> And I repeat they were violated by Modianus being declared the winner and thus assuming the office of censor contrary to the law as interpreted by the Tribunes as is their rgiht.

> I repeat my question: HOW were violated the leges?

On 6/13/09, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

Cato; the ad hominem is the refuge of the man without an argument. All lawyers are taught this.

I get it, you have no interest in reading about the Constitution of the Roman Republic, you have no interest in Roman history, culture, laws or virtues. You have no interest in the gods. You've said all this...

Maior, I've been a citizen for over 6 years and I've never once come across a post where Cato says any of this.  Indeed this attitude you claim he has would seem contrary to his posts that I've read. Can you show me which posts I've so obviously missed.

Flavia Lucilla Merula

---

Windows Liveâ„¢: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Lentulus Poplicolae et Catoni sal.
>
> No, it's not true.
>
> Poplicola and Cato, you are wrong in two points:
>
> 1) It was M. Lucretius who added the results of the election, what I did it was adjust the format to follow the earlier years' style for indicating suffect offices.
>
> This is the history of the page:
>
> http://novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Magistrates_MMDCCLXII&diff=prev&oldid=40126
>
> 2) It was done BEFORE THE INTERCESSIO and BEFORE the religious questioning of the tie breaking was arisen.
>
> I ask you Poplicola to learn more about a situation before you come out attack people with false accusations.
>
> VALE!
> Lentulus
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jesse Corradino <woden66@...> wrote:
>
>
> Yah, I thought he stirs up all this discord amongst Nova Romans just so he has an opportunity to express his obsession with reconstructionist, bureaucratic procedures. In the time I've been a member of this list all I've read about is either Cato sueing Nova Roma for something that was embarassingly revealed to be a complete non-sequitor and, while that was conveniently forgotten about, he ran for office in a popular election to collect votes from people he intended to sue, lost said election, and is now dragging this into a potential schism. It certainly isn't fair to say that he has no interests in Roman things when you bear in mind the history of intrigues and warfare in ancient Rome.
>
>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: kirsteen.falconsfan@...
> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:44:14 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Law Proposal Some hard facts
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 6/13/09, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:
> Cato; the ad hominem is the refuge of the man without an argument. All lawyers are taught this.
>
> I get it, you have no interest in reading about the Constitution of the Roman Republic, you have no interest in Roman history, culture, laws or virtues. You have no interest in the gods. You've said all this...
>
> Maior, I've been a citizen for over 6 years and I've never once come across a post where Cato says any of this. Indeed this attitude you claim he has would seem contrary to his posts that I've read. Can you show me which posts I've so obviously missed.
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
> http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Lentulus Catoni sal.
>
>
> >>> So it'll be hard to be sure, won't it? <<<
>
> Sure about what?
> It's always possible to click on the HISTORY button on the article, and you will see exactly who modified what. 
>
> I did not touched that page since 7 th June.
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@...> wrote:
>
> On 6/13/09, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:
> >
> > Cato; the ad hominem is the refuge of the man without an argument. All
> > lawyers are taught this.
> >
> > I get it, you have no interest in reading about the Constitution of the
> > Roman Republic, you have no interest in Roman history, culture, laws or
> > virtues. You have no interest in the gods. You've said all this...
>
>
> Maior, I've been a citizen for over 6 years and I've never once come across
> a post where Cato says any of this. Indeed this attitude you claim he has
> would seem contrary to his posts that I've read. Can you show me which posts
> I've so obviously missed.
>
> Flavia Lucilla Merula
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Publius Memmius Albucius" <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
> Liviae Juliae et omnibus s.d.
>
> A few words on the names of the Celtic people in England:
> >the Durotriges(strong-hold-people),
> >the Dumnonii (people of the deep/people far away),
>
> We can be more precise:
>
> >the Durotriges
>
> - duro(n): the market, the enclosure [not to be taken for 'duNon'=the stronghold!]
> - triges < traget which means in Gaul 'foot', then 'track', which gave tragetes > trigetes (as the latin plural reges for rex) > trigets > triges
>
> So duro + triges = the people who live at the foot/door or the market place.
>
> >the Dumnonii
>
> from dubnos > dumnos = 1/ deep, down, dark 2/ the down word (the Gauls believed like Greeks or Germans that the universe has 3 words: the celestial one, the intermediate one, the low one.
>
> The Dumnonii are thus:
> - either, the 'Darks'
> - or, 'those of the Inferior World'.
>
> Dumnonii has given the modern 'Devon'.
>
> Valete ambo et omnes,
>
>
> Albucius
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator" <famila.ulleria.venii@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] procedural questions


> Ave Caeca;
>
> I can answer one of your questions.
>
> Once the Custodes received the final results as counted by the
> Diribitors, broke the ties and agreed that the results were valid (ie:
> certified them), they asked that one of the Diribitors forward the
> report about the Censorial election and the decision on the proposed
> Laws onto the presiding magistrate and his colleague (the Consuls),
> which I did.
>
> The results were then released by the presiding magistrate to the rest
> of the population on the mail lists.
>
> Not being a Custode this time, but a Diribitor Suffectus, I do not
> know what method our Custodes used to break the ties, so shall not
> speak to the topic.
>
> Vale - Venator
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/13/09
05:53:00

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Shoshana Hathaway wrote:
>
> Salve, Venator,
>
> So, if I understand what you are telling me, you acted as an "agent" for the
> custodes, by forwarding the results to the Consuls?

Venii: Yes, I think this is a good way of putting this part of the matter.

> However, the responsibility for certifying those results still remains
> with the Consuls, yes?
>
> Thanks for this response, BTW.
>
> Vale Bene,
>
> C. Maria Caeca
>

I think, with my understanding of the Constitution and Laws, that the
Consuls do not certify the results as such, it is the Custodes. The
Consuls, one of whom is the Presiding Magistrate, accept (or not) this
certification and then report the final results to the rest of the
"nation."

If the Consuls question the results, they would send them back to the
"Electoral College."

Then the vote count would be redone by the Diribitors. The Custodes
would again go over the tallies, align the results to the proper
Centuries, and break any ties, realigning the results. They then
report the new, recertified results back to the president, who will,
along with his colleague accept or reject them, with the applicable
report to the Cives.

. . .and, you're welcome.

Vale - Venator

>>> Both you and Maior have pointed out

>>> Here is one specific thing that you can do: I would like to receive a public apology from those who implied that I (and others) were guilty of impiety. At the beginning of this week, and even today from T. Flavius Aquila, we have heard over and over that the Gods themselves

>>> I find this offensive, especially since it now comes out that the lots may not be the will of the Gods. <<<

>>> These charges of

>>> As a pious Roman citizen, I ask you to show

----- Original Message -----
From: "Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator" <famila.ulleria.venii@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] procedural questions


> Salv Caeca;
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Shoshana Hathaway wrote:
>>
>> Salve, Venator,
>>
>> So, if I understand what you are telling me, you acted as an "agent" for
>> the
>> custodes, by forwarding the results to the Consuls?
>
> Venii: Yes, I think this is a good way of putting this part of the
> matter.
>
>> However, the responsibility for certifying those results still remains
>> with the Consuls, yes?
>>
>> Thanks for this response, BTW.
>>
>> Vale Bene,
>>
>> C. Maria Caeca
>>
>
> I think, with my understanding of the Constitution and Laws, that the
> Consuls do not certify the results as such, it is the Custodes. The
> Consuls, one of whom is the Presiding Magistrate, accept (or not) this
> certification and then report the final results to the rest of the
> "nation."
>
> If the Consuls question the results, they would send them back to the
> "Electoral College."
>
> Then the vote count would be redone by the Diribitors. The Custodes
> would again go over the tallies, align the results to the proper
> Centuries, and break any ties, realigning the results. They then
> report the new, recertified results back to the president, who will,
> along with his colleague accept or reject them, with the applicable
> report to the Cives.
>
> . . .and, you're welcome.
>
> Vale - Venator
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.67/2173 - Release Date: 06/13/09
05:53:00

