--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Vestinia, called Vesta" <optia_vesta@...> wrote:
>
> I have my own personal rant about that Museum....
>
> It usually involves the money wasted making space for the Elgin Marbles (which Greece will never pry out of the Brits -- never) and the subsequent lack of funding for the excavations at Thera
>
> I greedily want Thera excavated. I want to read Minoan -- and if anything survived that gives us a translation, it's most likely to be there. I want to see new frescos. I want to see if any bodies are found. I want to see dishes and plates and hanging gardens and re-created streets....
>
> Acropolis. Bah.
>
> Vestinia, disgruntled Minoan aficiando
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...> wrote:
>
>
> Ex Officio
>
> EDICTVM CENSORIVM
>
> Censor Tiberius Galerius Paulinus quiritibus salutem plurimam dicunt.
>
> It would seem that all constitutional routes have been exhausted in the quest to have a new election for a undisputedly legal Censor. Even the undisputed authority of the Tribunes seems to be at an end.
>
> I still believe there is clear evidence that Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus can not serve in the position of Censor legally and I will never acknowledge Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus as a de jure Censor.
>
> In the interest of Nova Roma moving on I do however acknowledge that
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus is a de facto ("for all intents and purposes") Censor of Nova Roma.
>
> He will be given access to the Censors tools and enrolled as a moderator of those lists under the care of the Censors. From this point forward any scriba he appoints will also be given access to the Censor tools and acknowledged as de facto scriba.
>
> Datum sub manibus nostris a.d. IX Kal. Quint. MMDCCLXII a.u.c.
>
> This edict takes effect immediately.
>
> Given under my hand this twenty-third day of June 2762 A.U.C. in the
> consulships of M. Curiatius and M. Iulius.
>
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
> Censor
>

On Jun 22, 2009, at 8:21 PM, Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:

> Cato Iunio Palladio omnibusque in senatu SPD
>
> Salvete, conscripti.
>
> For a moment, please put aside pre-conceived notions about who is
> doing what to
> whom and why, and consider what I have to say in the interests of
> what is best
> for the Respublica.
>
> We are, I think, at an impasse. We have seen deeper and more violent
> rifts
> growing between factions within our citizenship than I have ever
> seen before.
> Granted, I was not here for the last civil war, but there does not
> need to be
> another.
>
> Fabius Modianus will never be accepted as censor by some. No matter
> how you
> slice it, no matter why you believe one way or the other, this is a
> fact. It is
> fairly undeniable that, had the tribunes vetoed his candidacy during
> the contio,
> he would have been obliged to step down. Our arcane and often
> indecipherable
> leges have made this a three-ring circus. This must stop.
>
> The fact that the consuls ignored at least - at the very least - one
> tribunician
> veto, an event that has never happened in Nova Roma's history, is a
> serious blow
> to their credbility among many more. They have committed several
> violations of
> our law and the laws of our governing act, I believe at first out of
> simple and
> genuine ignorance, then out of stubbornness. This must stop.
>
> The constant harping by some people on both sides that the other
> side is
> inherently evil and villainous and out to destroy the Respublica is
> unwarranted
> and obscene. This must stop.
>
> What do I see a dictator doing?
>
> 1. Separation of our macronational bylaws from our Constitution,
> relieving the
> Respublica of the burden of suffocating between the two.
>
> 2. the repeal of the entire tabularium. Yes, every single law we have
> currently should be discarded. A tiny handful are useful in
> practice, and this
> would be dealt with by:
>
> 3. the appointment of a panel of decemviri whose sole job will be to
> draft new
> laws *only* for purposes that are vital to the *internal*
> functioning of the
> government and the People under the guidelines of the Constitution;
> voting,
> magisterial authority, removal of magistrates, and provocatio for
> the People.
> They will have a set period of time providing for comment and
> suggestion - not
> debate - and ratification by the Senate before the end of the
> dictator's term in
> office.
>
> 4. reaching out to those who have left in the past two years to
> offer a new
> place in our Respublica, with no dead weight of history and no
> recriminations.
>
> 5. administering an oath sworn before the entire People from each of
> the
> magistrates currently in office that they will abide by these new
> leges under
> pain of banishment for life.
>
> 6. administering an oath to be sworn to by the entire Senate before
> the whole
> People that no retaliation in the form of legal action within or
> without the
> Respublica will be taken against any magistrate currently in office
> at the
> expiration of their terms in office.
>
> I thought of Venator because he is intelligent, strong, calm,
> unattached to any
> particular faction, and has shown by his speeches that the heart of
> the
> Respublica is in his eyes at all times. He is not given to fits of
> anger or
> recrimination, and I think the State will be safe in his sure and
> careful
> guidance.
>
> Almost every person in this House has these qualities to one extent
> or another,
> but it is the confluence of all of them in Venator that makes him
> almost unique
> among us.
>
> I disagree most determinedly with the course the consuls have taken
> us on, but
> the chance to clear out our mess of a legal system and start off
> without the
> stifling weight of a Constitution that can bring us into conflict with
> macronational law is strong enough to make me willing to stand back
> and give us
> all a second chance.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato

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

From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher

To: NovaRoma-Announce ; Nova-Roma

Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:17 PM

Subject: [NovaRoma-Announce] EDICTVM CENSORIVM

Ex Officio

EDICTVM CENSORIVM 
 
Censor Tiberius Galerius Paulinus quiritibus salutem plurimam dicunt.
 
It would seem that all constitutional routes have been exhausted in the quest to have a new election for a undisputedly legal Censor. Even the undisputed authority of the Tribunes seems to be at an end.
 
