Selected messages in Nova-Roma group. Jul 4-7, 2010

Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77374 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-04
Subject: Re: July 4 AD 1776
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77375 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-07-04
Subject: Re: July 4 AD 1776
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77376 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: July 4 AD 1776
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77377 From: Christer Edling Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Comiti
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77378 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: Reminder : 3 days left to VOTE for PRAETORS
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77379 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: why ...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77380 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: a.d. III Non. Quint.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77381 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: why ...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77382 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Join our all Latin mailing list!
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77383 From: Ass.Pomerium Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: 19 e 20 luglio : eruzione del 79 d.C., le città sepolte
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77384 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Results of the Election in the Comitia Plebis Tributa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77385 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77386 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77387 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: why ...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77388 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: why ...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77389 From: Aqvillivs Rota Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re.: Results of the elections
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77390 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: OT: Freemasonry, was Re: why ...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77391 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: To our newest magistrates
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77392 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77393 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: the pagan places of the 'holy' land
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77394 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: the pagan places of the 'holy' land
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77395 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77396 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77397 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: June Conventus was canceled
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77398 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77399 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77400 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: June Conventus was canceled
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77401 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77402 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: June Conventus was canceled
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77403 From: Christer Edling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: REPORT about the Consular June Conventus in Rome which was NOT cance
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77404 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77405 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] REPORT about the Consular June Conventus in Rome whic
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77406 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: prid. Non. Quinct.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77407 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OT: Freemasonry, was Re: why ...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77408 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Informatic
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77409 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77410 From: publiusalbucius Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: REPORT about the Consular June Conventus in Rome which was NOT c
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77411 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Congratulations to all new electi magistrates
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77412 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: "Appendix" - to my precious - "Open Letter to the Consuls, the Curat
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77413 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77414 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77415 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77416 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: URGENT - 3 hours left to vote for PRAETOR
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77417 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77418 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77419 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77420 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77421 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77422 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Rebuttal Re: [Nova-Roma] "Appendix" - to my precious - "Open Letter
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77423 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77424 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77425 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Math Involved - Tax Base
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77426 From: M•IVL•SEVERVS Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Re.: Results of the elections
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77427 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Results of the Election in the Comitia Plebis Tributa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77428 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Congratulations to all new electi magistrates
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77429 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: To our newest magistrates
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77430 From: gaius_pompeius_silvanus Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: OT: Freemasonry, was Re: why ...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77431 From: C.iulia Eucharis Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77432 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77434 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77435 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77436 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77437 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77438 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77439 From: Gaius Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77440 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77441 From: C.iulia Eucharis Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77442 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77443 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77444 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77445 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77446 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77447 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77448 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77449 From: Gaius Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77450 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77451 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77452 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: NOBODY OWES BACK TAXES
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77453 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77454 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77455 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77456 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77457 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77458 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77459 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77460 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77461 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77462 From: C. Iulia Eucharis Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77463 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77464 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77465 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77466 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Non. Quinct.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77467 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77468 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77469 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77470 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77471 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77472 From: Nero Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: SO have we....?
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77473 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77474 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77475 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77476 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77477 From: Christer Edling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77478 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77479 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's per
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77480 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77481 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77482 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77483 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77484 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77485 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77486 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77487 From: Maxima Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77488 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77489 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77490 From: Robert Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77491 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77492 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77493 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77494 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77495 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: On now closed CC's centuria praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77496 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77497 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77498 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77499 From: Christer Edling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Auspicia and Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77500 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Ancient Studies
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77501 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77502 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77503 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77504 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77505 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77506 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77507 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77508 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77509 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Cornu Effervos and an Iguana for Rota
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77510 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77511 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77512 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77513 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77514 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77515 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77516 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77517 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77518 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77519 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77520 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77521 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77522 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77523 From: Gnaea Livia Ocella Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77524 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77525 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77526 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77527 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77528 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77529 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77530 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77531 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77532 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77533 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77534 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77535 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77536 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77537 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The joker of the Res Publica
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77538 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: OT: Freemasonry - Pgan-Masons elist
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77539 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77540 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77541 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77542 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77543 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77544 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77545 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77546 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77547 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77548 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77549 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77550 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M



Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77374 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-04
Subject: Re: July 4 AD 1776
M.Hortensia quiritibus spd;
what does this have to do with Rome? There are interesting discussions to be had as the American founders had a profound classical education and Geo. Washington was termed the American Cincinnatus, but otherwise bland congratulations are meaningless....
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Crispo sal.
>
> LOL Thank you very much! Your offspring - we hope - has done you proud :D
>
> Vale!
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS" <jbshr1pwa@> wrote:
> >
> > C Marcius Crispus omnibus sal
> >
> > "On this day the United States observes the celebration of its declaration of independence from the British Crown."
> >
> >
> > We in Britannia send our warmest greetings to you all. So pleased that you made a good go at it.
> >
> > Valete bene - and Happy Fourth of July!
> > Crispus
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77375 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-07-04
Subject: Re: July 4 AD 1776
C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.

I humbly submit that courtesy and graciousness are never meaningless, anywhere, any time.

Vale,
CMC

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77376 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: July 4 AD 1776
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Mariae Caecae C. Marcio Crispo quiritibus, sociis,
> peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> C. Maria Caeca omnibus in foro S. P. D.
>
> I humbly submit that courtesy and graciousness are never meaningless,
> anywhere, any time.
>
> ATS: I agree completely. Whether it is condolences on someone¹s passing
> or joy at a birth or a wedding or a patriotic celebration, good wishes are
> never out of place. This Yankee descendant of warriors in the Revolution much
> appreciates Crispus¹ gracious remarks, and I suspect that many of us do.
>
> Vale,
> CMC
>
Vale, et valete.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77377 From: Christer Edling Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Comiti
Ex Officio Consulis Caesonis Fabii Buteonis Quintiliani

Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Comitia
Populi

This report on the result was dellayed due to thunder nad lightning
discontinuing the Internet access.

I. Election of One Aedilis Curulis

Lucia Iulia Aquila received 19 tribal votes.
Gaius Equitius Cato received 5 tribal votes.

8 tribes were tied between L.Iulia Aquila and G.Equitius Cato.
Three tribes did not vote for Aedilis Curulis.

There was no need to break ties.

Lucia Iulia Aquila was elected Aedilis Curulis.


II. Two Quaestores needed, one candidate

Quintus Servilius Priscus was elected.


III: Two Rogatores needed, one candidate

Raina Cornelia Aeternia was elected.


IV. This Edictum becomes effective immediately.


Given this 5th of July, in the year of the Consulship of P. Memmius
Albucius and the Second Consulship of K.Fabius Buteo Quintilianus,2763
AUC.



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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Consul Iterum
Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77378 From: A. Tullia Scholastica Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: Reminder : 3 days left to VOTE for PRAETORS
>
> Scholastica Lentulo suo S.P.D.
>
>
>
> Lentulus Tulliae sal
>
>> > ATS: Optimé! I would not like to think that someone deliberately
>
>> > removed my name from the list of candidates, mais on ne sait jamais. In
>> any case, that is hardly fair to me. I was very curious as to why the link
>> to the cista vanished into thin air just when I wanted to inspect the
>> election
>
>> > pages...
>
>> >
>
> Be 100% sure that no one did skip your name intentionally. 
>
> ATS: Speremus.
>
>
> I set up the list for the centuriata candidates, Agricola did it for the
> tributa candidates. As a long time friend of yours, I hope you do not think I
> would skip your name intentionally?
>
> ATS: Minimé! Scio bene te tale numquam factúrum esse. Collega tuus
> autem me odisse videtur.
>
>
> The truth is that I don't know how but I have just forgotten to add it,
>
> ATS: Non puto, sed fortasse deletum erat.
>
>
> probably because of haste,
>
> ATS: That might have been the reason why the praetorian candidates were
> listed as running for the curule aedileship...
>
>
> and this is why it is good if we have more people to check this sort of things
> because there's always possibility to make errors.I apologize, and now that
> it's corrected, I hope everything's OK.
>
> ATS: So do I, though some voters might not have been aware that I was in
> fact a candidate, and now the whole election is apparently being called into
> question.
>
> VALE!LENT.
>
> Vale!
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77379 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: why ...
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Marcio Crispo salutem dicit

Another Freemason. There are a few of us here in Nova Roma.

Vale;

Modianus

On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 3:31 PM, GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS <
jbshr1pwa@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Crispus Caecae sal,
>
> Yes, that is what I would think too, daylight for me, in my own time zone.
>
> Its interesting how, in many sects, cults and fraternities, there are
> specific times to do the work. As a freemason, I immediately thought of the
> exhortation to complete my allotted task while it is yet day - the task must
> be completed before the sun sets. The setting sun is associated with the
> finished, perfect block of stone.This makes perfect sense when dealing with
> the practical tasks of handling large and heavy blocks of stone. As a
> gardener, there are obviously spacial seasons for planting and harvesting,
> some of which are linked to religious festivals that happen to fall at the
> same times of year. And we have just celebrated St John's day on 24 June,
> when the St John's wort plant is in full flower. My wife, a wiccan, will
> tell me of other hours that have special significance, and that certain
> powers govern those hours.
>
> Vale, et valete optime
> Crispus
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77380 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: a.d. III Non. Quint.
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem III Nonas Quinctilis; haec dies nefastus publicus est.

"Having accomplished these works deserving of immortality, while he
was holding an assembly of the people for reviewing his army, in the
plain near the Goat's pool, a storm suddenly came on, accompanied by
loud thunder and lightning, and enveloped the king in so dense a mist,
that it entirely hid him from the sight of the assembly. After this
Romulus was never seen again upon earth. The feeling of consternation
having at length calmed down, and the weather having become clear and
fine again after so stormy a day, the Roman youth seeing the royal
seat empty--though they readily believed the words of the fathers who
had stood nearest him, that he had been carried up to heaven by the
storm--yet, struck as it were with the fear of being fatherless, for a
considerable time preserved a sorrowful silence. Then, after a few had
set the example, the whole multitude saluted Romulus as a god, the son
of a god, the king and parent of the Roman city; they implored his
favour with prayers, that with gracious kindness he would always
preserve his offspring. I believe that even then there were some, who
in secret were convinced that the king had been torn in pieces by the
hands of the fathers--for this rumour also spread, but it was very
doubtfully received; admiration for the man, however, and the awe felt
at the moment, gave greater notoriety to the other report. Also by the
clever idea of one individual, additional confirmation is said to have
been attached to the occurrence. For Proculus Julius, while the state
was still troubled at the loss of the king, and incensed against the
senators, a weighty authority, as we are told, in any matter however
important, came forward into the assembly. "Quirites," said he,
"Romulus, the father of this city, suddenly descending from heaven,
appeared to me this day at daybreak. While I stood filled with dread,
and religious awe, beseeching him to allow me to look upon him face to
face, 'Go,' said he, 'tell the Romans, that the gods so will, that my
Rome should become the capital of the world. Therefore let them
cultivate the art of war, and let them know and so hand it down to
posterity, that no human power can withstand the Roman arms.' Having
said this, he vanished up to heaven." It is surprising what credit was
given to that person when he made the announcement, and how much the
regret of the common people and army for the loss of Romulus was
assuaged when the certainty of his immortality was confirmed." Livy,
History of Rome I.15

"Things being in this disorder, one, they say, of the patricians, of
noble family and approved good character, and a faithful and familiar
friend of Romulus himself, having come with him from Alba, Julius
Proculus by name, presented himself in the forum; and taking a most
sacred oath, protested before them all, that, as he was travelling on
the road, he had seen Romulus coming to meet him, looking taller and
comelier than ever, dressed in shining and flaming armor; and he,
being affrighted at the apparition, said, 'Why, O king, or for what
purpose, have you abandoned us to unjust and wicked surmises, and the
whole city to bereavement and endless sorrow?' and that he made
answer, 'It pleased the gods, O Proculus, that we, who came from them,
should remain so long a time amongst men as we did; and, having built
a city to be the greatest in the world for empire and glory, should
again return to heaven. But farewell; and tell the Romans, that, by
the exercise of temperance and fortitude, they shall attain the height
of human power; we will be to you the propitious god Quirinus.' This
seemed credible to the Romans, upon the honesty and oath of the
relator, and laying aside all jealousies and detractions, they prayed
to Quirinus and saluted him as a god." - Plutarch's Lives, "Romulus"

Today is marked as the observance of the Poplifugia, a significant religious festival which honors Iuppiter. It was a day of feasting and celebration but the rites are not known with certainty. Poplifugia means "The Flight of The People" and refers to
events that were ancient and obscure even to the Romans, but two
explanations are given by H.H. Scullard: one, "the people fled when
Romulus disappeared from mortal sight during a tempest"; the other,
the flight of the Roman people after the sack of Rome by the Gauls.

Valete bene!

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77381 From: GAIUS MARCIUS CRISPUS Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: why ...
Salve Modiane

I suspect there are a few of us here.

I greet you well my brother.

Vale optime
Crispus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77382 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Join our all Latin mailing list!
Cn. Lentulus magister sodalitatis Latinitatis Quiritibus et Latinis sal.


Are you a Latin speaker, or can you write in Latin?

Do you want Latin to become flourishing in Nova Roma?

Or do you at least to want to gather together with fellow Latinists in a mailing list, and hopefully, in real life, too?

Join the Nova Roma Latina mailing list now either in its website:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma-Latina/

or by sending an empty mail to:


Nova-Roma-Latina-subscribe@yahoogroups.com



Vivat Latinitas, vivat Nova Roma!

CN. LENTVLVS






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77383 From: Ass.Pomerium Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: 19 e 20 luglio : eruzione del 79 d.C., le città sepolte
L'Associazione culturale Pomerium è lieta di invitarvi il 19 e 20 luglio
per una due giorni di visite a Napoli, Pompei ed Ercolano.

Coloro che vogliono partecipare all'evento, sono pregati di comunicare la
propria adesione possibilmente entro giovedì 15 p.v. a
segreteria@... ; sarà possibile avere informazioni oltre a guide
per la città e informazioni per l'alloggio a Pompei .

Di seguito il programma degli eventi (per info: 349.5092554 (Max) e
340.3472821 (Fabrizio); e-mail: segreteria@...; www.pomerium.org
<http://www.pomerium.org/> ;)





PROGRAMMA



Lunedi 19 Luglio

Visita in alternativa a:

1a –Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli (per questo appuntamento fare
riferimento a Max).

Il Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, uno dei primi costituiti in
Europa in un monumentale palazzo seicentesco tra la fine del Settecento e
gli inizi dell’Ottocento, può vantare il più ricco e pregevole patrimonio di
opere dÂ’arte e manufatti di interesse archeologico in Italia. In esso sono
esposti oltre tremila oggetti di valore esemplare in varie sezioni tematiche
e conservati centinaia di migliaia di reperti databili dall’età preistorica
alla tarda antichità, sia provenienti da vari siti antichi del Meridione,
sia dallÂ’acquisizione di rilevanti raccolte antiquarie, a partire dalla
collezione Farnese appartenuta alla dinastia reale dei Borbone, fondatori
del Museo.

(altre notizie su:
http://museoarcheologiconazionale.campaniabeniculturali.it/)



1b. Scavi di Ercolano (per questo appuntamento fare riferimento a
Fabrizio).

L'antica città di Herculaneum, già gravemente danneggiata dal terremoto del
62, venne distrutta dall'eruzione del Vesuvio (79), che la coprì con
un'ingentissima massa di fango, cenere ed altri materiali eruttivi
trascinati dall'acqua piovana. Gli scavi di Ercolano, con quelli di Pompei e
Oplontis, sono inseriti dal 1997 nella lista dei patrimoni dell'umanità
dell'UNESCO.

(altre notizie su: http://scavidiercolano.jimdo.com/)

A seguire visita insieme a:

2. Scavi di Oplontis e Villa di Poppea (telefonare o scrivere per avere
indicazioni su come raggiungere Oplonti se prima non si è partecipato a 1a o
1b)

Per scavi archeologici di Oplonti si intende una serie di ritrovamenti
archeologici appartenenti all'antica città o zona suburbana pompeiana, di
Oplontis, seppellita insieme a Pompei, Ercolano e Stabiae dopo l'eruzione
del Vesuvio del 79 d.c.: oggi l'area archeologica è situata nel centro della
moderna città di Torre Annunziata e comprende una villa d'otium chiamata "di
Poppea" e una villa rustica detta "B o di Lucius Crassius Tertius".

(altre notizie su http://www.pompeiisites.org/Sezione.jsp?idSezione=281)



Martedi 20 luglio

3. Visita all’antica città di Pompei (giornata intera) - (appuntamento
ore 8,30 presso l'ingresso di Piazza Anfiteatro)

(con speciale visita alle due domus di Giulio Polibio e dei casti Amanti.
Chi fosse intenzionato a prenotare anche per le due domus deve effettuare
autonomamente la prenotazione obbligatoria dal lunedì al venerdì ore 9.00
-18.00 e il sabato ore 9.00- 14.00 al numero 199 104 114)

Nell'area degli scavi archeologici di Pompei è stata portata alla luce
l'antica città romana distrutta tragicamente a seguito di una delle eruzioni
del vicino vulcano Vesuvio, avvenuta nell'anno 79. La città e i suoi
abitanti vissero una tra le più grandi tragedie della storia antica che,
cristallizzata nel tempo e in quell'attimo, è stata riportata in superficie
grazie agli scavi voluti e finanziati da Carlo di Borbone.

(altre notizie su http://www.pompeiisites.org/)



Tenere presente che, vista la natura del luogo da visitare e il periodo
particolarmente caldo, si sconsiglia la visita a persone particolarmente
sensibili alla fatica e al caldo.



partecipate numerosi anche con amici e simpatizzanti !!!



_____



Per informazioni:
Associazione Pomerium - www.pomerium.org
c/o Marocco F. - Viale Alessandrino 477 - 00172 Roma

<mailto:info@...> info@... -
<mailto:amministrazione@...> amministrazione@... -
<mailto:segreteria@...> segreteria@...



Vive ergo moribus praeteritis, loquere verbis praesentibus (Vivi perciò con
la moralità degli antichi, ma usa le parole della modernità; A.Gellio -
Notti Attiche)





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77384 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Results of the Election in the Comitia Plebis Tributa
Ex Officio Tribunae Plebis Maximae Valeriae Messallinae Quiritibus S.P.D.
 
 
Here are the results of the election for 1 Aedilis Plebis in the Comitia Plebis Tributa:
 
40 ballots were received in total.

One ballot was duplicated and was excluded, and two ballots were empty; this resulted in 37 valid votes.
 
Individually, 35 ballots were cast for V. Rutilia Enodiaria, 1 write-in ballot cast for M. Moravius Piscinus and 1 write-in ballot cast for Sp. Porcius.
 
The voting results are: V. Rutilia Enodiaria won 25 tribal votes, M. Moravius Piscinus won 1 tribal vote.

9 tribes did not vote.

Vibia Rutilia Enodiaria is elected as Aedilis Plebis.
 
My congratulations to V. Rutilia Enodiaria! I thank her for her willingness to serve and I wish her all the best.

These results were provided to the Tribunes by L. Livia Plauta and M. Arminius Maior, who I thank for their good work in their service to our Respublica.
 
I wish to also thank all the Citizens who voted in the Comitia Plebis Tributa. Thank you for making your will known.
 
 
Valete bene in pace Deorum,
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
Tribuna Plebis




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77385 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Congratulations to those elected to office and thank you to all the candidates on their willingness to serve.
 
Valete bene,
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
 
 
 
 


<<--- On Mon, 7/5/10, Christer Edling <christer.edling@...> wrote:

Ex Officio Consulis Caesonis Fabii Buteonis Quintiliani

Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Comitia
Populi

This report on the result was dellayed due to thunder nad lightning
discontinuing the Internet access.

I. Election of One Aedilis Curulis

Lucia Iulia Aquila received 19 tribal votes.
Gaius Equitius Cato received 5 tribal votes.

8 tribes were tied between L.Iulia Aquila and G.Equitius Cato.
Three tribes did not vote for Aedilis Curulis.

There was no need to break ties.

Lucia Iulia Aquila was elected Aedilis Curulis.

II. Two Quaestores needed, one candidate

Quintus Servilius Priscus was elected.

III: Two Rogatores needed, one candidate

Raina Cornelia Aeternia was elected.

IV. This Edictum becomes effective immediately.

Given this 5th of July, in the year of the Consulship of P. Memmius
Albucius and the Second Consulship of K.Fabius Buteo Quintilianus,2763
AUC.

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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Consul Iterum
Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae>>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77386 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria
Salvete omnes,
now some weeks have passed, and we never received any reports from the
conventus in Rome.
Who was there? What did they do? I'm curious: I hope someone will take the
time to report.

I know, I slacked off too, failing to report about the events I attended,
but I have the excuse that I have been over three weeks with only stolen
(and slow) wi-fi Internet access, so that coused me a backlog of unread and
unanswered emails that took more than ten days to process now that I'm in a
hotel with a good Internet connection.

Some links about the Ulpia Pautalia (Kyustendil) festival of June 5,6, 7,
were posted by M. Lucretius Agricola.
I have posted a lot of photos (of the place, but not of the festival,
because I couldn't take photos when involved) on my Facebook profile, but
some additional ones by A. Vitellius Celsus can be found here:
http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/UlpiaPautalia2010#

This festival was organized by A. Vitellius Celsus, who lives in Sofia, and
by a friend of his from Kyustendil. The city authorities were very helpful,
and we had a very good time, despite the rain, which disrupted out schedule
a bit.
The religious ceremonies (re-enactment only, not real ones) were performed
by Ti. Claudius Drusus, the only citizen NR has in Estonia, and whose
powerful presence and voice made them unforgettable.
There were also legionaries, gladiators from Varna, among them two women who
were extraordinarily good, and a group from Veliko Tarnovo who demonstrated
the use of Roman ballistae. The program included the showing of "Miles
gloriosus", the play by Plautus, unfortunately for us foreigners, in
Bulgarian.
I presented my Roman fashion show, with around 20 kilos of clothes,
including tunicae, pallae, stolae, togae, pallia, lacernae. There was also a
Roman food tasting.
Our accommodation was on the top of the Hisarlika hill, which was in ancient
times the town acropolis, and had a temple to Aesculapius. Ulpia Pautalia
had hot mineral springs which were used by the Romans, and the current
thermal baths are right next to the ruins of the Roman ones. The
archaological museum is small, but it has interesting exhibits, including a
whole Roman chariot. These chariots are not rare in Bulgaria, because
Thracian custom was to bury them with their owner, but they are still very
interesting for those of us who come from abroad.
On the whole we had a very good time (and a lot of home-made rakia - the
best spirit in Bulgaria).

In Kyustendil I learned that in two weeks there would be another Roman
reenactment festival in Plovdiv, exactly in the same dates as the consular
conventus in Rome.
So, prompted also by money considerations, I decided to desert the conventus
and go to Plovdiv.

I don't regret it, because the festival was a success, and I was totally
fascinated by the city.
Plovdiv was founded on seven hills, like Rome (unfortunately only 5 are
left, because two were strip-mined for granite), but, unlike those of Rome,
these hills preserved their steep nature and are not completely built on.
Part of the festival took place on the Nebet Tepe hill, which was the
acropolis of the ancient town, and the view was breathtaking.
The other part of the festival took place in the reconstructed odeon, in the
Roman forum.
Plovdiv also has a spectacular Roman theatre, but unfortunately we couldn't
perform there, because it was occupied by an opera festival.
This festival had less participalts than the one in Kyustendil, though here
too there were legionaries and gladiators, so my part was bigger. I
performed a ritual on Friday for Venus and one on Saturday for Saturn, and I
did my Roman fashion show. Here, however the weather was finally warm
enough, and it allowed me to add another element to the show, the Roman
bikini.
One of the organizers of the festival is an excellent cook and made a
demonstration of Roman food, which was delicious. He is also the one who
held the slave market.
The looser program of the festival allowed us a lot of time to fool around,
eat, drink and make friends. Thanks to the organizers we had out meals at a
very nice garden restaurant at the very top of the Nebet Tepe, and it's here
and in its surroundings that we spent a lot of time.
You can see us in these photo albums:
http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/antichen-festival-plovdiv-20-06-2010.511508

at the end of this one you can see my fashion show
http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/vtori-antichen-festival-2010-plovdiv.511218

This one is by A. Vitellius Celsus
http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/FsiORB#

Optime valete,
Livia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77387 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: why ...
P Ullerius Stephanus Venator

alias

Steven Patrick Stewart Robinson
Master Mason, 32nd Degree, Lodge Chaplain Emeritus,
3rd Degree Ritual Team Member Emeritus
Perpetual Member Papillion #39 AF&AM, Papillion, Nebraska
Life Member, A&ASR/SJ, Omaha, Nebraska
Member (inactive) Roscoe #75 AF&AM, Roscoe, Illinois
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77388 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: why ...
Salve;

I have always been interested in the Scottish Rite, having read some of
Albert Pike's Morals and Dogmas. I've enjoyed Chapter and Council and have
thought about Scottish Rite. Your thoughts?

Recently I was in Washington, DC and instead of waiting at the airport for a
couple of hours I got on the metro and went to the George Washington Masonic
Memorial, even if for only 20 minutes. Lovely place.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <
famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:

>
>
> P Ullerius Stephanus Venator
>
> alias
>
> Steven Patrick Stewart Robinson
> Master Mason, 32nd Degree, Lodge Chaplain Emeritus,
> 3rd Degree Ritual Team Member Emeritus
> Perpetual Member Papillion #39 AF&AM, Papillion, Nebraska
> Life Member, A&ASR/SJ, Omaha, Nebraska
> Member (inactive) Roscoe #75 AF&AM, Roscoe, Illinois
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77389 From: Aqvillivs Rota Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re.: Results of the elections
Salvete,

Congratulations to newly elected Magistrates!

