--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Cato's law proposal (Was: Re: Intercessio - )
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 2:09 PM

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@...> wrote:
>
> Nope.
>
> Consul Complutensis has stated the facts why the intercessio is invalid.
>
> vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 11. Juni 2009, 21:50:37 Uhr
> Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Valid Intercessio
>
>
>
>
>
> Q. Valerius C. Petronio:
>
> You, Dexter, are not the one who can say whether the law has been violated.
> Nor can anyone but another tribune legally counter a valid intercessio by a
> tribune.
>
> Vale.
>
> Quintus Valerius Poplicola
> Flamen Falacer
> Quaestor Aedilium Curulum
> Scriba Censorum
> Scriba Aedilium Plebis
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
> From: "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@yahoo. fr>
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:33 PM
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Valid Intercessio
>
> > C. Petronius Dexter omnibus s.p.d.,
> >
> >> Here's the final requirement.
> >
> > The law is not violated. Modianus did not hold the office of censor
> > consecutively. First he was censor, now he is censor suffectus, and
> > between we had as censor C. Popillius Laenas.
> >
> > Vale.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Flamen Portunalis
> > Quaestor Praetoris Cn. Equitii Marini
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

> Nope.
>
> Consul Complutensis has stated the facts why the intercessio is invalid.
>
> vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 11. Juni 2009, 21:50:37 Uhr
> Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Valid Intercessio
>
>
>
>
>
> Q. Valerius C. Petronio:
>
> You, Dexter, are not the one who can say whether the law has been
> violated.
> Nor can anyone but another tribune legally counter a valid intercessio by
> a
> tribune.
>
> Vale.
>
> Quintus Valerius Poplicola
> Flamen Falacer
> Quaestor Aedilium Curulum
> Scriba Censorum
> Scriba Aedilium Plebis
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
> From: "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@yahoo. fr>
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:33 PM
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Valid Intercessio
>
>> C. Petronius Dexter omnibus s.p.d.,
>>
>>> Here's the final requirement.
>>
>> The law is not violated. Modianus did not hold the office of censor
>> consecutively. First he was censor, now he is censor suffectus, and
>> between we had as censor C. Popillius Laenas.
>>
>> Vale.
>>
>> C. Petronius Dexter
>> Flamen Portunalis
>> Quaestor Praetoris Cn. Equitii Marini
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> He's not "succeeding" Laenas' term with a term of his own. He's replacing Laenas who succeeded Modianus. In effect termwise he would be succeeding himself, and that is against the law.
>
> Regardless, it doesn't matter. The tribunes have issued a valid intercessio against the acceptance of Modianus as censor. You are not legally able to gainsay him except with the fine of 30 American dollars.
>
> Poplicola
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > C. Petronius Sullae,
> >
> > >>Yes, the law is.
> >
> > No, indeed, it is not.
> >
> > If the law use the word consecutively, we all must hear in consecutively the meaning of the word. Consecutively is coming from the Latin consequor.
> >
> > Modianus does not succeed himself, as "consecutively" means, but he succeed C. Popillius Laenas.
> >
> > So the law is absolutely not violated.
> >
> > Vale.
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Flamen Portunalis
> > Quaestor Praetoris Cn. Equitii Marini
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete ,
>
> maybe some people have not yet recognized the elections are over.
>
> Modianus is Censor Suffectus .
>
> Try your luck again in 6 months ;-)
>
> Vale bene
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Von: "QFabiusMaxmi@..." <QFabiusMaxmi@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 11. Juni 2009, 22:12:31 Uhr
> Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Valid Intercessio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Dell Deals: Don't miss huge summer savings on popular laptops starting at $449.
> In a message dated 6/11/2009 1:04:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jfarnoud94@yahoo. fr writes:
> Modianus does not succeed himself, as "consecutively" means, but he succeed C. Popillius Laenas.
>
> So the law is absolutely not violated
> Dude!  How long have you been in NR?  The Constitution refers to the "Term"  Not the man.
> Consecutive terms.  This is not Rome.  As much as we all want it to be.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>

> You, Dexter, are not the one who can say whether the law has been violated.

> Nor can anyone but another tribune legally counter a valid intercessio by a tribune.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete ,
>
> maybe some people have not yet recognized the elections are over.
>
> Modianus is Censor Suffectus .
>
> Try your luck again in 6 months ;-)
>
> Vale bene
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Von: "QFabiusMaxmi@..." <QFabiusMaxmi@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 11. Juni 2009, 22:12:31 Uhr
> Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Valid Intercessio
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Dell Deals: Don't miss huge summer savings on popular laptops starting at $449.
> In a message dated 6/11/2009 1:04:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jfarnoud94@yahoo. fr writes:
> Modianus does not succeed himself, as "consecutively" means, but he succeed C. Popillius Laenas.
>
> So the law is absolutely not violated
> Dude!  How long have you been in NR?  The Constitution refers to the "Term"  Not the man.
> Consecutive terms.  This is not Rome.  As much as we all want it to be.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>

> He's not "succeeding" Laenas' term with a term of his own.

> Regardless, it doesn't matter. The tribunes have issued a valid intercessio against the acceptance of Modianus as censor. You are not legally able to gainsay him except with the fine of 30 American dollars.

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:

> From: Gaius Equitius Cato <mlcinnyc@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Cato's law proposal (Was: Re: Intercessio - )
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 2:40 PM
> Cato Iulio Caesari Valerio Poplicolae
> Liviae Plautae omnibusque in for SPD
>
> Salvete!
>
> I see your points, both Poplicola and Caesar.  The
> only thing I would say is that again, we want to keep the
> law as clear and simple as possible.  Let the iudices
> decide most of these things.  I know it is a scary
> proposition, but I think we should start involving the
> citizens as much as possible in the judicial system. 
>
> This has, to my mind, two benefits.
>
> First, if someone brings up a foolish issue, the iudices
> can dismiss it outright.  But there should not be a
> restriction on what a citizen can bring to our courts any
> more than there is a restriction on what can be brought to a
> macronational court.  It is up to our citizens, acting
> as iudices, to dismiss foolishness.  I think the number
> of frivolous suits will be at a minimum, especially as since
> the praetors and consuls are basically out of it there's no
> big public scene involved and thus no practical purpose to
> making a fool of oneself in front of regular citizens and
> not bringing the government to screeching (literally and
> figuratively) halt.
>
> Second, it does not tie the iudices down to a
> pre-fabricated table of "if this then that" cookie-cutter
> punishments; they are given leeway to use their own
> intelligence as a group to find a way of resolving
> issues.  If one citizen does something particularly
> stupid but it's the first time the iudices have seen their
> face in court, they may get off lightly; conversely, if it
> becomes known that another citizen practically has season
> tickets in the courtroom, the iudices may treat them with
> harshness to get the point across.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

> Dude! How long have you been in NR?

> The Constitution refers to the
> "Term" Not the man.

II. IVS AUXILI FERENDI (The Right of Bringing Assistance)

A. Since the Ius Auxili Ferendi is a fundamental prerogative of a Tribunus Plebis as set forth in IV. 7. A of our Constitutio, in order for an act of intercessio to be valid the following procedure must be followed whether it is requested by a citizen or performed in his official capacity.

1. When a Tribunus Plebis issues an intercessio, it must include the following elements in a reasoned exposition in which the Tribunus shall note whether the auxilium was requested or ex-officio:

• a. The official name(s) of the citizen(s) who has requested the Tribunus Plebis to issue the intercessio, or the official name(s) of the citizen(s) on whose behalf the Tribunus has provided auxilium ex officio.
• b. The official name and office of the magistrate(s) against whose act or acts the intercessio or auxilium has been interposed.
• c. The article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the magistrate's act(s).