I still believe there is clear evidence that Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus can not serve in the position of Censor legally and I will never acknowledge Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus as a de jure Censor.
 
In the interest of Nova Roma moving on I do however acknowledge that
 
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus is a de facto ("for all intents and purposes") Censor of Nova Roma.
 
He will be given access to the Censors tools and enrolled as a moderator of those lists under the care of the Censors. From this point forward any scriba he appoints will also be given access to the Censor tools and acknowledged as de facto scriba.

Datum sub manibus nostris  a.d. IX Kal. Quint. MMDCCLXII a.u.c. 
 
This edict takes effect immediately.

Given under my hand this twenty-third day of June 2762 A.U.C. in the
consulships of M. Curiatius and M. Iulius.
 
Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
Censor

.

On Jun 23, 2009, at 4:58 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:

> Cato Equestriae sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> A senator cannot introduce legislation. Your rant would be better if
> it were based on fact.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "D. Boyle" <deandreaboyle@...> wrote:
>
> Equestria Catoni sal.
>
> So this entire year, as you have posed as the town crier, blowing
> smoke, and yelling "fire", you have not done anything to clean up the
> "mess of a legal system"?
>
> Vale.
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "D. Boyle" <deandreaboyle@...> wrote:
>
> Equestria sal.
>
> I am so tired of Sulla and Cato. I have never seen two more useless
> people. They have accomplished nothing in all these months.
> Completely useless.
>
> Vale.
>

On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:

> Cato Equestriae sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> Is that why you suddenly attack me out of the blue again? You can
> disagree about the need for a dictator, but you didn't have to be
> disagreeable about it. You chose to be, just as you continue to
> choose to be willingly untruthful about what I have done regarding
> our legal system. You've learned much from a certain champion of
> yours.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "D. Boyle" <deandreaboyle@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Equestria sal.
> >
> > I am so tired of Sulla and Cato. I have never seen two more useless
> > people. They have accomplished nothing in all these months.
> > Completely useless.
> >
> > Vale.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "D. Boyle" <deandreaboyle@...> wrote:
>
> Equestria Catoni sal.
>
> It is not an attack. I was simply lamenting about how I had such high
> hopes for the two of you at the beginning of the year. You both
> seemed so interested in cleaning up the laws and I felt it would be a
> productive year on that front as a result of your efforts. Now it is
> obvious that your goal was not at all to help Nova Roma, but instead
> attempt to use it as ammo to gain political advantage and take out
> enemies. When that didn't work, you bring forth the need for a
> dictator to help the "mess of a legal system".
>
> Your interest in this area was in bad faith. I am sorry that I took
> you both seriously.
>
> Vale.

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato Equestriae sal.

Salve.

Ah, I see. Which is why I have spent so much time working on it. Now that makes sense. You don't play the martyr well, and repeating a lie does not make it truth.

LOL "ammo"? "political advantage"? Please, Equestria. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Let me let you in on a little secret: while your friends may intend to use the office of censor to "cleanse" the Respublica, the sole purpose of my standing for it was to help.

When you immediately attribute a negative motive to someone based not on fact or history but on some kind of conspiracy theory, it often reflects the attitude of the one making the charge. When I think something, I say it. I have made my opinion of the situation wrought by your friends the consuls and praetors clearly, publicly, and unequivocably; I have not scurried around in the shadows hatching evil plans for world domination.

What I think has made me some hard and fast enemies, and those are the breaks. Unlike some, I will not change my tune for expediency or some kind of virtual "power" or in hopes that everyone will suddenly want to be my friend.

Let's see if Galerius Paulinus is right. If he is, you can be sure that you will be able to enjoy the sight of me flying from the Tarpeian Rock, pushed by your friends, perhaps even with your help. Then you'll be free of me.

Vale,

Cato

>>>...I will not change my tune for expediency or some kind of

>>>...you can be sure that you will be able to enjoy the sight of me

On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> Cato Equestriae sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> Ah, I see. Which is why I have spent so much time working on it. Now
> that makes sense. You don't play the martyr well, and repeating a
> lie does not make it truth.
>
> LOL "ammo"? "political advantage"? Please, Equestria. Do you have
> any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Let me let you in on a little
> secret: while your friends may intend to use the office of censor to
> "cleanse" the Respublica, the sole purpose of my standing for it was
> to help.
>
> When you immediately attribute a negative motive to someone based
> not on fact or history but on some kind of conspiracy theory, it
> often reflects the attitude of the one making the charge. When I
> think something, I say it. I have made my opinion of the situation
> wrought by your friends the consuls and praetors clearly, publicly,
> and unequivocably; I have not scurried around in the shadows
> hatching evil plans for world domination.
>
> What I think has made me some hard and fast enemies, and those are
> the breaks. Unlike some, I will not change my tune for expediency or
> some kind of virtual "power" or in hopes that everyone will suddenly
> want to be my friend.
>
> Let's see if Galerius Paulinus is right. If he is, you can be sure
> that you will be able to enjoy the sight of me flying from the
> Tarpeian Rock, pushed by your friends, perhaps even with your help.
> Then you'll be free of me.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Steve Moore <astrobear@...> wrote:

“By their fruits you shall know them.”