Especially to my Procurator AQVILA ! I am very happy to that Nova Roma has a
Magistrate with her who has a brain a mouth, two arms and hands which are used
to create things and not only to type messages.

Something which would fit our Senate too, as I sometimes see more contra
productive waste of energy than the necessary Roman fighting spirit with a
thrive for development.

In my eyes, the energy level is right; it just needs to be more focused.

The spirit of unity for a common goal, the acceptance and the trust in the
leadership skills of our elected Consuls in order to get something done!


In this sense, I wish you all a lot of success!

Vivat Nova Roma

C.AQV.ROTA
TRIB.PLEB.
LEG.PR.PR.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77390 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: OT: Freemasonry, was Re: why ...
Salve frater;

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:16 PM, David Kling wrote:
>
> Salve;
>
> I have always been interested in the Scottish Rite, having read some of
> Albert Pike's Morals and Dogmas. I've enjoyed Chapter and Council and have
> thought about Scottish Rite. Your thoughts?
>
> Recently I was in Washington, DC and instead of waiting at the airport for a
> couple of hours I got on the metro and went to the George Washington Masonic
> Memorial, even if for only 20 minutes. Lovely place.
>
> Vale;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>

I did go through the 29 degrees within the Scottish Rite to see what
the lessons were, which amplify those of the 3 Degrees in the Blue
Lodge. I spent most all my time in my home lodge, though, as Chaplain
and in ritual work.

I did not go York Rite as I understand there to be an oath involved
which defines one as a defender of the Christian faith. Two college
friends with whom my wife and I have kept close ties over the years
completed both Scottish and York Rite, but have also spent most of
their time with their local lodge.

So, York Rite is fine for those who can make that oath at the appropriate level.

"Morals and Dogma" is quite the tome. Albert Pike was a world class
thinker in my view and crammed some many pearls of wisdom between
those two covers.

There does exists a Masonic Pagans list...I'll see if I still have the link.

Vale - Venator
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77391 From: C.Maria Caeca Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: To our newest magistrates
Salvete omnes!

I am delighted to congratulate our newest magistrates! I am sue that Enodia
will do an excellent job as Plebeian Aedile, And I am equally sue that
Aeternia will be an excellent Rogator. I am especially to see this, and
hope, Aeternia, that you find the duties of interest, and that you will be
encouraged to run for another office in January!

Valete Bene,
CMC
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77392 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria
Salve Livia;
sounds fabulous. I wish I'd been there, I was checking your photos over at Facebook. Both Plodiv and Kyustendil are beautiful. Were any of the participants modern cultural Romans? or did it divide into re-enactors and polytheists. Really impressive to see our common culture in action!
optime vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
> now some weeks have passed, and we never received any reports from the
> conventus in Rome.
> Who was there? What did they do? I'm curious: I hope someone will take the
> time to report.
>
> I know, I slacked off too, failing to report about the events I attended,
> but I have the excuse that I have been over three weeks with only stolen
> (and slow) wi-fi Internet access, so that coused me a backlog of unread and
> unanswered emails that took more than ten days to process now that I'm in a
> hotel with a good Internet connection.
>
> Some links about the Ulpia Pautalia (Kyustendil) festival of June 5,6, 7,
> were posted by M. Lucretius Agricola.
> I have posted a lot of photos (of the place, but not of the festival,
> because I couldn't take photos when involved) on my Facebook profile, but
> some additional ones by A. Vitellius Celsus can be found here:
> http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/UlpiaPautalia2010#
>
> This festival was organized by A. Vitellius Celsus, who lives in Sofia, and
> by a friend of his from Kyustendil. The city authorities were very helpful,
> and we had a very good time, despite the rain, which disrupted out schedule
> a bit.
> The religious ceremonies (re-enactment only, not real ones) were performed
> by Ti. Claudius Drusus, the only citizen NR has in Estonia, and whose
> powerful presence and voice made them unforgettable.
> There were also legionaries, gladiators from Varna, among them two women who
> were extraordinarily good, and a group from Veliko Tarnovo who demonstrated
> the use of Roman ballistae. The program included the showing of "Miles
> gloriosus", the play by Plautus, unfortunately for us foreigners, in
> Bulgarian.
> I presented my Roman fashion show, with around 20 kilos of clothes,
> including tunicae, pallae, stolae, togae, pallia, lacernae. There was also a
> Roman food tasting.
> Our accommodation was on the top of the Hisarlika hill, which was in ancient
> times the town acropolis, and had a temple to Aesculapius. Ulpia Pautalia
> had hot mineral springs which were used by the Romans, and the current
> thermal baths are right next to the ruins of the Roman ones. The
> archaological museum is small, but it has interesting exhibits, including a
> whole Roman chariot. These chariots are not rare in Bulgaria, because
> Thracian custom was to bury them with their owner, but they are still very
> interesting for those of us who come from abroad.
> On the whole we had a very good time (and a lot of home-made rakia - the
> best spirit in Bulgaria).
>
> In Kyustendil I learned that in two weeks there would be another Roman
> reenactment festival in Plovdiv, exactly in the same dates as the consular
> conventus in Rome.
> So, prompted also by money considerations, I decided to desert the conventus
> and go to Plovdiv.
>
> I don't regret it, because the festival was a success, and I was totally
> fascinated by the city.
> Plovdiv was founded on seven hills, like Rome (unfortunately only 5 are
> left, because two were strip-mined for granite), but, unlike those of Rome,
> these hills preserved their steep nature and are not completely built on.
> Part of the festival took place on the Nebet Tepe hill, which was the
> acropolis of the ancient town, and the view was breathtaking.
> The other part of the festival took place in the reconstructed odeon, in the
> Roman forum.
> Plovdiv also has a spectacular Roman theatre, but unfortunately we couldn't
> perform there, because it was occupied by an opera festival.
> This festival had less participalts than the one in Kyustendil, though here
> too there were legionaries and gladiators, so my part was bigger. I
> performed a ritual on Friday for Venus and one on Saturday for Saturn, and I
> did my Roman fashion show. Here, however the weather was finally warm
> enough, and it allowed me to add another element to the show, the Roman
> bikini.
> One of the organizers of the festival is an excellent cook and made a
> demonstration of Roman food, which was delicious. He is also the one who
> held the slave market.
> The looser program of the festival allowed us a lot of time to fool around,
> eat, drink and make friends. Thanks to the organizers we had out meals at a
> very nice garden restaurant at the very top of the Nebet Tepe, and it's here
> and in its surroundings that we spent a lot of time.
> You can see us in these photo albums:
> http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/antichen-festival-plovdiv-20-06-2010.511508
>
> at the end of this one you can see my fashion show
> http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/vtori-antichen-festival-2010-plovdiv.511218
>
> This one is by A. Vitellius Celsus
> http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/FsiORB#
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77393 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: the pagan places of the 'holy' land
Salvete; this is a very interesting article, about the pagan origins of the most revered christian sites in Israel. Really fascinating. The book for those who have access to good libraries and library loan is

"Christians and the Holy Places: the myth of Jewish-Christian origins" Oxford University Press 1993 Joan E Smith

http://tinyurl.com/38dfc63
enjoy and may the gods favour Nova Roma!
M. Hortensia Maior
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77394 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-05
Subject: Re: the pagan places of the 'holy' land
Cato Maiori sal.

WHAT??? The Church of the Nativity might *not* be the place where Jesus was actually born??? Oh my God - I can't possibly be a Christian anymore!

LOL

You act as if it is a surprise - a deep hidden secret - that Christian churches were built over other religious edifices or even over places that were chosen by some possibly faulty historic tradition. It's not, and the see-saw of ownership of holy places all over the world throughout human history isn't a surprise either. The Romans did the same thing.

The article was published in AD 1993. How long did you spend searching to find this horrifically damning denunciation?

Vale,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete; this is a very interesting article, about the pagan origins of the most revered christian sites in Israel. Really fascinating. The book for those who have access to good libraries and library loan is
>
> "Christians and the Holy Places: the myth of Jewish-Christian origins" Oxford University Press 1993 Joan E Smith
>
> http://tinyurl.com/38dfc63
> enjoy and may the gods favour Nova Roma!
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77395 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
C. Petronius Quiritibus s.p.d.,

> I. Election of One Aedilis Curulis
> Lucia Iulia Aquila received 19 tribal votes.
> Gaius Equitius Cato received 5 tribal votes.
> 8 tribes were tied between L.Iulia Aquila and G.Equitius Cato.
> Three tribes did not vote for Aedilis Curulis.>
> There was no need to break ties.>
> Lucia Iulia Aquila was elected Aedilis Curulis.

Feliciter Juliae Aquilae! As I sang...

"Vota vovens decori Cybeles pura, atque Quiriti
Esto Turrigerae cordi, tu Iulia victrix."

Magna Mater was with you, amica Julia.
And now: Let Games come! I guess that Apollo is impatient.

> II. Two Quaestores needed, one candidate
> Quintus Servilius Priscus was elected.

Gratulations!

> III: Two Rogatores needed, one candidate
> Raina Cornelia Aeternia was elected.

Long live our noble Raina...

Optime valete.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Pridie Nonas Quintiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77396 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
M. Hortensia C. Petronio spd;
I think people have missed the College of Augurs' postings
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/77357

optime vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Quiritibus s.p.d.,
>
> > I. Election of One Aedilis Curulis
> > Lucia Iulia Aquila received 19 tribal votes.
> > Gaius Equitius Cato received 5 tribal votes.
> > 8 tribes were tied between L.Iulia Aquila and G.Equitius Cato.
> > Three tribes did not vote for Aedilis Curulis.>
> > There was no need to break ties.>
> > Lucia Iulia Aquila was elected Aedilis Curulis.
>
> Feliciter Juliae Aquilae! As I sang...
>
> "Vota vovens decori Cybeles pura, atque Quiriti
> Esto Turrigerae cordi, tu Iulia victrix."
>
> Magna Mater was with you, amica Julia.
> And now: Let Games come! I guess that Apollo is impatient.
>
> > II. Two Quaestores needed, one candidate
> > Quintus Servilius Priscus was elected.
>
> Gratulations!
>
> > III: Two Rogatores needed, one candidate
> > Raina Cornelia Aeternia was elected.
>
> Long live our noble Raina...
>
> Optime valete.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> Pridie Nonas Quintiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77397 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: June Conventus was canceled
Cn. Lentulus accensus consularis Liviae Plautae omnibusque sal.


Unfortunately, the Conventus in Rome was canceled. No one announced their participation. As far as I know, after the cancellation, the consul decided to travel to Rome as a private trip, and probably met one of the Italic leaders, Perusianus, to talk about various organizational matters.

Vale!

CN LENTVLVS
Accensus Consulis CFBQ


--- Lun 5/7/10, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...> ha scritto:

Da: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Lunedì 5 luglio 2010, 22:53







 









Salvete omnes,

now some weeks have passed, and we never received any reports from the

conventus in Rome.

Who was there? What did they do? I'm curious: I hope someone will take the

time to report.



I know, I slacked off too, failing to report about the events I attended,

but I have the excuse that I have been over three weeks with only stolen

(and slow) wi-fi Internet access, so that coused me a backlog of unread and

unanswered emails that took more than ten days to process now that I'm in a

hotel with a good Internet connection.



Some links about the Ulpia Pautalia (Kyustendil) festival of June 5,6, 7,

were posted by M. Lucretius Agricola.

I have posted a lot of photos (of the place, but not of the festival,

because I couldn't take photos when involved) on my Facebook profile, but

some additional ones by A. Vitellius Celsus can be found here:

http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/UlpiaPautalia2010#



This festival was organized by A. Vitellius Celsus, who lives in Sofia, and

by a friend of his from Kyustendil. The city authorities were very helpful,

and we had a very good time, despite the rain, which disrupted out schedule

a bit.

The religious ceremonies (re-enactment only, not real ones) were performed

by Ti. Claudius Drusus, the only citizen NR has in Estonia, and whose

powerful presence and voice made them unforgettable.

There were also legionaries, gladiators from Varna, among them two women who

were extraordinarily good, and a group from Veliko Tarnovo who demonstrated

the use of Roman ballistae. The program included the showing of "Miles

gloriosus", the play by Plautus, unfortunately for us foreigners, in

Bulgarian.

I presented my Roman fashion show, with around 20 kilos of clothes,

including tunicae, pallae, stolae, togae, pallia, lacernae. There was also a

Roman food tasting.

Our accommodation was on the top of the Hisarlika hill, which was in ancient

times the town acropolis, and had a temple to Aesculapius. Ulpia Pautalia

had hot mineral springs which were used by the Romans, and the current

thermal baths are right next to the ruins of the Roman ones. The

archaological museum is small, but it has interesting exhibits, including a

whole Roman chariot. These chariots are not rare in Bulgaria, because

Thracian custom was to bury them with their owner, but they are still very

interesting for those of us who come from abroad.

On the whole we had a very good time (and a lot of home-made rakia - the

best spirit in Bulgaria).



In Kyustendil I learned that in two weeks there would be another Roman

reenactment festival in Plovdiv, exactly in the same dates as the consular

conventus in Rome.

So, prompted also by money considerations, I decided to desert the conventus

and go to Plovdiv.



I don't regret it, because the festival was a success, and I was totally

fascinated by the city.

Plovdiv was founded on seven hills, like Rome (unfortunately only 5 are

left, because two were strip-mined for granite), but, unlike those of Rome,

these hills preserved their steep nature and are not completely built on.

Part of the festival took place on the Nebet Tepe hill, which was the

acropolis of the ancient town, and the view was breathtaking.

The other part of the festival took place in the reconstructed odeon, in the

Roman forum.

Plovdiv also has a spectacular Roman theatre, but unfortunately we couldn't

perform there, because it was occupied by an opera festival.

This festival had less participalts than the one in Kyustendil, though here

too there were legionaries and gladiators, so my part was bigger. I

performed a ritual on Friday for Venus and one on Saturday for Saturn, and I

did my Roman fashion show. Here, however the weather was finally warm

enough, and it allowed me to add another element to the show, the Roman

bikini.

One of the organizers of the festival is an excellent cook and made a

demonstration of Roman food, which was delicious. He is also the one who

held the slave market.

The looser program of the festival allowed us a lot of time to fool around,

eat, drink and make friends. Thanks to the organizers we had out meals at a

very nice garden restaurant at the very top of the Nebet Tepe, and it's here

and in its surroundings that we spent a lot of time.

You can see us in these photo albums:

http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/antichen-festival-plovdiv-20-06-2010.511508



at the end of this one you can see my fashion show

http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/vtori-antichen-festival-2010-plovdiv.511218



This one is by A. Vitellius Celsus

http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/FsiORB#



Optime valete,

Livia

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77398 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Salve Maior,

I think the augurs only mentioned the Comitia Centuriata, still voting
actually, not the Plebian or Tribal Comitia.

Cheers and Vale.
Valerianus

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:41 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> M. Hortensia C. Petronio spd;
> I think people have missed the College of Augurs' postings
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/77357
>
> optime vale
> Maior
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
> >
> > C. Petronius Quiritibus s.p.d.,
> >
> > > I. Election of One Aedilis Curulis
> > > Lucia Iulia Aquila received 19 tribal votes.
> > > Gaius Equitius Cato received 5 tribal votes.
> > > 8 tribes were tied between L.Iulia Aquila and G.Equitius Cato.
> > > Three tribes did not vote for Aedilis Curulis.>
> > > There was no need to break ties.>
> > > Lucia Iulia Aquila was elected Aedilis Curulis.
> >
> > Feliciter Juliae Aquilae! As I sang...
> >
> > "Vota vovens decori Cybeles pura, atque Quiriti
> > Esto Turrigerae cordi, tu Iulia victrix."
> >
> > Magna Mater was with you, amica Julia.
> > And now: Let Games come! I guess that Apollo is impatient.
> >
> > > II. Two Quaestores needed, one candidate
> > > Quintus Servilius Priscus was elected.
> >
> > Gratulations!
> >
> > > III: Two Rogatores needed, one candidate
> > > Raina Cornelia Aeternia was elected.
> >
> > Long live our noble Raina...
> >
> > Optime valete.
> >
> > C. Petronius Dexter
> > Arcoiali scribebat
> > Pridie Nonas Quintiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
> >
>
>
>



--
"Qua(e) patres difficillime
adepti sunt nolite
turpiter relinquere" -
Monumentum Bradfordis, Tamaropoli, in civitate Massaciuseta
(Bradford Monument, Plymouth, MA)

Check out my books on Goodreads: <a href="
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus?utm_source=email_widget">
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus</a>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77399 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
OOPS! I meant Plebian and Popular. You knew that, though :)

~ Valerianus

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:

> Salve Maior,
>
> I think the augurs only mentioned the Comitia Centuriata, still voting
> actually, not the Plebian or Tribal Comitia.
>
> Cheers and Vale.
> Valerianus
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:41 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> M. Hortensia C. Petronio spd;
>> I think people have missed the College of Augurs' postings
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/77357
>>
>> optime vale
>> Maior
>>
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > C. Petronius Quiritibus s.p.d.,
>> >
>> > > I. Election of One Aedilis Curulis
>> > > Lucia Iulia Aquila received 19 tribal votes.
>> > > Gaius Equitius Cato received 5 tribal votes.
>> > > 8 tribes were tied between L.Iulia Aquila and G.Equitius Cato.
>> > > Three tribes did not vote for Aedilis Curulis.>
>> > > There was no need to break ties.>
>> > > Lucia Iulia Aquila was elected Aedilis Curulis.
>> >
>> > Feliciter Juliae Aquilae! As I sang...
>> >
>> > "Vota vovens decori Cybeles pura, atque Quiriti
>> > Esto Turrigerae cordi, tu Iulia victrix."
>> >
>> > Magna Mater was with you, amica Julia.
>> > And now: Let Games come! I guess that Apollo is impatient.
>> >
>> > > II. Two Quaestores needed, one candidate
>> > > Quintus Servilius Priscus was elected.
>> >
>> > Gratulations!
>> >
>> > > III: Two Rogatores needed, one candidate
>> > > Raina Cornelia Aeternia was elected.
>> >
>> > Long live our noble Raina...
>> >
>> > Optime valete.
>> >
>> > C. Petronius Dexter
>> > Arcoiali scribebat
>> > Pridie Nonas Quintiles P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Qua(e) patres difficillime
> adepti sunt nolite
> turpiter relinquere" -
> Monumentum Bradfordis, Tamaropoli, in civitate Massaciuseta
> (Bradford Monument, Plymouth, MA)
>
> Check out my books on Goodreads: <a href="
> http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus?utm_source=email_widget">
> http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus</a>
>



--
"Qua(e) patres difficillime
adepti sunt nolite
turpiter relinquere" -
Monumentum Bradfordis, Tamaropoli, in civitate Massaciuseta
(Bradford Monument, Plymouth, MA)

Check out my books on Goodreads: <a href="
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus?utm_source=email_widget">
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus</a>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77400 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: June Conventus was canceled
Livia Lentulo sal.

You must be joking! The cancellation was never announced: on the contrary,
the conventus was publicized particularly the last week before it was
supposed to happen, and I know that Marcus Prometheus travelled there all
the way from Moldavia. The last news I had of the conventus was that Marcus
was having trouble finding the others.
At least Perusianus must have been there, and probably the other people from
Rome.

Optime vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 7:47 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] June Conventus was canceled


Cn. Lentulus accensus consularis Liviae Plautae omnibusque sal.


Unfortunately, the Conventus in Rome was canceled. No one announced their
participation. As far as I know, after the cancellation, the consul decided
to travel to Rome as a private trip, and probably met one of the Italic
leaders, Perusianus, to talk about various organizational matters.

Vale!

CN LENTVLVS
Accensus Consulis CFBQ


--- Lun 5/7/10, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...> ha scritto:

Da: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Lunedì 5 luglio 2010, 22:53

















Salvete omnes,

now some weeks have passed, and we never received any reports from the

conventus in Rome.

Who was there? What did they do? I'm curious: I hope someone will take the

time to report.



I know, I slacked off too, failing to report about the events I attended,

but I have the excuse that I have been over three weeks with only stolen

(and slow) wi-fi Internet access, so that coused me a backlog of unread and

unanswered emails that took more than ten days to process now that I'm in a

hotel with a good Internet connection.



Some links about the Ulpia Pautalia (Kyustendil) festival of June 5,6, 7,

were posted by M. Lucretius Agricola.

I have posted a lot of photos (of the place, but not of the festival,

because I couldn't take photos when involved) on my Facebook profile, but

some additional ones by A. Vitellius Celsus can be found here:

http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/UlpiaPautalia2010#



This festival was organized by A. Vitellius Celsus, who lives in Sofia, and

by a friend of his from Kyustendil. The city authorities were very helpful,

and we had a very good time, despite the rain, which disrupted out schedule

a bit.

The religious ceremonies (re-enactment only, not real ones) were performed

by Ti. Claudius Drusus, the only citizen NR has in Estonia, and whose

powerful presence and voice made them unforgettable.

There were also legionaries, gladiators from Varna, among them two women who

were extraordinarily good, and a group from Veliko Tarnovo who demonstrated

the use of Roman ballistae. The program included the showing of "Miles

gloriosus", the play by Plautus, unfortunately for us foreigners, in

Bulgarian.

I presented my Roman fashion show, with around 20 kilos of clothes,

including tunicae, pallae, stolae, togae, pallia, lacernae. There was also a

Roman food tasting.

Our accommodation was on the top of the Hisarlika hill, which was in ancient

times the town acropolis, and had a temple to Aesculapius. Ulpia Pautalia

had hot mineral springs which were used by the Romans, and the current

thermal baths are right next to the ruins of the Roman ones. The

archaological museum is small, but it has interesting exhibits, including a

whole Roman chariot. These chariots are not rare in Bulgaria, because

Thracian custom was to bury them with their owner, but they are still very

interesting for those of us who come from abroad.

On the whole we had a very good time (and a lot of home-made rakia - the

best spirit in Bulgaria).



In Kyustendil I learned that in two weeks there would be another Roman

reenactment festival in Plovdiv, exactly in the same dates as the consular

conventus in Rome.

So, prompted also by money considerations, I decided to desert the conventus

and go to Plovdiv.



I don't regret it, because the festival was a success, and I was totally

fascinated by the city.

Plovdiv was founded on seven hills, like Rome (unfortunately only 5 are

left, because two were strip-mined for granite), but, unlike those of Rome,

these hills preserved their steep nature and are not completely built on.

Part of the festival took place on the Nebet Tepe hill, which was the

acropolis of the ancient town, and the view was breathtaking.

The other part of the festival took place in the reconstructed odeon, in the

Roman forum.

Plovdiv also has a spectacular Roman theatre, but unfortunately we couldn't

perform there, because it was occupied by an opera festival.

This festival had less participalts than the one in Kyustendil, though here

too there were legionaries and gladiators, so my part was bigger. I

performed a ritual on Friday for Venus and one on Saturday for Saturn, and I

did my Roman fashion show. Here, however the weather was finally warm

enough, and it allowed me to add another element to the show, the Roman

bikini.

One of the organizers of the festival is an excellent cook and made a

demonstration of Roman food, which was delicious. He is also the one who

held the slave market.

The looser program of the festival allowed us a lot of time to fool around,

eat, drink and make friends. Thanks to the organizers we had out meals at a

very nice garden restaurant at the very top of the Nebet Tepe, and it's here

and in its surroundings that we spent a lot of time.

You can see us in these photo albums:

http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/antichen-festival-plovdiv-20-06-2010.511508



at the end of this one you can see my fashion show

http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/vtori-antichen-festival-2010-plovdiv.511218



This one is by A. Vitellius Celsus

http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/FsiORB#



Optime valete,

Livia

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77401 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria
Salve Maior,
it turned out that none of the participants were polytheists.
They were either christians or atheists.
There were some students of the only high school in Bulgaria which teaches
Latin and Greek. I guess you could say those are cultural Romans. To me it
seems that if someone doesn't understand Latin and is not polytheist there
is not much left to define his/her "romanity" by.
However there were plenty of enthusiastic re-enactors.