2. If the intercessio of a Tribunus Plebis does not include these three elements, the intercessio shall be invalid. The time constraints of the Lex Labiena de Intercessione shall continue to hold such that, if a new intercessio is not issued before the seventy-two hour limit, counted from the act(s) which occasioned the original intercessio, the Tribunus Plebis shall issue no new intercessio pertaining to that act or those acts.

3. When a Tribunus Plebis issues an intercessio against the act(s) of another Tribunus Plebis, it must include the following elements:

• a. The official name and office of the Tribunus Plebis against whose act(s) that intercessio is interposed.
• b. The article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the Tribunus Plebis' act(s).

4. If the intercessio of a Tribunus Plebis does not include these two elements, the intercessio shall be invalid. The time constraints of the Lex Labiena de Intercessione shall continue to hold such that, if a new intercessio is not issued before the seventy-two hour limit, counted from the act(s) which occasioned the original intercessio, the Tribunus Plebis shall issue no new intercessio pertaining to that act or those acts.

5. When a Tribunus Plebis shall issue an intercessio or provide auxilium, the procedures for ratification or voiding by the other Tribuni Plebis specified in the Lex Labiena de Intercessione shall be followed. There shall be no requirement that a Tribunus Plebis issue any statement on the matter at hand except agreement or disagreement with the original intercessio/auxilium.

Cato Coruncanio Catoni sal.

Salve.

Our law says nothing about the tribunes being unable to veto election results; it does, however, say very clearly that the tribunes have the power

"To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the interrex), Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta, and leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and / or letter of this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus Consulta or leges are being violated thereby" (Const. N.R. IV.A.7.a)

So they do have the power to veto laws passed in the comitia - which is the voice of the will of the People.

As to Cordus' information, I once again remind us that we operate not under ancient Roman law but under Nova Roman law. The ancient Romans did not even have a written, supreme constitutional document; does this mean we should ignore our Constitution? If we do not like this, we need to change the law - our law. Until we do so, we abide by our law.

Vale,

Cato

--
M. Curiatius Complutensis

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

On 6/11/09, Gaius Petronius Dexter <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:

As citizen I can be opposed to a pseudo intercessio, even made by a tribune of the plebs.

I am a citizen and a pleb and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is thoroughly sick of this constant wrangling back and forward. I wish the whole issue would just get settled.

However, the minute any citizen of Nova Roma, plebian or patrician can turn round and say a Tribune's intercessio is not valid because they think it's pseudo is a really black day for Nova Roma and it's certainly not an organisation I wish to be part of.

I don't always agree with the Tribunes. Just last month i posted that I was sorry about a decision one of them had made but when I was asked if I was questioning their right to make that decision, I immediately stated that, no, I might not like their decisions but I absolutely supported their right to make them.

Yet now we have citizens deciding they don't like an intercessio so they'll claim it's not valid. No other tribune has vetoed this intercessio so what gives any other citizen the right to do so. The tribunes were legally voted in and no one else can overthrow their decisions.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

> And I rebutted his statement. The consul is wrong.

> Of course ,as long as he does not support your oppinion , right ;-)
>
> Vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Von: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 11. Juni 2009, 22:17:41 Uhr
> Betreff: Re: AW: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio invalid
>
>
>
>
>
> And I rebutted his statement. The consul is wrong.
>
> Vale.
>
> Poplicola
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
> From: "Titus Flavius Aquila" <titus.aquila@ yahoo.de>
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:06 PM
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com>
> Subject: AW: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio invalid
>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Consul Complutensis has stated the facts why the intercessio is invalid.
>>
>> vale
>> Titus Flavius Aquila
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________ _________ _________ __
>> Von: Q. Valerius Poplicola <q.valerius.poplicol a@...>
>> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
>> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 11. Juni 2009, 21:50:37 Uhr
>> Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Valid Intercessio
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Q. Valerius C. Petronio:
>>
>> You, Dexter, are not the one who can say whether the law has been
>> violated.
>> Nor can anyone but another tribune legally counter a valid intercessio by
>> a
>> tribune.
>>
>> Vale.
>>
>> Quintus Valerius Poplicola
>> Flamen Falacer
>> Quaestor Aedilium Curulum
>> Scriba Censorum
>> Scriba Aedilium Plebis
>>
>> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
>> From: "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@ yahoo. fr>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 2:33 PM
>> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogro u ps.com>
>> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Valid Intercessio
>>
>>> C. Petronius Dexter omnibus s.p.d.,
>>>
>>>> Here's the final requirement.
>>>
>>> The law is not violated. Modianus did not hold the office of censor
>>> consecutively. First he was censor, now he is censor suffectus, and
>>> between we had as censor C. Popillius Laenas.
>>>
>>> Vale.
>>>
>>> C. Petronius Dexter
>>> Flamen Portunalis
>>> Quaestor Praetoris Cn. Equitii Marini
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

> But all forgets that the intercessio must follow the Constitution of NR
> . IV.A.7.a.3.b
> (http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_(Nova_Roma))
>
> "The issuance and function of /intercessio/ shall be defined according
> to procedures described by legislation passed by /Comitia/."
>
> And the legislation passed by the Comitia is the Lex Didia Gemina de
> postestate tribunicia
> (http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Didia_Gemina_de_potestate_tribunicia_(Nova_Roma)):
>
> II. *IVS AUXILI FERENDI* (The Right of Bringing Assistance)
>
> A. Since the Ius Auxili Ferendi is a fundamental prerogative of a
> Tribunus Plebis as set forth in IV. 7. A of our Constitutio, in order
> for an act of intercessio to be valid the following procedure must be
> followed whether it is requested by a citizen or performed in his
> official capacity.
>
> 1. When a Tribunus Plebis issues an intercessio, it must include the
> following elements in a reasoned exposition in which the Tribunus
> shall note whether the auxilium was requested or ex-officio:
>
> * a. The official name(s) of the citizen(s) who has requested
> the Tribunus Plebis to issue the intercessio, or the official
> name(s) of the citizen(s) on whose behalf the Tribunus has
> provided auxilium ex officio.
> * b. The official name and office of the magistrate(s) against
> whose act or acts the intercessio or auxilium has been
> interposed.
> * c. The article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by
> the magistrate's act(s).
>
> 2. If the intercessio of a Tribunus Plebis does not include these
> three elements, the intercessio shall be invalid. The time
> constraints of the Lex Labiena de Intercessione shall continue to
> hold such that, if a new intercessio is not issued before the
> seventy-two hour limit, counted from the act(s) which occasioned the
> original intercessio, the Tribunus Plebis shall issue no new
> intercessio pertaining to that act or those acts.
> 3. When a Tribunus Plebis issues an intercessio against the act(s)
> of another Tribunus Plebis, it must include the following elements:
>
> * a. The official name and office of the Tribunus Plebis against
> whose act(s) that intercessio is interposed.
> * b. The article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by
> the Tribunus Plebis' act(s).
>
> 4. If the intercessio of a Tribunus Plebis does not include these
> two elements, the intercessio shall be invalid. The time constraints
> of the Lex Labiena de Intercessione shall continue to hold such
> that, if a new intercessio is not issued before the seventy-two hour
> limit, counted from the act(s) which occasioned the original
> intercessio, the Tribunus Plebis shall issue no new intercessio
> pertaining to that act or those acts.
> 5. When a Tribunus Plebis shall issue an intercessio or provide
> auxilium, the procedures for ratification or voiding by the other
> Tribuni Plebis specified in the Lex Labiena de Intercessione shall
> be followed. There shall be no requirement that a Tribunus Plebis
> issue any statement on the matter at hand except agreement or
> disagreement with the original intercessio/auxilium.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gaius Equitius Cato escribió:
>>
>>
>> Cato Coruncanio Catoni sal.
>>
>> Salve.
>>
>> Our law says nothing about the tribunes being unable to veto election
>> results; it does, however, say very clearly that the tribunes have the
>> power
>>
>> "To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions
>> of any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the
>> interrex), Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta,
>> and leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and / or letter of
>> this Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus
>> Consulta or leges are being violated thereby" (Const. N.R. IV.A.7.a)
>>
>> So they do have the power to veto laws passed in the comitia - which
>> is the voice of the will of the People.
>>
>> As to Cordus' information, I once again remind us that we operate not
>> under ancient Roman law but under Nova Roman law. The ancient Romans
>> did not even have a written, supreme constitutional document; does
>> this mean we should ignore our Constitution? If we do not like this,
>> we need to change the law - our law. Until we do so, we abide by our law.
>>
>> Vale,
>>
>> Cato
>>
>>
>
> --
> M. Curiatius Complutensis
>
> COMMENTARIOLA HISPANIAE
> <http://feeds2.feedburner.com/%7Er/CommentariolaHispaniae/%7E6/1>
>
> ? Grab this Headline Animator
> <http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/headlineanimator/install?id=h2caom68v18dju1ktk0gkre39o&w=1>
>
>