 

Potitus

On Jun 23, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Steve Moore wrote:

>
> M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD.
>
>
> Several people here have said that Modianus serving illegally as
> Censor is a fait accompli, and that I should just accept that and
> move on.
>
>
>
> My answer is: Why? Why should I let Modianus break the bylaws of
> this organization with impunity? Why should I not call out the
> Consuls for their illegal activities?
>
>
>
> “For the sake of peace, Potitus”—a peace which really is capitulation.
>
>
>
> “For the good of Nova Roma, Potitus”—by allowing thugs to do
> whatever they like with the law.
>
>
>
> I’m sorry for the rough language, but I have posted several thought-
> out posts showing that Modianus holds the office of Censor illegally
> (and by extension that those who enabled him also acted illegally).
>
>
>
> To date, I have yet to hear a reasoned argument from the people who
> brought you this fiasco (the Consuls and Modinaus) as to why I
> should agree to Modianus even as “de facto” Censor.
>
>
>
> If the Consuls are so sure of their legal position, then they should
> be able to lay out the case for a reasonable way. Instead, they have
> offered “hauteur” and bluster.
>
>
>
> Proof to me that Modianus can legally hold the office and that the
> Consuls can legally ignore an intercessio of the Tribunes.
>
>
>
> Now’s your chance—prove me wrong…but don’t expect me to simply
> accept your answer without question because of your “imperium”.
>
>
>
> Potitus

On Jun 23, 2009, at 9:55 AM, David Kling wrote:
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Potito salutem dicit
>
> You're absolutely right, and that is why the centuries voted for me
> in the last election.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Steve Moore <astrobear@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> “By their fruits you shall know them.”
>
>
> Potitus

>
> Equestria Iunia Laeca M. Valerio Potito sal.
>
> 1. The Consuls had the authority to interpret the law\

> 2. Per their interpretation, the law did not disallow Modianus from
> running

> 3. The Tribunes had the authority to interpret the law differently
> and veto the Consuls interpretation

> 4. This veto had to be done prior to the start of the election

> 5. It was not done prior to the start of the election

> 6. Modianus was elected by a large margin by Nova Roma citizens

>
> End of story. Where is your confusion?
>
> Vale.
>
>
>
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Steve Moore wrote:
>
> >
> > M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD.
> >
> >
> > Several people here have said that Modianus serving illegally as
> > Censor is a fait accompli, and that I should just accept that and
> > move on.
> >
> >
> >
> > My answer is: Why? Why should I let Modianus break the bylaws of
> > this organization with impunity? Why should I not call out the
> > Consuls for their illegal activities?
> >
> >
> >
> > "For the sake of peace, Potitus"—a peace which really is capitulation.
> >
> >
> >
> > "For the good of Nova Roma, Potitus"—by allowing thugs to do
> > whatever they like with the law.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry for the rough language, but I have posted several thought-
> > out posts showing that Modianus holds the office of Censor illegally
> > (and by extension that those who enabled him also acted illegally).
> >
> >
> >
> > To date, I have yet to hear a reasoned argument from the people who
> > brought you this fiasco (the Consuls and Modinaus) as to why I
> > should agree to Modianus even as "de facto" Censor.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the Consuls are so sure of their legal position, then they should
> > be able to lay out the case for a reasonable way. Instead, they have
> > offered "hauteur" and bluster.
> >
> >
> >
> > Proof to me that Modianus can legally hold the office and that the
> > Consuls can legally ignore an intercessio of the Tribunes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Now's your chance—prove me wrong…but don't expect me to simply
> > accept your answer without question because of your "imperium".
> >
> >
> >
> > Potitus
>

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM, <PADRUIGTHEUNCLE@...> wrote:

 

 

it would be a lovely compromise if we codified the traditional Roman practice into NR law by making it mandatory that if a Censor resigns or dies in office, his colleague would automatically step down and new elections be held.  It would also be an excellent idea to codify that a citizen can never run or be elected to two consecutive TERMS OF OFFICE as Censor.

Forgive me if this is a stupid question but I'm curious.  If one censor resigned and the other then had to step down, would he be eligible to run immediately and maybe be re-elected to finish his original term of office or would that be classed as a consecutive term?  I just like covering all bases :-)

thank you
Flavia Lucilla Merula

>
> While we are at it, we should also make the traditional Roman practice an NR law so after serving in office for a term, a magistrate has to stay out of office for one year.? This has always worked for me.
>
> Aureliane
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher <spqr753@...>
> To: Nova-Roma <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, Jun 23, 2009 7:05 am
> Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Dulce et decorum est...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salve Q Caecilius Metellus
> ?
> "Who among the magisterial corpus, for the good of Nova Roma, would be willing to step down from their office, to allow a complete re-election?"
> ?
> I would be.
> ?
> In?fact in an effort to resolve the current crisis?I offered to step down if both Consuls and Modianus would do the same. They?turned down the suggestion.
> ?
> Vale
> ?
> Tiberius Galerius Paulinus
>
>
> ?
>
> To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com
> From: q.caecilius.metellus@...
> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:45:55 -0400
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Dulce et decorum est...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus Magistratibus salutem dicit.
>
> Saluete,
>
> Of course, I don't have to demonstrate what an impasse we have made for
> ourselves. We are divided, and divisive; anything acceptable to one side is
> ultimately unacceptable for the other side. Some want a dictator, others
> decemviri, yet others feel it unnecessary. We will not come to peace unless one
> side or the other acquiesces, or unless we make peace for ourselves. So, I wish
> to present an alternative, in the form, presently, of a simple question.
>
> To our magistrates, I ask this one question: Who among the magisterial corpus,
> for the good of Nova Roma, would be willing to step down from their office, to
> allow a complete re-election?
>
> I propose that we all -- consul, praetor, censor, quaestor, tribunus plebis, and
> aedilis -- step away, and help the process of pacification. No one would be
> required to step down prior to whatever day is appointed. We who currently hold
> office may certainly stand for our same office, or for another, as the case may
> be. But in the end, we step aside, and allow peace to come about.
>
> Horace said it is sweet and honourable to die for one's country. I wonder if
> you would go to the length of stepping aside for the sake of Nova Roma.
>
> Di nos Romanos incolumes custodiant.
>
> Quintus Caecilius Metellus Postumianus
>