Optime vale,
Livia


----- Original Message -----
From: "rory12001" <rory12001@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 4:20 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria


Salve Livia;
sounds fabulous. I wish I'd been there, I was checking your photos over at
Facebook. Both Plodiv and Kyustendil are beautiful. Were any of the
participants modern cultural Romans? or did it divide into re-enactors and
polytheists. Really impressive to see our common culture in action!
optime vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...>
wrote:
>
> Salvete omnes,
> now some weeks have passed, and we never received any reports from the
> conventus in Rome.
> Who was there? What did they do? I'm curious: I hope someone will take the
> time to report.
>
> I know, I slacked off too, failing to report about the events I attended,
> but I have the excuse that I have been over three weeks with only stolen
> (and slow) wi-fi Internet access, so that coused me a backlog of unread
> and
> unanswered emails that took more than ten days to process now that I'm in
> a
> hotel with a good Internet connection.
>
> Some links about the Ulpia Pautalia (Kyustendil) festival of June 5,6, 7,
> were posted by M. Lucretius Agricola.
> I have posted a lot of photos (of the place, but not of the festival,
> because I couldn't take photos when involved) on my Facebook profile, but
> some additional ones by A. Vitellius Celsus can be found here:
> http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/UlpiaPautalia2010#
>
> This festival was organized by A. Vitellius Celsus, who lives in Sofia,
> and
> by a friend of his from Kyustendil. The city authorities were very
> helpful,
> and we had a very good time, despite the rain, which disrupted out
> schedule
> a bit.
> The religious ceremonies (re-enactment only, not real ones) were performed
> by Ti. Claudius Drusus, the only citizen NR has in Estonia, and whose
> powerful presence and voice made them unforgettable.
> There were also legionaries, gladiators from Varna, among them two women
> who
> were extraordinarily good, and a group from Veliko Tarnovo who
> demonstrated
> the use of Roman ballistae. The program included the showing of "Miles
> gloriosus", the play by Plautus, unfortunately for us foreigners, in
> Bulgarian.
> I presented my Roman fashion show, with around 20 kilos of clothes,
> including tunicae, pallae, stolae, togae, pallia, lacernae. There was also
> a
> Roman food tasting.
> Our accommodation was on the top of the Hisarlika hill, which was in
> ancient
> times the town acropolis, and had a temple to Aesculapius. Ulpia Pautalia
> had hot mineral springs which were used by the Romans, and the current
> thermal baths are right next to the ruins of the Roman ones. The
> archaological museum is small, but it has interesting exhibits, including
> a
> whole Roman chariot. These chariots are not rare in Bulgaria, because
> Thracian custom was to bury them with their owner, but they are still very
> interesting for those of us who come from abroad.
> On the whole we had a very good time (and a lot of home-made rakia - the
> best spirit in Bulgaria).
>
> In Kyustendil I learned that in two weeks there would be another Roman
> reenactment festival in Plovdiv, exactly in the same dates as the consular
> conventus in Rome.
> So, prompted also by money considerations, I decided to desert the
> conventus
> and go to Plovdiv.
>
> I don't regret it, because the festival was a success, and I was totally
> fascinated by the city.
> Plovdiv was founded on seven hills, like Rome (unfortunately only 5 are
> left, because two were strip-mined for granite), but, unlike those of
> Rome,
> these hills preserved their steep nature and are not completely built on.
> Part of the festival took place on the Nebet Tepe hill, which was the
> acropolis of the ancient town, and the view was breathtaking.
> The other part of the festival took place in the reconstructed odeon, in
> the
> Roman forum.
> Plovdiv also has a spectacular Roman theatre, but unfortunately we
> couldn't
> perform there, because it was occupied by an opera festival.
> This festival had less participalts than the one in Kyustendil, though
> here
> too there were legionaries and gladiators, so my part was bigger. I
> performed a ritual on Friday for Venus and one on Saturday for Saturn, and
> I
> did my Roman fashion show. Here, however the weather was finally warm
> enough, and it allowed me to add another element to the show, the Roman
> bikini.
> One of the organizers of the festival is an excellent cook and made a
> demonstration of Roman food, which was delicious. He is also the one who
> held the slave market.
> The looser program of the festival allowed us a lot of time to fool
> around,
> eat, drink and make friends. Thanks to the organizers we had out meals at
> a
> very nice garden restaurant at the very top of the Nebet Tepe, and it's
> here
> and in its surroundings that we spent a lot of time.
> You can see us in these photo albums:
> http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/antichen-festival-plovdiv-20-06-2010.511508
>
> at the end of this one you can see my fashion show
> http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/vtori-antichen-festival-2010-plovdiv.511218
>
> This one is by A. Vitellius Celsus
> http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/FsiORB#
>
> Optime valete,
> Livia
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77402 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: June Conventus was canceled
Lentulus Liviae sal.

The cancellation happened on the first day of the Conventus. Until that, no one registered as participant, so it was cancelled.

Vale!

Cn. Lentulus
accensus consularis



--- Mar 6/7/10, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...> ha scritto:

Da: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>
Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] June Conventus was canceled
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Martedì 6 luglio 2010, 08:54







 









Livia Lentulo sal.



You must be joking! The cancellation was never announced: on the contrary,

the conventus was publicized particularly the last week before it was

supposed to happen, and I know that Marcus Prometheus travelled there all

the way from Moldavia. The last news I had of the conventus was that Marcus

was having trouble finding the others.

At least Perusianus must have been there, and probably the other people from

Rome.



Optime vale,

Livia



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

From: "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...>

To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 7:47 AM

Subject: [Nova-Roma] June Conventus was canceled



Cn. Lentulus accensus consularis Liviae Plautae omnibusque sal.



Unfortunately, the Conventus in Rome was canceled. No one announced their

participation. As far as I know, after the cancellation, the consul decided

to travel to Rome as a private trip, and probably met one of the Italic

leaders, Perusianus, to talk about various organizational matters.



Vale!



CN LENTVLVS

Accensus Consulis CFBQ



--- Lun 5/7/10, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...> ha scritto:



Da: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>

Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria

A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Data: Lunedì 5 luglio 2010, 22:53



Salvete omnes,



now some weeks have passed, and we never received any reports from the



conventus in Rome.



Who was there? What did they do? I'm curious: I hope someone will take the



time to report.



I know, I slacked off too, failing to report about the events I attended,



but I have the excuse that I have been over three weeks with only stolen



(and slow) wi-fi Internet access, so that coused me a backlog of unread and



unanswered emails that took more than ten days to process now that I'm in a



hotel with a good Internet connection.



Some links about the Ulpia Pautalia (Kyustendil) festival of June 5,6, 7,



were posted by M. Lucretius Agricola.



I have posted a lot of photos (of the place, but not of the festival,



because I couldn't take photos when involved) on my Facebook profile, but



some additional ones by A. Vitellius Celsus can be found here:



http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/UlpiaPautalia2010#



This festival was organized by A. Vitellius Celsus, who lives in Sofia, and



by a friend of his from Kyustendil. The city authorities were very helpful,



and we had a very good time, despite the rain, which disrupted out schedule



a bit.



The religious ceremonies (re-enactment only, not real ones) were performed



by Ti. Claudius Drusus, the only citizen NR has in Estonia, and whose



powerful presence and voice made them unforgettable.



There were also legionaries, gladiators from Varna, among them two women who



were extraordinarily good, and a group from Veliko Tarnovo who demonstrated



the use of Roman ballistae. The program included the showing of "Miles



gloriosus", the play by Plautus, unfortunately for us foreigners, in



Bulgarian.



I presented my Roman fashion show, with around 20 kilos of clothes,



including tunicae, pallae, stolae, togae, pallia, lacernae. There was also a



Roman food tasting.



Our accommodation was on the top of the Hisarlika hill, which was in ancient



times the town acropolis, and had a temple to Aesculapius. Ulpia Pautalia



had hot mineral springs which were used by the Romans, and the current



thermal baths are right next to the ruins of the Roman ones. The



archaological museum is small, but it has interesting exhibits, including a



whole Roman chariot. These chariots are not rare in Bulgaria, because



Thracian custom was to bury them with their owner, but they are still very



interesting for those of us who come from abroad.



On the whole we had a very good time (and a lot of home-made rakia - the



best spirit in Bulgaria).



In Kyustendil I learned that in two weeks there would be another Roman



reenactment festival in Plovdiv, exactly in the same dates as the consular



conventus in Rome.



So, prompted also by money considerations, I decided to desert the conventus



and go to Plovdiv.



I don't regret it, because the festival was a success, and I was totally



fascinated by the city.



Plovdiv was founded on seven hills, like Rome (unfortunately only 5 are



left, because two were strip-mined for granite), but, unlike those of Rome,



these hills preserved their steep nature and are not completely built on.



Part of the festival took place on the Nebet Tepe hill, which was the



acropolis of the ancient town, and the view was breathtaking.



The other part of the festival took place in the reconstructed odeon, in the



Roman forum.



Plovdiv also has a spectacular Roman theatre, but unfortunately we couldn't



perform there, because it was occupied by an opera festival.



This festival had less participalts than the one in Kyustendil, though here



too there were legionaries and gladiators, so my part was bigger. I



performed a ritual on Friday for Venus and one on Saturday for Saturn, and I



did my Roman fashion show. Here, however the weather was finally warm



enough, and it allowed me to add another element to the show, the Roman



bikini.



One of the organizers of the festival is an excellent cook and made a



demonstration of Roman food, which was delicious. He is also the one who



held the slave market.



The looser program of the festival allowed us a lot of time to fool around,



eat, drink and make friends. Thanks to the organizers we had out meals at a



very nice garden restaurant at the very top of the Nebet Tepe, and it's here



and in its surroundings that we spent a lot of time.



You can see us in these photo albums:



http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/antichen-festival-plovdiv-20-06-2010.511508



at the end of this one you can see my fashion show



http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/vtori-antichen-festival-2010-plovdiv.511218



This one is by A. Vitellius Celsus



http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/FsiORB#



Optime valete,



Livia



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77403 From: Christer Edling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: REPORT about the Consular June Conventus in Rome which was NOT cance
Salvete Quirites!

The Conventus was NOT formally cancelled. Very few, not even my
Colleague gave a definitive answer if they would come. I went together
with a delegation of Swedes to Rome in the hope to meet at least some
Italians. I already knew that for example Senator Perusianus and
Praefectus Placidus wouldn't be able to come, but in the end NO ONE
came, except Marcus Prometheus Decius from Dacia (Moldavia). I had a
very nice talk with him about setting up a project in Dacia, but he
wasn't able to promise anything about that.

The aim for the Conventus was was to allow citizens meet face to face
to lower conflicts and to allow the Consuls to meet with magistrates
and citizens to talk about the future in a Roman enviroment.

The Conventus was sadly enough a failure. The five non-citizens from
Sweden that had joined on the trip with me and Vibius Minucius Falco
were very impressed with Rome and especially the antique parts. If
there had been a good Conventus I am sure we would have had at least
three new citizens ready to WORK for Nova Roma (they are already
members of the reenactment-roleplaying-theater oraganization "Society
Interactive History"), but as it is now that will not happen. Nova
Roma didn't impress.

It is hard to get anything RL to happen in Nova Roma too many just
talk and look for fights.

***********

6 jul 2010 kl. 07.47 skrev Cn. Cornelius Lentulus:

Cn. Lentulus accensus consularis Liviae Plautae omnibusque sal.


Unfortunately, the Conventus in Rome was canceled. No one announced
their participation. As far as I know, after the cancellation, the
consul decided to travel to Rome as a private trip, and probably met
one of the Italic leaders, Perusianus, to talk about various
organizational matters.

Vale!

CN LENTVLVS
Accensus Consulis CFBQ


--- Lun 5/7/10, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...> ha scritto:

Da: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Lunedì 5 luglio 2010, 22:53

















Salvete omnes,

now some weeks have passed, and we never received any reports from the

conventus in Rome.

Who was there? What did they do? I'm curious: I hope someone will take
the

time to report.



I know, I slacked off too, failing to report about the events I
attended,

but I have the excuse that I have been over three weeks with only stolen

(and slow) wi-fi Internet access, so that coused me a backlog of
unread and

unanswered emails that took more than ten days to process now that I'm
in a

hotel with a good Internet connection.



Some links about the Ulpia Pautalia (Kyustendil) festival of June 5,6,
7,

were posted by M. Lucretius Agricola.

I have posted a lot of photos (of the place, but not of the festival,

because I couldn't take photos when involved) on my Facebook profile,
but

some additional ones by A. Vitellius Celsus can be found here:

http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/UlpiaPautalia2010#



This festival was organized by A. Vitellius Celsus, who lives in
Sofia, and

by a friend of his from Kyustendil. The city authorities were very
helpful,

and we had a very good time, despite the rain, which disrupted out
schedule

a bit.

The religious ceremonies (re-enactment only, not real ones) were
performed

by Ti. Claudius Drusus, the only citizen NR has in Estonia, and whose

powerful presence and voice made them unforgettable.

There were also legionaries, gladiators from Varna, among them two
women who

were extraordinarily good, and a group from Veliko Tarnovo who
demonstrated

the use of Roman ballistae. The program included the showing of "Miles

gloriosus", the play by Plautus, unfortunately for us foreigners, in

Bulgarian.

I presented my Roman fashion show, with around 20 kilos of clothes,

including tunicae, pallae, stolae, togae, pallia, lacernae. There was
also a

Roman food tasting.

Our accommodation was on the top of the Hisarlika hill, which was in
ancient

times the town acropolis, and had a temple to Aesculapius. Ulpia
Pautalia

had hot mineral springs which were used by the Romans, and the current

thermal baths are right next to the ruins of the Roman ones. The

archaological museum is small, but it has interesting exhibits,
including a

whole Roman chariot. These chariots are not rare in Bulgaria, because

Thracian custom was to bury them with their owner, but they are still
very

interesting for those of us who come from abroad.

On the whole we had a very good time (and a lot of home-made rakia - the

best spirit in Bulgaria).



In Kyustendil I learned that in two weeks there would be another Roman

reenactment festival in Plovdiv, exactly in the same dates as the
consular

conventus in Rome.

So, prompted also by money considerations, I decided to desert the
conventus

and go to Plovdiv.



I don't regret it, because the festival was a success, and I was totally

fascinated by the city.

Plovdiv was founded on seven hills, like Rome (unfortunately only 5 are

left, because two were strip-mined for granite), but, unlike those of
Rome,

these hills preserved their steep nature and are not completely built
on.

Part of the festival took place on the Nebet Tepe hill, which was the

acropolis of the ancient town, and the view was breathtaking.

The other part of the festival took place in the reconstructed odeon,
in the

Roman forum.

Plovdiv also has a spectacular Roman theatre, but unfortunately we
couldn't

perform there, because it was occupied by an opera festival.

This festival had less participalts than the one in Kyustendil, though
here

too there were legionaries and gladiators, so my part was bigger. I

performed a ritual on Friday for Venus and one on Saturday for Saturn,
and I

did my Roman fashion show. Here, however the weather was finally warm

enough, and it allowed me to add another element to the show, the Roman

bikini.

One of the organizers of the festival is an excellent cook and made a

demonstration of Roman food, which was delicious. He is also the one who

held the slave market.

The looser program of the festival allowed us a lot of time to fool
around,

eat, drink and make friends. Thanks to the organizers we had out
meals at a

very nice garden restaurant at the very top of the Nebet Tepe, and
it's here

and in its surroundings that we spent a lot of time.

You can see us in these photo albums:

http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/antichen-festival-plovdiv-20-06-2010.511508



at the end of this one you can see my fashion show

http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/vtori-antichen-festival-2010-plovdiv.511218



This one is by A. Vitellius Celsus

http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/FsiORB#



Optime valete,

Livia

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Yahoo! Groups Links




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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Consul Iterum
Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77404 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Cato Maiori omnibusque in foro SPD

And perhaps, Maior, you did not read - or understand - the fact that the College of Augurs does not have the power to control a consul's authority to call the Senate or comitia. That's our law. You really need to read it at least once.

Valete,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia C. Petronio spd;
> I think people have missed the College of Augurs' postings
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/77357
>
> optime vale
> Maior
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77405 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] REPORT about the Consular June Conventus in Rome whic
Lentulus K. Buteoni consuli sal.

I apologize for saying it was canceled. From all the information I had and from all impressions it looked definitively as a canceled Conventus.

I would like to know (as wiki content manager) what I have to write on the Conventus page? The Conventus was "canceled" or the Conventus "failed"?

Vale!



--- Mar 6/7/10, Christer Edling <christer.edling@...> ha scritto:

Da: Christer Edling <christer.edling@...>
Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] REPORT about the Consular June Conventus in Rome which was NOT cancelled
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Martedì 6 luglio 2010, 09:45







 









Salvete Quirites!



The Conventus was NOT formally cancelled. Very few, not even my

Colleague gave a definitive answer if they would come. I went together

with a delegation of Swedes to Rome in the hope to meet at least some

Italians. I already knew that for example Senator Perusianus and

Praefectus Placidus wouldn't be able to come, but in the end NO ONE

came, except Marcus Prometheus Decius from Dacia (Moldavia). I had a

very nice talk with him about setting up a project in Dacia, but he

wasn't able to promise anything about that.



The aim for the Conventus was was to allow citizens meet face to face

to lower conflicts and to allow the Consuls to meet with magistrates

and citizens to talk about the future in a Roman enviroment.



The Conventus was sadly enough a failure. The five non-citizens from

Sweden that had joined on the trip with me and Vibius Minucius Falco

were very impressed with Rome and especially the antique parts. If

there had been a good Conventus I am sure we would have had at least

three new citizens ready to WORK for Nova Roma (they are already

members of the reenactment-roleplaying-theater oraganization "Society

Interactive History"), but as it is now that will not happen. Nova

Roma didn't impress.



It is hard to get anything RL to happen in Nova Roma too many just

talk and look for fights.



***********



6 jul 2010 kl. 07.47 skrev Cn. Cornelius Lentulus:



Cn. Lentulus accensus consularis Liviae Plautae omnibusque sal.



Unfortunately, the Conventus in Rome was canceled. No one announced

their participation. As far as I know, after the cancellation, the

consul decided to travel to Rome as a private trip, and probably met

one of the Italic leaders, Perusianus, to talk about various

organizational matters.



Vale!



CN LENTVLVS

Accensus Consulis CFBQ



--- Lun 5/7/10, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...> ha scritto:



Da: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>

Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria

A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Data: Lunedì 5 luglio 2010, 22:53



Salvete omnes,



now some weeks have passed, and we never received any reports from the



conventus in Rome.



Who was there? What did they do? I'm curious: I hope someone will take

the



time to report.



I know, I slacked off too, failing to report about the events I

attended,



but I have the excuse that I have been over three weeks with only stolen



(and slow) wi-fi Internet access, so that coused me a backlog of

unread and



unanswered emails that took more than ten days to process now that I'm

in a



hotel with a good Internet connection.



Some links about the Ulpia Pautalia (Kyustendil) festival of June 5,6,

7,



were posted by M. Lucretius Agricola.



I have posted a lot of photos (of the place, but not of the festival,



because I couldn't take photos when involved) on my Facebook profile,

but



some additional ones by A. Vitellius Celsus can be found here:



http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/UlpiaPautalia2010#



This festival was organized by A. Vitellius Celsus, who lives in

Sofia, and



by a friend of his from Kyustendil. The city authorities were very

helpful,



and we had a very good time, despite the rain, which disrupted out

schedule



a bit.



The religious ceremonies (re-enactment only, not real ones) were

performed



by Ti. Claudius Drusus, the only citizen NR has in Estonia, and whose



powerful presence and voice made them unforgettable.



There were also legionaries, gladiators from Varna, among them two

women who



were extraordinarily good, and a group from Veliko Tarnovo who

demonstrated



the use of Roman ballistae. The program included the showing of "Miles



gloriosus", the play by Plautus, unfortunately for us foreigners, in



Bulgarian.



I presented my Roman fashion show, with around 20 kilos of clothes,



including tunicae, pallae, stolae, togae, pallia, lacernae. There was

also a



Roman food tasting.



Our accommodation was on the top of the Hisarlika hill, which was in

ancient



times the town acropolis, and had a temple to Aesculapius. Ulpia

Pautalia



had hot mineral springs which were used by the Romans, and the current



thermal baths are right next to the ruins of the Roman ones. The



archaological museum is small, but it has interesting exhibits,

including a



whole Roman chariot. These chariots are not rare in Bulgaria, because



Thracian custom was to bury them with their owner, but they are still

very



interesting for those of us who come from abroad.



On the whole we had a very good time (and a lot of home-made rakia - the



best spirit in Bulgaria).



In Kyustendil I learned that in two weeks there would be another Roman



reenactment festival in Plovdiv, exactly in the same dates as the

consular



conventus in Rome.



So, prompted also by money considerations, I decided to desert the

conventus



and go to Plovdiv.



I don't regret it, because the festival was a success, and I was totally



fascinated by the city.



Plovdiv was founded on seven hills, like Rome (unfortunately only 5 are



left, because two were strip-mined for granite), but, unlike those of

Rome,



these hills preserved their steep nature and are not completely built

on.



Part of the festival took place on the Nebet Tepe hill, which was the



acropolis of the ancient town, and the view was breathtaking.



The other part of the festival took place in the reconstructed odeon,

in the



Roman forum.



Plovdiv also has a spectacular Roman theatre, but unfortunately we

couldn't



perform there, because it was occupied by an opera festival.



This festival had less participalts than the one in Kyustendil, though

here



too there were legionaries and gladiators, so my part was bigger. I



performed a ritual on Friday for Venus and one on Saturday for Saturn,

and I



did my Roman fashion show. Here, however the weather was finally warm



enough, and it allowed me to add another element to the show, the Roman



bikini.



One of the organizers of the festival is an excellent cook and made a



demonstration of Roman food, which was delicious. He is also the one who



held the slave market.



The looser program of the festival allowed us a lot of time to fool

around,



eat, drink and make friends. Thanks to the organizers we had out

meals at a



very nice garden restaurant at the very top of the Nebet Tepe, and

it's here



and in its surroundings that we spent a lot of time.



You can see us in these photo albums:



http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/antichen-festival-plovdiv-20-06-2010.511508



at the end of this one you can see my fashion show



http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/vtori-antichen-festival-2010-plovdiv.511218



This one is by A. Vitellius Celsus



http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/FsiORB#



Optime valete,



Livia



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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



Yahoo! Groups Links



*****************

Vale



Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus



Consul Iterum

Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis

Civis Romanus sum

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

************************************************

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

"I'll either find a way or make one"

************************************************

Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas

Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness

************************************************

Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae

Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77406 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: prid. Non. Quinct.
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est pridie Nonas Quinctilis; haec dies nefastus est.

"Fertur autem in carminibus Marcii vatis, cuius duo volumina inlata
sunt in senatum, inventum esse ita scriptum: Hostem, Romani, si ex
agro expellere vultis, vomicam quae gentium venit longe, Apollini
censeo vovendos ludos qui quotannis comiter Apollini fiant. His ludis
faciendis praesit is praetor qui ius populo plebique dabit summum:
decemviri Graeco ritu hostiis sacra faciant. Hoc si recte facietis,
gaudebitis semper fietque res publica melior: nam is divus extinguet
perduelles vestros qui vestros campos pascunt placide. Ex hoc carmine
cum procurandi gratia dies unus rebus divinis impensus esset, postea
senatus consultum factum: uti decemviri, quo magis instruerentur de
ludis Apollini agundis reque divina recte facienda, libros Sibyllinos
adirent. In quibus cum eadem reperta nuntiatum esset, censuerunt
Patres: Apollini ludos vovendos faciendosque, inque eam rem duodecim
milia aeris praetori et duas hostias maiores dari, decemvirisque
praeceptum: ut Graeco ritu hisce hostiis sacrum facerent, Apollini
bove aurato et capris duabus albis auratis, Latonae bove femina
aurata. Ludos in circo populus coronatus spectare iussus. Haec
praecipue traditur origo ludorum Apollinarium." - Macrobius,
Saturnalia XVII.28-30

"Several portents had been announced, and the omens drawn from the
sacrificial victims were mostly unfavourable. News came from Campania
that two temples in Capua - those of Fortune and Mars - as well as
several sepulchral monuments had been struck by lightning. To such an
extent does a depraved superstition see the work of the Gods in the
most insignificant trifles, that it was seriously reported that rats
had gnawed the gold in the temple of Jupiter in Cumae. At Casinum a
swarm of bees had settled in the forum; at Ostia a gate and part of
the wall had been struck by lightning; at Caere a vulture had flown
into the temple of Jupiter, and at Vulsinii the waters of the lake
had run with blood. In consequence of these portents a day of special
intercession was ordered. For several days full-grown victims had
been sacrificed without giving any propitious indications, and it was
long before the peace of the gods could be secured. It
was on the heads of the consuls that the direful mischance
prognosticated by these portents fell, the State remained unharmed.
The Games of Apollo had been celebrated for the first time in the
consulship of Q. Fulvius and Appius Claudius under the
superintendence of the City praetor, P. Cornelius Sulla. Subsequently
all the City praetors celebrated them in turn, but they used to vow
them for one year only, and there was no fixed day for their
celebration. This year a serious epidemic attacked both the City and
the country districts, but it resulted more frequently in protracted
than in fatal illness. In consequence of this epidemic special
intercessions were appointed at all the chapels throughout the City,
and P. Licinius Varus, the City praetor, was instructed to propose a
measure to the people providing that the Games of Apollo should
always be celebrated on the same day. He was the first to celebrate
them under this rule, and the day fixed for their celebration was
July 5th, which was henceforth observed as the day." - Livy, "History of Rome 27.23

"'Romans, if you wish to expel the enemy and the ulcer which has come from afar, I advise, that games should be vowed, which may be performed in a cheerful manner annually to Apollo; when the people shall have given a portion of money from the public coffers, that private individuals then contribute, each according to his ability. That the praetor shall preside in the celebration of these games, who holds the supreme administration of justice to the people and commons. Let the decemviri perform sacrifice with victims after the Grecian fashion. If you do these things properly you will ever rejoice, and your affairs will be more prosperous, for that deity will destroy your enemies who now, composedly, feed upon your plains.' They took one day to explain this prophecy. The next day a decree of the senate was passed, that the decemviri should inspect the books relating to the celebration of games and sacred rites in honour of Apollo. After they had been consulted, and a report made to the senate, the fathers voted, that "games should be vowed to Apollo and celebrated; and that when the games were concluded, twelve thousand asses should be given to the praetor to defray the expense of sacred ceremonies, and also two victims of the larger sort.' A second decree was passed, that 'the decemviri should perform sacrifice in the Grecian mode, and with the following victims: to Apollo, with a gilded ox, and two white goats gilded; to Latona, with a gilded heifer.' When the praetor was about to celebrate the games in the Circus Maximus, he issued an order, that during the celebration of the games, the people should pay a contribution, as large as was convenient, for the service of Apollo. This is the origin of the Apollinarian games, which were vowed and celebrated in order to victory, and not restoration to health, as is commonly supposed. The people viewed the spectacle in garlands; the matrons made supplications; the people in general feasted in the courts of their houses, throwing the doors open; and the day was distinguished by every description of ceremony." - op.cit. 25.9-15


During a rather bad year (212 BC) in the Second Punic War (though they
did have a good win at Syracuse) and several years after their
crushing defeat by the Carthaginian Hannibal at the Battle of Cannae,
the Romans consulted the ancient seer Marcius for his reading from the
sacred texts, the Sibylline Oracles. Marcius advised them to hold
games in honour of the Greek sun god, Apollon, in order to obtain his
aid. Four years later when a plague broke out, the senators of Rome
decided to make the Ludi Apollinares permanent and over the course of
the next two centuries the games came to be a festival lasting eight
days, the principal sacrifice being made on July 13.