> But all forgets that the intercessio must follow the Constitution of NR .
> IV.A.7.a.3.b (http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_(Nova_Roma))
>
> "The issuance and function of intercessio shall be defined according to
> procedures described by legislation passed by Comitia."
>
> And the legislation passed by the Comitia is the Lex Didia Gemina de
> postestate tribunicia
> (http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Didia_Gemina_de_potestate_tribunicia_(Nova_Roma)):
>
>
> II. IVS AUXILI FERENDI (The Right of Bringing Assistance)
>
> A. Since the Ius Auxili Ferendi is a fundamental prerogative of a Tribunus
> Plebis as set forth in IV. 7. A of our Constitutio, in order for an act of
> intercessio to be valid the following procedure must be followed whether
> it is requested by a citizen or performed in his official capacity.
>
> 1. When a Tribunus Plebis issues an intercessio, it must include the
> following elements in a reasoned exposition in which the Tribunus shall
> note whether the auxilium was requested or ex-officio:
> a.. a. The official name(s) of the citizen(s) who has requested the
> Tribunus Plebis to issue the intercessio, or the official name(s) of the
> citizen(s) on whose behalf the Tribunus has provided auxilium ex officio.
> b.. b. The official name and office of the magistrate(s) against whose
> act or acts the intercessio or auxilium has been interposed.
> c.. c. The article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the
> magistrate's act(s).
> 2. If the intercessio of a Tribunus Plebis does not include these three
> elements, the intercessio shall be invalid. The time constraints of the
> Lex Labiena de Intercessione shall continue to hold such that, if a new
> intercessio is not issued before the seventy-two hour limit, counted from
> the act(s) which occasioned the original intercessio, the Tribunus Plebis
> shall issue no new intercessio pertaining to that act or those acts.
> 3. When a Tribunus Plebis issues an intercessio against the act(s) of
> another Tribunus Plebis, it must include the following elements:
> a.. a. The official name and office of the Tribunus Plebis against
> whose act(s) that intercessio is interposed.
> b.. b. The article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the
> Tribunus Plebis' act(s).
> 4. If the intercessio of a Tribunus Plebis does not include these two
> elements, the intercessio shall be invalid. The time constraints of the
> Lex Labiena de Intercessione shall continue to hold such that, if a new
> intercessio is not issued before the seventy-two hour limit, counted from
> the act(s) which occasioned the original intercessio, the Tribunus Plebis
> shall issue no new intercessio pertaining to that act or those acts.
> 5. When a Tribunus Plebis shall issue an intercessio or provide auxilium,
> the procedures for ratification or voiding by the other Tribuni Plebis
> specified in the Lex Labiena de Intercessione shall be followed. There
> shall be no requirement that a Tribunus Plebis issue any statement on the
> matter at hand except agreement or disagreement with the original
> intercessio/auxilium.
>
>
>
>
>
> Gaius Equitius Cato escribió:
> Cato Coruncanio Catoni sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> Our law says nothing about the tribunes being unable to veto election
> results; it does, however, say very clearly that the tribunes have the
> power
>
> "To pronounce intercessio (intercession; a veto) against the actions of
> any other magistrate (with the exception of the dictator and the
> interrex), Senatus consulta, magisterial edicta, religious decreta, and
> leges passed by the comitia when the spirit and / or letter of this
> Constitution or legally-enacted edicta or decreta, Senatus Consulta or
> leges are being violated thereby" (Const. N.R. IV.A.7.a)
>
> So they do have the power to veto laws passed in the comitia - which is
> the voice of the will of the People.
>
> As to Cordus' information, I once again remind us that we operate not
> under ancient Roman law but under Nova Roman law. The ancient Romans did
> not even have a written, supreme constitutional document; does this mean
> we should ignore our Constitution? If we do not like this, we need to
> change the law - our law. Until we do so, we abide by our law.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> M. Curiatius Complutensis
>
>
> ? Grab this Headline Animator
>

> C. Petronius Q. Valerio,
>
>> He's not "succeeding" Laenas' term with a term of his own.
>
> Laenas put himself the term of his office with his resignation. So the
> comitia were called to vote for a censor suffectus. Do you think that
> Laenas never was Censor?
>
>> Regardless, it doesn't matter. The tribunes have issued a valid
>> intercessio against the acceptance of Modianus as censor. You are not
>> legally able to gainsay him except with the fine of 30 American dollars.
>
> The tribune did not veto the election but the result of the election. It
> is not legal nor fair play.
>
> Vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Flamen Portunalis
> Quaestor Praetoris Cn. Equitii Marini
>
>

> C. Petronius Q. Pepsicolae,
>
>> You, Dexter, are not the one who can say whether the law has been
>> violated.
>
> I can read the law and I am able to say that the law is not violated.
> As in this case.
>
>> Nor can anyone but another tribune legally counter a valid intercessio by
>> a tribune.
>
> Which intercessio? The pseudo intercessio whose you speak about is not
> valid. Because the third point, the violation of a law is not real.
>
> As citizen I can be opposed to a pseudo intercessio, even made by a
> tribune of the plebs.
>
> Vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Flamen Portunalis
> Quaestor Praetoris Cn. Equitii Marini
>
>

Q. Valerius Poplicola Flamen Falacer Omnibus S. P. V. D.

The Consul M. Complutensis has recently said that Agrippa's intercessio was invalid according to the Lex Didia de potesta tribunicia. Despite being unable to do so according to the Lex Arminia Equitia de Imperio III.B, the consul is still inaccurate when he describes the intercessio as invalid. From the Lex Didia Gemina de Potestate Tribunicia II.1, there are three requirements that a tribune must give.

1. The official name(s) of the citizen(s) who has requested the Tribunus Plebis to issue the intercessio, or the official name(s) of the citizen(s) on whose behalf the Tribunus has provided auxilium ex officio.

2. The official name and office of the magistrate(s) against whose act or acts the intercessio or auxilium has been interposed.

3. The article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the magistrate's act(s).

Did Agrippa follow these three? Agrippa's intercessio is found here:

http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Nova- Roma/message/ 66421

In it he satisfies the requirements of the Lex Didia Gemina:

"I pronounce intercessio against the custodes Marcus Lucretius Agricola and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus in certifying the election of Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus as censor and against the consuls Marcus Iulius Severus and Marcus Cornelius Complutensis in accepting the election results."

This sure satisfies the 2nd requirement. He listed the officials Agricola, Lentulus, Severus, and Complutensis, and their offices (custodes and consules).

"This action was requested by Senator Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, Senator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Quintus Valerius Poplicola, and Marcus Valerius Potitus."

This satisfies the first requirement by listing the citizens who requested this intercessio.