>
> Salvete Livia Apollinique;
> if we do start building the NR colonia over here in the states, come and stay with me Livia and we'll go together to put it up. And then when it is time to build ones in Europe, I'll come over and help the cives there. In the U.S. this is the tradition of all neighbors helping raise the new barn. And of course we all learn new skills.
> optime valete
> Maior
> >
> > Salve Apolloni,
> >
> > I'm dyong with envy! I'd love to take part in one of your roman martial art trainings. I used to do Iaido, but now I'm doing no sports at all, and I'm terribly unfit.
> >
> > Yours sounds like the sort of thing I would love, specially if there are swords involved. But, pray, what's Hardtac?
> >
> > I wonder what your sources for reconstruction are. So far I had never heard of anyone being able to find sources about greek and roman martial arts, exceps very few images.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Livia
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Omnibus Salvete.
> > >
> > > So I promised my next post was going to be Roman, and I promised Maior that it would be something that I do...so I'll try.
> > >
> > > I have no idea what to talk about. Some of the things I do, well I teach Pankration, weapons combat, Roman diets and cooking, and every now and then Roman construction (though getting limestone tends to be a pain in the hind quarters where I'm at). I teach Greco-Roman wrestling and Roman boxing. Fun thing to consider, Alexander the Great reached India and his men did a lot of hand to hand combat. The irony of the situation is there is ample archaeological and written evidence to support that Alexander's soldiers may have started the martial arts in the east. Pankration moves may have actually be what started Judo, but it's one of those we really can't tell sort of situations.
> > >
> > > When I have one of my teaching sessions, I have my Romans go on a good ol Roman diet. When we march sometimes in southern Idaho, I have them eat Hardtac, because I'm a jerk like that. Though at night when we sit for some good ol minutal marinum with, you guessed it, hardtac and grape wine, it kind of helps put that final staple in a hard days work. During the day I usually have them eat apples or something easy to carry. What else, other Romanesque like thing. Well I don't have my men train naked, and I do allow women to train.
> > >
> > > I make my own swords, but I have wooden swords and heavily padded bats for pair drills. We use a lot of body weight exercises or natural lifting. Natural lifting as in rocks, logs, or people.
> > >
> > > What else, so hard to talk about stuff. Well I guess that's it for now. If I think of anything, or if you have a fantastically Roman thing you do, I would love to hear about it.
> > >
> > > Valete.
> > >
> >
>

>  
> While I like to see the most current or best translations, there are also free online pdf texts that Nova Roma could have in a library free to all citizens. Also, as a nonprofit, we should be able to tap into the online research libraries.
>  
> Thanks,
> Valete,
> A. Sempronius Regulus
>

>
> I have my own personal rant about that Museum....
>
> It usually involves the money wasted making space for the Elgin Marbles (which Greece will never pry out of the Brits -- never) and the subsequent lack of funding for the excavations at Thera
>
> I greedily want Thera excavated. I want to read Minoan -- and if anything survived that gives us a translation, it's most likely to be there. I want to see new frescos. I want to see if any bodies are found. I want to see dishes and plates and hanging gardens and re-created streets....
>
> Acropolis. Bah.
>
> Vestinia, disgruntled Minoan aficiando
>

> I propose that we all -- consul, praetor, censor, quaestor, tribunus plebis, and
> aedilis -- step away, and help the process of pacification. No one would be
> required to step down prior to whatever day is appointed.

> Horace said it is sweet and honourable to die for one's country.

>
> Actually, since NR doesn't use majority voting rules your statement is not accurate.? The votes that Modianus received were base on the centuries and by use of sortilege to break ties.? The vaste majority of voters in NR are confined to the capite censi centuries in which the individual vote counts the least.? In both theory and practice, a candidate can be elected by 15% or so of our current population since the assidui control most of the rural centuries.? Your statement would be accurate if you had written:
>
> "The fact is Modianus has been truely elected by the majority of the TAX-PAYING voters and THE SORTILEGE RESOLUTION OF the Gods, AS ADMINISTERED BY THE SACRED COLLEGES."
>
> Just trying to be clear.
>
> Aurelianus
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, Jun 22, 2009 3:47 pm
> Subject: AW: [Nova-Roma] Re: Senatus Consultum Ultimum NOW! I do not see the need currently !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salve Gaudialis,
>
> ?
>
> I do not see any way for compromise or a need for it.
>
> ?
>
> The fact is Modianus has been truely elected by the majority of the voters and approved by the gods.
>
> ?
>
> The decision has been taken. Now we need to provide our Censor with the Censorial tools to fulfill his duty.
>
> ?
>
> In 6 months there will be new elections and new chances for everybody.
>
> ?
>
> Vale optime
>
> Titus Flavius Aquila
>
>
>
> Von: aerdensrw <aerdensrw@...>
> An: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Gesendet: Montag, den 22. Juni 2009, 22:29:23 Uhr
> Betreff: [Nova-Roma] Re: Senatus Consultum Ultimum NOW! I do not see the need currently !
>
>
>
> What I am seeing is that no one is willing to agree to a satisfactory consensus. Some are willing to make a final ruling on the matter, but others refuse to accept that ruling. One side will be satisfied with nothing less than Modianus' removal and a new election; the other side will be satisfied with nothing less than maintaining the election as it stands and either one or both intercessions declared invalid (I've lost track, now).
>
> The tribunes declare that their intercessio( s) is/are valid; others vehemently deny it or agree. One side says something; people from the other side threaten to leave or actually do, in protest.
>
> At what point, people, are we going to arrive at a compromise? If there is anything at all I can do to help us reach a solution that, while not perfectly pleasing everyone, is at least tolerable to everyone, I am willing to do it. But some kind of consensus must be reached among us, or we cannot move forward.
>
> Really, we are not Palestine and Israel, here--or we ought not be.
>
> Paulla Corva Gaudialis
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com, Titus Flavius Aquila <titus.aquila@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Lentulus,
> >
> > I do not see a need for this. Are we already so desperate to call for an SCU ?
> >
> > We just need to make sure that Modianus can work as Censor to perform his?duty and that his scribae can perform their work as necessary.
> >
> > This is up to our consules to make sure that the owner of the database provides the access accordingly.
> >
> > I see the SCU as?the ultima ratio.
> >
> > I honestly do not think that we need an SCU. If everybody is willing to work for the benefit of Nova Roma and to support our Magistrate
> > to do their job.
> >
> > vale optime
> > Titus Flavius Aquila
>