It was stated by some of the ancient annalists that these ludi were
instituted for the purpose of obtaining from Apollo the protection of
human life during the hottest season of summer; but Livy and Macrobius
adopt the account founded upon the most authentic document, the
carmina Marciana themselves, that the Apollinarian games were
instituted partly to obtain the aid of Apollo in expelling the
Carthaginians from Italy, and partly to preserve, through the favour
of the god, the republic from all dangers. The oracle suggested that
the games should be held every year under the superintendence of the
praetor urbanus, and that ten men should perform the sacrifices
according to Greek rites. The senate complying with the advice of the
oracle made two senatusconsulta; one that, at the end of the games,
the praetor should receive 12,000 asses to be expended on the
solemnities and sacrifices, and another that the ten men should
sacrifice to Apollo, according to Greek rites, a bull with gilt horns
and two white goats also with gilt horns, and to Latona a heifer with
gilt horns. The games themselves were held in the Circus Maximus, the
spectators were adorned with chaplets, and each citizen gave a
contribution towards defraying the expenses. The Roman matrons
performed supplications, the people took their meals in the propatulum
with open doors, and the whole day — for the festival lasted only one
day — was filled up with ceremonies and various other rites. At this
first celebration of the ludi Apollinares no decree was made
respecting the annual repetition suggested by the oracle, so that in
the first year they were simply ludi votivi or indictivi. The year
after (211 BC) the senate, on the proposal of the praetor Calpurnius,
decreed that they should be repeated, and that in future they should
be vowed afresh every year. The day on which they were held varied
every year according to circumstances. A few years later, however (208
BC), when Rome and its vicinity were visited by a plague, the praetor
urbanus, P. Licinius Varus, brought a bill before the people to ordain
that the Apollinarian games should in future always be vowed and held
on a certain day (dies status), on the 6th of July, which day
henceforward remained a dies sollemnis. The games thus became votivi
et stativi, and continued to be conducted by the praetor urbanus.

Valete bene!

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77407 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OT: Freemasonry, was Re: why ...
Salve;

I've had friends in the Scottish Rite and since there is a local body of
that Rite in Columbus, Ohio I might take advantage of that. My lodge
membership is in a distant town so I'll likely change it to a lodge that is
closer because I'd like to get more active within Masonry. Let me know if
you find the link to that site.

Vale;

Modianus

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <
famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve frater;
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:16 PM, David Kling wrote:
> >
> > Salve;
> >
> > I have always been interested in the Scottish Rite, having read some of
> > Albert Pike's Morals and Dogmas. I've enjoyed Chapter and Council and
> have
> > thought about Scottish Rite. Your thoughts?
> >
> > Recently I was in Washington, DC and instead of waiting at the airport
> for a
> > couple of hours I got on the metro and went to the George Washington
> Masonic
> > Memorial, even if for only 20 minutes. Lovely place.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> >
>
> I did go through the 29 degrees within the Scottish Rite to see what
> the lessons were, which amplify those of the 3 Degrees in the Blue
> Lodge. I spent most all my time in my home lodge, though, as Chaplain
> and in ritual work.
>
> I did not go York Rite as I understand there to be an oath involved
> which defines one as a defender of the Christian faith. Two college
> friends with whom my wife and I have kept close ties over the years
> completed both Scottish and York Rite, but have also spent most of
> their time with their local lodge.
>
> So, York Rite is fine for those who can make that oath at the appropriate
> level.
>
> "Morals and Dogma" is quite the tome. Albert Pike was a world class
> thinker in my view and crammed some many pearls of wisdom between
> those two covers.
>
> There does exists a Masonic Pagans list...I'll see if I still have the
> link.
>
> Vale - Venator
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77408 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Informatic
Cn. Lentulus magister aranearius P. Memmio et K. Buteoni coss. et C. Curio curatori rei informatiae et Senatui Populoque Novo Romano s. p. s.:

(Cn. Lentulus send many greetings to the Consuls P. Memmius and K. Buteo, and to the Curator Rei Informaticae C. Curius, and to the Nova Roman Senate and People:)


S. VOS RESQVE PVBLICA V. B. E .E. Q. V.


Please let me to be brief, consules amplissimi P. Memmi et K. Bueto, et C. Curi curator rei informaticae, patres conscripti et Quirites, in a very important question that would deserve a much more serious address from me, especially as I'm magister aranearius.

I'm magister aranearius, but my office is not the one that it was in older times in Nova Roma. Old magistri aranearii were in charge of the full website, of its programming and its infrastructure: now my office is just a senate appointment, and my job is merely to coordinate the other volunteer editors of the NR wiki. Still I feel responsibility for the entire website, given that it's the only instrument that makes us able to work as a community, even if we are scattered all over the world.

Consuls, Curator, Senators and Citizens!

You are all aware of the canceled senate item about the proposal of paying 10.000 USD to former citizen T. Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus (who is a professional programmer and an expert of the current structure and programs of our website) to design and set up a new website, a databse which is up to date to current technology, a system that will allow to do everything automatically so that conducting elections be no more difficult than clicking on a button. The new website would make it possible that our magistrates organize elections, appointments and updates themselves, without relying on the help of a professional IT person whose time is very limited, and from whom our current system takes away a lot of time if he is willing to help, so difficult and hardly manageable our current system is.

Our current system requires a programmer to manage a simple election! That's a nonsense in 2010! And now we don't have programmer. The only person who is familiar with our current system is T. Octavius Pius. He could create the new system which would make it possible to ordinary people to manage it. It would cost 10.000 USD to him to build this new website.

I understand if the senate thinks that we can't afford 10.000 USD to pay which is close to half of our treasury. I understand if many think that there should be an alternative. However, before you reject the proposal of T. Octacius Pius, consider that *to have* former citizen T. Octavius Pius who both knows what to change, how to change, and can change it, who is familiar with our needs, with the complex laws that regulate our elections, who actually organized elections, it is a heavenly gift from the Gods. Any solution, let it be cheaper, will be much more complicated and unsure.

And remember: we do not only need a working voting system technology. We need a completely new Citizen Database, because the current one is broken. We need to create a message board to it, possibly our own forum, too, and the whole should include advantages of such modern free source features like those of the Facebook, Youtube and so forth. I am not saying all these things are to be set up right now as a priority, but any change we will make shall open the possibilities for development. It should at least make the way open for such improvements like having a community interface in our website.

Well, I don't know what the plans of T. Octavius Pius were, but I'm sure the new website was planned in a way that it makes open the way for such later improvements.

Consider all these things, esteemed consuls and senators, think about it, citizens, because T. Octavius Pius would be able to do this, alone from our numbers, alone from the people who actually know how NR works and what are the expectations for the Album Civium, voting system etc.

If you have considered this, and you still think that you can't afford 10.000 USD for these necessary changes, I would like to propose you an alternative solution, my own initiative, to achieve the same goals, in a less easy but cheaper way.

We have to use the advantage that Nova Roma is worldwide.

We have citizens in expensive countries but in cheaper countries as well. Mine is one of the cheaper countries. And I, as magister aranearius, can help Nova Roma to find a reliable programmer who could help us to create the system we need. Perhaps there are others, in other cheaper countries, who can also try to find a programmer. What I can offer it is, however, that I am a longstanding citizen of Nova Roma, I know what we need, and I know how our election system works, I know the laws, I was a Custos (thus involved in NR elections internally), as censorial scribe with years of experience working on the censorial database I know the system and its needs, and I will be able to explain to the programmer what exactly we want, and how exactly we want it.

I can offer this and I will take personal responsibility for the work.

I do it because I am no longer able to suffer what's going on in Nova Roma.

I do it only because I love Nova Roma, I am, I was and, if Gods help, I will be always dedicated to Nova Roma, I do not consider it just a project or a possibility, but I consider it as my home, my spiritual home, my nation, and I plan my whole life as being involved to Nova Roma until death. I know, big words... but I hope my deeds speak for my words, and in this website crisis I would like to do the best I am able to do.

And the best I can do is this: to offer my help to find a cheaper service within some weeks in my city, Budapest (I shall note I have some good acquaintances), and to sit beside to this programmer, and to tell him step by step what we need, to lead his hands, and to present the new NR database and voting system within a few months, possibly until the end of summer. This is what I can offer as help, and something more:

You know that I have almost no money, I am a student and I work as a Latin teacher with partial employment. My income is around 130 USD per month. I have, however, a few saved money, and I am determined to put a part of it into Nova Roma, especially into this project, to save us from this unbearable trouble we have with our website.

If the senate decides to follow my suggestion and entrusts me with the task to find and work together with a programmer to create our new infrastructure, I am willing to offer 100 USD to the treasury of Nova Roma to pay for the costs of the person.
I'm sure the costs will be less than 10.000, but in this phase I don't know the exact prices.

So, I offer my help to find the professional solution in a cheaper way, and I also offer to donate 100 USD to help paying the costs.

With this donation, I also ask our fellow citizens to take sides with me, and to offer some money to donate to this project. Whatever small amount of money, 5 USD, 10 USD or any amount can help a lot if we keep together and put together a fund to save our website.

I'm sure if we put some money together FOR NOVA ROMA, FOR OUR PATRIA, we all will be better persons, better friends, and finally better community. We will feel the blessing feeling of mutual responsibility, the sense of community, the sense of duty.

And, finally, I'm sure that if we, private citizens, collect a certain amount of money, our senators will be much more willing to vote 'yes' about spending money from the treasury, and with our donations plus the money from the republic put together, we will be able to save the treasury, the website, and ourselves from our current chaos.

So here we go --

Donations for the new website (Ver.0.2 -Solution by A Programmer in Budapes):

1) 100 USD - Cn. Cornelius Lentulus








CVRATE VTI VALEATIS RESQVE PVBLICA VOBISCVM VALEAT!


CN. CORNELIVS LENTVLVS PONTIFEX
MAGISTER ARANEARIVS






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77409 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Religiosum
Salvete Quirites

Gaius wrote on Roman law: "The first division of things is into two classes; for some are subject to divine law, some to human law. Within divine law some things are sacrum, some religiosum. Sacrum are those consecrated to the Gods; things that are religiosum are dedicated to the Di Inferi. (Institutiones Iustiniani II. 1-11)."

A further statement on religiosum is that, "It is opportune to be binding, what is prohibited by religiosum . . . For (whatever) reason a thing is said to be religiosum, whatever exceeds the (normal) practice of the religio is said to be superstitio, and as such, these corrupt things that pollute sacraments were assigned to what vitiates religious practice (GRF Nigidius 4; P. Nigidius Figulus, Commentariorum Grammaticorum liber XI: Gell. 4.9.1)."

A couple of examples of religiosum were provided by C. Aelius Gallus, in De Significatione Verborum Quae ad Ius Civile Pertinent: "What are made by men without permission, that is, without the (expressed) will of the Gods, is religiosum. In general such things would be like when a man enters the Temple of the Bona Dea, or where laws are carried before the people in violation of adverse auspices."

Elections held under invalid auspices are prohibited as religiosum under divine law. No wrangling, no twisting of meaning, no selective editing by non-practitioners of the religio Romana changes what is true in the mos maiorum. No citation from a Christian dictionary written in 1875 bears any weight against what Roman scholars had to say of their own tradition or what recent scholarship has come to learn. Further, civil law does not supercede divine law nor does it supercede those determinations based on religious law made by sacerdotal collegia. Vitium is vitium; it vitiates religious ceremonies, such as the taking of auspices. And when auspices are vitiated it is prohibited to conduct comitia. That is what divine law states, and this is the only law that pertains to religious matters.

Those who act contrary to what is prohibited as religiosum are, according to Roman law, accursed and dedicated to the Di inferni. Those who advocate that others not abide with the religious proscriptions of our State religion, under Nova Roma law, violate the Constitution. For in doing so, they advocate undermining the religio Romana as our State religion and replacing it with some sham. The Religio Romana was and is the foundation of Nova Roma just as "Romulus by his auspices, and Numa by his establishment of our rituals," according to Cicero, "laid the foundation of our Res publica (De nat. Deorum 3.5)."

Valete et vadete in pace Deorum

M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus

Pontifex Maximus et Magister Collegium Augurum
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77410 From: publiusalbucius Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: REPORT about the Consular June Conventus in Rome which was NOT c
Salve Collega,

Just a precision, amice, in order that our Quirites have the exact information.

> Very few, not even my Colleague gave a definitive answer if they > would come.

Just on the 'definitive'. :-)

I had informed you, from the moment you decided to organize a conventus at this period that I would not be sure being there, for this period is every year a very busy time, professionally, for me.

I have also informed you, and re-said it to you in Sweden, that I would know if I could finally join very probably just the day before for the day after, what finally happened and, at this time, the "shooting-window" open to me then was not a large enough to allow me to join you in Rome. At this time, I could, unfortunately, not confirm to you what I would finally do for you were still in Rome. :-)

Vale,


Albucius cos.



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Christer Edling <christer.edling@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete Quirites!
>
> The Conventus was NOT formally cancelled. Very few, not even my
> Colleague gave a definitive answer if they would come. I went together
> with a delegation of Swedes to Rome in the hope to meet at least some
> Italians. I already knew that for example Senator Perusianus and
> Praefectus Placidus wouldn't be able to come, but in the end NO ONE
> came, except Marcus Prometheus Decius from Dacia (Moldavia). I had a
> very nice talk with him about setting up a project in Dacia, but he
> wasn't able to promise anything about that.
>
> The aim for the Conventus was was to allow citizens meet face to face
> to lower conflicts and to allow the Consuls to meet with magistrates
> and citizens to talk about the future in a Roman enviroment.
>
> The Conventus was sadly enough a failure. The five non-citizens from
> Sweden that had joined on the trip with me and Vibius Minucius Falco
> were very impressed with Rome and especially the antique parts. If
> there had been a good Conventus I am sure we would have had at least
> three new citizens ready to WORK for Nova Roma (they are already
> members of the reenactment-roleplaying-theater oraganization "Society
> Interactive History"), but as it is now that will not happen. Nova
> Roma didn't impress.
>
> It is hard to get anything RL to happen in Nova Roma too many just
> talk and look for fights.
>
> ***********
>
> 6 jul 2010 kl. 07.47 skrev Cn. Cornelius Lentulus:
>
> Cn. Lentulus accensus consularis Liviae Plautae omnibusque sal.
>
>
> Unfortunately, the Conventus in Rome was canceled. No one announced
> their participation. As far as I know, after the cancellation, the
> consul decided to travel to Rome as a private trip, and probably met
> one of the Italic leaders, Perusianus, to talk about various
> organizational matters.
>
> Vale!
>
> CN LENTVLVS
> Accensus Consulis CFBQ
>
>
> --- Lun 5/7/10, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...> ha scritto:
>
> Da: L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>
> Oggetto: [Nova-Roma] June conventus in Rome and festivals in Bulgaria
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Data: Lunedٌ 5 luglio 2010, 22:53
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Salvete omnes,
>
> now some weeks have passed, and we never received any reports from the
>
> conventus in Rome.
>
> Who was there? What did they do? I'm curious: I hope someone will take
> the
>
> time to report.
>
>
>
> I know, I slacked off too, failing to report about the events I
> attended,
>
> but I have the excuse that I have been over three weeks with only stolen
>
> (and slow) wi-fi Internet access, so that coused me a backlog of
> unread and
>
> unanswered emails that took more than ten days to process now that I'm
> in a
>
> hotel with a good Internet connection.
>
>
>
> Some links about the Ulpia Pautalia (Kyustendil) festival of June 5,6,
> 7,
>
> were posted by M. Lucretius Agricola.
>
> I have posted a lot of photos (of the place, but not of the festival,
>
> because I couldn't take photos when involved) on my Facebook profile,
> but
>
> some additional ones by A. Vitellius Celsus can be found here:
>
> http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/UlpiaPautalia2010#
>
>
>
> This festival was organized by A. Vitellius Celsus, who lives in
> Sofia, and
>
> by a friend of his from Kyustendil. The city authorities were very
> helpful,
>
> and we had a very good time, despite the rain, which disrupted out
> schedule
>
> a bit.
>
> The religious ceremonies (re-enactment only, not real ones) were
> performed
>
> by Ti. Claudius Drusus, the only citizen NR has in Estonia, and whose
>
> powerful presence and voice made them unforgettable.
>
> There were also legionaries, gladiators from Varna, among them two
> women who
>
> were extraordinarily good, and a group from Veliko Tarnovo who
> demonstrated
>
> the use of Roman ballistae. The program included the showing of "Miles
>
> gloriosus", the play by Plautus, unfortunately for us foreigners, in
>
> Bulgarian.
>
> I presented my Roman fashion show, with around 20 kilos of clothes,
>
> including tunicae, pallae, stolae, togae, pallia, lacernae. There was
> also a
>
> Roman food tasting.
>
> Our accommodation was on the top of the Hisarlika hill, which was in
> ancient
>
> times the town acropolis, and had a temple to Aesculapius. Ulpia
> Pautalia
>
> had hot mineral springs which were used by the Romans, and the current
>
> thermal baths are right next to the ruins of the Roman ones. The
>
> archaological museum is small, but it has interesting exhibits,
> including a
>
> whole Roman chariot. These chariots are not rare in Bulgaria, because
>
> Thracian custom was to bury them with their owner, but they are still
> very
>
> interesting for those of us who come from abroad.
>
> On the whole we had a very good time (and a lot of home-made rakia - the
>
> best spirit in Bulgaria).
>
>
>
> In Kyustendil I learned that in two weeks there would be another Roman
>
> reenactment festival in Plovdiv, exactly in the same dates as the
> consular
>
> conventus in Rome.
>
> So, prompted also by money considerations, I decided to desert the
> conventus
>
> and go to Plovdiv.
>
>
>
> I don't regret it, because the festival was a success, and I was totally
>
> fascinated by the city.
>
> Plovdiv was founded on seven hills, like Rome (unfortunately only 5 are
>
> left, because two were strip-mined for granite), but, unlike those of
> Rome,
>
> these hills preserved their steep nature and are not completely built
> on.
>
> Part of the festival took place on the Nebet Tepe hill, which was the
>
> acropolis of the ancient town, and the view was breathtaking.
>
> The other part of the festival took place in the reconstructed odeon,
> in the
>
> Roman forum.
>
> Plovdiv also has a spectacular Roman theatre, but unfortunately we
> couldn't
>
> perform there, because it was occupied by an opera festival.
>
> This festival had less participalts than the one in Kyustendil, though
> here
>
> too there were legionaries and gladiators, so my part was bigger. I
>
> performed a ritual on Friday for Venus and one on Saturday for Saturn,
> and I
>
> did my Roman fashion show. Here, however the weather was finally warm
>
> enough, and it allowed me to add another element to the show, the Roman
>
> bikini.
>
> One of the organizers of the festival is an excellent cook and made a
>
> demonstration of Roman food, which was delicious. He is also the one who
>
> held the slave market.
>
> The looser program of the festival allowed us a lot of time to fool
> around,
>
> eat, drink and make friends. Thanks to the organizers we had out
> meals at a
>
> very nice garden restaurant at the very top of the Nebet Tepe, and
> it's here
>
> and in its surroundings that we spent a lot of time.
>
> You can see us in these photo albums:
>
> http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/antichen-festival-plovdiv-20-06-2010.511508
>
>
>
> at the end of this one you can see my fashion show
>
> http://fenrirlokison.snimka.bg/culture/vtori-antichen-festival-2010-plovdiv.511218
>
>
>
> This one is by A. Vitellius Celsus
>
> http://picasaweb.google.bg/LastRoman81/FsiORB#
>
>
>
> Optime valete,
>
> Livia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> *****************
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Consul Iterum
> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> Civis Romanus sum
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> ************************************************
> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77411 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Congratulations to all new electi magistrates
Magistratus electi/-ae, Quirites et Plebeii, salvete !



Warm congratulations, first to Vibia Rutilia Enodiaria, our fresh aed. plebis!



Sincere congratulations to our new aedilis curulis, Lucia Iulia Aquila, as well to quaestor Quintus Servilius Priscus and rogatrix Raina Cornelia Aeternia.



I think that the fact the results of the comitia populi were displayed yesterday on a dies nefastus publicus will not be considered as an impietas that should bring their cancellation: our electi candidates do not deserve to live such a situation!



Valete,





Albucius cos.



_________________________________________________________________
Messenger arrive enfin sur iPhone ! Venez le télécharger gratuitement !
http://www.messengersurvotremobile.com/?d=iPhone

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77412 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: "Appendix" - to my precious - "Open Letter to the Consuls, the Curat
Cn. Lentulus consulibus, curatori rei informaticae, Quiritibus SPD


After having been informed by the curator rei informaticae about the imprecise information I used in my previous open letter to the consuls, the curator, the senate and the people, I make some corrections. Consider it as an "Appendix" to my previous offering:

I mentioned the need for the new website, while it was imprecise, because, more exactly, we are not talking about a website, we are
talking about web based programs which are two totally different
things. Former citizen T. Octavius Pius would have not designed a website, instead he would have
programmed a new cista and album civium for us alongside designing a
new database structure.

C. Curius Saturninus, curator rei informaticae, also gave more information about the situation. The senate was offered a full report by him and further
information by him during the short discussion we could have before the consular veto of P. Memmius. In that
discussion came also up a very important piece of information about the
costs: The price offered by T. Octavius Pius was not only the best from two
candidates, that were only ones presented as response to my public call
for offers, but also a very cheap price as indicated in my consultation
with two outside companies.

In the light of this, I advise the Consuls and the Conscript Fathers to accept T. Octavius Pius' proposal to solve our information technology problems, as I have suggested it as the best solution in my previous open letter. But if, and only if, the solution proposed by T. Octavius Pius can not be accepted by you, Conscript Fathers, I will be here at your disposal as explained in more words in my previous open letter to you.


CVRATE VTI VALEATIS RESQVE PVLICA VOBISCVM VALEAT!

CN. LENTVLVS
MAGISTER ARANEARIVS





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77413 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Cato Piscino omnibusque in foro SPD

You may write walls of text for as long as you like, Piscinus. You cannot, by fiat, simply ignore or overturn the law of the Respublica in an attempt to usurp the authority of the government of the Respublica.

The Constitution is clear. You are attempting to subvert it, to ignore it, and yet no amount of condescension or show of imaginary piety can change it.

And yes, I say imaginary because you do not know, as has been made clear, what you are talking about. You have simply made up a religio that suits your needs, not one that reflects the practices of ancient Rome. You have misinterpreted and misread - willingly and knowingly creating a sham; your "scholarship" has been shown for what it is: nonsense. You cite sources that you do not understand; you mistranslate sources to suit your desires; you pick and chose what you like and dislike until the cultus Deorum is left a Frankenstein-ish monster, unrecognizable as Roman but clearly Piscinian. This is clear from real scholars, men and women who have actually studied these practices and their history. You are *not* one of them.

I may not practice the cultus Deorum privately but by the gods I am a senator of this Respublica and will not stand hear and listen to your nonsense anymore while you try to overthrow the legal foundations of the Respublica with your arrogance.

Those who act contrary to the law will answer to the law.

Valete,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77414 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

The three augures in the Collegium Augurum are also senatores and we in turn
ignore your arrogance.

Vale,

Modianus

On Jul 6, 2010 8:29 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:



Cato Piscino omnibusque in foro SPD

You may write walls of text for as long as you like, Piscinus. You cannot,
by fiat, simply ignore or overturn the law of the Respublica in an attempt
to usurp the authority of the government of the Respublica.

The Constitution is clear. You are attempting to subvert it, to ignore it,
and yet no amount of condescension or show of imaginary piety can change it.


And yes, I say imaginary because you do not know, as has been made clear,
what you are talking about. You have simply made up a religio that suits
your needs, not one that reflects the practices of ancient Rome. You have
misinterpreted and misread - willingly and knowingly creating a sham; your
"scholarship" has been shown for what it is: nonsense. You cite sources that
you do not understand; you mistranslate sources to suit your desires; you
pick and chose what you like and dislike until the cultus Deorum is left a
Frankenstein-ish monster, unrecognizable as Roman but clearly Piscinian.
This is clear from real scholars, men and women who have actually studied
these practices and their history. You are *not* one of them.