>
>
> Salvete Nova Romans
>
> Years ago as editor of the Nova Roma newsletter I was vetoed by a Consul. I did not believe it justified but I obeyed because it was his prerogative to do so.
>
> As Consul and Censor I have been vetoed by Tribunes. Again I did not believe the action was justified but again I obeyed.
>
> The time has come for our Consuls to act like Romans and OBEY the veto of the Tribunes and call a new election for Censor.
>
> Valete
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: titus.aquila@...
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:24:04 +0000
> Subject: AW: [Nova-Roma] Intercessio - End of the period allotted for tribuni plebis to state agreement or disagreement.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salve Consul Complutensis,
>
> thank you !
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus has been elected Censor Suffectus by the citizens of Nova Roma and by the will of the Roman Gods (lot decision).
> The intercessio of Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa would act against the will of the people of Nova Roma and would interfere
> with the holy spirit of the lot, guarded by our Roman Gods !
>
> Optime vale
> Titus Flavius Aquila
> Quaestor and former Tribunus Plebis
>
>
>
>
> Von: M.C.C. <complutensis@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 18. Juni 2009, 17:21:15 Uhr
> Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Intercessio - End of the period allotted for tribuni plebis to state agreement or disagreement.
>
>
>
> Marcus Curiatius Complutensis Consul Tribunibus Plebis omnes civibusque SPD
>
>
> Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa has pronounced intercessio in name of the following citizens: Senator Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, Senator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Quintus Valerius Poplicola, and Marcus Valerius Potitus.
>
> This pronouncement is according with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.1.a
>
> Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa has pronounced intercessio "against custodes Marcus Lucretius Agricola and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus and against the consuls Marcus Iulius Severus and Marcus Cornelius Complutensis" .
>
> In accordance with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.1.b the intercessio of the Tribuni must include the official name and office of the magistrate(s) against whose act or acts the intercessio or auxilium has been interposed. The intercessio is invalid because one of the consuls is not member of Gens Cornelia.
>
> In accordance with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.1.c the intercessio of the Tribuni must include the article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the magistrate's act(s).
>
> In accordance with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.2. if the intercessio of a Tribunus Plebis does not include these three elements, the intercessio shall be invalid.
>
> The intercessio of the Tribuni Plebis is invalid.
>
> Curate ut valeatis
>
> M. Curiatius Complutensis
> Consul
>
> PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ aol.com escribió:
>
>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d.
>
> Under the Constitution, the lex Labiena de intercessione, and the lex Didia Gemina de poteste tribunicia--
>
> It has been 72 hours since the following intercessio was issued:
>
> "Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa SPD
>
> 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 action was requested by Senator Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, Senator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Quintus Valerius Poplicola, and Marcus Valerius Potitus.
>
> 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.
>
> The censorship is measured in a 2 year term and cannot be subdivided. Modianus cannot hold the office consecutively.
>
> Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> Tribunus Plebis"
>
> Of the remaining four Tribunes, one has agreed with the intercessio, one has withdrawn his disagreement & thus abstained, and the remaining two have also abstained.
>
> As such, the action which was vetoed shall be allowed to take effect starting immediately.
>
> I call for a new election for Censor to begin within thirty days of this date.
>
> Valete
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ aol.com
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:33 am
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis.
>
> I agree with the intercessio pronounced by Agrippa.
>
> Valete.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ aol.com
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:27 am
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sortilege is not under the sphere of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus because it was not a method that was used by the augurs. Sortilege was found in a number of temples throughout the Roman world (especially Venus nd Fortuna) but I am not sure it was ever used in a temple dedicated to IOM. Now if the ties in the election had been decided by the auspices being taken according to the signs of heaven, the flight of raptor birds, the sound of birds, and by the quadrapeds (horses, dogs, and wolves); then IOM would have been the one to decide the election.
>
> Please be accurate in your posts, Pontifex Maximo, because more than Dii Immortales are watching.
>
> Fl. Galerius Aurelianus
> Pontifex
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marcushoratius <MHoratius@hotmail. com>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> Sent: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 2:38 pm
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> M. Moravius C. Cato s. p. d.
>
> What you said below, that either Consul could have rejected Modianus' candidacy is true. The Custodes could have, as you say, refused to certify his election by some flaw. However, neither the Consules nor the Custodes did. And if the argument is thus that by accepting Modianus as a candidate they erred, then the time to do so would have been within seventy-two hours of the Consul announcing who had been accepted as candidates. Do so after the election was already held is contrary to the law. He must give his reason for why the election process itself, and/or the certification process was flawed. The issue over Modianus' candidacy expired before voting began.
>
> Then, too, you forget who else was involved in this process, for tie votes of the Centuriata were decided by casting lots. Sortition is a matter under the prorogative of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. In the end He is the one who really decided the results. Thus it could be argued that the Tribunus defied not only the will of the People but also the will of the Gods, who apparently did not reject Modianus' candidacy or else They might have cast the lots in your favor.
>
> At any rate, I don't agree that we are left with only one Censor really. If the intercessio stands then there will have to be a new election held. You cannot win by default, Cato, as you gained neither a majority of the Centuriata from the votes of the People, nor by the sortition overseen by the Gods.
>
> If asked, I shall perform an augurium on whether the Gods have indeed accepted Modianus as Censor suffectus to confirm whether They approved of the sortition. It is a matter for the Augurs to consider.
>
> Vale et vade in Deo
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@ .> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Moravio Piscino sal.
> >
> > Salve.
> >
> > Vipsanius' veto says that since the very basis upon which these results are being presented is flawed, and the basis upon which the consuls are accepting them is equally flawed, they cannot be either certified or accepted under our law. The analogy might be drawn between a manufacturer, a parts tester, and an inspector.
> >
> > Say a car is manufactured, and the brakes are faulty. The parts test results miss the flaw and it is passed. An inspector finds the fault in the brakes and returns the car to the manufacturer, saying that the testers were incorrect and that the car in is inherently flawed and cannot be driven. It doesn't matter if the publicity stills are in magazines already, or the ad campaign is in full swing, or even if the manufacturer has received tens of thousands of orders. If the car is flawed it cannot be driven.
> >
> > Certification and acceptance of the results are two more opportunities we have to protect the law of the Respublica; where they failed earlier, the tribunes can uphold the law in this instance. In fact, the custodes could have refused to certify the results on the same basis, that they are flawed by virtue of the candidate's inability to stand for the office. The consuls and praetors have the same opportunity, but it is clearly not in their interests (personal/political , that is, as following the law is demonstrably not within their concept of the well-being of the Respublica) to do so.
> >
> > Right now, by the virtue of the tribune's veto in accordance with our law, we have a sole censor in office, Galerius Paulinus.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Cato
> > >
> > > The only problem with your reasoning here is the discrepency between Agrippa's veto against the actions of magistrates and the reasoning he gave behind it. The reasoning he gave really concerned the candidacy of Modianus, based on an interpretation by Sulla, Gnaeus Caesar, and Potitius as to the meaning of "consecutive. " That was a misinterpretation IMHO. We are nearly six months into the year. The history behind the issue of electing suffecti in Nova Roma, even going back to the time when suffecti were appointed by the Senate, never considered "consecutive" in the way it has been misinterpreted by these few individuals for their own political reasons. The conflict here has nothing to do with the law. None the less...
> > >
> > > If the problem was in the candidacy then a Tribunus Plebis should have vetoed the candidacy before the Comitia met. That is, he could have vetoed the Consul's acceptance of the candidacy of someone he thought unqualified. That would allow other candidates to be reviewed and "certified" by the Consuls as eligible and the Tribuni given an opportunity to review the eligibility of all candidates prior to the Comitia assembling.
> > >
> > > However, Tribunus Agrippa vetoed the certification process conducted by the Custodes after the election. He gave no reason as to why he thought that process of certification was in error. Once the candidates were set, the Comitia having already concluded its voting, the issue of candidacies was over. To veto the Custodes over a candidacy is a non sequiter. So what, I would like to know, did the Tribunus see in error with the certification process itself to overthrow what the People had decided? If the Custodes found no error in the election process of the Comitia itself and therefore legally certified the results, then Agrippa's intercessio is without basis and should be withdrawn.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > > M. Moravius Piscinus
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Cato Galerio Aureliano sal.
> > > >
> > > > Salve.
> > > >
> > > > Your veto is incorrect, as is most of the argument surrounding this issue. Vipsanius Agrippa has not pronounced intercessio against the right of the People to hold or vote in elections, nor did he veto the results themselves (nor could he, as neither the act of voting nor the results of an election are acts of a magistrate). He has issued a veto against the certification of the results by the custodes and the acceptance of the results by the consuls, which *are* acts of magistrates, based on the fact that he believes the results reflect a violation of the Constitution.
> > > >
> > > > In point of fact a tribune *can* stop a vote or an election from happening in the first place - this is the law under Nova Roma and was actually practiced by the ancient Romans - so stopping an election or a vote on legislation is *not* un-Roman in the least. It is the assumption - and application - of current post-Enlightenment political theory that makes this seem "unfair", but the ancient Romans would have recognized it as perfectly valid.
> > > >
> > > > Those who beat the "be Roman, act Roman, follow the Romans" drum should understand that actual ancient Roman political practice was not really in any way democratic or "fair" by contemporary standards.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Vale.
> > > >
> > > > Cato
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Robert Levee <galerius_of_ rome@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve et salvete,
> > > > >
> > > > > "I, Appius Galerius Aurelianus, tribune of the Plebs,
> > > > >
> > > > > In application of the paragraph IV.A.7b.of the Constitution of Nova Roma,
> > > > >
> > > > > Considering the Constitution of Nova Roma and of the laws which applies it and
> > > > > define the powers of the tribunes of the Plebs, especially in case of an intercessio,
> > > > >
> > > > > Considering the message nb 66421 issued in the Forum last Jun 7, 2009 4:32 pm by which
> > > > > Tribune G. Vipsanius Agrippa has pronounced "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",
> > > > >
> > > > > Considering that this intercessio violates the Constitution, and especially its
> > > > > article II, B, 3,
> > > > >
> > > > > Hereby veto the intercession thrown by Tribune G. Vipsanius Agrippa last Jun 7, 2009 4:32 pm."
> > > > >
> > > > > I have quoted the article II, B, 3 of the constitution. There may be other arguments, but this one (the right of Novaromans to take part in elections) is one of the good grounds here, for a tribune should never be eager to make his own voice prevailing on the People's one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale et valete,
> > > > > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> > > > > Tribune of the Plebs
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.
>
>
>
> Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.
>
>
>
> Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.
>