"Modianus cannot hold the office of censor. This would violate Section 1 of the Lex Cornelia Iunia de definitione intervallorum magistratuum; "no person shall hold the office of censor consecutively" with Section IV A of the constitution as the definition of the term 'office of censor'.

As the Lex Cornelia Iunia de definitione intervallorum magistratuum does not define the term 'office of censor', the Constitution is used by virtue of Section I B, giving precedence to the constitution as the highest legal authority."

Here's the final requirement. He lists the both the law and the article of the constitution that they have violated by accepting the results.

The Law has been met, and the intercessio is without a doubt valid.

--
M. Curiatius Complutensis

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:40 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Cato's law proposal (Was: Re: Intercessio - )


> Cato Iulio Caesari Valerio Poplicolae Liviae Plautae omnibusque in for SPD
>
> Salvete!
>
> I see your points, both Poplicola and Caesar. The only thing I would say
> is that again, we want to keep the law as clear and simple as possible.
> Let the iudices decide most of these things. I know it is a scary
> proposition, but I think we should start involving the citizens as much as
> possible in the judicial system.
>
> This has, to my mind, two benefits.
>
> First, if someone brings up a foolish issue, the iudices can dismiss it
> outright. But there should not be a restriction on what a citizen can
> bring to our courts any more than there is a restriction on what can be
> brought to a macronational court. It is up to our citizens, acting as
> iudices, to dismiss foolishness. I think the number of frivolous suits
> will be at a minimum, especially as since the praetors and consuls are
> basically out of it there's no big public scene involved and thus no
> practical purpose to making a fool of oneself in front of regular citizens
> and not bringing the government to screeching (literally and figuratively)
> halt.
>
> Second, it does not tie the iudices down to a pre-fabricated table of "if
> this then that" cookie-cutter punishments; they are given leeway to use
> their own intelligence as a group to find a way of resolving issues. If
> one citizen does something particularly stupid but it's the first time the
> iudices have seen their face in court, they may get off lightly;
> conversely, if it becomes known that another citizen practically has
> season tickets in the courtroom, the iudices may treat them with harshness
> to get the point across.
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.63/2169 - Release Date: 06/11/09
05:53:00

> C. Petronius Q. Valerio,
>
>> And I rebutted his statement. The consul is wrong.
>
> Lol ! Sus Minervam docet.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Flamen Portunalis
> Quaestor Praetoris Cn. Equitii Marini
>
>

> Unfortunately for you, neither you nor any other citizen nor the consuls are
> legally able to say that the intercessio is invalid. Your opinions are
> effectively worthless.

> Have fun typing away. :-)

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

From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:41 PM

Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Invalid Intercessio

Cn. Lentulus custos: tribunis plebis: sal.: Every Roman knows the tribuni plebis are sacrosanct and they have the final say in political decisions by virtue of practicing their right of intercessio. It is unquestionable, and this is the cornerstone of a Roman republic, thus it is the cornerstone of the Nova Roman Republic, too, whose citizens we are. I come before you not to question the utmost sanctity of your office, Tribunes, but to express my concerns about the legal form of the intercessio issued by tribunus plebis C. Vipsanius. As someone involved in this veto, I would like to hear some answers to my concerns that I think to be valid and grave concerns, and supported by not lesser authorities than our consules and some of our senatores. This is what tribunus C. Vispanius wrote in his veto: "I pronounce intercessio against the custodes Marcus Lucretius Agricola and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus in certifying the election of Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus as censor and against the consuls Marcus Iulius Severus and Marcus Cornelius Complutensis in accepting the election results." And here are the problems: The tribunus says he pronounces intercessio against the custodes "in certifying the election". But the custodes did not certify the elections. I can speak not only in my own name but in the name of M. Lucretius: we did not certify the election of Modianus, as it is not our duty. We certified only the *tally of the votes*, and we broke the tie votes. So what was vetoed, does not exist. What was then vetoed? The tribune vetoed a non-existent thing, so he vetoed nothing. This is my concern: the law requires that the intercessio must be very precise, though this intercessio vetoes something that never happened. There is, however, another problem, too. As consul M. Curiatius pointed out, the intercessio must precisely contain the exact official Nova Roman name of the magistrate against whom the intercessio was pronounced. But this intercessio does not contain the exact name of the consul! It says "Marcus Cornelius Complutensis", though the exact name is M. Curiatius Complutensis! The consul is a Curiatius, not a Cornelius: so the formula of the intercessio is not precise because it does not follow the requirements fixed in our laws. And finally, my biggest concern with the intercessio of tribunus C. Vipsanius, what I can not see how one could respond to. With this intercessio the tribune wanted to invalidate the election of K. Buteo, and the supporters of this intercessio claim that if the intercessio is valid, K. Buteo Modianus is not elected as censor. But this is a misunderstanding. With my respect to C. Vipsanius tribunus plebis: he misunderstood something. The election of the censor does *not* take force by the consuls accepting the report from the diribitores, nor does it take force by the certification of the tallies of the votes. The election of a magistrate takes force exactly by the voting of the citizenry. The citizens were who voted and the citizens were who ordered K. Buteo to be censor. Not the custodes, nor the consules. It was the People of Nova Roma who acted as the supreme entity within the Republic of Nova Roma. The tribune should have to veto the action of the People as assembled in Comitia if he wanted to invalidate the election of K. Buteo. So, even if the People of Nova Roma could accept the veto as legal and valid, it can not invalidate or nullify the election of K. Buteo Modianus, since it was not pronounced against the election of Buteo, but against the consules accepting the report of the results. Well, if the consules can not accept the results, what happens? Our laws don't make the validity of an election depend from the fact whether the consules accept its results or not. This is my very concern, Tribunes. I humbly ask you to give me some explanation, according to your best conscience, in the light of the laws, as you are the ones whom we most rever, the cornerstones of our republic, sacrosanct, the defenders of the people. CVRATE VT VALEATIS! CN CORNELIVS LENTVLVS C V S T O S

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.63/2169 - Release Date: 06/11/09 05:53:00

> Severus Cos. Poplicolae Flamen Falacer omnibusque sal.
>
> Why it is so difficult for you, Poplicola, to understand first, and
> acknowledge then, that the Senior Consul name is Marcus
> *Curiatius*Complutensis and not Marcus
> *Cornelius* Complutensis?
> So, the alleged and failed intercessio is actually invalid according to
> the
> Lex Didia de potesta tribunicia.
> Please try to read accurately before you send your messages to the
> People...
>
> Vale,
> M•IVL•SEVERVS
> CONSVL•NOVÆ•ROMÆ
>
> SENATOR
> CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI
>