I may not practice the cultus Deorum privately but by the gods I am a
senator of this Respublica and will not stand hear and listen to your
nonsense anymore while you try to overthrow the legal foundations of the
Respublica with your arrogance.

Those who act contrary to the law will answer to the law.

Valete,

Cato




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77415 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Cato Modiano sal.

Yet you still cannot ignore the Constitution. Are you willing to take that step?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>
> The three augures in the Collegium Augurum are also senatores and we in turn
> ignore your arrogance.
>
> Vale,
>
> Modianus
>
> On Jul 6, 2010 8:29 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Cato Piscino omnibusque in foro SPD
>
> You may write walls of text for as long as you like, Piscinus. You cannot,
> by fiat, simply ignore or overturn the law of the Respublica in an attempt
> to usurp the authority of the government of the Respublica.
>
> The Constitution is clear. You are attempting to subvert it, to ignore it,
> and yet no amount of condescension or show of imaginary piety can change it.
>
>
> And yes, I say imaginary because you do not know, as has been made clear,
> what you are talking about. You have simply made up a religio that suits
> your needs, not one that reflects the practices of ancient Rome. You have
> misinterpreted and misread - willingly and knowingly creating a sham; your
> "scholarship" has been shown for what it is: nonsense. You cite sources that
> you do not understand; you mistranslate sources to suit your desires; you
> pick and chose what you like and dislike until the cultus Deorum is left a
> Frankenstein-ish monster, unrecognizable as Roman but clearly Piscinian.
> This is clear from real scholars, men and women who have actually studied
> these practices and their history. You are *not* one of them.
>
> I may not practice the cultus Deorum privately but by the gods I am a
> senator of this Respublica and will not stand hear and listen to your
> nonsense anymore while you try to overthrow the legal foundations of the
> Respublica with your arrogance.
>
> Those who act contrary to the law will answer to the law.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77416 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: URGENT - 3 hours left to vote for PRAETOR
Quirites!



3 hours left to VOTE for PRAETORS !!!



(album civium page, line "vote" - "vote here"). All 5 names are in your voting page.





Valete omnes,







P. Memmius Albucius

consul

_________________________________________________________________
Allumez et éteignez votre PC en un instant avec Windows 7 !
http://clk.atdmt.com/FRM/go/238030931/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77417 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

Neither do I, or my colleagues, see things as you do. We believe we are
fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities, you don't see it that way.
What is new?

Vale,

Modianus

On Jul 6, 2010 9:02 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:



Cato Modiano sal.

Yet you still cannot ignore the Constitution. Are you willing to take that
step?

Vale,

Cato



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

> On Jul 6, 2010 8:29 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Cato Piscino omnibusque in foro S...
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77418 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Cato Modiano sal.

Then why is the argument based on interpretations - wildly faulty as they might be - of augural law? Why is it not based on the Constitution? Lindersky and Lintott and Vaahtera and all the king's horses and all the king's men have no relevance whatsoever to our law when it comes to a question of Constitutional authority.

Vale,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>
> Neither do I, or my colleagues, see things as you do. We believe we are
> fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities, you don't see it that way.
> What is new?
>
> Vale,
>
> Modianus
>
> On Jul 6, 2010 9:02 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> Yet you still cannot ignore the Constitution. Are you willing to take that
> step?
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo M...
>
> > On Jul 6, 2010 8:29 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Piscino omnibusque in foro S...
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77419 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

I'm not going to debate this issue with you. Continue to grand stand if it
suits you.

Vale,

Modianus

On Jul 6, 2010 9:33 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:



Cato Modiano sal.

Then why is the argument based on interpretations - wildly faulty as they
might be - of augural law? Why is it not based on the Constitution?
Lindersky and Lintott and Vaahtera and all the king's horses and all the
king's men have no relevance whatsoever to our law when it comes to a
question of Constitutional authority.



Vale,

Cato

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

> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>
> Neither do I, or my colleagues, see things a...

> On Jul 6, 2010 9:02 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> Yet you st...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77420 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
That has nothing to do with the results for the elections in the Comitia Populi Tributa or the Comitia Plebis Tributa. Those elections were valid.
That has to do with the current election still ongoing in the Comitia Centuriata. Please, let's not confuse the issue. There's already enough confusion in NR.
 
Maxima Valeria Messallina
 
 
 


 
 

<<--- On Mon, 7/5/10, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
M. Hortensia C. Petronio spd;
I think people have missed the College of Augurs' postings
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/77357

optime vale
Maior>>

>--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:
>
> C. Petronius Quiritibus s.p.d.,
>
> > I. Election of One Aedilis Curulis
> > Lucia Iulia Aquila received 19 tribal votes.
> > Gaius Equitius Cato received 5 tribal votes.
> > 8 tribes were tied between L.Iulia Aquila and G.Equitius Cato.
> > Three tribes did not vote for Aedilis Curulis.>
> > There was no need to break ties.>
> > Lucia Iulia Aquila was elected Aedilis Curulis.
>
> Feliciter Juliae Aquilae! As I sang...
>
> "Vota vovens decori Cybeles pura, atque Quiriti
> Esto Turrigerae cordi, tu Iulia victrix."
>
> Magna Mater was with you, amica Julia.
> And now: Let Games come! I guess that Apollo is impatient.
>
> > II. Two Quaestores needed, one candidate
> > Quintus Servilius Priscus was elected.
>
> Gratulations!
>
> > III: Two Rogatores needed, one candidate
> > Raina Cornelia Aeternia was elected.
>
> Long live our noble Raina...
>
> Optime valete.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77421 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Then I think we need to place the three Augurs on trial for violating the
Nova Roman Constitution.

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:51 AM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>
> The three augures in the Collegium Augurum are also senatores and we in
> turn
> ignore your arrogance.
>
> Vale,
>
> Modianus
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2010 8:29 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...<catoinnyc%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Cato Piscino omnibusque in foro SPD
>
> You may write walls of text for as long as you like, Piscinus. You cannot,
> by fiat, simply ignore or overturn the law of the Respublica in an attempt
> to usurp the authority of the government of the Respublica.
>
> The Constitution is clear. You are attempting to subvert it, to ignore it,
> and yet no amount of condescension or show of imaginary piety can change
> it.
>
> And yes, I say imaginary because you do not know, as has been made clear,
> what you are talking about. You have simply made up a religio that suits
> your needs, not one that reflects the practices of ancient Rome. You have
> misinterpreted and misread - willingly and knowingly creating a sham; your
> "scholarship" has been shown for what it is: nonsense. You cite sources
> that
> you do not understand; you mistranslate sources to suit your desires; you
> pick and chose what you like and dislike until the cultus Deorum is left a
> Frankenstein-ish monster, unrecognizable as Roman but clearly Piscinian.
> This is clear from real scholars, men and women who have actually studied
> these practices and their history. You are *not* one of them.
>
> I may not practice the cultus Deorum privately but by the gods I am a
> senator of this Respublica and will not stand hear and listen to your
> nonsense anymore while you try to overthrow the legal foundations of the
> Respublica with your arrogance.
>
> Those who act contrary to the law will answer to the law.
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77422 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Rebuttal Re: [Nova-Roma] "Appendix" - to my precious - "Open Letter
Ave,

I am going to answer this the way I responded in the senate. Because
consistence is important. :)

When this item was presented and vetoed I had the benefit of arguing against
this item. My rationale was clear and based on a few key elements.

1. Nova Roma possesses a declining tax base.

2760 - 235 paying tax members
2761 - 230 paying tax members
2762 - 219 paying tax members
At current only 7 are listed.
___

Just in an financial and accounting projection it is absolutely the height
of folly to committ 6+ years of sustained revenue on something that clearly
is light years ahead of our needs. Not only is it foolish but by committing
NR's meager financial coffers to such an endeavor we lose those reserves in
the event that NR might need them for another reason. For example, the
unexplained $500.00 Penalty/Settlement that was paid out in the 1st Quarter
2009 financial statement. We do not know if that is an ongoing payment or
who it was paid too. No one has given any answer in regards to that matter.

Secondly, I proposed what I felt would be a more amicable solution - one
that places less burden on the treasury and keeps the option open for those
who are advocating for this adoption (And I am looking at you Lentulus).

If you and any other citizen (Agricola, Caeso Fabius, and Saturnius) feel
that this item is so cruicial, so important, so absolutely necessary for NR
that we simply MUST have this done, then I think it behooves those
proponents to help offset the cost of the project. You gentlemen should
find 100 members who would be willing to contribute $50.00 US to offset the
cost of this project. That would mean that the citizen body itself would
contribute 50% of the costs. Then the state would fund the remaining 50% as
well.

If the proponents are unable to find citizens who would be willing to
contribute to this project, I see no compelling reason why the state should
shoulder the entire burden either.

There have been a few already in the Senate who offered their $50.00,
Senator Severus and Tiberius Paulinus, but the rest of the senate, including
the 3 Senators I asked point blank (Agricola, Caeso Fabius and Saturnius)
answered with deafening silence - and they are the biggest advocates for
this. If they are unwilling to contribute their own funds for this project
- again, why should the state?

At this point, I would rather save the money, not waste it on something that
is simply light years given that NR's taxbase is clearly shrinking (as I
pointed out above). This type of project should only be considered after 3+
years of sustained tax payer growth or if NR has more than 10x the cost of
the project in the bank. I think that my solution a joint funding by both
the state and the People of Nova Roma would be a workable solution.
Otherwise as a Comptroller/Financial Planner/Forecaster who works with
budget allocations on a daily basis - this is an absolutely horrible idea -
to the point that I would rather go 1 person 1 vote than put NR in such a
financially precarious position - more so than it currently is.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <
cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cn. Lentulus consulibus, curatori rei informaticae, Quiritibus SPD
>
> After having been informed by the curator rei informaticae about the
> imprecise information I used in my previous open letter to the consuls, the
> curator, the senate and the people, I make some corrections. Consider it as
> an "Appendix" to my previous offering:
>
> I mentioned the need for the new website, while it was imprecise, because,
> more exactly, we are not talking about a website, we are
> talking about web based programs which are two totally different
> things. Former citizen T. Octavius Pius would have not designed a website,
> instead he would have
> programmed a new cista and album civium for us alongside designing a
> new database structure.
>
> C. Curius Saturninus, curator rei informaticae, also gave more information
> about the situation. The senate was offered a full report by him and further
> information by him during the short discussion we could have before the
> consular veto of P. Memmius. In that
> discussion came also up a very important piece of information about the
> costs: The price offered by T. Octavius Pius was not only the best from two
> candidates, that were only ones presented as response to my public call
> for offers, but also a very cheap price as indicated in my consultation
> with two outside companies.
>
> In the light of this, I advise the Consuls and the Conscript Fathers to
> accept T. Octavius Pius' proposal to solve our information technology
> problems, as I have suggested it as the best solution in my previous open
> letter. But if, and only if, the solution proposed by T. Octavius Pius can
> not be accepted by you, Conscript Fathers, I will be here at your disposal
> as explained in more words in my previous open letter to you.
>
> CVRATE VTI VALEATIS RESQVE PVLICA VOBISCVM VALEAT!
>
> CN. LENTVLVS
> MAGISTER ARANEARIVS
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77423 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Cato Modiano sal.

Oh come off it, Modianus. Try that act somewhere else.

The augurs have made a claim to power that is not supported by the Constitution. The augurs have attempted to obstruct the electoral process. Piscinus says he will violate the law and refuse to convene the comitia curiata... and you can't be bothered to respond to questions about this behavior?

So you are willing to stand up on a pedestal and proclaim your views - views that interfere with the orderly process of running the Respublica - but you just won't brook any possible disagreement because... you don't want to.

I don't want to hear about ancient augural law - although I'd be fascinated to hear you declare that you have actually yourself read and studied every single source that Piscinus has claimed - because it has *nothing to do with our Constitution*. You know, of course, that under ancient augural law you yourself cannot take public auspices - you are neither a curule magistrate nor a patrician.

So a very simple question: where in the Constitution does it give the augurs the power to override a consul's call to convene the Senate or the comitia?

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77424 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

Not a Patrician? That's news to me! So you're saying I can run for tribune?

I suggest you take hour concerns to the tribunes!

Vale,

Modianus

On Jul 6, 2010 11:17 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:



Cato Modiano sal.

Oh come off it, Modianus. Try that act somewhere else.

The augurs have made a claim to power that is not supported by the
Constitution. The augurs have attempted to obstruct the electoral process.
Piscinus says he will violate the law and refuse to convene the comitia
curiata... and you can't be bothered to respond to questions about this
behavior?

So you are willing to stand up on a pedestal and proclaim your views - views
that interfere with the orderly process of running the Respublica - but you
just won't brook any possible disagreement because... you don't want to.

I don't want to hear about ancient augural law - although I'd be fascinated
to hear you declare that you have actually yourself read and studied every
single source that Piscinus has claimed - because it has *nothing to do with
our Constitution*. You know, of course, that under ancient augural law you
yourself cannot take public auspices - you are neither a curule magistrate
nor a patrician.

So a very simple question: where in the Constitution does it give the augurs
the power to override a consul's call to convene the Senate or the comitia?

Vale,

Cato




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77425 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Math Involved - Tax Base
Ave!

2760 - 235 paying tax members
2761 - 230 paying tax members - 2.2% loss from the previous year
2762 - 219 paying tax members - 4.8 % loss from the previous year (NET 6.9%
loss from 2760)
At current only 7 are listed.

All of this individuals who know me going back to 1998 will confirm that I
have NEVER been a numbers person. I have never been an individual who felt
that the sheer number of persons in NR was the most important thing ever.
Far from it. I always looked at the bottom line.

For example when Lentulus posted the number of registered citizens and gave
out the figure of 1159 members I just smiled because when he did that I did
a simple calculation in my head. What is the % of those registered citizens
vs the tax paying citizens.

219 tax paying citizens as a % of 1159 (registered citizens) I get this
precentage: 18.9 (Basically 19%). For every 5 members of NR 1 of them is a
tax payer. Kinda striking when you put it like that?

When one is working on budges and allocations one cannot use the best
figure, one must use the real figure.

Simply put, NR does not have the tax base to sustain the costs being
requested by those who advocate for the IT restructure.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77426 From: M•IVL•SEVERVS Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Re.: Results of the elections
Salvete,

The election of L. Iulia Aquila is one of the best news for Nova Roma in these gray times...
Let us congratlate, Quirites!

Valete,
 
M•IVL•SEVERVS

SENATOR
PRO•CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICI




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77427 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Results of the Election in the Comitia Plebis Tributa
Aeternia Maximae Valeriae Quiritibus S.P.D.

Ave! I'd like to extend my congratulations to Enodia, I am beyond sure
she'll do a great job with her new responsibilities.

Congrats amica!!

Vale Bene,
Aeternia

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Maxima Valeria Messallina <
maximavaleriamessallina@...> wrote:

>
>
> Ex Officio Tribunae Plebis Maximae Valeriae Messallinae Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
>
> Here are the results of the election for 1 Aedilis Plebis in the Comitia
> Plebis Tributa:
>
> 40 ballots were received in total.
>
> One ballot was duplicated and was excluded, and two ballots were empty;
> this resulted in 37 valid votes.
>
> Individually, 35 ballots were cast for V. Rutilia Enodiaria, 1 write-in
> ballot cast for M. Moravius Piscinus and 1 write-in ballot cast for Sp.
> Porcius.
>
> The voting results are: V. Rutilia Enodiaria won 25 tribal votes, M.
> Moravius Piscinus won 1 tribal vote.
>
> 9 tribes did not vote.
>
> Vibia Rutilia Enodiaria is elected as Aedilis Plebis.
>
> My congratulations to V. Rutilia Enodiaria! I thank her for her willingness
> to serve and I wish her all the best.
>
> These results were provided to the Tribunes by L. Livia Plauta and M.
> Arminius Maior, who I thank for their good work in their service to our
> Respublica.
>
> I wish to also thank all the Citizens who voted in the Comitia Plebis
> Tributa. Thank you for making your will known.
>
>
> Valete bene in pace Deorum,
>
> Maxima Valeria Messallina
> Tribuna Plebis
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77428 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Congratulations to all new electi magistrates
Aeternia Publio Memmio Albucio sal,


Thank you Consul for the well wishes, very appreciated!


Vale Optime,
Aeternia

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Publius Memmius Albucius <
albucius_aoe@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Magistratus electi/-ae, Quirites et Plebeii, salvete !
>
> Warm congratulations, first to Vibia Rutilia Enodiaria, our fresh aed.
> plebis!
>
> Sincere congratulations to our new aedilis curulis, Lucia Iulia Aquila, as
> well to quaestor Quintus Servilius Priscus and rogatrix Raina Cornelia
> Aeternia.
>
> I think that the fact the results of the comitia populi were displayed
> yesterday on a dies nefastus publicus will not be considered as an impietas
> that should bring their cancellation: our electi candidates do not deserve
> to live such a situation!
>
> Valete,
>
> Albucius cos.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Messenger arrive enfin sur iPhone ! Venez le t�l�charger gratuitement !
> http://www.messengersurvotremobile.com/?d=iPhone
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77429 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: To our newest magistrates
Aeternia C. Mariae Caeca sal,

Thank you so much Caeca for your well wishes and always your support, I look
forward to my new position with much gusto and I'm sure I'll giving my
office a definite breath of fresh air... It's going to be a bumpy road at
first, but I look forward and I am prepared to take on a new challenge..
Running in January seems a bit far away, but it is not a completely
extinguished thought trial run first ;)

Vale Optime,
Aeternia
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:48 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salvete omnes!
>
> I am delighted to congratulate our newest magistrates! I am sue that Enodia
>
> will do an excellent job as Plebeian Aedile, And I am equally sue that
> Aeternia will be an excellent Rogator. I am especially to see this, and
> hope, Aeternia, that you find the duties of interest, and that you will be
> encouraged to run for another office in January!
>
> Valete Bene,
> CMC
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77430 From: gaius_pompeius_silvanus Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: OT: Freemasonry, was Re: why ...
Good to find a couple of Brothers on here. I am a Master Mason with Sam Davis Lodge #661 F&AM, Smyrna, TN

I had the same problem with York as well, but am considering AASR.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Salve;
>
> I've had friends in the Scottish Rite and since there is a local body of
> that Rite in Columbus, Ohio I might take advantage of that. My lodge
> membership is in a distant town so I'll likely change it to a lodge that is
> closer because I'd like to get more active within Masonry. Let me know if
> you find the link to that site.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <
> famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve frater;
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 6:16 PM, David Kling wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve;
> > >
> > > I have always been interested in the Scottish Rite, having read some of
> > > Albert Pike's Morals and Dogmas. I've enjoyed Chapter and Council and
> > have
> > > thought about Scottish Rite. Your thoughts?
> > >
> > > Recently I was in Washington, DC and instead of waiting at the airport
> > for a
> > > couple of hours I got on the metro and went to the George Washington
> > Masonic
> > > Memorial, even if for only 20 minutes. Lovely place.
> > >
> > > Vale;
> > >
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
> > >
> >
> > I did go through the 29 degrees within the Scottish Rite to see what
> > the lessons were, which amplify those of the 3 Degrees in the Blue
> > Lodge. I spent most all my time in my home lodge, though, as Chaplain
> > and in ritual work.
> >
> > I did not go York Rite as I understand there to be an oath involved
> > which defines one as a defender of the Christian faith. Two college
> > friends with whom my wife and I have kept close ties over the years
> > completed both Scottish and York Rite, but have also spent most of
> > their time with their local lodge.
> >
> > So, York Rite is fine for those who can make that oath at the appropriate
> > level.
> >
> > "Morals and Dogma" is quite the tome. Albert Pike was a world class
> > thinker in my view and crammed some many pearls of wisdom between
> > those two covers.
> >
> > There does exists a Masonic Pagans list...I'll see if I still have the
> > link.
> >
> > Vale - Venator
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77431 From: C.iulia Eucharis Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Salve et salvete,

Merely as a suggestion, perhaps some moratorium period could be extended to non-assidui in order to pay up the current amount due. If that were to be something like the end of the calendar year, then they could keep their citizenship for much less than they probably owe in back taxes.

Once the word were to go out that they would thereafter need to pay up all of the entire amount of back taxes due in order to regain assidui status, perhaps a large number of the capite censi would decide to take advantage of such a tax break and simply pay the current year's tax. That could bring in some much needed revenue.

Concurrently, it would be a good idea to develop/publicize a plan as to how expenses would be prioritized. A complete overhaul of the Nova Roma Wiki would probably not be a strong selling point. But fixing what is wrong might make sense to those who are passively voicing discontent through non-payment of taxes.

The capite censi, regardless of how they are viewed, would appear to be the best potential source of immediate revenue. They should enroll in some discussion list, perhaps not the ML, and participate in information exchange regarding how such revenue would be used. It may be worth adapting priorities based upon some of their opinions. They do outnumber the assidui about 4 to 1, if you look at it that way.

Following the moratorium suggested herein, there might be some extended future period to pay the full amount of back taxes due. At some point, their debt would possibly outweigh any benefit of regaining assidui status, and some other ruling would then be needed.

There would be no IT cost to adopt this policy during the moratorium period.

Vale et valete,

C. Iulia Eucharis



________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; BackAlley <backalley@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 9:02:44 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Math Involved - Tax Base

Ave!

2760 - 235 paying tax members
2761 - 230 paying tax members - 2.2% loss from the previous year
2762 - 219 paying tax members - 4.8 % loss from the previous year (NET 6.9%
loss from 2760)
At current only 7 are listed.

All of this individuals who know me going back to 1998 will confirm that I
have NEVER been a numbers person. I have never been an individual who felt
that the sheer number of persons in NR was the most important thing ever.
Far from it. I always looked at the bottom line.

For example when Lentulus posted the number of registered citizens and gave
out the figure of 1159 members I just smiled because when he did that I did
a simple calculation in my head. What is the % of those registered citizens
vs the tax paying citizens.

219 tax paying citizens as a % of 1159 (registered citizens) I get this
precentage: 18.9 (Basically 19%). For every 5 members of NR 1 of them is a
tax payer. Kinda striking when you put it like that?

When one is working on budges and allocations one cannot use the best
figure, one must use the real figure.

Simply put, NR does not have the tax base to sustain the costs being
requested by those who advocate for the IT restructure.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77432 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Ave,

I think some of your suggestions warrant future discussion. But, I would
like to point out that there is no plan in place to prioritize expenses.
For that matter our financials have not been updated since 1st Quarter
2009. And, if I recall correctly there is no budget for this year.

The last yearly budget was posted in 2009 and it reflected a $-93.00 - yes a
deficit.

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Approved_Budget_2009

And nothing to reflect any budget for Fiscal year 2010.

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:31 AM, C.iulia Eucharis <
c.iulia_eucharis@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve et salvete,
>
> Merely as a suggestion, perhaps some moratorium period could be extended to
> non-assidui in order to pay up the current amount due. If that were to be
> something like the end of the calendar year, then they could keep their
> citizenship for much less than they probably owe in back taxes.
>
> Once the word were to go out that they would thereafter need to pay up all
> of the entire amount of back taxes due in order to regain assidui status,
> perhaps a large number of the capite censi would decide to take advantage of
> such a tax break and simply pay the current year's tax. That could bring in
> some much needed revenue.
>
> Concurrently, it would be a good idea to develop/publicize a plan as to how
> expenses would be prioritized. A complete overhaul of the Nova Roma Wiki
> would probably not be a strong selling point. But fixing what is wrong might
> make sense to those who are passively voicing discontent through non-payment
> of taxes.
>
> The capite censi, regardless of how they are viewed, would appear to be the
> best potential source of immediate revenue. They should enroll in some
> discussion list, perhaps not the ML, and participate in information exchange
> regarding how such revenue would be used. It may be worth adapting
> priorities based upon some of their opinions. They do outnumber the assidui
> about 4 to 1, if you look at it that way.
>
> Following the moratorium suggested herein, there might be some extended
> future period to pay the full amount of back taxes due. At some point, their
> debt would possibly outweigh any benefit of regaining assidui status, and
> some other ruling would then be needed.
>
> There would be no IT cost to adopt this policy during the moratorium
> period.
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> C. Iulia Eucharis
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> >
> To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma%40yahoogroups.com>; BackAlley <
> backalley@yahoogroups.com <backalley%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 9:02:44 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Math Involved - Tax Base
>
>
> Ave!
>
> 2760 - 235 paying tax members
> 2761 - 230 paying tax members - 2.2% loss from the previous year
> 2762 - 219 paying tax members - 4.8 % loss from the previous year (NET 6.9%
> loss from 2760)
> At current only 7 are listed.
>
> All of this individuals who know me going back to 1998 will confirm that I
> have NEVER been a numbers person. I have never been an individual who felt
> that the sheer number of persons in NR was the most important thing ever.
> Far from it. I always looked at the bottom line.
>
> For example when Lentulus posted the number of registered citizens and gave
> out the figure of 1159 members I just smiled because when he did that I did
> a simple calculation in my head. What is the % of those registered citizens
> vs the tax paying citizens.
>
> 219 tax paying citizens as a % of 1159 (registered citizens) I get this
> precentage: 18.9 (Basically 19%). For every 5 members of NR 1 of them is a
> tax payer. Kinda striking when you put it like that?
>
> When one is working on budges and allocations one cannot use the best
> figure, one must use the real figure.
>
> Simply put, NR does not have the tax base to sustain the costs being
> requested by those who advocate for the IT restructure.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77434 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Aeternia Quiritibus S.P.D.