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Shoshana Hathaway wrote:
>
> Salve Venator,
>
> EEK! Mea culpa! I typed consuls and *thought* custodes! Not enough coffee
> to make me functional, apparently, but yes,, I do understand: the custodes
> certify, the Consuls accept and announce, and the process proceeds.
>
> Vale Optime,
> C. Maria Caeca, who *really* hates to embarrass herself in public!
>

That touch of red in your cheeks, it gives you such a healthy glow ,-)

bene vale - Venator

> Lentulus Poplicolae et Catoni sal.
>
> No, it's not true.
>
> Poplicola and Cato, you are wrong in two points:
>
> 1) It was M. Lucretius who added the results of the election, what I did
> it was adjust the format to follow the earlier years' style for indicating
> suffect offices.
>
> This is the history of the page:
>
> http://novaroma.org/vici/index.php?title=Magistrates_MMDCCLXII&diff=prev&oldid=40126
>
> 2) It was done BEFORE THE INTERCESSIO and BEFORE the religious questioning
> of the tie breaking was arisen.
>
> I ask you Poplicola to learn more about a situation before you come out
> attack people with false accusations.
>
> VALE!
> Lentulus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> C. Petronius Q. Valerio s.p.d.,
>
>> Now I am ashamed that I ever did such a thing.
>
> Ok. Take three nails and two boards and make yourself your crucifixion
> kit. You moved me to tears.
>
>> --- In BackAlley@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I just removed Modianus from the "Magistrates" page where he was listed
>> as "Censor Suffectus" by Lentulus. Leaving his name there violates the
>> tribunician intercessio.
>
> Is he C. Equitius Cato allowed to remove something written in a Nova Roman
> public page?
>
> Vale.
> C. Petronius Dexter
>
>