>
> Cato Iunio Palladio omnibusque in senatu SPD
>
> Salvete, conscripti.
>
> For a moment, please put aside pre-conceived notions about who is
> doing what to
> whom and why, and consider what I have to say in the interests of
> what is best
> for the Respublica.
>
> We are, I think, at an impasse. We have seen deeper and more violent
> rifts
> growing between factions within our citizenship than I have ever
> seen before.
> Granted, I was not here for the last civil war, but there does not
> need to be
> another.
>
> Fabius Modianus will never be accepted as censor by some. No matter
> how you
> slice it, no matter why you believe one way or the other, this is a
> fact. It is
> fairly undeniable that, had the tribunes vetoed his candidacy during
> the contio,
> he would have been obliged to step down. Our arcane and often
> indecipherable
> leges have made this a three-ring circus. This must stop.
>
> The fact that the consuls ignored at least - at the very least - one
> tribunician
> veto, an event that has never happened in Nova Roma's history, is a
> serious blow
> to their credbility among many more. They have committed several
> violations of
> our law and the laws of our governing act, I believe at first out of
> simple and
> genuine ignorance, then out of stubbornness. This must stop.
>
> The constant harping by some people on both sides that the other
> side is
> inherently evil and villainous and out to destroy the Respublica is
> unwarranted
> and obscene. This must stop.
>
>
> What do I see a dictator doing?
>
> 1. Separation of our macronational bylaws from our Constitution,
> relieving the
> Respublica of the burden of suffocating between the two.
>
> 2. the repeal of the entire tabularium. Yes, every single law we have
> currently should be discarded. A tiny handful are useful in
> practice, and this
> would be dealt with by:
>
> 3. the appointment of a panel of decemviri whose sole job will be to
> draft new
> laws *only* for purposes that are vital to the *internal*
> functioning of the
> government and the People under the guidelines of the Constitution;
> voting,
> magisterial authority, removal of magistrates, and provocatio for
> the People.
> They will have a set period of time providing for comment and
> suggestion - not
> debate - and ratification by the Senate before the end of the
> dictator's term in
> office.
>
> 4. reaching out to those who have left in the past two years to
> offer a new
> place in our Respublica, with no dead weight of history and no
> recriminations.
>
> 5. administering an oath sworn before the entire People from each of
> the
> magistrates currently in office that they will abide by these new
> leges under
> pain of banishment for life.
>
> 6. administering an oath to be sworn to by the entire Senate before
> the whole
> People that no retaliation in the form of legal action within or
> without the
> Respublica will be taken against any magistrate currently in office
> at the
> expiration of their terms in office.
>
>
> I thought of Venator because he is intelligent, strong, calm,
> unattached to any
> particular faction, and has shown by his speeches that the heart of
> the
> Respublica is in his eyes at all times. He is not given to fits of
> anger or
> recrimination, and I think the State will be safe in his sure and
> careful
> guidance.
>
> Almost every person in this House has these qualities to one extent
> or another,
> but it is the confluence of all of them in Venator that makes him
> almost unique
> among us.
>
> I disagree most determinedly with the course the consuls have taken
> us on, but
> the chance to clear out our mess of a legal system and start off
> without the
> stifling weight of a Constitution that can bring us into conflict with
> macronational law is strong enough to make me willing to stand back
> and give us
> all a second chance.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 5:58 PM, C. Maria Caeca wrote:
>
> Salve Venator, et salvete omnes,
>
> That is one poem from the First World War that I had not read,
> and like much from that era ... it is absolutely devastating, if beautiful.
> It does rather bring things into perspective, doesn't it?
>
> C. Maria Caeca
>

In my 13 years in uniform, I was in combat only once, for about 1
minute. It was an incident that never should have happened; friendly
fire of a sort. Even so, it is an experience I should like to have
never had, and do not wish on anyone.

I first read Wilfred Owen's poem in an advanced English class, during
8th grade. It did shape my thinking on why I entered military
service, and helped me keep from having illusions.

