the law. The intention could be different but we have as law not a spirit but words that you chose.

>>> The law was intended to be the first step in institution a VERY Roman Concept of the Mos Maiorum. No consecutive offices.

What do you want to say with "consecutive offices"? I think that you want to say the same office consecutively held. But your words can also say that after an office the magistrate does not continue the year following his career by an other office.

>>>This was a baby step in the hope that eventually NR would be able to implement more of the Mos Maiorum.

The career was in the Mos Maiorum. And the Romans could hold consecutive offices. Questor a year and tribune of the Plebs the following year.

>>> Eventually, I hoped, there would be laws similar to the ancients where no one could hold the same office in a decade. That we have not even expanded the Mos Maiorum is quite depressing.

Now you speak about the same offices. And it is true that Romans gave gaps between for holding some same offices, above all the most main as consulship.

> So, in review (from the author of the law), the text is clear. The spirit is clear. There is no ambiguity. Modianus cannot run for Censor this time around.

It is your interpretation of the law.

Vale.
C. Petronius Dexter

L. Coruncanius Cato Gn. Iunio Neroni spd. Welcome! I hope you find what you are looking for. :D -- Di te incolumem custodiant. L. Coruncanius Cato Candidate to Aedilis Curulis --- El mié, 13/5/09, Vaughn <rikudemyx@...> escribió: De: Vaughn <rikudemyx@...> Asunto: [Nova-Roma] Proper Greetings. Para: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com Fecha: miércoles, 13 mayo, 2009 11:28 Even though I have been posting on the boards for three months with my official citizenship I would like to properly introduce myself. My name is ({Vaughn C Hubbard} Riku) Gaius Iunius Nero (RGIN) Bracketed name is my birth name and the Riku is my Japanese name which is the name I've used for two years and the last part is my Roman name. I could go into explenation of my Roman name which I chose with great care with each aspect of my personality( the Nero part being an aspect of his more benevolent qualities Yes he did have them.) And if you want to know just ask:). I joined Nova Roma because in all honest truth there is not a more perfect group in existence for me. Anywho if there is any more you'de like to know just ask. Di Vos Incolumes Custodiant. GIN GAIVS IVNIVS NERO.