>
>
> > C. Petronius Q. Valerio s.p.d.,
> >
> >> Now I am ashamed that I ever did such a thing.
> >
> > Ok. Take three nails and two boards and make yourself your crucifixion
> > kit. You moved me to tears.
> >
> >> --- In BackAlley@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I just removed Modianus from the "Magistrates" page where he was listed
> >> as "Censor Suffectus" by Lentulus. Leaving his name there violates the
> >> tribunician intercessio.
> >
> > Is he C. Equitius Cato allowed to remove something written in a Nova Roman
> > public page?
> >
> > Vale.
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> >
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio sd;
> let me say this slowly:
>
> the intercessio is invalid and the praetor confirmed its invalidity. Tribunes have great powers, but they cannot make up the law; they must follow it. Otherwise tyranny results.
>
> "When administering the law in accordance with Article IV. A. 7. d. iii of the Constitution, a Tribunus Plebis must adjudicate in accordance with current law and the iurisprudentia established by the Praetor and serve the interests of the Plebs and the citizens of Nova Roma.
>
> The people voted for Modianus as Censor Suffectus, we must now wait to see how the augural problem is resolved. This is a matter of religious law and all Nova Romans respect these issues."
>
> Since you are censor Paulinus, the censor upholds the morals of Rome; the Romans venerated augury as one of their most ancient traditions. I expect you to be an example of showing respect to the augurs.
> vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
>
>
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salvete Nova Romans
> >
> > Years ago as editor of the Nova Roma newsletter I was vetoed by a Consul. I did not believe it justified but I obeyed because it was his prerogative to do so.
> >
> > As Consul and Censor I have been vetoed by Tribunes. Again I did not believe the action was justified but again I obeyed.
> >
> > The time has come for our Consuls to act like Romans and OBEY the veto of the Tribunes and call a new election for Censor.
> >
> > Valete
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > From: titus.aquila@
> > Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:24:04 +0000
> > Subject: AW: [Nova-Roma] Intercessio - End of the period allotted for tribuni plebis to state agreement or disagreement.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Salve Consul Complutensis,
> >
> > thank you !
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus has been elected Censor Suffectus by the citizens of Nova Roma and by the will of the Roman Gods (lot decision).
> > The intercessio of Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa would act against the will of the people of Nova Roma and would interfere
> > with the holy spirit of the lot, guarded by our Roman Gods !
> >
> > Optime vale
> > Titus Flavius Aquila
> > Quaestor and former Tribunus Plebis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: M.C.C. <complutensis@>
> > An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 18. Juni 2009, 17:21:15 Uhr
> > Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Intercessio - End of the period allotted for tribuni plebis to state agreement or disagreement.
> >
> >
> >
> > Marcus Curiatius Complutensis Consul Tribunibus Plebis omnes civibusque SPD
> >
> >
> > Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa has pronounced intercessio in name of the following citizens: Senator Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, Senator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Quintus Valerius Poplicola, and Marcus Valerius Potitus.
> >
> > This pronouncement is according with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.1.a
> >
> > Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa has pronounced intercessio "against custodes Marcus Lucretius Agricola and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus and against the consuls Marcus Iulius Severus and Marcus Cornelius Complutensis" .
> >
> > In accordance with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.1.b the intercessio of the Tribuni must include the official name and office of the magistrate(s) against whose act or acts the intercessio or auxilium has been interposed. The intercessio is invalid because one of the consuls is not member of Gens Cornelia.
> >
> > In accordance with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.1.c the intercessio of the Tribuni must include the article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the magistrate's act(s).
> >
> > In accordance with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.2. if the intercessio of a Tribunus Plebis does not include these three elements, the intercessio shall be invalid.
> >
> > The intercessio of the Tribuni Plebis is invalid.
> >
> > Curate ut valeatis
> >
> > M. Curiatius Complutensis
> > Consul
> >
> > PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ aol.com escribió:
> >
> >
> > Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d.
> >
> > Under the Constitution, the lex Labiena de intercessione, and the lex Didia Gemina de poteste tribunicia--
> >
> > It has been 72 hours since the following intercessio was issued:
> >
> > "Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa SPD
> >
> > 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 action was requested by Senator Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, Senator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Quintus Valerius Poplicola, and Marcus Valerius Potitus.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The censorship is measured in a 2 year term and cannot be subdivided. Modianus cannot hold the office consecutively.
> >
> > Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> > Tribunus Plebis"
> >
> > Of the remaining four Tribunes, one has agreed with the intercessio, one has withdrawn his disagreement & thus abstained, and the remaining two have also abstained.
> >
> > As such, the action which was vetoed shall be allowed to take effect starting immediately.
> >
> > I call for a new election for Censor to begin within thirty days of this date.
> >
> > Valete
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ aol.com
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:33 am
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis.
> >
> > I agree with the intercessio pronounced by Agrippa.
> >
> > Valete.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ aol.com
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:27 am
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sortilege is not under the sphere of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus because it was not a method that was used by the augurs. Sortilege was found in a number of temples throughout the Roman world (especially Venus nd Fortuna) but I am not sure it was ever used in a temple dedicated to IOM. Now if the ties in the election had been decided by the auspices being taken according to the signs of heaven, the flight of raptor birds, the sound of birds, and by the quadrapeds (horses, dogs, and wolves); then IOM would have been the one to decide the election.
> >
> > Please be accurate in your posts, Pontifex Maximo, because more than Dii Immortales are watching.
> >
> > Fl. Galerius Aurelianus
> > Pontifex
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: marcushoratius <MHoratius@hotmail. com>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Sent: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 2:38 pm
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > M. Moravius C. Cato s. p. d.
> >
> > What you said below, that either Consul could have rejected Modianus' candidacy is true. The Custodes could have, as you say, refused to certify his election by some flaw. However, neither the Consules nor the Custodes did. And if the argument is thus that by accepting Modianus as a candidate they erred, then the time to do so would have been within seventy-two hours of the Consul announcing who had been accepted as candidates. Do so after the election was already held is contrary to the law. He must give his reason for why the election process itself, and/or the certification process was flawed. The issue over Modianus' candidacy expired before voting began.
> >
> > Then, too, you forget who else was involved in this process, for tie votes of the Centuriata were decided by casting lots. Sortition is a matter under the prorogative of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. In the end He is the one who really decided the results. Thus it could be argued that the Tribunus defied not only the will of the People but also the will of the Gods, who apparently did not reject Modianus' candidacy or else They might have cast the lots in your favor.
> >
> > At any rate, I don't agree that we are left with only one Censor really. If the intercessio stands then there will have to be a new election held. You cannot win by default, Cato, as you gained neither a majority of the Centuriata from the votes of the People, nor by the sortition overseen by the Gods.
> >
> > If asked, I shall perform an augurium on whether the Gods have indeed accepted Modianus as Censor suffectus to confirm whether They approved of the sortition. It is a matter for the Augurs to consider.
> >
> > Vale et vade in Deo
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@ .> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Moravio Piscino sal.
> > >
> > > Salve.
> > >
> > > Vipsanius' veto says that since the very basis upon which these results are being presented is flawed, and the basis upon which the consuls are accepting them is equally flawed, they cannot be either certified or accepted under our law. The analogy might be drawn between a manufacturer, a parts tester, and an inspector.
> > >
> > > Say a car is manufactured, and the brakes are faulty. The parts test results miss the flaw and it is passed. An inspector finds the fault in the brakes and returns the car to the manufacturer, saying that the testers were incorrect and that the car in is inherently flawed and cannot be driven. It doesn't matter if the publicity stills are in magazines already, or the ad campaign is in full swing, or even if the manufacturer has received tens of thousands of orders. If the car is flawed it cannot be driven.
> > >
> > > Certification and acceptance of the results are two more opportunities we have to protect the law of the Respublica; where they failed earlier, the tribunes can uphold the law in this instance. In fact, the custodes could have refused to certify the results on the same basis, that they are flawed by virtue of the candidate's inability to stand for the office. The consuls and praetors have the same opportunity, but it is clearly not in their interests (personal/political , that is, as following the law is demonstrably not within their concept of the well-being of the Respublica) to do so.
> > >
> > > Right now, by the virtue of the tribune's veto in accordance with our law, we have a sole censor in office, Galerius Paulinus.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve Cato
> > > >
> > > > The only problem with your reasoning here is the discrepency between Agrippa's veto against the actions of magistrates and the reasoning he gave behind it. The reasoning he gave really concerned the candidacy of Modianus, based on an interpretation by Sulla, Gnaeus Caesar, and Potitius as to the meaning of "consecutive. " That was a misinterpretation IMHO. We are nearly six months into the year. The history behind the issue of electing suffecti in Nova Roma, even going back to the time when suffecti were appointed by the Senate, never considered "consecutive" in the way it has been misinterpreted by these few individuals for their own political reasons. The conflict here has nothing to do with the law. None the less...
> > > >
> > > > If the problem was in the candidacy then a Tribunus Plebis should have vetoed the candidacy before the Comitia met. That is, he could have vetoed the Consul's acceptance of the candidacy of someone he thought unqualified. That would allow other candidates to be reviewed and "certified" by the Consuls as eligible and the Tribuni given an opportunity to review the eligibility of all candidates prior to the Comitia assembling.
> > > >
> > > > However, Tribunus Agrippa vetoed the certification process conducted by the Custodes after the election. He gave no reason as to why he thought that process of certification was in error. Once the candidates were set, the Comitia having already concluded its voting, the issue of candidacies was over. To veto the Custodes over a candidacy is a non sequiter. So what, I would like to know, did the Tribunus see in error with the certification process itself to overthrow what the People had decided? If the Custodes found no error in the election process of the Comitia itself and therefore legally certified the results, then Agrippa's intercessio is without basis and should be withdrawn.
> > > >
> > > > Vale
> > > > M. Moravius Piscinus
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato Galerio Aureliano sal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your veto is incorrect, as is most of the argument surrounding this issue. Vipsanius Agrippa has not pronounced intercessio against the right of the People to hold or vote in elections, nor did he veto the results themselves (nor could he, as neither the act of voting nor the results of an election are acts of a magistrate). He has issued a veto against the certification of the results by the custodes and the acceptance of the results by the consuls, which *are* acts of magistrates, based on the fact that he believes the results reflect a violation of the Constitution.
> > > > >
> > > > > In point of fact a tribune *can* stop a vote or an election from happening in the first place - this is the law under Nova Roma and was actually practiced by the ancient Romans - so stopping an election or a vote on legislation is *not* un-Roman in the least. It is the assumption - and application - of current post-Enlightenment political theory that makes this seem "unfair", but the ancient Romans would have recognized it as perfectly valid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Those who beat the "be Roman, act Roman, follow the Romans" drum should understand that actual ancient Roman political practice was not really in any way democratic or "fair" by contemporary standards.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Robert Levee <galerius_of_ rome@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salve et salvete,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "I, Appius Galerius Aurelianus, tribune of the Plebs,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In application of the paragraph IV.A.7b.of the Constitution of Nova Roma,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Considering the Constitution of Nova Roma and of the laws which applies it and
> > > > > > define the powers of the tribunes of the Plebs, especially in case of an intercessio,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Considering the message nb 66421 issued in the Forum last Jun 7, 2009 4:32 pm by which
> > > > > > Tribune G. Vipsanius Agrippa has pronounced "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",
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Considering that this intercessio violates the Constitution, and especially its
> > > > > > article II, B, 3,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hereby veto the intercession thrown by Tribune G. Vipsanius Agrippa last Jun 7, 2009 4:32 pm."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have quoted the article II, B, 3 of the constitution. There may be other arguments, but this one (the right of Novaromans to take part in elections) is one of the good grounds here, for a tribune should never be eager to make his own voice prevailing on the People's one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale et valete,
> > > > > > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> > > > > > Tribune of the Plebs
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.
> >
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
> Salve Maior
>
>
>
> You or any of TPTB using the phrase "but they cannot make up the law;"