It is very poignant to me, as I knew WW I veterans in my home town as
a boy; some of whom had been gassed. Our family lost one member in
France during that conflict. As a young lad, I would go with my dad
on weekend service calls (he was a boiler and furnace man, like his
dad, and my brother) to the Veterans' Home in Leeds, MA, where many
men, crippled by gas and other wounds from that war, still lived.

I don't usually comment when folks use the phrase, without the
context. I guess in my "retreat," I felt the poem should speak for
itself...obviously I felt I should, too.

bona nocte - Venator

On Jun 23, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Robert Woolwine wrote:
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "D. Boyle" <deandreaboyle@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Equestria Iunia Laeca M. Valerio Potito sal.
> >
> > 1. The Consuls had the authority to interpret the law\
>
> So do the Tribunes and theirs is vested in the pesky document called
> the Constitution.
>
> > 2. Per their interpretation, the law did not disallow Modianus from
> > running
>
> And they were wrong.
>
> > 3. The Tribunes had the authority to interpret the law differently
> > and veto the Consuls interpretation
>
> We agree.
>
> > 4. This veto had to be done prior to the start of the election
>
> We disagree. Where is the law that states that?
>
> > 5. It was not done prior to the start of the election
>
> Again, where is the law that stipulates that? Or are you making it up?
>
> > 6. Modianus was elected by a large margin by Nova Roma citizens
>
> Based on the Tribune veto, he could have had Saddam Hussein's 99%
> approval of the people support and with the veto his election is
> invalid.

On Jun 23, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> Cato Equestriae sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> Even given almost all the others, you are absolutely incorrect here:
>
> "4. This veto had to be done prior to the start of the election"
>
> Nothing in our law supports this restriction on a tribunician veto;
> if you can find something that does, please share it.
>
> Even - and this is a biggie - even if you *did* find something in
> the laws that supports this, the Constitution does not. And the
> Constitution has legal supremacy; any law that conflicts with it is
> resolved in favor of the Constitution.

On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:18 AM, Steve Moore wrote:
> M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD.
>
>
> Many people here have expressed, in one form or another, that (in
> the matter of Modianus) we should forget our differences and move
> forward.
>
>
>
> I respect the people who say this. They clearly have the best
> interest of NR at heart, and they truly want to put this all behind
> us.
>
>
>
> The problem with this idea is that it gives a clean slate to
> Modianus and his supporters, despite the illegal actions they have
> taken. This idea tacitly approves of what he has done. I know how
> people like Modianus operate, and this idea is music to their ears.
> It shows that their little scheme has worked and that they have
> duped another group of people. Because, once this idea takes hold,
> all Modianus has to do is sit by quietly and let the people who
> oppose him look unreasonable. For good measure, he may throw in some
> platitude like, “I’ve learned from my mistakes.” Oh yes, he surely
> has. Each time he wins this little game, he learns how to do it
> better.
>
>
>
> My friends, now is not the time to forget. Now is the time to
> remember:
>
>
>
> Remember that the citizens of Nova Roma passed a law that said no
> one can serve two terms in a row, and that the law has a good reason
> behind it.
>
>
>
> Remember that Modianus put himself forward as a candidate for Censor
> to fulfill his lust for petty power and his vendetta against Sulla
> and Cato.
>
>
>
> Remember that the Consuls, desperate for a candidate to oppose Cato
> (whom, they feared, would take further action against their
> negligent and incompetent administration), latched onto Modianus.
>
>
>
> Remember that, when it was pointed out that Modianus could not
> legally stand for election, that the Consuls did not consult Censor
> Paulinus, but immediately declared (under the veil of their imperium
> and with no solid legal grounds) that Modianus was a valid candidate.
>
>
>
> Before we can forget our differences, the problem must be solved.
> Modianus must prove that he is not as I described above by stepping
> down from his illegally-held office, and the Consuls must atone for
> their crimes by calling for a new election.
>
>
>
> Then, and only then, can we move forward.
>
>
>
> Valete.

On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:34 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> Cato Equestriae sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "For the Tribunes to interfere past this point on the specific
> matter of Modianus' legality...would not be fair or just."
>
> "Fair[ness]" and "just[ice]" have no relevance, Equestria. You were
> asked to provide evidence *under the law* that supports your claim.
> You did not because you cannot. People are fully aware that the law
> has very little to do with what might be considered "fair" or
> "just", no matter what those are conceived to be. What matters is
> what is *legal*.
>
> As for your last poke, if I were that obsessed with getting into
> office I would not have sworn that if new elections, in obedience to
> the law, were held for censor suffectus I would not stand again.
>
> And yes, I believe a dictator is the best solution possible; if I
> did not, I would not have suggested it.
>
> Try to see beyond your own narrow experience with those already in
> power who would act the way you suggest. I am not one of them.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "D. Boyle" <deandreaboyle@...> wrote:
>
> Equestria Catoni sal.
>
> You wrote:
> "You were asked to provide evidence *under the law* that supports your
> claim."
>
> Wrong again, Cato! Nice try! If we are passing judgment, everything
> counts.

And yet another lie. See below:

"Cato Equestriae sal.

Salve.

Even given almost all the others, you are absolutely incorrect here:

"4. This veto had to be done prior to the start of the election"

Nothing in our law supports this restriction on a tribunician veto; if you can
find something that does, please share it.

Even - and this is a biggie - even if you *did* find something in the laws that
supports this, the Constitution does not. And the Constitution has legal
supremacy; any law that conflicts with it is resolved in favor of the
Constitution.