> Guys and Ladies.
>
> Why do we need a personal injury law system? NR got along fine without
> it
> for four years. And we had more members here as well.
>
> Because we have Yahoo.com as our main list provider, we fall under
> Yahoo.com Terms of Service (TOS)
>
> TOS covers electronic harassment, identity theft, and slander. All those
> violations are punished by loss of rights to interact on all Yahoo lists.
>
> As for monetary theft the US Postal System (PO) investigates Postal Fraud
> (PF). If you take money from some one on the internet, and you do not
> give
> them what goods or services agreed on, since such goods are delivered by
> the US PO that's PF and punishable by fines, prosecution, even
> imprisonment.
> Since NR is headquartered in the US, even foreign citizens may request
> that the US PO investigate fraud.
>
> The Constitution of Nova Roma guarantees rights to all members, one of
> those is you remain subject to the laws in your country. So you cannot
> claim
> that NR rules is more important and you can ignore the laws of your own
> country.
>
> The Constitution sets up our government, tells us term limits, sets
> powers,
> etc. A lot of people don't like this because they claim that the document
> is flawed. That is, its ambiguous. If the people who wrote this flawed
> document were dead that would be one thing. But guess what? They are
> alive. So if we have a question about a passage intent, we can ask them.
>
> Finally. I have been involved in the Nova Roman justice system since
> 2000.
> It will not work. The system is not impartial. All that its become is a
> club, and a pretty big club at that.
> The People of Nova Roma who Flavius Vedius foresaw as the balancing part,
> (Provocatio) could
> care less. We saw that last year during the moot courts of Cassius and
> Equitius. Where was the outrage? Where was the demonstrations? Where
> were
> the impartial Iudices? Where were the Tribunes?
> There were two branches of our Iudical, and they both failed through
> inaction.
> When the Constitution the Supreme Rule of this Organization was invoked
> last year, it was ignored. In fact the tables of XII, Rome's most
> archaic
> rule system had precedence over the Constitution. Can you see what's
> wrong
> here? You have a flawed system dependent on the interest of moral people
> who want to see the right thing accomplished. And they are non existent
> here in NR, except for a few.
>
>
> We don't need a law system. Calling me names can never hurt me. But
> sticks and stones can, and I'll sue your butt off in a real California
> Court if
> you do.
> Except you can't on the internet. Repeal the Lex Salica. Don't replace
> it.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
>
> **************Dell Deals: Don’t miss huge summer savings on popular
> laptops
> starting at $449.
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221770187x1201425153/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215566131%3B37864407%3B
> i)
>

> well despite the fact that I am not a Cornelius but a Curiatius and the
> law says that the intercessio must include the official name and my
> official name is Marcus Curiatius Complutensis, and despite the fact
> that the tribunes accepted the candidacy of K.Fabius Buteo Modianus, and
> despite the fact that were the diribitores who conducted the elections,
> and despite tha fact that you cannot find in any list of Nova Roma my
> message accepting the results of the elections.....

> Can you explain me what articles of the Constitution or leges of Nova
> Roma were violated by the Custodes doing their job?

> Can you quote what articles of the Constitution or leges of Nova Roma
> were violated by the Consultes forwarding to the Main List a message
> from the Diribitores?

> The Tribuni could have vetoed during the contio and did not so, now can
> only veto laws passed by the Comitia. The 72 hours since the candidacy
> of Modianus passed long ago, they can not veto anything past 72 hours.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Shoshana Hathaway" <shoshanahathaway@...> wrote:
>
> Caeca Catoni Sal,
>
> I have carefully read your proposal, and would like to make only 2 minor
> suggestions. They involve 2 other penalties you might wish to consider, at
> either end of the scale.
>
> On the gentle end, especially for a relatively minor or first offense, would
> come a public reprimand to be written and issued either by one of the
> Praetors, or by the Iudices, either collegially, or by one of them appointed
> to do so by the others.
>
> In cases of truly aggregious offenses, I do think the iudices should have
> the authority to recommend permanent banishment from NR. Since banishment
> must pass through the comitia, the people would act as a counterweight,
> which would prevent over reaction by the panel of Iudices.
>
> Respectfully,
> C. Maria Caeca
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:40 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Cato's law proposal (Was: Re: Intercessio - )
>
>
> > Cato Iulio Caesari Valerio Poplicolae Liviae Plautae omnibusque in for SPD
> >
> > Salvete!
> >
> > I see your points, both Poplicola and Caesar. The only thing I would say
> > is that again, we want to keep the law as clear and simple as possible.
> > Let the iudices decide most of these things. I know it is a scary
> > proposition, but I think we should start involving the citizens as much as
> > possible in the judicial system.
> >
> > This has, to my mind, two benefits.
> >
> > First, if someone brings up a foolish issue, the iudices can dismiss it
> > outright. But there should not be a restriction on what a citizen can
> > bring to our courts any more than there is a restriction on what can be
> > brought to a macronational court. It is up to our citizens, acting as
> > iudices, to dismiss foolishness. I think the number of frivolous suits
> > will be at a minimum, especially as since the praetors and consuls are
> > basically out of it there's no big public scene involved and thus no
> > practical purpose to making a fool of oneself in front of regular citizens
> > and not bringing the government to screeching (literally and figuratively)
> > halt.
> >
> > Second, it does not tie the iudices down to a pre-fabricated table of "if
> > this then that" cookie-cutter punishments; they are given leeway to use
> > their own intelligence as a group to find a way of resolving issues. If
> > one citizen does something particularly stupid but it's the first time the
> > iudices have seen their face in court, they may get off lightly;
> > conversely, if it becomes known that another citizen practically has
> > season tickets in the courtroom, the iudices may treat them with harshness
> > to get the point across.
> >
> > Just some thoughts.
> >
> > Valete,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.63/2169 - Release Date: 06/11/09
> 05:53:00
>

> Caeca Lentule sal,
>
> Thank you! This is, perhaps, the clearest post on this issue I have read
> thus far, and it helps me understand matters much better, I think. I am
> still learning, and I freely admit that, at this time, I understand little
> of our politics and less of Novromanae law, so I get confused easily,
> which is why I keep out of these discussions, and keep my reactions to
> myself, because they are just that ...reactions, based mostly on feelings,
> instinct for wrongness, whether or not I can specify it, and little
> knowledge. As we know, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Again, I
> thank you for adding to mine.
>
> C. Maria Caeca
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 6:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Invalid Intercessio
>
>
>
>
> Cn. Lentulus custos: tribunis plebis: sal.:
>
>
> Every Roman knows the tribuni plebis are sacrosanct and they have
> the final say in political decisions by virtue of practicing their right
> of intercessio. It is unquestionable, and this is the cornerstone of a
> Roman republic, thus it is the cornerstone of the Nova Roman Republic,
> too, whose citizens we are.
>
> I come before you not to question the utmost sanctity of your
> office, Tribunes, but to express my concerns about the legal form of the
> intercessio issued by tribunus plebis C. Vipsanius.
>
> As someone involved in this veto, I would like to hear some answers
> to my concerns that I think to be valid and grave concerns, and supported
> by not lesser authorities than our consules and some of our senatores.
>
> This is what tribunus C. Vispanius wrote in his veto:
>
>
> "I pronounce intercessio against the custodes Marcus Lucretius
> Agricola and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus in certifying the election of Caeso
> Fabius Buteo Modianus as censor and against the consuls Marcus Iulius
> Severus and Marcus Cornelius Complutensis in accepting the election
> results."
>
>
> And here are the problems:
>
> The tribunus says he pronounces intercessio against the custodes
> "in certifying the election". But the custodes did not certify the
> elections. I can speak not only in my own name but in the name of M.
> Lucretius: we did not certify the election of Modianus, as it is not our
> duty. We certified only the *tally of the votes*, and we broke the tie
> votes.
>
> So what was vetoed, does not exist. What was then vetoed? The
> tribune vetoed a non-existent thing, so he vetoed nothing. This is my
> concern: the law requires that the intercessio must be very precise,
> though this intercessio vetoes something that never happened.
>
> There is, however, another problem, too.
>
> As consul M. Curiatius pointed out, the intercessio must precisely
> contain the exact official Nova Roman name of the magistrate against whom
> the intercessio was pronounced. But this intercessio does not contain the
> exact name of the consul! It says "Marcus Cornelius Complutensis", though
> the exact name is M. Curiatius Complutensis! The consul is a Curiatius,
> not a Cornelius: so the formula of the intercessio is not precise because
> it does not follow the requirements fixed in our laws.
>
> And finally, my biggest concern with the intercessio of tribunus C.
> Vipsanius, what I can not see how one could respond to.
>
> With this intercessio the tribune wanted to invalidate the election
> of K. Buteo, and the supporters of this intercessio claim that if the
> intercessio is valid, K. Buteo Modianus is not elected as censor. But this
> is a misunderstanding.
>
> With my respect to C. Vipsanius tribunus plebis: he misunderstood
> something. The election of the censor does *not* take force by the consuls
> accepting the report from the diribitores, nor does it take force by the
> certification of the tallies of the votes.
>
> The election of a magistrate takes force exactly by the voting of
> the citizenry. The citizens were who voted and the citizens were who
> ordered K. Buteo to be censor. Not the custodes, nor the consules.
>
> It was the People of Nova Roma who acted as the supreme entity
> within the Republic of Nova Roma.
>
> The tribune should have to veto the action of the People as
> assembled in Comitia if he wanted to invalidate the election of K. Buteo.
>
> So, even if the People of Nova Roma could accept the veto as legal
> and valid, it can not invalidate or nullify the election of K. Buteo
> Modianus, since it was not pronounced against the election of Buteo, but
> against the consules accepting the report of the results. Well, if the
> consules can not accept the results, what happens?
>
> Our laws don't make the validity of an election depend from the
> fact whether the consules accept its results or not.
>
> This is my very concern, Tribunes.
>
> I humbly ask you to give me some explanation, according to your
> best conscience, in the light of the laws, as you are the ones whom we
> most rever, the cornerstones of our republic, sacrosanct, the defenders of
> the people.
>
>
>
> CVRATE VT VALEATIS!
>
> CN CORNELIVS LENTVLVS
> C V S T O S
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.63/2169 - Release Date:
> 06/11/09 05:53:00
>