Thank you to all for the well wishes and congratulatory notes.. All of the
private e-mails, and well wishes on various messenger systems, I am truly
touched and humbled...


Also a big thank you to the people of Nova Roma by your will has this
occurred, for those who did vote for me, again thank you I know I was
running kinda by myself, but the votes were appreciated words fail at
describing it actually.

A moment to extend congratulations to L. Julia Aquila, and Q. Servilius
Priscus fellow winners, and big applause for all canididates, we stepped up
and answered the call to serve.

Special acknowledgements go to the "unofficial" campaign managers (insert
humor) C. Maria Caeca and Virgo Maxima Valeria for their endorsements, truly
something I did not expect nor will it be forgotten :-)..

Just a couple quick questions though..

What was the amount of votes that were recieved, how many tribes voted? I
didn't see any numbers for Quaestor or Rogator. And if I have this correct
we are not to swear an Oath for Office till the 9th due to Dies Nefasti? (I
don't think I said that right)

Again Gratias Tibi Ago. Everyone gets chocolate.

Vale Optime,
R. Cornelia Aeternia


On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Christer Edling
<christer.edling@...>wrote:

>
>
> Ex Officio Consulis Caesonis Fabii Buteonis Quintiliani
>
> Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Comitia
> Populi
>
> This report on the result was dellayed due to thunder nad lightning
> discontinuing the Internet access.
>
> I. Election of One Aedilis Curulis
>
> Lucia Iulia Aquila received 19 tribal votes.
> Gaius Equitius Cato received 5 tribal votes.
>
> 8 tribes were tied between L.Iulia Aquila and G.Equitius Cato.
> Three tribes did not vote for Aedilis Curulis.
>
> There was no need to break ties.
>
> Lucia Iulia Aquila was elected Aedilis Curulis.
>
> II. Two Quaestores needed, one candidate
>
> Quintus Servilius Priscus was elected.
>
> III: Two Rogatores needed, one candidate
>
> Raina Cornelia Aeternia was elected.
>
> IV. This Edictum becomes effective immediately.
>
> Given this 5th of July, in the year of the Consulship of P. Memmius
> Albucius and the Second Consulship of K.Fabius Buteo Quintilianus,2763
> AUC.
>
> *****************
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Consul Iterum
> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> Civis Romanus sum
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> ************************************************
> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77435 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
M. Hortensia Cn. Cornelio Lentulo spd;
I have long time friendships with all our hard-working webmasters and I am all for this project.

Please do not ask for contributions, Lentule! Why? Because we collected taxes from our citizens, this is where this $10,000 would come from; and the new great website would benefit them!

Also with the new website we could purchase the JSTOR membership that the Senate approved. All assidui would have access to a great classical scholarly archive. Something tangible; the benefits of NR membership.

To keep this money is to hoard it. It's unethical; NR is registered as a non-profit. It exists to benefit it's members!

If the Senate won't spend it; we must stop collecting taxes from our citizens.
di tibi favent
M. Hortensia Maior
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Lentulus magister aranearius P. Memmio et K. Buteoni coss. et C. Curio curatori rei informatiae et Senatui Populoque Novo Romano s. p. s.:
>
> (Cn. Lentulus send many greetings to the Consuls P. Memmius and K. Buteo, and to the Curator Rei Informaticae C. Curius, and to the Nova Roman Senate and People:)
>
>
> S. VOS RESQVE PVBLICA V. B. E .E. Q. V.
>
>
> Please let me to be brief, consules amplissimi P. Memmi et K. Bueto, et C. Curi curator rei informaticae, patres conscripti et Quirites, in a very important question that would deserve a much more serious address from me, especially as I'm magister aranearius.
>
> I'm magister aranearius, but my office is not the one that it was in older times in Nova Roma. Old magistri aranearii were in charge of the full website, of its programming and its infrastructure: now my office is just a senate appointment, and my job is merely to coordinate the other volunteer editors of the NR wiki. Still I feel responsibility for the entire website, given that it's the only instrument that makes us able to work as a community, even if we are scattered all over the world.
>
> Consuls, Curator, Senators and Citizens!
>
> You are all aware of the canceled senate item about the proposal of paying 10.000 USD to former citizen T. Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus (who is a professional programmer and an expert of the current structure and programs of our website) to design and set up a new website, a databse which is up to date to current technology, a system that will allow to do everything automatically so that conducting elections be no more difficult than clicking on a button. The new website would make it possible that our magistrates organize elections, appointments and updates themselves, without relying on the help of a professional IT person whose time is very limited, and from whom our current system takes away a lot of time if he is willing to help, so difficult and hardly manageable our current system is.
>
> Our current system requires a programmer to manage a simple election! That's a nonsense in 2010! And now we don't have programmer. The only person who is familiar with our current system is T. Octavius Pius. He could create the new system which would make it possible to ordinary people to manage it. It would cost 10.000 USD to him to build this new website.
>
> I understand if the senate thinks that we can't afford 10.000 USD to pay which is close to half of our treasury. I understand if many think that there should be an alternative. However, before you reject the proposal of T. Octacius Pius, consider that *to have* former citizen T. Octavius Pius who both knows what to change, how to change, and can change it, who is familiar with our needs, with the complex laws that regulate our elections, who actually organized elections, it is a heavenly gift from the Gods. Any solution, let it be cheaper, will be much more complicated and unsure.
>
> And remember: we do not only need a working voting system technology. We need a completely new Citizen Database, because the current one is broken. We need to create a message board to it, possibly our own forum, too, and the whole should include advantages of such modern free source features like those of the Facebook, Youtube and so forth. I am not saying all these things are to be set up right now as a priority, but any change we will make shall open the possibilities for development. It should at least make the way open for such improvements like having a community interface in our website.
>
> Well, I don't know what the plans of T. Octavius Pius were, but I'm sure the new website was planned in a way that it makes open the way for such later improvements.
>
> Consider all these things, esteemed consuls and senators, think about it, citizens, because T. Octavius Pius would be able to do this, alone from our numbers, alone from the people who actually know how NR works and what are the expectations for the Album Civium, voting system etc.
>
> If you have considered this, and you still think that you can't afford 10.000 USD for these necessary changes, I would like to propose you an alternative solution, my own initiative, to achieve the same goals, in a less easy but cheaper way.
>
> We have to use the advantage that Nova Roma is worldwide.
>
> We have citizens in expensive countries but in cheaper countries as well. Mine is one of the cheaper countries. And I, as magister aranearius, can help Nova Roma to find a reliable programmer who could help us to create the system we need. Perhaps there are others, in other cheaper countries, who can also try to find a programmer. What I can offer it is, however, that I am a longstanding citizen of Nova Roma, I know what we need, and I know how our election system works, I know the laws, I was a Custos (thus involved in NR elections internally), as censorial scribe with years of experience working on the censorial database I know the system and its needs, and I will be able to explain to the programmer what exactly we want, and how exactly we want it.
>
> I can offer this and I will take personal responsibility for the work.
>
> I do it because I am no longer able to suffer what's going on in Nova Roma.
>
> I do it only because I love Nova Roma, I am, I was and, if Gods help, I will be always dedicated to Nova Roma, I do not consider it just a project or a possibility, but I consider it as my home, my spiritual home, my nation, and I plan my whole life as being involved to Nova Roma until death. I know, big words... but I hope my deeds speak for my words, and in this website crisis I would like to do the best I am able to do.
>
> And the best I can do is this: to offer my help to find a cheaper service within some weeks in my city, Budapest (I shall note I have some good acquaintances), and to sit beside to this programmer, and to tell him step by step what we need, to lead his hands, and to present the new NR database and voting system within a few months, possibly until the end of summer. This is what I can offer as help, and something more:
>
> You know that I have almost no money, I am a student and I work as a Latin teacher with partial employment. My income is around 130 USD per month. I have, however, a few saved money, and I am determined to put a part of it into Nova Roma, especially into this project, to save us from this unbearable trouble we have with our website.
>
> If the senate decides to follow my suggestion and entrusts me with the task to find and work together with a programmer to create our new infrastructure, I am willing to offer 100 USD to the treasury of Nova Roma to pay for the costs of the person.
> I'm sure the costs will be less than 10.000, but in this phase I don't know the exact prices.
>
> So, I offer my help to find the professional solution in a cheaper way, and I also offer to donate 100 USD to help paying the costs.
>
> With this donation, I also ask our fellow citizens to take sides with me, and to offer some money to donate to this project. Whatever small amount of money, 5 USD, 10 USD or any amount can help a lot if we keep together and put together a fund to save our website.
>
> I'm sure if we put some money together FOR NOVA ROMA, FOR OUR PATRIA, we all will be better persons, better friends, and finally better community. We will feel the blessing feeling of mutual responsibility, the sense of community, the sense of duty.
>
> And, finally, I'm sure that if we, private citizens, collect a certain amount of money, our senators will be much more willing to vote 'yes' about spending money from the treasury, and with our donations plus the money from the republic put together, we will be able to save the treasury, the website, and ourselves from our current chaos.
>
> So here we go --
>
> Donations for the new website (Ver.0.2 -Solution by A Programmer in Budapes):
>
> 1) 100 USD - Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CVRATE VTI VALEATIS RESQVE PVBLICA VOBISCVM VALEAT!
>
>
> CN. CORNELIVS LENTVLVS PONTIFEX
> MAGISTER ARANEARIVS
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77436 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Cato Modiano sal.

Wait - are you a patrician? I thought you jumped ship way back when to run for tribune already?

The tribunes can do as they like. In the meantime, the Constitution stands. The decretum does not. It can be ignore as null and void under the Constitution's legal precedence.

Vale,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>
> Not a Patrician? That's news to me! So you're saying I can run for tribune?
>
> I suggest you take hour concerns to the tribunes!
>
> Vale,
>
> Modianus
>
> On Jul 6, 2010 11:17 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> Oh come off it, Modianus. Try that act somewhere else.
>
> The augurs have made a claim to power that is not supported by the
> Constitution. The augurs have attempted to obstruct the electoral process.
> Piscinus says he will violate the law and refuse to convene the comitia
> curiata... and you can't be bothered to respond to questions about this
> behavior?
>
> So you are willing to stand up on a pedestal and proclaim your views - views
> that interfere with the orderly process of running the Respublica - but you
> just won't brook any possible disagreement because... you don't want to.
>
> I don't want to hear about ancient augural law - although I'd be fascinated
> to hear you declare that you have actually yourself read and studied every
> single source that Piscinus has claimed - because it has *nothing to do with
> our Constitution*. You know, of course, that under ancient augural law you
> yourself cannot take public auspices - you are neither a curule magistrate
> nor a patrician.
>
> So a very simple question: where in the Constitution does it give the augurs
> the power to override a consul's call to convene the Senate or the comitia?
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77437 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Cato Iuliae Eucharista sal.

I think this is quite a sensible idea, actually; my only question would be one of simple organization. How would you propose getting the capite censi to become involved in such a List? Could they not simply talk here in the Forum?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.iulia Eucharis" <c.iulia_eucharis@...> wrote:
>
> Salve et salvete,
>
> Merely as a suggestion, perhaps some moratorium period could be extended to non-assidui in order to pay up the current amount due. If that were to be something like the end of the calendar year, then they could keep their citizenship for much less than they probably owe in back taxes.
>
> Once the word were to go out that they would thereafter need to pay up all of the entire amount of back taxes due in order to regain assidui status, perhaps a large number of the capite censi would decide to take advantage of such a tax break and simply pay the current year's tax. That could bring in some much needed revenue.
>
> Concurrently, it would be a good idea to develop/publicize a plan as to how expenses would be prioritized. A complete overhaul of the Nova Roma Wiki would probably not be a strong selling point. But fixing what is wrong might make sense to those who are passively voicing discontent through non-payment of taxes.
>
> The capite censi, regardless of how they are viewed, would appear to be the best potential source of immediate revenue. They should enroll in some discussion list, perhaps not the ML, and participate in information exchange regarding how such revenue would be used. It may be worth adapting priorities based upon some of their opinions. They do outnumber the assidui about 4 to 1, if you look at it that way.
>
> Following the moratorium suggested herein, there might be some extended future period to pay the full amount of back taxes due. At some point, their debt would possibly outweigh any benefit of regaining assidui status, and some other ruling would then be needed.
>
> There would be no IT cost to adopt this policy during the moratorium period.
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> C. Iulia Eucharis
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; BackAlley <backalley@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 9:02:44 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Math Involved - Tax Base
>
> Ave!
>
> 2760 - 235 paying tax members
> 2761 - 230 paying tax members - 2.2% loss from the previous year
> 2762 - 219 paying tax members - 4.8 % loss from the previous year (NET 6.9%
> loss from 2760)
> At current only 7 are listed.
>
> All of this individuals who know me going back to 1998 will confirm that I
> have NEVER been a numbers person. I have never been an individual who felt
> that the sheer number of persons in NR was the most important thing ever.
> Far from it. I always looked at the bottom line.
>
> For example when Lentulus posted the number of registered citizens and gave
> out the figure of 1159 members I just smiled because when he did that I did
> a simple calculation in my head. What is the % of those registered citizens
> vs the tax paying citizens.
>
> 219 tax paying citizens as a % of 1159 (registered citizens) I get this
> precentage: 18.9 (Basically 19%). For every 5 members of NR 1 of them is a
> tax payer. Kinda striking when you put it like that?
>
> When one is working on budges and allocations one cannot use the best
> figure, one must use the real figure.
>
> Simply put, NR does not have the tax base to sustain the costs being
> requested by those who advocate for the IT restructure.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77438 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Edictum Consulare CFBQ XXI on the results of the elections in Co
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

I would like to add my congratulations to all the newly-elected magistrates as well, in particular to Iulia Aquila as curule aedile, who I believe will serve the Respublica well, being truly devoted to Her well-being. I look forward to some smashing Ludi :)

Valete,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77439 From: Gaius Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Salve Maior et salvete omnes,

If were to spend $10,000 USD to upgrade our systems (and it is an upgrade to the voting, century point, and magisterial tools systems, not just a website), then the JSTOR membership idea would have to be dropped. We surely cannot afford both.

Valete,

Gaius Popillius Laenas

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> M. Hortensia Cn. Cornelio Lentulo spd;
> I have long time friendships with all our hard-working webmasters and I am all for this project.
>
> Please do not ask for contributions, Lentule! Why? Because we collected taxes from our citizens, this is where this $10,000 would come from; and the new great website would benefit them!
>
> Also with the new website we could purchase the JSTOR membership that the Senate approved. All assidui would have access to a great classical scholarly archive. Something tangible; the benefits of NR membership.
>
> To keep this money is to hoard it. It's unethical; NR is registered as a non-profit. It exists to benefit it's members!
>
> If the Senate won't spend it; we must stop collecting taxes from our citizens.
> di tibi favent
> M. Hortensia Maior
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus magister aranearius P. Memmio et K. Buteoni coss. et C. Curio curatori rei informatiae et Senatui Populoque Novo Romano s. p. s.:
> >
> > (Cn. Lentulus send many greetings to the Consuls P. Memmius and K. Buteo, and to the Curator Rei Informaticae C. Curius, and to the Nova Roman Senate and People:)
> >
> >
> > S. VOS RESQVE PVBLICA V. B. E .E. Q. V.
> >
> >
> > Please let me to be brief, consules amplissimi P. Memmi et K. Bueto, et C. Curi curator rei informaticae, patres conscripti et Quirites, in a very important question that would deserve a much more serious address from me, especially as I'm magister aranearius.
> >
> > I'm magister aranearius, but my office is not the one that it was in older times in Nova Roma. Old magistri aranearii were in charge of the full website, of its programming and its infrastructure: now my office is just a senate appointment, and my job is merely to coordinate the other volunteer editors of the NR wiki. Still I feel responsibility for the entire website, given that it's the only instrument that makes us able to work as a community, even if we are scattered all over the world.
> >
> > Consuls, Curator, Senators and Citizens!
> >
> > You are all aware of the canceled senate item about the proposal of paying 10.000 USD to former citizen T. Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus (who is a professional programmer and an expert of the current structure and programs of our website) to design and set up a new website, a databse which is up to date to current technology, a system that will allow to do everything automatically so that conducting elections be no more difficult than clicking on a button. The new website would make it possible that our magistrates organize elections, appointments and updates themselves, without relying on the help of a professional IT person whose time is very limited, and from whom our current system takes away a lot of time if he is willing to help, so difficult and hardly manageable our current system is.
> >
> > Our current system requires a programmer to manage a simple election! That's a nonsense in 2010! And now we don't have programmer. The only person who is familiar with our current system is T. Octavius Pius. He could create the new system which would make it possible to ordinary people to manage it. It would cost 10.000 USD to him to build this new website.
> >
> > I understand if the senate thinks that we can't afford 10.000 USD to pay which is close to half of our treasury. I understand if many think that there should be an alternative. However, before you reject the proposal of T. Octacius Pius, consider that *to have* former citizen T. Octavius Pius who both knows what to change, how to change, and can change it, who is familiar with our needs, with the complex laws that regulate our elections, who actually organized elections, it is a heavenly gift from the Gods. Any solution, let it be cheaper, will be much more complicated and unsure.
> >
> > And remember: we do not only need a working voting system technology. We need a completely new Citizen Database, because the current one is broken. We need to create a message board to it, possibly our own forum, too, and the whole should include advantages of such modern free source features like those of the Facebook, Youtube and so forth. I am not saying all these things are to be set up right now as a priority, but any change we will make shall open the possibilities for development. It should at least make the way open for such improvements like having a community interface in our website.
> >
> > Well, I don't know what the plans of T. Octavius Pius were, but I'm sure the new website was planned in a way that it makes open the way for such later improvements.
> >
> > Consider all these things, esteemed consuls and senators, think about it, citizens, because T. Octavius Pius would be able to do this, alone from our numbers, alone from the people who actually know how NR works and what are the expectations for the Album Civium, voting system etc.
> >
> > If you have considered this, and you still think that you can't afford 10.000 USD for these necessary changes, I would like to propose you an alternative solution, my own initiative, to achieve the same goals, in a less easy but cheaper way.
> >
> > We have to use the advantage that Nova Roma is worldwide.
> >
> > We have citizens in expensive countries but in cheaper countries as well. Mine is one of the cheaper countries. And I, as magister aranearius, can help Nova Roma to find a reliable programmer who could help us to create the system we need. Perhaps there are others, in other cheaper countries, who can also try to find a programmer. What I can offer it is, however, that I am a longstanding citizen of Nova Roma, I know what we need, and I know how our election system works, I know the laws, I was a Custos (thus involved in NR elections internally), as censorial scribe with years of experience working on the censorial database I know the system and its needs, and I will be able to explain to the programmer what exactly we want, and how exactly we want it.
> >
> > I can offer this and I will take personal responsibility for the work.
> >
> > I do it because I am no longer able to suffer what's going on in Nova Roma.
> >
> > I do it only because I love Nova Roma, I am, I was and, if Gods help, I will be always dedicated to Nova Roma, I do not consider it just a project or a possibility, but I consider it as my home, my spiritual home, my nation, and I plan my whole life as being involved to Nova Roma until death. I know, big words... but I hope my deeds speak for my words, and in this website crisis I would like to do the best I am able to do.
> >
> > And the best I can do is this: to offer my help to find a cheaper service within some weeks in my city, Budapest (I shall note I have some good acquaintances), and to sit beside to this programmer, and to tell him step by step what we need, to lead his hands, and to present the new NR database and voting system within a few months, possibly until the end of summer. This is what I can offer as help, and something more:
> >
> > You know that I have almost no money, I am a student and I work as a Latin teacher with partial employment. My income is around 130 USD per month. I have, however, a few saved money, and I am determined to put a part of it into Nova Roma, especially into this project, to save us from this unbearable trouble we have with our website.
> >
> > If the senate decides to follow my suggestion and entrusts me with the task to find and work together with a programmer to create our new infrastructure, I am willing to offer 100 USD to the treasury of Nova Roma to pay for the costs of the person.
> > I'm sure the costs will be less than 10.000, but in this phase I don't know the exact prices.
> >
> > So, I offer my help to find the professional solution in a cheaper way, and I also offer to donate 100 USD to help paying the costs.
> >
> > With this donation, I also ask our fellow citizens to take sides with me, and to offer some money to donate to this project. Whatever small amount of money, 5 USD, 10 USD or any amount can help a lot if we keep together and put together a fund to save our website.
> >
> > I'm sure if we put some money together FOR NOVA ROMA, FOR OUR PATRIA, we all will be better persons, better friends, and finally better community. We will feel the blessing feeling of mutual responsibility, the sense of community, the sense of duty.
> >
> > And, finally, I'm sure that if we, private citizens, collect a certain amount of money, our senators will be much more willing to vote 'yes' about spending money from the treasury, and with our donations plus the money from the republic put together, we will be able to save the treasury, the website, and ourselves from our current chaos.
> >
> > So here we go --
> >
> > Donations for the new website (Ver.0.2 -Solution by A Programmer in Budapes):
> >
> > 1) 100 USD - Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > CVRATE VTI VALEATIS RESQVE PVBLICA VOBISCVM VALEAT!
> >
> >
> > CN. CORNELIVS LENTVLVS PONTIFEX
> > MAGISTER ARANEARIVS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77440 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Maior thinks that $16.00 a year is enough for tax to pay a $10,000 IT
upgrade.

Whereas she wants NR to invest 44% of our ENTIRE treasury that has been
collected in 12+ years.

44%

That figure is based on the budget
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Approved_Budget_2009

She does not take into account the funds specifically earmarked for specific
projects - like the dead and gone MMP but that money was raised for that and
so it has to stay there. So, take that into account and it's substantially
MORE than 44%

It now becomes almost 58% of our treasury.

58% on an organization that has less than 20% of the membership paying
taxes.
58% on an organization that has a declining tax base.
58% on an organization that has almost been involved in 2 (YES 2) lawsuits.-
the Cassian/Piscinus and then Sulla vs NR.