Vale,

Cato"

You cannot find anywhere in our law anything that supports you, so you resort to blustering tactics. What "counts" is the law.

Vale,

Cato

On Jun 24, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> Cato Equestriae sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> Obviously this *is* a game for you. That is good to know.
>
> Yours is precisely the attitude which drives the incompetence and
> arrogance of this government forward, onward, ever into even deeper
> and greater follies. Direct and simple lies often form the
> foundation for abuse of the public trust, and yours are a perfect
> example. You join Maior in the ranks of those whose word cannot be
> valued in the least.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato

On Jun 24, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato wrote:
> Cato Equestriae sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "D. Boyle" <deandreaboyle@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Equestria Catoni sal.
> >
> > You wrote:
> > "You were asked to provide evidence *under the law* that supports
> your
> > claim."
> >
> > Wrong again, Cato! Nice try! If we are passing judgment, everything
> > counts.
>
> And yet another lie. See below:
>
> "Cato Equestriae sal.
>
> Salve.
>
> Even given almost all the others, you are absolutely incorrect here:
>
> "4. This veto had to be done prior to the start of the election"
>
> Nothing in our law supports this restriction on a tribunician veto;
> if you can
> find something that does, please share it.
>
> Even - and this is a biggie - even if you *did* find something in
> the laws that
> supports this, the Constitution does not. And the Constitution has
> legal
> supremacy; any law that conflicts with it is resolved in favor of the
> Constitution.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato"
>
> You cannot find anywhere in our law anything that supports you, so
> you resort to blustering tactics. What "counts" is the law.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Gaius Equitius Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

Cato Equestriae sal.

Salve.

Obviously this *is* a game for you. That is good to know.

Yours is precisely the attitude which drives the incompetence and arrogance of this government forward, onward, ever into even deeper and greater follies. Direct and simple lies often form the foundation for abuse of the public trust, and yours are a perfect example. You join Maior in the ranks of those whose word cannot be valued in the least.

Vale,

Cato

.

Lex Labiena de intercessione (Nova Roma)

Cato said:

Nothing in our law supports this restriction on a tribunician veto; if you can
find something that does, please share it.

Nova Roma Law say:

Lex labiena de intercessione II: A tribunus plebis may use intercessio by making an official announcement to at least one of Nova Roma’s main communications fora (as defined by the Constitution) within 72 hours of the announcement of the item or action to be vetoed.

Cato said:

Nothing in our law supports this restriction on a tribunician veto; if you can
find something that does, please share it.

Nova Roma Law say:

Lex labiena de intercessione II: A tribunus plebis may use intercessio by making an official announcement to at least one of Nova RomaÂ’s main communications fora (as defined by the Constitution) within 72 hours of the announcement of the item or action to be vetoed.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "D. Boyle" <deandreaboyle@...> wrote:
>
> Since this appears to becoming a daily event, I thought it would be
> fun to change it into a daily game. Lighten the mood. Here is
> today's event: Fun with Words - The Replacement Game (instructions,
> ah replace names..etc. easy enough)
>
> Equestria Iunia Laeca (feat. M. Valerius Potitus) omnibus sal.
>
> Many people here have expressed, in one form or another, that (in the
> matter of Sulla) we should forget our differences and move forward.
>
> I respect the people who say this. They clearly have the best interest
> of NR at heart, and they truly want to put this all behind us.
>
> The problem with this idea is that it gives a clean slate to Sulla and
> his supporters, despite the illegal actions they have taken. This idea
> tacitly approves of what he has done. I know how people like Sulla
> operate, and this idea is music to their ears. It shows that their
> little scheme has worked and that they have duped another group of
> people. Because, once this idea takes hold, all Sulla has to do is sit
> by quietly and let the people who oppose him look unreasonable. For
> good measure, he may throw in some platitude like, "I've learned from
> my mistakes." Oh yes, he surely has. Each time he wins this little
> game, he learns how to do it better.
>
> My friends, now is not the time to forget. Now is the time to remember:
>
> Remember that a law that was to be their trump card, stating no one
> can serve two terms in a row, and that the law has a good reason
> behind it. Unfortunately, it didn't help them at all.
>
> Remember that Sulla put Cato forward as a candidate for Censor to
> fulfill his lust for petty power and his vendetta against Modianus and
> the Consuls.
>
> Remember that Sulla, desperate for a candidate to oppose Modianus
> (whom, he feared, would take further action against his negligent and
> incompetent ways), latched onto Cato. Sadly, this didn't work out too
> well either.
>
> Remember that, when it was pointed out that Sulla could not legally
> stand for dictator, that Cato consulted Sulla and immediately declared
> himself as a valid candidate for anything.
>
> Before we can forget our differences, the problem must be solved.
> Sulla must prove that he is not as I described above by stepping down
> from his illegally-held soapbox, and he and Cato must atone for their
> crimes by actually doing something positive for a change.
>
> Then, and only then, can we move forward.
>
> Valete.
>
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2009, at 8:18 AM, Steve Moore wrote:
> > M. Valerius Potitus omnibus SPD.
> >
> >
> > Many people here have expressed, in one form or another, that (in
> > the matter of Modianus) we should forget our differences and move
> > forward.
> >
> >
> >
> > I respect the people who say this. They clearly have the best
> > interest of NR at heart, and they truly want to put this all behind
> > us.
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem with this idea is that it gives a clean slate to
> > Modianus and his supporters, despite the illegal actions they have
> > taken. This idea tacitly approves of what he has done. I know how
> > people like Modianus operate, and this idea is music to their ears.
> > It shows that their little scheme has worked and that they have
> > duped another group of people. Because, once this idea takes hold,
> > all Modianus has to do is sit by quietly and let the people who
> > oppose him look unreasonable. For good measure, he may throw in some
> > platitude like, "I've learned from my mistakes." Oh yes, he surely
> > has. Each time he wins this little game, he learns how to do it
> > better.
> >
> >
> >
> > My friends, now is not the time to forget. Now is the time to
> > remember:
> >
> >
> >
> > Remember that the citizens of Nova Roma passed a law that said no
> > one can serve two terms in a row, and that the law has a good reason
> > behind it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Remember that Modianus put himself forward as a candidate for Censor
> > to fulfill his lust for petty power and his vendetta against Sulla
> > and Cato.
> >
> >
> >
> > Remember that the Consuls, desperate for a candidate to oppose Cato
> > (whom, they feared, would take further action against their
> > negligent and incompetent administration), latched onto Modianus.
> >
> >
> >
> > Remember that, when it was pointed out that Modianus could not
> > legally stand for election, that the Consuls did not consult Censor
> > Paulinus, but immediately declared (under the veil of their imperium
> > and with no solid legal grounds) that Modianus was a valid candidate.
> >
> >
> >
> > Before we can forget our differences, the problem must be solved.
> > Modianus must prove that he is not as I described above by stepping
> > down from his illegally-held office, and the Consuls must atone for
> > their crimes by calling for a new election.
> >
> >
> >
> > Then, and only then, can we move forward.
> >
> >
> >
> > Valete.
>