>
>
>
> is PRICELESS. Let me say that slowly P R I C E L E S S!
>
>
>
> You have been doing that for years. First with the illegal reinstatement
>
> of a resigned Tribune without an election to the "trials" of Cincinnatus.
>
>
>
> I remain the sole Censor of Nova Roma until a new election is called.
>
>
>
> Vale
>
>
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: rory12001@...
> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 17:56:58 +0000
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: New election for Censor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> M. Hortensia Ti. Galerio sd;
> let me say this slowly:
>
> the intercessio is invalid and the praetor confirmed its invalidity. Tribunes have great powers, but they cannot make up the law; they must follow it. Otherwise tyranny results.
>
> "When administering the law in accordance with Article IV. A. 7. d. iii of the Constitution, a Tribunus Plebis must adjudicate in accordance with current law and the iurisprudentia established by the Praetor and serve the interests of the Plebs and the citizens of Nova Roma.
>
> The people voted for Modianus as Censor Suffectus, we must now wait to see how the augural problem is resolved. This is a matter of religious law and all Nova Romans respect these issues."
>
> Since you are censor Paulinus, the censor upholds the morals of Rome; the Romans venerated augury as one of their most ancient traditions. I expect you to be an example of showing respect to the augurs.
> vale
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
> In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Salvete Nova Romans
> >
> > Years ago as editor of the Nova Roma newsletter I was vetoed by a Consul. I did not believe it justified but I obeyed because it was his prerogative to do so.
> >
> > As Consul and Censor I have been vetoed by Tribunes. Again I did not believe the action was justified but again I obeyed.
> >
> > The time has come for our Consuls to act like Romans and OBEY the veto of the Tribunes and call a new election for Censor.
> >
> > Valete
> >
> > Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > From: titus.aquila@
> > Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:24:04 +0000
> > Subject: AW: [Nova-Roma] Intercessio - End of the period allotted for tribuni plebis to state agreement or disagreement.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Salve Consul Complutensis,
> >
> > thank you !
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus has been elected Censor Suffectus by the citizens of Nova Roma and by the will of the Roman Gods (lot decision).
> > The intercessio of Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa would act against the will of the people of Nova Roma and would interfere
> > with the holy spirit of the lot, guarded by our Roman Gods !
> >
> > Optime vale
> > Titus Flavius Aquila
> > Quaestor and former Tribunus Plebis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: M.C.C. <complutensis@>
> > An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 18. Juni 2009, 17:21:15 Uhr
> > Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Intercessio - End of the period allotted for tribuni plebis to state agreement or disagreement.
> >
> >
> >
> > Marcus Curiatius Complutensis Consul Tribunibus Plebis omnes civibusque SPD
> >
> >
> > Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa has pronounced intercessio in name of the following citizens: Senator Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, Senator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Quintus Valerius Poplicola, and Marcus Valerius Potitus.
> >
> > This pronouncement is according with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.1.a
> >
> > Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa has pronounced intercessio "against custodes Marcus Lucretius Agricola and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus and against the consuls Marcus Iulius Severus and Marcus Cornelius Complutensis" .
> >
> > In accordance with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.1.b the intercessio of the Tribuni must include the official name and office of the magistrate(s) against whose act or acts the intercessio or auxilium has been interposed. The intercessio is invalid because one of the consuls is not member of Gens Cornelia.
> >
> > In accordance with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.1.c the intercessio of the Tribuni must include the article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the magistrate's act(s).
> >
> > In accordance with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.2. if the intercessio of a Tribunus Plebis does not include these three elements, the intercessio shall be invalid.
> >
> > The intercessio of the Tribuni Plebis is invalid.
> >
> > Curate ut valeatis
> >
> > M. Curiatius Complutensis
> > Consul
> >
> > PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ aol.com escribió:
> >
> >
> > Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d.
> >
> > Under the Constitution, the lex Labiena de intercessione, and the lex Didia Gemina de poteste tribunicia--
> >
> > It has been 72 hours since the following intercessio was issued:
> >
> > "Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa SPD
> >
> > 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 action was requested by Senator Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, Senator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Quintus Valerius Poplicola, and Marcus Valerius Potitus.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > The censorship is measured in a 2 year term and cannot be subdivided. Modianus cannot hold the office consecutively.
> >
> > Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
> > Tribunus Plebis"
> >
> > Of the remaining four Tribunes, one has agreed with the intercessio, one has withdrawn his disagreement & thus abstained, and the remaining two have also abstained.
> >
> > As such, the action which was vetoed shall be allowed to take effect starting immediately.
> >
> > I call for a new election for Censor to begin within thirty days of this date.
> >
> > Valete
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ aol.com
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:33 am
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis.
> >
> > I agree with the intercessio pronounced by Agrippa.
> >
> > Valete.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ aol.com
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:27 am
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sortilege is not under the sphere of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus because it was not a method that was used by the augurs. Sortilege was found in a number of temples throughout the Roman world (especially Venus nd Fortuna) but I am not sure it was ever used in a temple dedicated to IOM. Now if the ties in the election had been decided by the auspices being taken according to the signs of heaven, the flight of raptor birds, the sound of birds, and by the quadrapeds (horses, dogs, and wolves); then IOM would have been the one to decide the election.
> >
> > Please be accurate in your posts, Pontifex Maximo, because more than Dii Immortales are watching.
> >
> > Fl. Galerius Aurelianus
> > Pontifex
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: marcushoratius <MHoratius@hotmail. com>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
> > Sent: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 2:38 pm
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > M. Moravius C. Cato s. p. d.
> >
> > What you said below, that either Consul could have rejected Modianus' candidacy is true. The Custodes could have, as you say, refused to certify his election by some flaw. However, neither the Consules nor the Custodes did. And if the argument is thus that by accepting Modianus as a candidate they erred, then the time to do so would have been within seventy-two hours of the Consul announcing who had been accepted as candidates. Do so after the election was already held is contrary to the law. He must give his reason for why the election process itself, and/or the certification process was flawed. The issue over Modianus' candidacy expired before voting began.
> >
> > Then, too, you forget who else was involved in this process, for tie votes of the Centuriata were decided by casting lots. Sortition is a matter under the prorogative of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. In the end He is the one who really decided the results. Thus it could be argued that the Tribunus defied not only the will of the People but also the will of the Gods, who apparently did not reject Modianus' candidacy or else They might have cast the lots in your favor.
> >
> > At any rate, I don't agree that we are left with only one Censor really. If the intercessio stands then there will have to be a new election held. You cannot win by default, Cato, as you gained neither a majority of the Centuriata from the votes of the People, nor by the sortition overseen by the Gods.
> >
> > If asked, I shall perform an augurium on whether the Gods have indeed accepted Modianus as Censor suffectus to confirm whether They approved of the sortition. It is a matter for the Augurs to consider.
> >
> > Vale et vade in Deo
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@ .> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Moravio Piscino sal.
> > >
> > > Salve.
> > >
> > > Vipsanius' veto says that since the very basis upon which these results are being presented is flawed, and the basis upon which the consuls are accepting them is equally flawed, they cannot be either certified or accepted under our law. The analogy might be drawn between a manufacturer, a parts tester, and an inspector.
> > >
> > > Say a car is manufactured, and the brakes are faulty. The parts test results miss the flaw and it is passed. An inspector finds the fault in the brakes and returns the car to the manufacturer, saying that the testers were incorrect and that the car in is inherently flawed and cannot be driven. It doesn't matter if the publicity stills are in magazines already, or the ad campaign is in full swing, or even if the manufacturer has received tens of thousands of orders. If the car is flawed it cannot be driven.
> > >
> > > Certification and acceptance of the results are two more opportunities we have to protect the law of the Respublica; where they failed earlier, the tribunes can uphold the law in this instance. In fact, the custodes could have refused to certify the results on the same basis, that they are flawed by virtue of the candidate's inability to stand for the office. The consuls and praetors have the same opportunity, but it is clearly not in their interests (personal/political , that is, as following the law is demonstrably not within their concept of the well-being of the Respublica) to do so.
> > >
> > > Right now, by the virtue of the tribune's veto in accordance with our law, we have a sole censor in office, Galerius Paulinus.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve Cato
> > > >
> > > > The only problem with your reasoning here is the discrepency between Agrippa's veto against the actions of magistrates and the reasoning he gave behind it. The reasoning he gave really concerned the candidacy of Modianus, based on an interpretation by Sulla, Gnaeus Caesar, and Potitius as to the meaning of "consecutive. " That was a misinterpretation IMHO. We are nearly six months into the year. The history behind the issue of electing suffecti in Nova Roma, even going back to the time when suffecti were appointed by the Senate, never considered "consecutive" in the way it has been misinterpreted by these few individuals for their own political reasons. The conflict here has nothing to do with the law. None the less...
> > > >
> > > > If the problem was in the candidacy then a Tribunus Plebis should have vetoed the candidacy before the Comitia met. That is, he could have vetoed the Consul's acceptance of the candidacy of someone he thought unqualified. That would allow other candidates to be reviewed and "certified" by the Consuls as eligible and the Tribuni given an opportunity to review the eligibility of all candidates prior to the Comitia assembling.
> > > >
> > > > However, Tribunus Agrippa vetoed the certification process conducted by the Custodes after the election. He gave no reason as to why he thought that process of certification was in error. Once the candidates were set, the Comitia having already concluded its voting, the issue of candidacies was over. To veto the Custodes over a candidacy is a non sequiter. So what, I would like to know, did the Tribunus see in error with the certification process itself to overthrow what the People had decided? If the Custodes found no error in the election process of the Comitia itself and therefore legally certified the results, then Agrippa's intercessio is without basis and should be withdrawn.
> > > >
> > > > Vale
> > > > M. Moravius Piscinus
> > > >
> > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato Galerio Aureliano sal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Salve.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your veto is incorrect, as is most of the argument surrounding this issue. Vipsanius Agrippa has not pronounced intercessio against the right of the People to hold or vote in elections, nor did he veto the results themselves (nor could he, as neither the act of voting nor the results of an election are acts of a magistrate). He has issued a veto against the certification of the results by the custodes and the acceptance of the results by the consuls, which *are* acts of magistrates, based on the fact that he believes the results reflect a violation of the Constitution.
> > > > >
> > > > > In point of fact a tribune *can* stop a vote or an election from happening in the first place - this is the law under Nova Roma and was actually practiced by the ancient Romans - so stopping an election or a vote on legislation is *not* un-Roman in the least. It is the assumption - and application - of current post-Enlightenment political theory that makes this seem "unfair", but the ancient Romans would have recognized it as perfectly valid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Those who beat the "be Roman, act Roman, follow the Romans" drum should understand that actual ancient Roman political practice was not really in any way democratic or "fair" by contemporary standards.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Vale.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cato
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Robert Levee <galerius_of_ rome@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Salve et salvete,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "I, Appius Galerius Aurelianus, tribune of the Plebs,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In application of the paragraph IV.A.7b.of the Constitution of Nova Roma,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Considering the Constitution of Nova Roma and of the laws which applies it and
> > > > > > define the powers of the tribunes of the Plebs, especially in case of an intercessio,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Considering the message nb 66421 issued in the Forum last Jun 7, 2009 4:32 pm by which
> > > > > > Tribune G. Vipsanius Agrippa has pronounced "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",
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Considering that this intercessio violates the Constitution, and especially its
> > > > > > article II, B, 3,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hereby veto the intercession thrown by Tribune G. Vipsanius Agrippa last Jun 7, 2009 4:32 pm."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have quoted the article II, B, 3 of the constitution. There may be other arguments, but this one (the right of Novaromans to take part in elections) is one of the good grounds here, for a tribune should never be eager to make his own voice prevailing on the People's one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vale et valete,
> > > > > > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> > > > > > Tribune of the Plebs
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.
> >
>