Is this a wise investment? No. It is not.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:58 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> M. Hortensia Cn. Cornelio Lentulo spd;
> I have long time friendships with all our hard-working webmasters and I am
> all for this project.
>
> Please do not ask for contributions, Lentule! Why? Because we collected
> taxes from our citizens, this is where this $10,000 would come from; and the
> new great website would benefit them!
>
> Also with the new website we could purchase the JSTOR membership that the
> Senate approved. All assidui would have access to a great classical
> scholarly archive. Something tangible; the benefits of NR membership.
>
> To keep this money is to hoard it. It's unethical; NR is registered as a
> non-profit. It exists to benefit it's members!
>
> If the Senate won't spend it; we must stop collecting taxes from our
> citizens.
> di tibi favent
> M. Hortensia Maior
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Cn.
> Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus magister aranearius P. Memmio et K. Buteoni coss. et C.
> Curio curatori rei informatiae et Senatui Populoque Novo Romano s. p. s.:
> >
> > (Cn. Lentulus send many greetings to the Consuls P. Memmius and K. Buteo,
> and to the Curator Rei Informaticae C. Curius, and to the Nova Roman Senate
> and People:)
> >
> >
> > S. VOS RESQVE PVBLICA V. B. E .E. Q. V.
> >
> >
> > Please let me to be brief, consules amplissimi P. Memmi et K. Bueto, et
> C. Curi curator rei informaticae, patres conscripti et Quirites, in a very
> important question that would deserve a much more serious address from me,
> especially as I'm magister aranearius.
> >
> > I'm magister aranearius, but my office is not the one that it was in
> older times in Nova Roma. Old magistri aranearii were in charge of the full
> website, of its programming and its infrastructure: now my office is just a
> senate appointment, and my job is merely to coordinate the other volunteer
> editors of the NR wiki. Still I feel responsibility for the entire website,
> given that it's the only instrument that makes us able to work as a
> community, even if we are scattered all over the world.
> >
> > Consuls, Curator, Senators and Citizens!
> >
> > You are all aware of the canceled senate item about the proposal of
> paying 10.000 USD to former citizen T. Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus (who is a
> professional programmer and an expert of the current structure and programs
> of our website) to design and set up a new website, a databse which is up to
> date to current technology, a system that will allow to do everything
> automatically so that conducting elections be no more difficult than
> clicking on a button. The new website would make it possible that our
> magistrates organize elections, appointments and updates themselves, without
> relying on the help of a professional IT person whose time is very limited,
> and from whom our current system takes away a lot of time if he is willing
> to help, so difficult and hardly manageable our current system is.
> >
> > Our current system requires a programmer to manage a simple election!
> That's a nonsense in 2010! And now we don't have programmer. The only person
> who is familiar with our current system is T. Octavius Pius. He could create
> the new system which would make it possible to ordinary people to manage it.
> It would cost 10.000 USD to him to build this new website.
> >
> > I understand if the senate thinks that we can't afford 10.000 USD to pay
> which is close to half of our treasury. I understand if many think that
> there should be an alternative. However, before you reject the proposal of
> T. Octacius Pius, consider that *to have* former citizen T. Octavius Pius
> who both knows what to change, how to change, and can change it, who is
> familiar with our needs, with the complex laws that regulate our elections,
> who actually organized elections, it is a heavenly gift from the Gods. Any
> solution, let it be cheaper, will be much more complicated and unsure.
> >
> > And remember: we do not only need a working voting system technology. We
> need a completely new Citizen Database, because the current one is broken.
> We need to create a message board to it, possibly our own forum, too, and
> the whole should include advantages of such modern free source features like
> those of the Facebook, Youtube and so forth. I am not saying all these
> things are to be set up right now as a priority, but any change we will make
> shall open the possibilities for development. It should at least make the
> way open for such improvements like having a community interface in our
> website.
> >
> > Well, I don't know what the plans of T. Octavius Pius were, but I'm sure
> the new website was planned in a way that it makes open the way for such
> later improvements.
> >
> > Consider all these things, esteemed consuls and senators, think about it,
> citizens, because T. Octavius Pius would be able to do this, alone from our
> numbers, alone from the people who actually know how NR works and what are
> the expectations for the Album Civium, voting system etc.
> >
> > If you have considered this, and you still think that you can't afford
> 10.000 USD for these necessary changes, I would like to propose you an
> alternative solution, my own initiative, to achieve the same goals, in a
> less easy but cheaper way.
> >
> > We have to use the advantage that Nova Roma is worldwide.
> >
> > We have citizens in expensive countries but in cheaper countries as well.
> Mine is one of the cheaper countries. And I, as magister aranearius, can
> help Nova Roma to find a reliable programmer who could help us to create the
> system we need. Perhaps there are others, in other cheaper countries, who
> can also try to find a programmer. What I can offer it is, however, that I
> am a longstanding citizen of Nova Roma, I know what we need, and I know how
> our election system works, I know the laws, I was a Custos (thus involved in
> NR elections internally), as censorial scribe with years of experience
> working on the censorial database I know the system and its needs, and I
> will be able to explain to the programmer what exactly we want, and how
> exactly we want it.
> >
> > I can offer this and I will take personal responsibility for the work.
> >
> > I do it because I am no longer able to suffer what's going on in Nova
> Roma.
> >
> > I do it only because I love Nova Roma, I am, I was and, if Gods help, I
> will be always dedicated to Nova Roma, I do not consider it just a project
> or a possibility, but I consider it as my home, my spiritual home, my
> nation, and I plan my whole life as being involved to Nova Roma until death.
> I know, big words... but I hope my deeds speak for my words, and in this
> website crisis I would like to do the best I am able to do.
> >
> > And the best I can do is this: to offer my help to find a cheaper service
> within some weeks in my city, Budapest (I shall note I have some good
> acquaintances), and to sit beside to this programmer, and to tell him step
> by step what we need, to lead his hands, and to present the new NR database
> and voting system within a few months, possibly until the end of summer.
> This is what I can offer as help, and something more:
> >
> > You know that I have almost no money, I am a student and I work as a
> Latin teacher with partial employment. My income is around 130 USD per
> month. I have, however, a few saved money, and I am determined to put a part
> of it into Nova Roma, especially into this project, to save us from this
> unbearable trouble we have with our website.
> >
> > If the senate decides to follow my suggestion and entrusts me with the
> task to find and work together with a programmer to create our new
> infrastructure, I am willing to offer 100 USD to the treasury of Nova Roma
> to pay for the costs of the person.
> > I'm sure the costs will be less than 10.000, but in this phase I don't
> know the exact prices.
> >
> > So, I offer my help to find the professional solution in a cheaper way,
> and I also offer to donate 100 USD to help paying the costs.
> >
> > With this donation, I also ask our fellow citizens to take sides with me,
> and to offer some money to donate to this project. Whatever small amount of
> money, 5 USD, 10 USD or any amount can help a lot if we keep together and
> put together a fund to save our website.
> >
> > I'm sure if we put some money together FOR NOVA ROMA, FOR OUR PATRIA, we
> all will be better persons, better friends, and finally better community. We
> will feel the blessing feeling of mutual responsibility, the sense of
> community, the sense of duty.
> >
> > And, finally, I'm sure that if we, private citizens, collect a certain
> amount of money, our senators will be much more willing to vote 'yes' about
> spending money from the treasury, and with our donations plus the money from
> the republic put together, we will be able to save the treasury, the
> website, and ourselves from our current chaos.
> >
> > So here we go --
> >
> > Donations for the new website (Ver.0.2 -Solution by A Programmer in
> Budapes):
> >
> > 1) 100 USD - Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > CVRATE VTI VALEATIS RESQVE PVBLICA VOBISCVM VALEAT!
> >
> >
> > CN. CORNELIVS LENTVLVS PONTIFEX
> > MAGISTER ARANEARIVS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77441 From: C.iulia Eucharis Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Salve Cato! I am more of an idea person not good with details, lol. JK - i was just thinking that an open invitation possibly viewed by the capite censi to critique NR might get a tad out of hand on the ML. Perhaps not with enough time commited to moderation. I suppose the ML would be a good place to start such a discussion, pending movement of it elsewhere should it begin to lack apropos decorum. Vale bene, Eucharis

----------
Sent from AT&T's Wireless network using Mobile Email

------Original Message------
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 6, 2010 6:19:04 PM GMT-0000
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Math Involved - Tax Base

Cato Iuliae Eucharista sal.

I think this is quite a sensible idea, actually; my only question would be one of simple organization. How would you propose getting the capite censi to become involved in such a List? Could they not simply talk here in the Forum?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.iulia Eucharis" <c.iulia_eucharis@...> wrote:
>
> Salve et salvete,
>
> Merely as a suggestion, perhaps some moratorium period could be extended to non-assidui in order to pay up the current amount due. If that were to be something like the end of the calendar year, then they could keep their citizenship for much less than they probably owe in back taxes.
>
> Once the word were to go out that they would thereafter need to pay up all of the entire amount of back taxes due in order to regain assidui status, perhaps a large number of the capite censi would decide to take advantage of such a tax break and simply pay the current year's tax. That could bring in some much needed revenue.
>
> Concurrently, it would be a good idea to develop/publicize a plan as to how expenses would be prioritized. A complete overhaul of the Nova Roma Wiki would probably not be a strong selling point. But fixing what is wrong might make sense to those who are passively voicing discontent through non-payment of taxes.
>
> The capite censi, regardless of how they are viewed, would appear to be the best potential source of immediate revenue. They should enroll in some discussion list, perhaps not the ML, and participate in information exchange regarding how such revenue would be used. It may be worth adapting priorities based upon some of their opinions. They do outnumber the assidui about 4 to 1, if you look at it that way.
>
> Following the moratorium suggested herein, there might be some extended future period to pay the full amount of back taxes due. At some point, their debt would possibly outweigh any benefit of regaining assidui status, and some other ruling would then be needed.
>
> There would be no IT cost to adopt this policy during the moratorium period.
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> C. Iulia Eucharis
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; BackAlley <backalley@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 9:02:44 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Math Involved - Tax Base
>
> Ave!
>
> 2760 - 235 paying tax members
> 2761 - 230 paying tax members - 2.2% loss from the previous year
> 2762 - 219 paying tax members - 4.8 % loss from the previous year (NET 69%
> loss from 2760)
> At current only 7 are listed.
>
> All of this individuals who know me going back to 1998 will confirm that I
> have NEVER been a numbers person. I have never been an individual who felt
> that the sheer number of persons in NR was the most important thing ever.
> Far from it. I always looked at the bottom line.
>
> For example when Lentulus posted the number of registered citizens and gave
> out the figure of 1159 members I just smiled because when he did that I did
> a simple calculation in my head. What is the % of those registered citizens
> vs the tax paying citizens.
>
> 219 tax paying citizens as a % of 1159 (registered citizens) I get this
> precentage: 18.9 (Basically 19%). For every 5 members of NR 1 of them is a
> tax payer. Kinda striking when you put it like that?
>
> When one is working on budges and allocations one cannot use the best
> figure, one must use the real figure.
>
> Simply put, NR does not have the tax base to sustain the costs being
> requested by those who advocate for the IT restructure.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77442 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

Yes, I am a Patrician.

And the Collegium Augurum can ignore you. The three senatores (two of which
are consulars, and one is a censor) see our laws and our responsibilities
differently.

Vale;

Modianus

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> Wait - are you a patrician? I thought you jumped ship way back when to run
> for tribune already?
>
> The tribunes can do as they like. In the meantime, the Constitution stands.
> The decretum does not. It can be ignore as null and void under the
> Constitution's legal precedence.
>
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77443 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Livia Hortensiae sal.

I'm totally with you on this. It's time to spend some of the NR money and
stop hoarding it for nothing. In fact, we have very little expenses, and it
appears impossible to convince the senate to give money for anything.
Anyone who wants to organize a conventus or any other NR-related real life
activity has zero hope of getting even one cent from NR.
The taxpyers so far would be perfectly justified in thinking their taxes are
completely useless.

Having a working IT system is exactly one of those expenses which are
perfectly justified, and at the moment we can afford to spent even 90% of
our capital, since there are almost no running expenses.
The goal should be zero balance (except maybe for an emergency fund), and
having every cent spent for an useful purpose.

Luckily few people agree with Sulla: as usual he is just the one with most
time on his hands to post.

Optime vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "rory12001" <rory12001@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 7:58 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the
Curator Rei Informaticae, the Senate and Peopel


M. Hortensia Cn. Cornelio Lentulo spd;
I have long time friendships with all our hard-working webmasters
and I am all for this project.

Please do not ask for contributions, Lentule! Why? Because we collected
taxes from our citizens, this is where this $10,000 would come from; and the
new great website would benefit them!

Also with the new website we could purchase the JSTOR membership that the
Senate approved. All assidui would have access to a great classical
scholarly archive. Something tangible; the benefits of NR membership.

To keep this money is to hoard it. It's unethical; NR is registered as a
non-profit. It exists to benefit it's members!

If the Senate won't spend it; we must stop collecting taxes from our
citizens.
di tibi favent
M. Hortensia Maior
--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
<cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Lentulus magister aranearius P. Memmio et K. Buteoni coss. et C. Curio
> curatori rei informatiae et Senatui Populoque Novo Romano s. p. s.:
>
> (Cn. Lentulus send many greetings to the Consuls P. Memmius and K. Buteo,
> and to the Curator Rei Informaticae C. Curius, and to the Nova Roman
> Senate and People:)
>
>
> S. VOS RESQVE PVBLICA V. B. E .E. Q. V.
>
>
> Please let me to be brief, consules amplissimi P. Memmi et K. Bueto, et C.
> Curi curator rei informaticae, patres conscripti et Quirites, in a very
> important question that would deserve a much more serious address from me,
> especially as I'm magister aranearius.
>
> I'm magister aranearius, but my office is not the one that it was in older
> times in Nova Roma. Old magistri aranearii were in charge of the full
> website, of its programming and its infrastructure: now my office is just
> a senate appointment, and my job is merely to coordinate the other
> volunteer editors of the NR wiki. Still I feel responsibility for the
> entire website, given that it's the only instrument that makes us able to
> work as a community, even if we are scattered all over the world.
>
> Consuls, Curator, Senators and Citizens!
>
> You are all aware of the canceled senate item about the proposal of paying
> 10.000 USD to former citizen T. Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus (who is a
> professional programmer and an expert of the current structure and
> programs of our website) to design and set up a new website, a databse
> which is up to date to current technology, a system that will allow to do
> everything automatically so that conducting elections be no more difficult
> than clicking on a button. The new website would make it possible that our
> magistrates organize elections, appointments and updates themselves,
> without relying on the help of a professional IT person whose time is very
> limited, and from whom our current system takes away a lot of time if he
> is willing to help, so difficult and hardly manageable our current system
> is.
>
> Our current system requires a programmer to manage a simple election!
> That's a nonsense in 2010! And now we don't have programmer. The only
> person who is familiar with our current system is T. Octavius Pius. He
> could create the new system which would make it possible to ordinary
> people to manage it. It would cost 10.000 USD to him to build this new
> website.
>
> I understand if the senate thinks that we can't afford 10.000 USD to pay
> which is close to half of our treasury. I understand if many think that
> there should be an alternative. However, before you reject the proposal of
> T. Octacius Pius, consider that *to have* former citizen T. Octavius Pius
> who both knows what to change, how to change, and can change it, who is
> familiar with our needs, with the complex laws that regulate our
> elections, who actually organized elections, it is a heavenly gift from
> the Gods. Any solution, let it be cheaper, will be much more complicated
> and unsure.
>
> And remember: we do not only need a working voting system technology. We
> need a completely new Citizen Database, because the current one is broken.
> We need to create a message board to it, possibly our own forum, too, and
> the whole should include advantages of such modern free source features
> like those of the Facebook, Youtube and so forth. I am not saying all
> these things are to be set up right now as a priority, but any change we
> will make shall open the possibilities for development. It should at least
> make the way open for such improvements like having a community interface
> in our website.
>
> Well, I don't know what the plans of T. Octavius Pius were, but I'm sure
> the new website was planned in a way that it makes open the way for such
> later improvements.
>
> Consider all these things, esteemed consuls and senators, think about it,
> citizens, because T. Octavius Pius would be able to do this, alone from
> our numbers, alone from the people who actually know how NR works and what
> are the expectations for the Album Civium, voting system etc.
>
> If you have considered this, and you still think that you can't afford
> 10.000 USD for these necessary changes, I would like to propose you an
> alternative solution, my own initiative, to achieve the same goals, in a
> less easy but cheaper way.
>
> We have to use the advantage that Nova Roma is worldwide.
>
> We have citizens in expensive countries but in cheaper countries as well.
> Mine is one of the cheaper countries. And I, as magister aranearius, can
> help Nova Roma to find a reliable programmer who could help us to create
> the system we need. Perhaps there are others, in other cheaper countries,
> who can also try to find a programmer. What I can offer it is, however,
> that I am a longstanding citizen of Nova Roma, I know what we need, and I
> know how our election system works, I know the laws, I was a Custos (thus
> involved in NR elections internally), as censorial scribe with years of
> experience working on the censorial database I know the system and its
> needs, and I will be able to explain to the programmer what exactly we
> want, and how exactly we want it.
>
> I can offer this and I will take personal responsibility for the work.
>
> I do it because I am no longer able to suffer what's going on in Nova
> Roma.
>
> I do it only because I love Nova Roma, I am, I was and, if Gods help, I
> will be always dedicated to Nova Roma, I do not consider it just a project
> or a possibility, but I consider it as my home, my spiritual home, my
> nation, and I plan my whole life as being involved to Nova Roma until
> death. I know, big words... but I hope my deeds speak for my words, and in
> this website crisis I would like to do the best I am able to do.
>
> And the best I can do is this: to offer my help to find a cheaper service
> within some weeks in my city, Budapest (I shall note I have some good
> acquaintances), and to sit beside to this programmer, and to tell him step
> by step what we need, to lead his hands, and to present the new NR
> database and voting system within a few months, possibly until the end of
> summer. This is what I can offer as help, and something more:
>
> You know that I have almost no money, I am a student and I work as a Latin
> teacher with partial employment. My income is around 130 USD per month. I
> have, however, a few saved money, and I am determined to put a part of it
> into Nova Roma, especially into this project, to save us from this
> unbearable trouble we have with our website.
>
> If the senate decides to follow my suggestion and entrusts me with the
> task to find and work together with a programmer to create our new
> infrastructure, I am willing to offer 100 USD to the treasury of Nova Roma
> to pay for the costs of the person.
> I'm sure the costs will be less than 10.000, but in this phase I don't
> know the exact prices.
>
> So, I offer my help to find the professional solution in a cheaper way,
> and I also offer to donate 100 USD to help paying the costs.
>
> With this donation, I also ask our fellow citizens to take sides with me,
> and to offer some money to donate to this project. Whatever small amount
> of money, 5 USD, 10 USD or any amount can help a lot if we keep together
> and put together a fund to save our website.
>
> I'm sure if we put some money together FOR NOVA ROMA, FOR OUR PATRIA, we
> all will be better persons, better friends, and finally better community.
> We will feel the blessing feeling of mutual responsibility, the sense of
> community, the sense of duty.
>
> And, finally, I'm sure that if we, private citizens, collect a certain
> amount of money, our senators will be much more willing to vote 'yes'
> about spending money from the treasury, and with our donations plus the
> money from the republic put together, we will be able to save the
> treasury, the website, and ourselves from our current chaos.
>
> So here we go --
>
> Donations for the new website (Ver.0.2 -Solution by A Programmer in
> Budapes):
>
> 1) 100 USD - Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CVRATE VTI VALEATIS RESQVE PVBLICA VOBISCVM VALEAT!
>
>
> CN. CORNELIVS LENTVLVS PONTIFEX
> MAGISTER ARANEARIVS
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77444 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus L. Liviae Plautae salutem dicit

I'm not totally against the idea of paying have the database fixed, voting
fixed, et al. However, I do think the cost is a bit much and would like to
review options.

I think that we might be able to function with a good web based membership
management service (there are several, for example, that cater to church
organizations and we could fall in that category), and maybe we should
change our voting system OR use a system and have a magistrate place the
vote into the respective century and tribe manually once all the votes are
in.

IF we can get some of the same results without investing $10K I'm all for
that. I'm not advocating we hoard our money, but I'm also not advocating
for what we had with the free service that Octavius provided. Perhaps we
simply don't need what we had and could survive just fine without it!

We need to discuss options instead of having the contio on the subject
vetoed in the senate! Now we're discussing it on the main list when it
should be discussed in the senate.

I believe serious reformation is needed in the area of taxes. I'm all for
doing away with the capite censi -- I see it as useless. I'm also all for
doing away with the weighted payment. Our "currency" is based on USA funds
so people should pay the same in US funds no matter where they live. Basing
taxes on one's macronational (GNP) citizenship is forcing the USA Nova
Romans to carry those in countries who pay lower taxes.

Vale;

Modianus

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:46 PM, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>wrote:

>
>
> Livia Hortensiae sal.
>
> I'm totally with you on this. It's time to spend some of the NR money and
> stop hoarding it for nothing. In fact, we have very little expenses, and it
>
> appears impossible to convince the senate to give money for anything.
> Anyone who wants to organize a conventus or any other NR-related real life
> activity has zero hope of getting even one cent from NR.
> The taxpyers so far would be perfectly justified in thinking their taxes
> are
> completely useless.
>
> Having a working IT system is exactly one of those expenses which are
> perfectly justified, and at the moment we can afford to spent even 90% of
> our capital, since there are almost no running expenses.
> The goal should be zero balance (except maybe for an emergency fund), and
> having every cent spent for an useful purpose.
>
> Luckily few people agree with Sulla: as usual he is just the one with most
> time on his hands to post.
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77445 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Gaius Tullius Valerianus Germanicus omnibus in foro S.P.D.

Salvete omnes! I think that those of you who know me tend to see me as a
fairly moderate citizen, without any extreme political leanings of any kind.
I think that this is true, but I am gravely concerned about what is
happening here.

I have the highest respect for NR's priesthoods, and particularly the
augurate (I have studied some augury, received some advice from Piscinus on
the matter, and even aspired to the augurate myself). But i simply don't see
where in our Constitution the augurate has the right to undermine the
workings of our government. I've looked and looked, but I can't find it. As
far as I can tell, this is because Cato is correct and the augurate does not
legally have the powers it is claiming. If someone can tell me where this is
in the Constitution, it would be a huge relief! I know Cato and Sulla have
asked for such Constitutional clarification, but they have been ignored and
stonewalled. Maybe this is because the manner of the request lacked some
tact. So I ask politely - is there ANYWHERE in our Constitution that gives
the augurate the power to declare elections invalid (including
retroactively), to prevent a consul from calling Comitia, or to prevent the
Comitia Curiata from conferring Imperium on elected praetors, or any of
these things in question?

Now, our laws require respect for our religious as well as political
institutions. And I have that respect, even if some others in this debate do
not. But the Lex Salica *also* requires equal respect for our laws, which
don't seem to give the augurate the powers it is claiming. So those who
question this are not disrespecting our religious institutions, but those in
the religious institutions that try to get around our laws are disrespecting
the (equal under the Lex Salica in question) political institution.

From our laws on treason (Laesa Patriae):

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


While those asking questions are not defaming the religio by stating the
Constitutional fact that we don't see where the augurate gets the powers it
claims, it IS damaging tlo the republic to claim that the Constitution
doesn't matter, and that only the augurate has final say, In other words, as
far as I can tell, those obstructing the election are committing treason
unless they have a Constitutional defense, and they refuse to present one -
so far we've established and *internal* right to control augury, not an *
external* right to total control of the entire Republic.

The law further states: 2.The offense may be aggravated for purposes of
penalty by any citizen who openly declares enmity to the republic, its
religio, or its institutions in connection with an act described in (1); and
that

Hostility to the republic and its institutions is the offense of treason. So
would be hostility to the religio, but I have already established that this
doesn't apply here - I love the religio, but it doesn't seem to have the
powers it is claiming. That's not enmity, that is (as far as i can see)
Constitutional fact under NR law. But claiming total control over our
electoral process, and declaring elections invalid retroactively? THAT
sounds like it applies.

The law continues: 3.The penalty for laesa patriae shall be not less than
deprivation of citizenship for one year nor more than permanent deprivation
of citizenship, according to the formula of the praetor. Whoever acts in
such a manner as to seriously and explicitly endanger the continued
existence of the Republic of Nova Roma, its properties, its institutions,
its constitution, or the position of the Religio Romana as the state
religion shall suffer EXACTIO for a period up to life. No one shall be
prosecuted under this offence for any legislative proposal or peaceful
attempt to reform the State by means of legislation.

It seems that any attempt to wrest control of NR from the Senate, the
people, the magistrates, etc. constitutes serious and explicit danger to the
continued existence of NR. So again, I would like to see any explanation - *any
explanation at all* - of how this is *constitutionally valid* that doesn't
rest on "because we said so, and we're a religious college, so we should
know." That's *NOT* valid under our Constitution. Actually, that's the
definition of treason under our Constitution. So I - and all he citizens, I
think - would like the explanation to which SPQR is entitled - the Senate
and the People who are being deprived of their rights under our
Constitution.

Finally, to quote from our Constitution itself:
. Legal precedence. This Constitution shall be the highest legal authority
within Nova Roma, apart from edicts issued by a legally appointed *dictator*.
It shall thereafter be followed in legal authority by *edicta* issued by
consuls acting under the *Senatus consulta ultima*, laws properly voted and
passed by one of the *comitia*, *decreta* passed by the*collegium pontificum
*, *decreta* passed by the *collegium augurum*, *Senatus consulta*, and
magisterial *edicta* (in order of descending authority as described in
section IV of this Constitution), in that order. Should a lower authority
conflict with a higher authority, the higher authority shall take
precedence. Should a law passed by one of the *comitia*contradict one passed
by another or the same *comitia* without explicitly superseding that law,
the most recent law shall take precedence.

In other words, the precedence of our laws is enshrined in the Constitution,
from what I can see. All debate about decreta passed by the augurs, the
pontiffs, or anyone else is meaningless if it contradicts the normal
constitutional workings of the state. There IS a highest authority in Nova
Roma, and it isn't the religio nor any of the institutions thereof. Not even
the augurate, much beloved by me. So an answer is required to the question
the citizens are asking - where in the Constitution is it? Failure to answer
this means that the very citizenship of some of our leading religious
figures hangs in the balance (for the penalty for treason is the loss of
their citizenship for at least a year)!

This is a serious matter, and we're all taking it seriously. This is
potentially a matter of treason at the highest levels of our Republic and
our Religio. I approach the forum with the deepest respect for all our
religious and political institutions, but Nova Roma IS its Constitution, its
Senate, and its People. If those things are ignored, Nova Roma has ceased to
exist. And we, the people of NR, will not let that happen. The Senate will
not let that happen. I'm sure the Collegium Pontificum will not let that
happen - and they removed Cassius Pater Patriae for far less. Nova Roma
stands, and no attempt by anyone to undermine the Constitution will succeed,
Quirites, It cannot. Because the Pax Deorum prevents it, our laws prevent
it, and WE will prevent it.

Valete omnes

"Qua(e) patres difficillime
adepti sunt nolite
turpiter relinquere" -
Monumentum Bradfordis, Tamaropoli, in civitate Massaciuseta
(Bradford Monument, Plymouth, MA)

Check out my books on Goodreads: <a href="
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus?utm_source=email_widget">
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus</a>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77446 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Cato Eucharista sal.

Well, I like the idea of a moratorium; I really like the idea of the capite censi being given a chance, without the threat of reprisal or anything, to get their points across about what *they* would like to see happen in the Respublica.

The reward - having more citizens step in, pay taxes, become more involved - is worth any amount of the rest of us shutting up and *not* jumping on them.

What if we found a series of days that fell in the religious calendar as a good time - even now, as the Apollonian Games are technically happening until the 13th - to announce that any grievances, suggestions, anything at all that the capite censi might want to say, all of them are welcome to express themselves in the Forum freely and without hindrance...