>
> Vale
>
>
>
>
> From: M.C.C.
> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:05 AM
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Fait Accompli
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cato said:
>
>
>
>
> Nothing in our law supports this restriction on a tribunician veto; if you can
> find something that does, please share it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nova Roma Law say:
>
> Lex labiena de intercessione II: A tribunus plebis may use intercessio by making an official announcement to at least one of Nova Roma's main communications fora (as defined by the Constitution) within 72 hours of the announcement of the item or action to be vetoed.
>

Cn Iulius Caesar Consuli SPD

It will be of course, I know, utterly pointless to again remind you that the vetoes were within the 72 hour limit, however as you persist in fostering this myth that they were outside the time limit - I will. The first was within 72 hours of the certification and acceptance, while the second was within 72 hours of you ordering a recount. You refused to accept that I know, because if you did accept it you would have been hooped.

 

Vale 

 

 

From: M.C.C.

Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:05 AM

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogrou ps.com

Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Fait Accompli

Cato said:

Nothing in our law supports this restriction on a tribunician veto; if you can
find something that does, please share it.

Nova Roma Law say:

Lex labiena de intercessione II: A tribunus plebis may use intercessio by making an official announcement to at least one of Nova Roma’s main communications fora (as defined by the Constitution) within 72 hours of the announcement of the item or action to be vetoed.

--- On Wed, 6/24/09, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:

> From: Maior <rory12001@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Fait Accompli
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 9:10 AM
> M. Hortensia Gn. Iulio sd;
>     allow me to correct you. The sortes were
> ordered to be recast. The sortition is not a recount, it is
> a form of augury and Iuppiter OM is in charge. The retaking
> of the sortition, was to determine if Modianus's election
> had Iuppiter's approval. And he did approve.
>    
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
> while the second was within 72 hours of you ordering a
> recount. You refused to accept that I know, because if you
> did accept it you would have been hooped.
> >
> > Vale
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: M.C.C.
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:05 AM
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Fait Accompli
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   Cato said:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   Nothing in our law supports this
> restriction on a tribunician veto; if you can
> >   find something that does, please
> share it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nova Roma Law say:
> >
> > Lex labiena de intercessione II: A tribunus plebis may
> use intercessio by making an official announcement to at
> least one of Nova Roma's main communications fora (as
> defined by the Constitution) within 72 hours of the
> announcement of the item or action to be vetoed.
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

>
>
> Caesar Maiori SPD
>
> Re-count? Try and keep up. I know it is difficult when the laws of space and time are altered at consular whim, but try anyway.
>
> Read this.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/66963
>
> Our Senior Consul stated the votes would be re-counted - just going by what he said. Or perhaps that happened in an alternative universe, prior to his shifting time?
>
> Nothing would surprise me.
>
> Optime vale
>
>
> --- On Wed, 6/24/09, Maior <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> > From: Maior <rory12001@...>
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Fait Accompli
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, June 24, 2009, 9:10 AM
> > M. Hortensia Gn. Iulio sd;
> >     allow me to correct you. The sortes were
> > ordered to be recast. The sortition is not a recount, it is
> > a form of augury and Iuppiter OM is in charge. The retaking
> > of the sortition, was to determine if Modianus's election
> > had Iuppiter's approval. And he did approve.
> >    
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> >
> > while the second was within 72 hours of you ordering a
> > recount. You refused to accept that I know, because if you
> > did accept it you would have been hooped.
> > >
> > > Vale
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: M.C.C.
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:05 AM
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Fait Accompli
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   Cato said:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >   Nothing in our law supports this
> > restriction on a tribunician veto; if you can
> > >   find something that does, please
> > share it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nova Roma Law say:
> > >
> > > Lex labiena de intercessione II: A tribunus plebis may
> > use intercessio by making an official announcement to at
> > least one of Nova Roma's main communications fora (as
> > defined by the Constitution) within 72 hours of the
> > announcement of the item or action to be vetoed.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >     mailto:Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>