> I remain the sole Censor of Nova Roma until a new election is called.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Petronius Dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius T. Paulino s.p.d.,
>
> > I remain the sole Censor of Nova Roma until a new election is called.
>
> I voted, as many citizens, for a new election which was called by the consul and the winner of this election is Modianus. You do not remember?
>
> Vale
> C. Petronius Dexter
>

Salvete Nova Romans
 
Years ago as editor of the Nova Roma newsletter I was vetoed by a Consul. I did not believe it justified but I obeyed because it was his prerogative to do so.
 
As Consul and Censor I have been vetoed by Tribunes. Again I did not believe the action was justified but again I obeyed.
 
The time has come for our Consuls to act like Romans and OBEY the veto of the Tribunes and call a new election for Censor.
 
Valete
 
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

 

---

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
From: titus.aquila@ yahoo.de
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:24:04 +0000
Subject: AW: [Nova-Roma] Intercessio - End of the period allotted for tribuni plebis to state agreement or disagreement.

Salve Consul Complutensis,

 

thank you !

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus has been elected Censor Suffectus by the citizens of Nova Roma and by the will of the Roman Gods (lot decision).

The intercessio of Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa would act against the will of the people of Nova Roma and would interfere

with the holy spirit of the lot, guarded by our Roman Gods !

 

Optime vale

Titus Flavius Aquila

Quaestor and former Tribunus Plebis

---

Von: M.C.C. <complutensis@ gmail.com>
An: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Gesendet: Donnerstag, den 18. Juni 2009, 17:21:15 Uhr
Betreff: Re: [Nova-Roma] Intercessio - End of the period allotted for tribuni plebis to state agreement or disagreement.

Marcus Curiatius Complutensis Consul Tribunibus Plebis omnes civibusque SPD


Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa has pronounced intercessio in name of the following citizens: Senator Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, Senator Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, Quintus Valerius Poplicola, and Marcus Valerius Potitus.

This pronouncement is according with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.1.a

Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa has pronounced intercessio "against custodes Marcus Lucretius Agricola and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus and against the consuls Marcus Iulius Severus and Marcus Cornelius Complutensis" . 

In accordance with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.1.b the intercessio of the Tribuni must include the official name and office of the magistrate(s) against whose act or acts the intercessio or auxilium has been interposed. The intercessio is invalid because one of the consuls is not member of Gens Cornelia.

In accordance with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.1.c the intercessio of the Tribuni must include the article(s) of the Constitution or the leges violated by the magistrate's act(s).

In accordance with the Lex Didia Gemina de potestate tribunicia II.A.2. if the intercessio of a Tribunus Plebis does not include these three elements, the intercessio shall be invalid.

The intercessio of  the Tribuni Plebis is invalid.

Curate ut valeatis

M. Curiatius Complutensis
Consul

PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ aol.com escribió:

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis s.p.d.

Under the Constitution, the lex Labiena de intercessione, and the lex Didia Gemina de poteste tribunicia--

It has been 72 hours since the following intercessio was issued: 

"Tribunus Plebis Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa SPD

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

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.

The censorship is measured in a 2 year term and cannot be subdivided. Modianus cannot hold the office consecutively.

Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa
Tribunus Plebis"

Of the remaining four Tribunes, one has agreed with the intercessio, one has withdrawn his disagreement & thus abstained, and the remaining two have also abstained.

As such, the action which was vetoed shall be allowed to take effect starting immediately.

I call for a new election for Censor to begin within thirty days of this date.

Valete



-----Original Message-----
From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ aol.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:33 am
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio!

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus Tribunus Plebis.

I agree with the intercessio pronounced by Agrippa.

Valete.


-----Original Message-----
From: PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@ aol.com
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:27 am
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio!

Sortilege is not under the sphere of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus because it was not a method that was used by the augurs.  Sortilege was found in a number of temples throughout the Roman world (especially Venus nd Fortuna) but I am not sure it was ever used in a temple dedicated to IOM.  Now if the ties in the election had been decided by the auspices being taken according to the signs of heaven, the flight of raptor birds, the sound of birds, and by the quadrapeds (horses, dogs, and wolves); then IOM would have been the one to decide the election.

Please be accurate in your posts, Pontifex Maximo, because more than Dii Immortales are watching.

Fl. Galerius Aurelianus
Pontifex


-----Original Message-----
From: marcushoratius <MHoratius@hotmail. com>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com
Sent: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 2:38 pm
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Intercessio!

M. Moravius C. Cato s. p. d.

What you said below, that either Consul could have rejected Modianus' candidacy is true. The Custodes could have, as you say, refused to certify his election by some flaw. However, neither the Consules nor the Custodes did. And if the argument is thus that by accepting Modianus as a candidate they erred, then the time to do so would have been within seventy-two hours of the Consul announcing who had been accepted as candidates. Do so after the election was already held is contrary to the law. He must give his reason for why the election process itself, and/or the certification process was flawed. The issue over Modianus' candidacy expired before voting began.