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

From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus

To: Nova Roma ML

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:22 PM

Subject: [Nova-Roma] De sacerdotio Concordiae

Cn. Lentulus sacerdos Concordialis omnibus civibus sal. Let me ask you, Quirites, a rather personal question now, that is inspired by my friend Q. Poplicola who finds a problem with me expressing my opinions publicly. As a Sacerdos of Goddess Concordia, am I entitled to voice my opinion publicly in a polite, respectful and educated manner? What do the People of Nova Roma wish from their priest to Concordia? I know what the Romans would require from a priest of Concordia (and it did not include being always neutral in each single public affair), but it is now about our community: would you like if I did not voice my opinion in public affairs? I really want to make Q. Poplicola as well as every Nova Roman be content with my service as Sacerdos Concordiae, but I also am a magistrate of Nova Roma and a free thinking young man. I wish to add sometimes my thoughts to the ongoing discussions. I always thought that Concord is not equal to a uniformised, debate-less, silent herd of yes-men, but true Concord is the a virtue of being able to create a healthy atmosphere of civilized debate for the good of the community, with a sense of comradship, friendship and brotherhood, where the value of unity for the sake of the community always prevails against the individual desire to win in one or another conflict of interests. I ask for your opinion, Quirites: am I "spitting" on Concord when I write in this forum, as Q. Valerius Poplicola says?

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.63/2169 - Release Date: 06/11/09 05:53:00

>
>
> Cn. Lentulus sacerdos Concordialis omnibus civibus sal.
>
>
> Let me ask you, Quirites, a rather personal question now, that is inspired
> by my friend Q. Poplicola who finds a problem with me expressing my opinions
> publicly.
>
> As a Sacerdos of Goddess Concordia, am I entitled to voice my opinion
> publicly in a polite, respectful and educated manner?
>
> What do the People of Nova Roma wish from their priest to Concordia? I know
> what the Romans would require from a priest of Concordia (and it did not
> include being always neutral in each single public affair), but it is now
> about our community: would you like if I did not voice my opinion in public
> affairs?
>
> I really want to make Q. Poplicola as well as every Nova Roman be content
> with my service as Sacerdos Concordiae, but I also am a magistrate of Nova
> Roma and a free thinking young man. I wish to add sometimes my thoughts to
> the ongoing discussions.
>
> I always thought that Concord is not equal to a uniformised, debate-less,
> silent herd of yes-men, but true Concord is the a virtue of being able to
> create a healthy atmosphere of civilized debate for the good of the
> community, with a sense of comradship, friendship and brotherhood, where the
> value of unity for the sake of the community always prevails against the
> individual desire to win in one or another conflict of interests.
>
> I ask for your opinion, Quirites: am I "spitting" on Concord when I write in
> this forum, as Q. Valerius Poplicola says?
>
>
>
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Lentulus custos: tribunis plebis: sal.:
>
>
> And here are the problems:
>
> The tribunus says he pronounces intercessio against the custodes "in certifying the election". But the custodes did not certify the elections. I can speak not only in my own name but in the name of M. Lucretius: we did not certify the election of Modianus, as it is not our duty. We certified only the *tally of the votes*, and we broke the tie votes.

This seems to be a dispute over the term "certify"--I think what you are saying, that you certify the tally of votes, is precisely what is meant by certify the election. I don't think "certify election" is to be understood as somehow investing imperium in the elected official or any such thing. Take note that this language is found in the "Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum": at the very bottom it states "the diribitores count votes, and the custodes break ties and certify elections". So, in short, you are right in how you describe your work and the Lex Fabia describes this as "certify elections".


> And finally, my biggest concern with the intercessio of tribunus C. Vipsanius, what I can not see how one could respond to.
>
> With this intercessio the tribune wanted to invalidate the election of K. Buteo, and the supporters of this intercessio claim that if the intercessio is valid, K. Buteo Modianus is not elected as censor. But this is a misunderstanding.
>
> With my respect to C. Vipsanius tribunus plebis: he misunderstood something. The election of the censor does *not* take force by the consuls accepting the report from the diribitores, nor does it take force by the certification of the tallies of the votes.
>
> The election of a magistrate takes force exactly by the voting of the citizenry. The citizens were who voted and the citizens were who ordered K. Buteo to be censor. Not the custodes, nor the consules.
>

This is a good observation, and you're right that your vote certification doesn't create or somehow validate election in general. However, your certification determines who it was that the centuries/tribes elected. Technically speaking, if the tie breaks and vote tallies of the custodes are vetoed then the people don't know who was elected and so no one can take office. In this way I think the intercessio was very sly--it didn't overturn the power of the citizenry to elect someone but rather overturned the decision on knowing who got the votes, but the result is the same.

Vale,

Gualterus

> Caeca Poplicoli sal,
>
> This is factually incorrect.
>
>
> Please explain how? It would help me if you would be as specific as
> possible, as I truly do wish to understand the underlying issues, here.
>
> Gratias tibi ago,
>
> C. Maria Caeca
>
>

>

>
> Cato Fabio Maximo sal.
>
> Salve!
>
> BONK!
>
> I sort of agree with you; having a judicial system that does, in effect,
> no more than Yahoo!'s ToS do is sort of redundant.
>
> QFM But...
>
> However, I would ask you to consider carefully that we are aiming higher
> than simple internet existence in some way (yes, this is the part where you
> hear stirring Roman music beginning to swell in the background).
>
> QFM: I have always been partial to "Parade of the Charioteers" from "Ben
> Hur." Even though that is not true Roman music. And yes we are building
> something greater. But, old buddy, consider this. Most people from Nova
> Roma that shows any spirit at all, leave because of the lex Salica rule
> system. And when the lex Salica as accepted by the People, we had more taxpaying
> citizens.
> This no longer the case. The original NR had 113 dedicated souls. When
> the lex Salica was approved it was post "Gladiator" and we had 1250? We
> have what now? 250 citizens?
> We don't need a law system at this time.
>
> When we get 1250 souls here again then I'll talk about a limited law
> system. But right now Yahoo TOS is good for us.
>
>
> You are corerect in basically every point you make, if you *only* consider
> us as what we have been and not as what we *could* become. Even if we are
> only a big "club" right now, this is a good time to put things like this in
> place so that if/when we grow, they already are a part of who we are. The
> problem is not *having* law, but having *poorly-written* law. Inapplicable,
> unenforceable law. Law that is contradictory and ill-suited for our
> citizenry.
>
>
>
>
> QFM: I don't have trouble working on a rule system that is theoretical
> This would serve as an intellectual exercise and allow us to work out the
> development bugs in such a system. But, it could not be used against members
> of NR. Perhaps later in NR's development, but not with two hundred and
> fifty members.
>
> Q. Fabius Maximus
> **************Dell Deals: Don’t miss huge summer savings on popular laptops
> starting at $449.
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221770187x1201425153/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215566131%3B37864407%3B
> i)
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Q. Valerius Poplicola" <q.valerius.poplicola@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] invalid intercessio