Then, too, you forget who else was involved in this process, for tie votes of the Centuriata were decided by casting lots. Sortition is a matter under the prorogative of Jupiter Optimus Maximus. In the end He is the one who really decided the results. Thus it could be argued that the Tribunus defied not only the will of the People but also the will of the Gods, who apparently did not reject Modianus' candidacy or else They might have cast the lots in your favor.

At any rate, I don't agree that we are left with only one Censor really. If the intercessio stands then there will have to be a new election held. You cannot win by default, Cato, as you gained neither a majority of the Centuriata from the votes of the People, nor by the sortition overseen by the Gods.

If asked, I shall perform an augurium on whether the Gods have indeed accepted Modianus as Censor suffectus to confirm whether They approved of the sortition. It is a matter for the Augurs to consider.

Vale et vade in Deo

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@.. .> wrote:
>
> Cato Moravio Piscino sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> Vipsanius' veto says that since the very basis upon which these results are being presented is flawed, and the basis upon which the consuls are accepting them is equally flawed, they cannot be either certified or accepted under our law. The analogy might be drawn between a manufacturer, a parts tester, and an inspector.
>
> Say a car is manufactured, and the brakes are faulty. The parts test results miss the flaw and it is passed. An inspector finds the fault in the brakes and returns the car to the manufacturer, saying that the testers were incorrect and that the car in is inherently flawed and cannot be driven. It doesn't matter if the publicity stills are in magazines already, or the ad campaign is in full swing, or even if the manufacturer has received tens of thousands of orders. If the car is flawed it cannot be driven.
>
> Certification and acceptance of the results are two more opportunities we have to protect the law of the Respublica; where they failed earlier, the tribunes can uphold the law in this instance. In fact, the custodes could have refused to certify the results on the same basis, that they are flawed by virtue of the candidate's inability to stand for the office. The consuls and praetors have the same opportunity, but it is clearly not in their interests (personal/political , that is, as following the law is demonstrably not within their concept of the well-being of the Respublica) to do so.
>
> Right now, by the virtue of the tribune's veto in accordance with our law, we have a sole censor in office, Galerius Paulinus.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "marcushoratius" <MHoratius@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Cato
> >
> > The only problem with your reasoning here is the discrepency between Agrippa's veto against the actions of magistrates and the reasoning he gave behind it. The reasoning he gave really concerned the candidacy of Modianus, based on an interpretation by Sulla, Gnaeus Caesar, and Potitius as to the meaning of "consecutive. " That was a misinterpretation IMHO. We are nearly six months into the year. The history behind the issue of electing suffecti in Nova Roma, even going back to the time when suffecti were appointed by the Senate, never considered "consecutive" in the way it has been misinterpreted by these few individuals for their own political reasons. The conflict here has nothing to do with the law. None the less...
> >
> > If the problem was in the candidacy then a Tribunus Plebis should have vetoed the candidacy before the Comitia met. That is, he could have vetoed the Consul's acceptance of the candidacy of someone he thought unqualified. That would allow other candidates to be reviewed and "certified" by the Consuls as eligible and the Tribuni given an opportunity to review the eligibility of all candidates prior to the Comitia assembling.
> >
> > However, Tribunus Agrippa vetoed the certification process conducted by the Custodes after the election. He gave no reason as to why he thought that process of certification was in error. Once the candidates were set, the Comitia having already concluded its voting, the issue of candidacies was over. To veto the Custodes over a candidacy is a non sequiter. So what, I would like to know, did the Tribunus see in error with the certification process itself to overthrow what the People had decided? If the Custodes found no error in the election process of the Comitia itself and therefore legally certified the results, then Agrippa's intercessio is without basis and should be withdrawn.
> >
> > Vale
> > M. Moravius Piscinus
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Galerio Aureliano sal.
> > >
> > > Salve.
> > >
> > > Your veto is incorrect, as is most of the argument surrounding this issue. Vipsanius Agrippa has not pronounced intercessio against the right of the People to hold or vote in elections, nor did he veto the results themselves (nor could he, as neither the act of voting nor the results of an election are acts of a magistrate). He has issued a veto against the certification of the results by the custodes and the acceptance of the results by the consuls, which *are* acts of magistrates, based on the fact that he believes the results reflect a violation of the Constitution.
> > >
> > > In point of fact a tribune *can* stop a vote or an election from happening in the first place - this is the law under Nova Roma and was actually practiced by the ancient Romans - so stopping an election or a vote on legislation is *not* un-Roman in the least. It is the assumption - and application - of current post-Enlightenment political theory that makes this seem "unfair", but the ancient Romans would have recognized it as perfectly valid.
> > >
> > > Those who beat the "be Roman, act Roman, follow the Romans" drum should understand that actual ancient Roman political practice was not really in any way democratic or "fair" by contemporary standards.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale.
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Robert Levee <galerius_of_ rome@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Salve et salvete,
> > > >
> > > > "I, Appius Galerius Aurelianus, tribune of the Plebs,
> > > >
> > > > In application of the paragraph IV.A.7b.of the Constitution of Nova Roma,
> > > >
> > > > Considering the Constitution of Nova Roma and of the laws which applies it and
> > > > define the powers of the tribunes of the Plebs, especially in case of an intercessio,
> > > >
> > > > Considering the message nb 66421 issued in the Forum last Jun 7, 2009 4:32 pm by which
> > > > Tribune G. Vipsanius Agrippa has pronounced "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",
> > > >
> > > > Considering that this intercessio violates the Constitution, and especially its
> > > > article II, B, 3,
> > > >
> > > > Hereby veto the intercession thrown by Tribune G. Vipsanius Agrippa last Jun 7, 2009 4:32 pm."
> > > >
> > > > I have quoted the article II, B, 3 of the constitution. There may be other arguments, but this one (the right of Novaromans to take part in elections) is one of the good grounds here, for a tribune should never be eager to make his own voice prevailing on the People's one.
> > > >
> > > > Vale et valete,
> > > > Ap.Galerius Aurelianus
> > > > Tribune of the Plebs
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

---

Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.

---

Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.

---

Dell Inspiron 15 Laptop: Now in 6 vibrant colors! Shop Dell's full line of laptops.

--
M. Curiatius Complutensis

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jesse Corradino <woden66@...> wrote:
>
>
> Yah, I thought he stirs up all this discord amongst Nova Romans just so he has an opportunity to express his obsession with reconstructionist, bureaucratic procedures. In the time I've been a member of this list all I've read about is either Cato sueing Nova Roma for something that was embarassingly revealed to be a complete non-sequitor and, while that was conveniently forgotten about, he ran for office in a popular election to collect votes from people he intended to sue, lost said election, and is now dragging this into a potential schism. It certainly isn't fair to say that he has no interests in Roman things when you bear in mind the history of intrigues and warfare in ancient Rome.
>
>
>

> Well, mi Petroni, we know each other because we spent three days together in my province during the Floralia Carnival. You are a wonderful person.

> But we have never met Q. Poplicola, so we do not really know who and what kind of person he is in the real life. I give him the benefit of doubt that he is sincerely angry with me for some unknown reason, and I accept that. (It just would be so much better if he did not lie about me! >sigh<)

> No one can stop me, however, calling him a friend, though an angry friend. :)

> We in Nova Roma are all friends, even if we are angry with each other. That is comradeship, that is the power of keeping together.

>
> Maior also claimed that I have made fun of the Holocaust here in the Forum to belittle her "murdered family", so what she says can generally be taken with a piece of salt the size of Delaware.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Kirsteen Wright <kirsteen.falconsfan@> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/13/09, Maior <rory12001@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato; the ad hominem is the refuge of the man without an argument. All
> > > lawyers are taught this.
> > >
> > > I get it, you have no interest in reading about the Constitution of the
> > > Roman Republic, you have no interest in Roman history, culture, laws or
> > > virtues. You have no interest in the gods. You've said all this...
> >
> >
> > Maior, I've been a citizen for over 6 years and I've never once come across
> > a post where Cato says any of this. Indeed this attitude you claim he has
> > would seem contrary to his posts that I've read. Can you show me which posts
> > I've so obviously missed.
> >
> > Flavia Lucilla Merula
> >
>

On 6/14/09, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

Cato;
     I can't believe what you wrote. You have no shame, no conscience, no morality.

Well Maior, you wrote  "I get it, you have no interest in reading about the Constitution of the
Roman Republic, you have no interest in Roman history, culture, laws or virtues. You have no interest in the gods. You've said all this...

And I asked you to provide me with the posts where he says this as I can't find any. You've totally ignored my post. So can you prove he said this or are you just defaming him?

Flavia Lucilla Merula

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Shoshana Hathaway" <shoshanahathaway@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I have had 3 instructive, and extremely pleasant, experiences this weekend.
> Two were the result of private emails, and one of time well spent in the
> chat room.
>
> First, a citizen of NR, with whom I have virtually nothing in common, and
> who probably considers me a flibbertigibbet of the lowest degree, took the
> time to answer some questions I raised here, clearly, concisely, and most
> civilly. This person even took the time to answer questions issuing from
> the first message, and allowed me to clarify some matters in my own mind, by
> correcting my re-statements. We will probably never agree on most things,
> but that doesn't matter. This citizen, by becoming available to me in a
> personal way, has become, for me a *person* and not just a name, and
> although I'm sure it is irrelevant, gained a significant measure of my
> respect.
>
> The 2nd, also through private emails, was more personal, and broadened and
> deepened my understanding of yet another of our citizens, again, becoming
> even more of a person to me (like a portrait slowly being unveiled), and, by
> doing so, has gained, if desired, not just my respect and esteem (already
> there) but my friendship, as well.
>
> The 3rd was a long chat with someone I already consider a friend, in chat,
> about everything from on line poker to the limbic brain, poetry, music, and
> many other things, even NR, though briefly. That experience was just plain
> delightful.
>
> So why am I telling you all this irrelevant stuff? Because it makes a
> point. It is a point I've made before, and it is a point I will keep
> making, again and again. Most of us will never meet one another. As much
> as I would love to go have dinner with, say, Livia Plauta, and let her
> introduce me to wonderful Italian food, or pet the kittens, or get to know
> many of you, that isn't going to happen. However, that does *not* mean that
> I don't want to get to know you, on a more personal basis. I am not saying
> that I don't form impressions, of course I do. Even watching how people
> conduct ... debates ... can be most instructive, but it isn't enough.
>
> In roma Antiqua, politicians could conduct verbal battles in the Senate
> which would shock us moderns. In fact, I read somewhere that if someone
> gave a really well constructed diatribe against another, even the victim
> might applaud him with true appreciation and enthusiasm, because of the
> quality of the diatribe. Then, the 2 combatants might brawl in the forum,
> or they might go to the home of one or another, and have a lively dinner,
> drink some wine, and recap the day! They could do this because they knew
> one another, first as individuals, and then as rivals. To be blunt, we need
> to find a way to do this, if we are to become a cohesive community. The
> chat is available, but many citizens see it as a place where conspiracies
> are hatched and planned, and dominated by a specific faction. It isn't, but
> if that is the perception, there is nothing I, or anyone else can do to
> change it. So, I urge the citizens and magistrates to work on creating ways
> for informal contact, so that we can become more than names on an email
> message.
>
> Respectfully,
> C. Maria Caeca
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Cato;
> I can't believe what you wrote. You have no shame, no conscience, no morality.
> Maior


I'm surprised you can't believe it. Here are your words:

"Gods! I'm crying over your hurt feelings, especially when you mention bitchy remarks about me and the Holocaust on the ML knowing my father's family were murdered." - Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:23 pm

So where is the shame, the morality, the conscience in claiming that I have mocked the Holocaust here in the Forum (the ML) - or anywhere, for that matter - when it is a lie?

I even vowed to resign forever from Nova Roma if you could prove your claim with the slightest example.

Vale,

Cato

>
> When I was in Romania, then-Consul Sabinus received us in his home, and
> assured me anytime I come to Bucharest I (and any of us) are welcome in
> his house. This same is true about my home. I know the same is true
> about Livia's home and about many Nova Romans.
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Livia omnibus sal.
> >
> > When I was in Romania, then-Consul Sabinus received us in his home, and
> > assured me anytime I come to Bucharest I (and any of us) are welcome in
> > his house. This same is true about my home. I know the same is true
> > about Livia's home and about many Nova Romans.
> >
>
> That's definitely true about my home, which is open to all Nova Romans who wish to come to Budapest, even to those who are in the habit of insulting me.
>
> And no, they don't have to worry about my collection of assorted weapons. I'm not in the habit of killing guests.
>
> Seriously, for me Nova Roma is a community, and I feel myself bound in brotherhoos (sisterhood) to all its members.
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:30 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Nova Roman Friendship


> Cato omnibus in foro SPD
>
> Salvete!
>
> The same is, of course, true of anyone visiting NYC. I am actually not an
> ogre! Be forewarned that I don't cook at all (I use my kitchen as a
> walk-in closet with a refrigerator), but any and all Nova Romans are more
> than welcome. I *do* have a windowsill-full of wine and champagne...
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "livia_plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>>
>> Livia omnibus sal.
>> >
>> > When I was in Romania, then-Consul Sabinus received us in his home, and
>> > assured me anytime I come to Bucharest I (and any of us) are welcome in
>> > his house. This same is true about my home. I know the same is true
>> > about Livia's home and about many Nova Romans.
>> >
>>
>> That's definitely true about my home, which is open to all Nova Romans
>> who wish to come to Budapest, even to those who are in the habit of
>> insulting me.
>>
>> And no, they don't have to worry about my collection of assorted weapons.
>> I'm not in the habit of killing guests.
>>
>> Seriously, for me Nova Roma is a community, and I feel myself bound in
>> brotherhoos (sisterhood) to all its members.
>>
>> Optime valete,
>> Livia
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>


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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.68/2175 - Release Date: 06/14/09
05:53:00

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Shoshana Hathaway" <shoshanahathaway@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete,
> and well aged cookies in unlikely places, too. Do you sponsor treasure
> hunts for guests Cato?
>
> C. Maria Caeca

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Equitius Cato" <mlcinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Maiori sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Maior" <rory12001@> wrote:
> >
> > Cato;
> > I can't believe what you wrote. You have no shame, no conscience, no morality.
> > Maior
>
>
> I'm surprised you can't believe it. Here are your words:
>
> "Gods! I'm crying over your hurt feelings, especially when you mention bitchy remarks about me and the Holocaust on the ML knowing my father's family were murdered." - Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:23 pm
>
> So where is the shame, the morality, the conscience in claiming that I have mocked the Holocaust here in the Forum (the ML) - or anywhere, for that matter - when it is a lie?
>
> I even vowed to resign forever from Nova Roma if you could prove your claim with the slightest example.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>

> Lentule, you and Popillia are certainly welcome to use my apt as base camp - just remember that my entire apt is smaller than most people's bathrooms.
>

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

From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 10:49 AM

Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: Nova Roman Friendship

Salve, Ti. Pauline censor! Thank you very much for offering this. You honour me. Now we have already two places where to stay during our time in New World :-) Vale! Lentulus --- Dom 14/6/09, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> ha scritto: Salvete   If Lentule and Popillia can come to Ny for our Mediatlantica get-together  in July their accommodations will be provided for.   Valete   Paulinus  To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com From: mlcinnyc@gmail. com Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:58:58 +0000 Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Nova Roman Friendship Cato Cornelio Lentulo Mariae Caecae SPD Salvete! I have cleaned my apartment so there are fewer hidden treasures now... but it's not like I *live* on found food - I just come home from parties or whatever and put down whatever I'm carrying and...forget. The rediscovery is generally pleasant as everyone I know knows that I cannot be trusted with perishables. Of course, there was the time I found a tupperware container of what had evolved from a simple roast chicken under my big comfy chair. It's now in a lab at Columbia. I *live* on delivery/takeout and restaurant food :) Lentule, you and Popillia are certainly welcome to use my apt as base camp - just remember that my entire apt is smaller than most people's bathrooms. Valete! Cato --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, "Shoshana Hathaway" <shoshanahathaway@ ...> wrote: > > Salvete, > and well aged cookies in unlikely places, too. Do you sponsor treasure > hunts for guests Cato? > > C. Maria Caeca

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.68/2175 - Release Date: 06/14/09 05:53:00