> Poplicola Caecae S. P. D.
>
> Sorry, I was in a rush, and am now enjoying a quite hearty salad.
>
> Simply put, the "people" are *not* the final authority or "supreme entity"
> of Nova Roma, and to think so is a grave and dangerous mindset. We have
> rules, and rules need to be followed, and no vote, no matter how
> overwhelming, can violate a rule while a rule is in effect. At most voters
> can only change the law. The citizens have no right at all to elect a
> magistrate who would violate the constitution, especially since it takes
> *both* the Senate and the People to change the constitution. If the people
> want to change the law, they can vote on it, but until they do, the law is
> not changed because the people vote for something illegal.
>
> Optime uale.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Shoshana Hathaway" <shoshanahathaway@...>
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:10 PM
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] invalid intercessio
>
>> Caeca Poplicoli sal,
>>
>> This is factually incorrect.
>>
>>
>> Please explain how? It would help me if you would be as specific as
>> possible, as I truly do wish to understand the underlying issues, here.
>>
>> Gratias tibi ago,
>>
>> C. Maria Caeca
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.63/2169 - Release Date: 06/11/09
05:53:00

> Please try to read accurately before you send your messages to the People...

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete;
> this is why I stay out of the 'NR law review' discussions;-)
>
> Actually I have thought about it, if we care about Nova Roma and what we stand for, a good reform is " the laws of Nova Roma will be those of the Middle Republic" and "the duties of magistrates and their powers are those of the Middle Republic."
>
> Pretty basic and short. The court system is described in plenty of books, ditto for everything else. It gives us a solid guide and encourages all of us to learn and live Roman history, law, culture and integrate it into our lives.
> optime vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
> >
>
> mlcinnyc@ writes:
> >
> > Cato Fabio Maximo sal.
> >
> > Salve!
> >
> > BONK!
> >
> > I sort of agree with you; having a judicial system that does, in effect,
> > no more than Yahoo!'s ToS do is sort of redundant.
> >
> > QFM But...
> >
> > However, I would ask you to consider carefully that we are aiming higher
> > than simple internet existence in some way (yes, this is the part where you
> > hear stirring Roman music beginning to swell in the background).
> >
> > QFM: I have always been partial to "Parade of the Charioteers" from "Ben
> > Hur." Even though that is not true Roman music. And yes we are building
> > something greater. But, old buddy, consider this. Most people from Nova
> > Roma that shows any spirit at all, leave because of the lex Salica rule
> > system. And when the lex Salica as accepted by the People, we had more taxpaying
> > citizens.
> > This no longer the case. The original NR had 113 dedicated souls. When
> > the lex Salica was approved it was post "Gladiator" and we had 1250? We
> > have what now? 250 citizens?
> > We don't need a law system at this time.
> >
> > When we get 1250 souls here again then I'll talk about a limited law
> > system. But right now Yahoo TOS is good for us.
> >
> >
> > You are corerect in basically every point you make, if you *only* consider
> > us as what we have been and not as what we *could* become. Even if we are
> > only a big "club" right now, this is a good time to put things like this in
> > place so that if/when we grow, they already are a part of who we are. The
> > problem is not *having* law, but having *poorly-written* law. Inapplicable,
> > unenforceable law. Law that is contradictory and ill-suited for our
> > citizenry.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > QFM: I don't have trouble working on a rule system that is theoretical
> > This would serve as an intellectual exercise and allow us to work out the
> > development bugs in such a system. But, it could not be used against members
> > of NR. Perhaps later in NR's development, but not with two hundred and
> > fifty members.
> >
> > Q. Fabius Maximus
> > **************Dell Deals: Don’t miss huge summer savings on popular laptops
> > starting at $449.
> > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221770187x1201425153/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215566131%3B37864407%3B
> > i)
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete;
> this is why I stay out of the 'NR law review' discussions;-)
>
> Actually I have thought about it, if we care about Nova Roma and what we stand for, a good reform is " the laws of Nova Roma will be those of the Middle Republic" and "the duties of magistrates and their powers are those of the Middle Republic."
>
> Pretty basic and short. The court system is described in plenty of books, ditto for everything else. It gives us a solid guide and encourages all of us to learn and live Roman history, law, culture and integrate it into our lives.
> optime vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
>

> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: dis_pensible@...
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:18:15 +0000
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Roman cookery
>
> Salve Jesse,
>
> Look through the thread in earlier posts and there are a few recipes and some that have been "converted" for modern use.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/63233
> Try one of the cheesecakes. I intend to convert more as time permits!
> Here is another link:
> http://novaroma.org/nr/Category:Roman_cooking
> And also we have a sodalitas dedicated to Roman food and drink:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sodalis_Coq_et_Coq/
>
> Congratulations on your daughters birth!
>
> Vale,
> Julia
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jesse Corradino <woden66@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Are there any genuinely tastey roman dishes? In the last year or so of my life I've committed myself to learn how to cook for two reasons: one, I'm pretty much the last member of my family to keep a lot of our recipes alive and two, I've recently had a daughter (Claudia) who I don't want to see grow up eating frozen food from a grocery store. Anyway, I really love the hobby and so now I'm always looking meals I can brag about. One of the reasons I was drawn to Nova Roma was to find out more about this topic, so I'm curious if anyone has some feedback :)
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> mailto:Nova-Roma-digest@yahoogroups.com
> mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

> Then you should not have volunteered to be on the Consular Committee on Law List.
>
> Proposing the use of these concepts in an atmosphere in which the meanings of words like "restore" and "consecutive" are the basis of teeth-grindingly vitriolic disputation is not exactly the best idea you've ever had.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete;
> > this is why I stay out of the 'NR law review' discussions;-)
> >
> > Actually I have thought about it, if we care about Nova Roma and what we stand for, a good reform is " the laws of Nova Roma will be those of the Middle Republic" and "the duties of magistrates and their powers are those of the Middle Republic."
> >
> > Pretty basic and short. The court system is described in plenty of books, ditto for everything else. It gives us a solid guide and encourages all of us to learn and live Roman history, law, culture and integrate it into our lives.
> > optime vale
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> >
>

> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: oldroman@...
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:03:35 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] De sacerdotio Concordiae
>
> Priscus Lentulus sal.
>
> While we may had slight disagreements in the past I find your conduct
> as a Sacerdos of Concordia outstanding. And I don't think you have
> "spit" on Concordia at all in posting on this Forum. You have the
> right (as ANY other Citizen of Nova Roma) to voice your opinion.
>
> Vale,
> Quintus Servilius Priscus
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Cn. Cornelius
> Lentulus<cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus sacerdos Concordialis omnibus civibus sal.
> >
> >
> > Let me ask you, Quirites, a rather personal question now, that is inspired
> > by my friend Q. Poplicola who finds a problem with me expressing my opinions
> > publicly.
> >
> > As a Sacerdos of Goddess Concordia, am I entitled to voice my opinion
> > publicly in a polite, respectful and educated manner?
> >
> > What do the People of Nova Roma wish from their priest to Concordia? I know
> > what the Romans would require from a priest of Concordia (and it did not
> > include being always neutral in each single public affair), but it is now
> > about our community: would you like if I did not voice my opinion in public
> > affairs?
> >
> > I really want to make Q. Poplicola as well as every Nova Roman be content
> > with my service as Sacerdos Concordiae, but I also am a magistrate of Nova
> > Roma and a free thinking young man. I wish to add sometimes my thoughts to
> > the ongoing discussions.
> >
> > I always thought that Concord is not equal to a uniformised, debate-less,
> > silent herd of yes-men, but true Concord is the a virtue of being able to
> > create a healthy atmosphere of civilized debate for the good of the
> > community, with a sense of comradship, friendship and brotherhood, where the
> > value of unity for the sake of the community always prevails against the
> > individual desire to win in one or another conflict of interests.
> >
> > I ask for your opinion, Quirites: am I "spitting" on Concord when I write in
> > this forum, as Q. Valerius Poplicola says?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Deism: A Non-Prophet Religion
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> mailto:Nova-Roma-digest@yahoogroups.com
> mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Nova-Roma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salve;
> I voluteered on the Consular Committee on Law to make things simple and historical. I'm sure the people want that. None of us are equipped to write laws, it's an art.
>
> This atmosphere is the absolute perfect time to propose something simple that will send us back to our Republican history and roots.
> It's a win-win situation.
> bene vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
>

> Cato Maiori sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> When you can find a single, absolute and unquestioned authoritative source that details exactly what returning to being a "middle Republican" entails, please share it. If there is more than one source, more than one concept of what being a "middle Republican" was, than this will fail because, as I said, we cannot even seem to agree on some very basic definitions let alone a whole series of conflicting scholarly or academic opinions on what the "middle Republicans" were.
>
> Some of us are certainly intellectually well-enough equipped to write laws, but it's OK if you don't feel you are.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve;
> > I voluteered on the Consular Committee on Law to make things simple and historical. I'm sure the people want that. None of us are equipped to write laws, it's an art.
> >
> > This atmosphere is the absolute perfect time to propose something simple that will send us back to our Republican history and roots.
> > It's a win-win situation.
> > bene vale
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Maior Catoni sd;
> there are plenty of excellent sources, my good friend Cordus recommends them to me all the time. Such as Andrew Lintott's "The Constitution of the Roman Republic" and "An Introduction to Roman Law"
> B. Nicholas. Those are the 2 best in the area.
> We can all start there.
> it's easy.
> optime vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
> ps; It's easy enough to deal with Roman laws that have been interpretated through the entire Republic, as opposed to the convoluted made-up stuff that has nothing to do with Romanitas and creates these hellish, never-ending debates.
>
>
>
> > Cato Maiori sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > When you can find a single, absolute and unquestioned authoritative source that details exactly what returning to being a "middle Republican" entails, please share it. If there is more than one source, more than one concept of what being a "middle Republican" was, than this will fail because, as I said, we cannot even seem to agree on some very basic definitions let alone a whole series of conflicting scholarly or academic opinions on what the "middle Republicans" were.
> >
> > Some of us are certainly intellectually well-enough equipped to write laws, but it's OK if you don't feel you are.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve;
> > > I voluteered on the Consular Committee on Law to make things simple and historical. I'm sure the people want that. None of us are equipped to write laws, it's an art.
> > >
> > > This atmosphere is the absolute perfect time to propose something simple that will send us back to our Republican history and roots.
> > > It's a win-win situation.
> > > bene vale
> > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > >
> >
>

>
> Salve.
>
> Do all these sources agree exactly, without deviation, as to precisely what being a "middle Republican" entails? No divergence of opinion can be possible, as that will only cause disagreement based on different interpretations of different sources. There must be a single, solitary, absolutely impeccable and unquestioned source of information.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Maior Catoni sd;
> > there are plenty of excellent sources, my good friend Cordus recommends them to me all the time. Such as Andrew Lintott's "The Constitution of the Roman Republic" and "An Introduction to Roman Law"
> > B. Nicholas. Those are the 2 best in the area.
> > We can all start there.
> > it's easy.
> > optime vale
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> > ps; It's easy enough to deal with Roman laws that have been interpretated through the entire Republic, as opposed to the convoluted made-up stuff that has nothing to do with Romanitas and creates these hellish, never-ending debates.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Cato Maiori sal.
> > >
> > > Salve.
> > >
> > > When you can find a single, absolute and unquestioned authoritative source that details exactly what returning to being a "middle Republican" entails, please share it. If there is more than one source, more than one concept of what being a "middle Republican" was, than this will fail because, as I said, we cannot even seem to agree on some very basic definitions let alone a whole series of conflicting scholarly or academic opinions on what the "middle Republicans" were.
> > >
> > > Some of us are certainly intellectually well-enough equipped to write laws, but it's OK if you don't feel you are.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve;
> > > > I voluteered on the Consular Committee on Law to make things simple and historical. I'm sure the people want that. None of us are equipped to write laws, it's an art.
> > > >
> > > > This atmosphere is the absolute perfect time to propose something simple that will send us back to our Republican history and roots.
> > > > It's a win-win situation.
> > > > bene vale
> > > > M. Hortensia Maior
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Woolwine" <l_cornelius_sulla@...> wrote:
>
> Wow the Boni are back! LOL...Maior and her allies are the boni!
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete;
> > this is why I stay out of the 'NR law review' discussions;-)
> >
> > Actually I have thought about it, if we care about Nova Roma and what we stand for, a good reform is " the laws of Nova Roma will be those of the Middle Republic" and "the duties of magistrates and their powers are those of the Middle Republic."
> >
> > Pretty basic and short. The court system is described in plenty of books, ditto for everything else. It gives us a solid guide and encourages all of us to learn and live Roman history, law, culture and integrate it into our lives.
> > optime vale
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> > >
> >
> > mlcinnyc@ writes:
> > >
> > > Cato Fabio Maximo sal.
> > >
> > > Salve!
> > >
> > > BONK!
> > >
> > > I sort of agree with you; having a judicial system that does, in effect,
> > > no more than Yahoo!'s ToS do is sort of redundant.
> > >
> > > QFM But...
> > >
> > > However, I would ask you to consider carefully that we are aiming higher
> > > than simple internet existence in some way (yes, this is the part where you
> > > hear stirring Roman music beginning to swell in the background).
> > >
> > > QFM: I have always been partial to "Parade of the Charioteers" from "Ben
> > > Hur." Even though that is not true Roman music. And yes we are building
> > > something greater. But, old buddy, consider this. Most people from Nova
> > > Roma that shows any spirit at all, leave because of the lex Salica rule
> > > system. And when the lex Salica as accepted by the People, we had more taxpaying
> > > citizens.
> > > This no longer the case. The original NR had 113 dedicated souls. When
> > > the lex Salica was approved it was post "Gladiator" and we had 1250? We
> > > have what now? 250 citizens?
> > > We don't need a law system at this time.
> > >
> > > When we get 1250 souls here again then I'll talk about a limited law
> > > system. But right now Yahoo TOS is good for us.
> > >
> > >
> > > You are corerect in basically every point you make, if you *only* consider
> > > us as what we have been and not as what we *could* become. Even if we are
> > > only a big "club" right now, this is a good time to put things like this in
> > > place so that if/when we grow, they already are a part of who we are. The
> > > problem is not *having* law, but having *poorly-written* law. Inapplicable,
> > > unenforceable law. Law that is contradictory and ill-suited for our
> > > citizenry.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > QFM: I don't have trouble working on a rule system that is theoretical
> > > This would serve as an intellectual exercise and allow us to work out the
> > > development bugs in such a system. But, it could not be used against members
> > > of NR. Perhaps later in NR's development, but not with two hundred and
> > > fifty members.
> > >
> > > Q. Fabius Maximus
> > > **************Dell Deals: Don’t miss huge summer savings on popular laptops
> > > starting at $449.
> > > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221770187x1201425153/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215566131%3B37864407%3B
> > > i)
> > >
> >
>