Or we could ask the College of Pontiffs which set of days might be most...ummm...auspicious for that kind of thing in the near future.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.iulia Eucharis" <c.iulia_eucharis@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Cato! I am more of an idea person not good with details, lol. JK - i was just thinking that an open invitation possibly viewed by the capite censi to critique NR might get a tad out of hand on the ML. Perhaps not with enough time commited to moderation. I suppose the ML would be a good place to start such a discussion, pending movement of it elsewhere should it begin to lack apropos decorum. Vale bene, Eucharis
>
> ----------
> Sent from AT&T's Wireless network using Mobile Email
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tuesday, July 6, 2010 6:19:04 PM GMT-0000
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
>
> Cato Iuliae Eucharista sal.
>
> I think this is quite a sensible idea, actually; my only question would be one of simple organization. How would you propose getting the capite censi to become involved in such a List? Could they not simply talk here in the Forum?
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.iulia Eucharis" <c.iulia_eucharis@> wrote:
> >
> > Salve et salvete,
> >
> > Merely as a suggestion, perhaps some moratorium period could be extended to non-assidui in order to pay up the current amount due. If that were to be something like the end of the calendar year, then they could keep their citizenship for much less than they probably owe in back taxes.
> >
> > Once the word were to go out that they would thereafter need to pay up all of the entire amount of back taxes due in order to regain assidui status, perhaps a large number of the capite censi would decide to take advantage of such a tax break and simply pay the current year's tax. That could bring in some much needed revenue.
> >
> > Concurrently, it would be a good idea to develop/publicize a plan as to how expenses would be prioritized. A complete overhaul of the Nova Roma Wiki would probably not be a strong selling point. But fixing what is wrong might make sense to those who are passively voicing discontent through non-payment of taxes.
> >
> > The capite censi, regardless of how they are viewed, would appear to be the best potential source of immediate revenue. They should enroll in some discussion list, perhaps not the ML, and participate in information exchange regarding how such revenue would be used. It may be worth adapting priorities based upon some of their opinions. They do outnumber the assidui about 4 to 1, if you look at it that way.
> >
> > Following the moratorium suggested herein, there might be some extended future period to pay the full amount of back taxes due. At some point, their debt would possibly outweigh any benefit of regaining assidui status, and some other ruling would then be needed.
> >
> > There would be no IT cost to adopt this policy during the moratorium period.
> >
> > Vale et valete,
> >
> > C. Iulia Eucharis
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@>
> > To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; BackAlley <backalley@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 9:02:44 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Math Involved - Tax Base
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > 2760 - 235 paying tax members
> > 2761 - 230 paying tax members - 2.2% loss from the previous year
> > 2762 - 219 paying tax members - 4.8 % loss from the previous year (NET 69%
> > loss from 2760)
> > At current only 7 are listed.
> >
> > All of this individuals who know me going back to 1998 will confirm that I
> > have NEVER been a numbers person. I have never been an individual who felt
> > that the sheer number of persons in NR was the most important thing ever.
> > Far from it. I always looked at the bottom line.
> >
> > For example when Lentulus posted the number of registered citizens and gave
> > out the figure of 1159 members I just smiled because when he did that I did
> > a simple calculation in my head. What is the % of those registered citizens
> > vs the tax paying citizens.
> >
> > 219 tax paying citizens as a % of 1159 (registered citizens) I get this
> > precentage: 18.9 (Basically 19%). For every 5 members of NR 1 of them is a
> > tax payer. Kinda striking when you put it like that?
> >
> > When one is working on budges and allocations one cannot use the best
> > figure, one must use the real figure.
> >
> > Simply put, NR does not have the tax base to sustain the costs being
> > requested by those who advocate for the IT restructure.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77447 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
M. Hortensia L. Liviae C. Fabio spd;

this is the problem with Nova Roma doing something - too many cooks. We appointed Saturninus CIO - he said what should be done then non-IT people all have ideas.

Now I am Saturninus' friend, but look at our past IT people; they left from frustration. I just spoke with Q. Valerius Callidus so it's very clear... I know Saturninus feels frustrated and fed up.

We took approximately $20,000 in taxes over the years and we are hoarding it. So we need a different behavior. Because this money, the more we get, the less people want to spend, which is admirable personal behavior. But this is wrong for a non-profit organization.

We can afford a state of the art website and JSTOR. We have $20,000. Our members deserve it; and these 2 projects benefit them. Not a few individuals.

Albucius vetoed contio in the Senate; tough we can discuss it here. We should discuss it here!
optime vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus L. Liviae Plautae salutem dicit
>
> I'm not totally against the idea of paying have the database fixed, voting
> fixed, et al. However, I do think the cost is a bit much and would like to
> review options.
>
> I think that we might be able to function with a good web based membership
> management service (there are several, for example, that cater to church
> organizations and we could fall in that category), and maybe we should
> change our voting system OR use a system and have a magistrate place the
> vote into the respective century and tribe manually once all the votes are
> in.
>
> IF we can get some of the same results without investing $10K I'm all for
> that. I'm not advocating we hoard our money, but I'm also not advocating
> for what we had with the free service that Octavius provided. Perhaps we
> simply don't need what we had and could survive just fine without it!
>
> We need to discuss options instead of having the contio on the subject
> vetoed in the senate! Now we're discussing it on the main list when it
> should be discussed in the senate.
>
> I believe serious reformation is needed in the area of taxes. I'm all for
> doing away with the capite censi -- I see it as useless. I'm also all for
> doing away with the weighted payment. Our "currency" is based on USA funds
> so people should pay the same in US funds no matter where they live. Basing
> taxes on one's macronational (GNP) citizenship is forcing the USA Nova
> Romans to carry those in countries who pay lower taxes.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:46 PM, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Livia Hortensiae sal.
> >
> > I'm totally with you on this. It's time to spend some of the NR money and
> > stop hoarding it for nothing. In fact, we have very little expenses, and it
> >
> > appears impossible to convince the senate to give money for anything.
> > Anyone who wants to organize a conventus or any other NR-related real life
> > activity has zero hope of getting even one cent from NR.
> > The taxpyers so far would be perfectly justified in thinking their taxes
> > are
> > completely useless.
> >
> > Having a working IT system is exactly one of those expenses which are
> > perfectly justified, and at the moment we can afford to spent even 90% of
> > our capital, since there are almost no running expenses.
> > The goal should be zero balance (except maybe for an emergency fund), and
> > having every cent spent for an useful purpose.
> >
> > Luckily few people agree with Sulla: as usual he is just the one with most
> > time on his hands to post.
> >
> > Optime vale,
> > Livia
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77448 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
M. Hortensia K. Fabio Modiano spd;
please don't argue 'the law' to that stultus, he's the one that complained about his 'free speech' rights and the entire ridiculous claim was crushed by Cordus in the Tribunal. Feel free to read it.

I'm thrilled we have a working college of Augurs; that's what Nova Roma is all about. Living Roman culture; living religio!
optime vale
Maior





--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> Wait - are you a patrician? I thought you jumped ship way back when to run for tribune already?
>
> The tribunes can do as they like. In the meantime, the Constitution stands. The decretum does not. It can be ignore as null and void under the Constitution's legal precedence.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
> >
> > Not a Patrician? That's news to me! So you're saying I can run for tribune?
> >
> > I suggest you take hour concerns to the tribunes!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Modianus
> >
> > On Jul 6, 2010 11:17 AM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Modiano sal.
> >
> > Oh come off it, Modianus. Try that act somewhere else.
> >
> > The augurs have made a claim to power that is not supported by the
> > Constitution. The augurs have attempted to obstruct the electoral process.
> > Piscinus says he will violate the law and refuse to convene the comitia
> > curiata... and you can't be bothered to respond to questions about this
> > behavior?
> >
> > So you are willing to stand up on a pedestal and proclaim your views - views
> > that interfere with the orderly process of running the Respublica - but you
> > just won't brook any possible disagreement because... you don't want to.
> >
> > I don't want to hear about ancient augural law - although I'd be fascinated
> > to hear you declare that you have actually yourself read and studied every
> > single source that Piscinus has claimed - because it has *nothing to do with
> > our Constitution*. You know, of course, that under ancient augural law you
> > yourself cannot take public auspices - you are neither a curule magistrate
> > nor a patrician.
> >
> > So a very simple question: where in the Constitution does it give the augurs
> > the power to override a consul's call to convene the Senate or the comitia?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77449 From: Gaius Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
>>We can afford a state of the art website and JSTOR. We have $20,000. Our members
deserve it; and these 2 projects benefit them. Not a few individuals.<<

Salve et salvete,

Just to re-iterate, it is not for the website, it is the voting system, century point system, assiudi tracking and various tools Magistrates (principally the Censors) use. If it were for a website, I certainly would oppose spending $10,000.

Maybe some perspective will help. I was here before we had "taxes". I was the Consular Quaestor who organized out first tax collection. It was a tremendous battle just to get the idea of a membership fee enacted. Up until about a year ago, we had no idea we had $20,000 in the bank. It took us 7 or 8 years to build up that amount. As soon as we found out we had it, there were numerous ideas about how we could spend it. Once it is gone, it would take 7 or 8 years to build it up again and probably more since the tax base has been declining since year one.

The re-do of the systems I describe above may indeed be in order. I myself could not vote for Tribune this year because the system said I was Partrician - symptom of the problem.

If it turns out we DO need to spend these funds because it is an emergency, we would certainly have to do away with discretionary spending such as JSTOR and scholarships until our finances improve once more. As I recall, the annual cost of JSTOR alone is about 80% of our current annual tax collection. It is not inconsistent with non-profit custodianship to be conservative with limited resources, especially when the prospects for rebuilding them are dim.

I agree on one thing - the Senate should never have been prevented from discussing the topic.

Finally, who are the "few individuals" benefiting from not spending the funds? I may have missed something while I was away. Is someone within NR making money from investing the funds?

Vale et valete,

Laenas
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77450 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Cato Liviae sal.

Actually, in many ways I agree with you regarding this. We *should* have an excellent web presence as our first and most important presence is, for right now at least, on the internet. We *should* be spending money to improve the level of education for our citizens. I have been banging the Aedilician Fund for years now (I note that neither you nor Maior ever bothered to make any comment about it, by the way), which would move money from the Aerarium to the citizens.

But should we be spending 50+% of our entire budget on it? That's my problem. Perhaps he lives in a country where internet programming work is just mind-bogglingly, incredibly expensive, but here in just NYC alone there are hundreds if not thousands of people who can design just about anything imaginable for much less than $10,000 - and I know this because I know some of them, and am involved in another NFP that is currently re-doing its own website.

It is the idea that "this MUST BE DONE THIS WAY OR WE WILL FAAAAAAAIL and anybody who isn't a computer programmer is too stupid to understand why" mentality that rankles.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Livia Hortensiae sal.
>
> I'm totally with you on this. It's time to spend some of the NR money and
> stop hoarding it for nothing. In fact, we have very little expenses, and it
> appears impossible to convince the senate to give money for anything.
> Anyone who wants to organize a conventus or any other NR-related real life
> activity has zero hope of getting even one cent from NR.
> The taxpyers so far would be perfectly justified in thinking their taxes are
> completely useless.
>
> Having a working IT system is exactly one of those expenses which are
> perfectly justified, and at the moment we can afford to spent even 90% of
> our capital, since there are almost no running expenses.
> The goal should be zero balance (except maybe for an emergency fund), and
> having every cent spent for an useful purpose.
>
> Luckily few people agree with Sulla: as usual he is just the one with most
> time on his hands to post.
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rory12001" <rory12001@>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 7:58 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the
> Curator Rei Informaticae, the Senate and Peopel
>
>
> M. Hortensia Cn. Cornelio Lentulo spd;
> I have long time friendships with all our hard-working webmasters
> and I am all for this project.
>
> Please do not ask for contributions, Lentule! Why? Because we collected
> taxes from our citizens, this is where this $10,000 would come from; and the
> new great website would benefit them!
>
> Also with the new website we could purchase the JSTOR membership that the
> Senate approved. All assidui would have access to a great classical
> scholarly archive. Something tangible; the benefits of NR membership.
>
> To keep this money is to hoard it. It's unethical; NR is registered as a
> non-profit. It exists to benefit it's members!
>
> If the Senate won't spend it; we must stop collecting taxes from our
> citizens.
> di tibi favent
> M. Hortensia Maior
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus"
> <cn_corn_lent@> wrote:
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus magister aranearius P. Memmio et K. Buteoni coss. et C. Curio
> > curatori rei informatiae et Senatui Populoque Novo Romano s. p. s.:
> >
> > (Cn. Lentulus send many greetings to the Consuls P. Memmius and K. Buteo,
> > and to the Curator Rei Informaticae C. Curius, and to the Nova Roman
> > Senate and People:)
> >
> >
> > S. VOS RESQVE PVBLICA V. B. E .E. Q. V.
> >
> >
> > Please let me to be brief, consules amplissimi P. Memmi et K. Bueto, et C.
> > Curi curator rei informaticae, patres conscripti et Quirites, in a very
> > important question that would deserve a much more serious address from me,
> > especially as I'm magister aranearius.
> >
> > I'm magister aranearius, but my office is not the one that it was in older
> > times in Nova Roma. Old magistri aranearii were in charge of the full
> > website, of its programming and its infrastructure: now my office is just
> > a senate appointment, and my job is merely to coordinate the other
> > volunteer editors of the NR wiki. Still I feel responsibility for the
> > entire website, given that it's the only instrument that makes us able to
> > work as a community, even if we are scattered all over the world.
> >
> > Consuls, Curator, Senators and Citizens!
> >
> > You are all aware of the canceled senate item about the proposal of paying
> > 10.000 USD to former citizen T. Octavius Pius Ahenobarbus (who is a
> > professional programmer and an expert of the current structure and
> > programs of our website) to design and set up a new website, a databse
> > which is up to date to current technology, a system that will allow to do
> > everything automatically so that conducting elections be no more difficult
> > than clicking on a button. The new website would make it possible that our
> > magistrates organize elections, appointments and updates themselves,
> > without relying on the help of a professional IT person whose time is very
> > limited, and from whom our current system takes away a lot of time if he
> > is willing to help, so difficult and hardly manageable our current system
> > is.
> >
> > Our current system requires a programmer to manage a simple election!
> > That's a nonsense in 2010! And now we don't have programmer. The only
> > person who is familiar with our current system is T. Octavius Pius. He
> > could create the new system which would make it possible to ordinary
> > people to manage it. It would cost 10.000 USD to him to build this new
> > website.
> >
> > I understand if the senate thinks that we can't afford 10.000 USD to pay
> > which is close to half of our treasury. I understand if many think that
> > there should be an alternative. However, before you reject the proposal of
> > T. Octacius Pius, consider that *to have* former citizen T. Octavius Pius
> > who both knows what to change, how to change, and can change it, who is
> > familiar with our needs, with the complex laws that regulate our
> > elections, who actually organized elections, it is a heavenly gift from
> > the Gods. Any solution, let it be cheaper, will be much more complicated
> > and unsure.
> >
> > And remember: we do not only need a working voting system technology. We
> > need a completely new Citizen Database, because the current one is broken.
> > We need to create a message board to it, possibly our own forum, too, and
> > the whole should include advantages of such modern free source features
> > like those of the Facebook, Youtube and so forth. I am not saying all
> > these things are to be set up right now as a priority, but any change we
> > will make shall open the possibilities for development. It should at least
> > make the way open for such improvements like having a community interface
> > in our website.
> >
> > Well, I don't know what the plans of T. Octavius Pius were, but I'm sure
> > the new website was planned in a way that it makes open the way for such
> > later improvements.
> >
> > Consider all these things, esteemed consuls and senators, think about it,
> > citizens, because T. Octavius Pius would be able to do this, alone from
> > our numbers, alone from the people who actually know how NR works and what
> > are the expectations for the Album Civium, voting system etc.
> >
> > If you have considered this, and you still think that you can't afford
> > 10.000 USD for these necessary changes, I would like to propose you an
> > alternative solution, my own initiative, to achieve the same goals, in a
> > less easy but cheaper way.
> >
> > We have to use the advantage that Nova Roma is worldwide.
> >
> > We have citizens in expensive countries but in cheaper countries as well.
> > Mine is one of the cheaper countries. And I, as magister aranearius, can
> > help Nova Roma to find a reliable programmer who could help us to create
> > the system we need. Perhaps there are others, in other cheaper countries,
> > who can also try to find a programmer. What I can offer it is, however,
> > that I am a longstanding citizen of Nova Roma, I know what we need, and I
> > know how our election system works, I know the laws, I was a Custos (thus
> > involved in NR elections internally), as censorial scribe with years of
> > experience working on the censorial database I know the system and its
> > needs, and I will be able to explain to the programmer what exactly we
> > want, and how exactly we want it.
> >
> > I can offer this and I will take personal responsibility for the work.
> >
> > I do it because I am no longer able to suffer what's going on in Nova
> > Roma.
> >
> > I do it only because I love Nova Roma, I am, I was and, if Gods help, I
> > will be always dedicated to Nova Roma, I do not consider it just a project
> > or a possibility, but I consider it as my home, my spiritual home, my
> > nation, and I plan my whole life as being involved to Nova Roma until
> > death. I know, big words... but I hope my deeds speak for my words, and in
> > this website crisis I would like to do the best I am able to do.
> >
> > And the best I can do is this: to offer my help to find a cheaper service
> > within some weeks in my city, Budapest (I shall note I have some good
> > acquaintances), and to sit beside to this programmer, and to tell him step
> > by step what we need, to lead his hands, and to present the new NR
> > database and voting system within a few months, possibly until the end of
> > summer. This is what I can offer as help, and something more:
> >
> > You know that I have almost no money, I am a student and I work as a Latin
> > teacher with partial employment. My income is around 130 USD per month. I
> > have, however, a few saved money, and I am determined to put a part of it
> > into Nova Roma, especially into this project, to save us from this
> > unbearable trouble we have with our website.
> >
> > If the senate decides to follow my suggestion and entrusts me with the
> > task to find and work together with a programmer to create our new
> > infrastructure, I am willing to offer 100 USD to the treasury of Nova Roma
> > to pay for the costs of the person.
> > I'm sure the costs will be less than 10.000, but in this phase I don't
> > know the exact prices.
> >
> > So, I offer my help to find the professional solution in a cheaper way,
> > and I also offer to donate 100 USD to help paying the costs.
> >
> > With this donation, I also ask our fellow citizens to take sides with me,
> > and to offer some money to donate to this project. Whatever small amount
> > of money, 5 USD, 10 USD or any amount can help a lot if we keep together
> > and put together a fund to save our website.
> >
> > I'm sure if we put some money together FOR NOVA ROMA, FOR OUR PATRIA, we
> > all will be better persons, better friends, and finally better community.
> > We will feel the blessing feeling of mutual responsibility, the sense of
> > community, the sense of duty.
> >
> > And, finally, I'm sure that if we, private citizens, collect a certain
> > amount of money, our senators will be much more willing to vote 'yes'
> > about spending money from the treasury, and with our donations plus the
> > money from the republic put together, we will be able to save the
> > treasury, the website, and ourselves from our current chaos.
> >
> > So here we go --
> >
> > Donations for the new website (Ver.0.2 -Solution by A Programmer in
> > Budapes):
> >
> > 1) 100 USD - Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > CVRATE VTI VALEATIS RESQVE PVBLICA VOBISCVM VALEAT!
> >
> >
> > CN. CORNELIVS LENTVLVS PONTIFEX
> > MAGISTER ARANEARIVS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77451 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Cato Modiano sal.

Then my apologies, Modianus, because then you can, indeed, take the public auspices, as a patrician - just as, in ancient Rome, I would be able to.

The argumentam ad auctoritatem doesn't work - even the President of The United States can engage in criminal behavior, so just because you have two consulars in your trio means nothing.

If the attempt to usurp the legal functions of the civil government of the Respublica continues - (and if Piscinus does *not* convene the lictors at the appropriate time, he should be stripped of his office at the very least) - then the College of Augurs can be considered to be attempting a coup d'etat and is committing treason under our law.

Vale,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>
> Yes, I am a Patrician.
>
> And the Collegium Augurum can ignore you. The three senatores (two of which
> are consulars, and one is a censor) see our laws and our responsibilities
> differently.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77452 From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: NOBODY OWES BACK TAXES
Salvete

 

NOBODY OWES BACK TAXES



Taxes are voluntary. There is no such thing as owing back taxes other than a penalty for paying the current years taxes late.



Any current capite censi can pay their taxes RIGHT now and will be accorded Assidui status as soon as the payment has cleared and the Album Civium updated.



Valete



Ti. Galerius Paulinus







To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
From: catoinnyc@...
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:19:04 +0000
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Math Involved - Tax Base





Cato Iuliae Eucharista sal.

I think this is quite a sensible idea, actually; my only question would be one of simple organization. How would you propose getting the capite censi to become involved in such a List? Could they not simply talk here in the Forum?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.iulia Eucharis" <c.iulia_eucharis@...> wrote:
>
> Salve et salvete,
>
> Merely as a suggestion, perhaps some moratorium period could be extended to non-assidui in order to pay up the current amount due. If that were to be something like the end of the calendar year, then they could keep their citizenship for much less than they probably owe in back taxes.
>
> Once the word were to go out that they would thereafter need to pay up all of the entire amount of back taxes due in order to regain assidui status, perhaps a large number of the capite censi would decide to take advantage of such a tax break and simply pay the current year's tax. That could bring in some much needed revenue.
>
> Concurrently, it would be a good idea to develop/publicize a plan as to how expenses would be prioritized. A complete overhaul of the Nova Roma Wiki would probably not be a strong selling point. But fixing what is wrong might make sense to those who are passively voicing discontent through non-payment of taxes.
>
> The capite censi, regardless of how they are viewed, would appear to be the best potential source of immediate revenue. They should enroll in some discussion list, perhaps not the ML, and participate in information exchange regarding how such revenue would be used. It may be worth adapting priorities based upon some of their opinions. They do outnumber the assidui about 4 to 1, if you look at it that way.
>
> Following the moratorium suggested herein, there might be some extended future period to pay the full amount of back taxes due. At some point, their debt would possibly outweigh any benefit of regaining assidui status, and some other ruling would then be needed.
>
> There would be no IT cost to adopt this policy during the moratorium period.
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> C. Iulia Eucharis
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; BackAlley <backalley@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 9:02:44 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Math Involved - Tax Base
>
> Ave!
>
> 2760 - 235 paying tax members
> 2761 - 230 paying tax members - 2.2% loss from the previous year
> 2762 - 219 paying tax members - 4.8 % loss from the previous year (NET 6.9%
> loss from 2760)
> At current only 7 are listed.
>
> All of this individuals who know me going back to 1998 will confirm that I
> have NEVER been a numbers person. I have never been an individual who felt
> that the sheer number of persons in NR was the most important thing ever.
> Far from it. I always looked at the bottom line.
>
> For example when Lentulus posted the number of registered citizens and gave
> out the figure of 1159 members I just smiled because when he did that I did
> a simple calculation in my head. What is the % of those registered citizens
> vs the tax paying citizens.
>
> 219 tax paying citizens as a % of 1159 (registered citizens) I get this
> precentage: 18.9 (Basically 19%). For every 5 members of NR 1 of them is a
> tax payer. Kinda striking when you put it like that?
>
> When one is working on budges and allocations one cannot use the best
> figure, one must use the real figure.
>
> Simply put, NR does not have the tax base to sustain the costs being
> requested by those who advocate for the IT restructure.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77453 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Tullio Valeriano Germanico salutem dicit

*Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum* states the following:

"3. B. 2. A member of the Collegium Augurum shall be invited by the
presiding magistrate to seek favorable auspices for the conduct of the vote,
subject to those rules and regulations the Collegium Augurum shall set forth
by decreta. Should the presiding magistrate himself be a member of the
Collegium Augurum, he may take the auspices for the vote himself."

The *Decretum collegii pontificum et augurum de iure auspicandi et
tripudio*states the following:

"Curule magistrates who are practitioners of the Religio Romana shall have
the ius auspicandi.

A curule magistrate who is a practitioner of the Religio Romana, but not an
augur, pontifex, flamen, sacerdos, or pullarius, shall submit a written
report of any auspication he has taken and his interpretation thereof to the
Collegium Augurum for verification that vitium has not occurred in the
auspication.

In the event of vitium, the Collegium Augurum, providing such advice as
shall be necessary to correct the defect, shall require the curule
magistrate to repeat the auspication correctly.

Curule magistrates who are not practitioners of the Religio Romana shall not
have the ius auspicandi.

A curule magistrate who is not a practitioner of the Religio Romana shall
consult an augur or pullarius who shall take the auspication and provide an
interpretation thereof to the curule magistrate.
In the event that the curule magistrate shall dispute interpretation of the
auspication, the curule magistrate may appeal to the Collegium Augurum for
ultimate interpretation of the auspication."

As I see it these two laws (Lex and Decretum respectively) where the basis
for my decision, as an augur, to approve the decretum that you dispute. The
constitution IS the highest authority within Nova Roma; however, the
constitution is supplemented by other legally binding documents. What seems
tragic to me is that if the Collegium Augurum would have ignored this it
seems no one would have cared, which shows the degree of apathy evident in
Nova Roma.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus


On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:

>
>
> Gaius Tullius Valerianus Germanicus omnibus in foro S.P.D.
>
> [snip]
>
> Now, our laws require respect for our religious as well as political
> institutions. And I have that respect, even if some others in this debate
> do
> not. But the Lex Salica *also* requires equal respect for our laws, which
> don't seem to give the augurate the powers it is claiming. So those who
> question this are not disrespecting our religious institutions, but those
> in
> the religious institutions that try to get around our laws are
> disrespecting
> the (equal under the Lex Salica in question) political institution.
>
[snip]


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77454 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Gaio Popillio Laenae salutem dicit

I agree with you below. I think if we do end up spending that much on the
web tools then we should table the JSTOR project. I too stand on the more
fiscally conservative side of things, but do know as a censor that we need
to do something!! We should be talking about it in the senate in a civil
manner where every opinion is RESPECTED and discussed.

The constant conflict within Nova Roma is demoralizing and tiring and really
needs to stop if we are going to progress beyond the few that remain active
year after year.

Vale;

Modianus

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Gaius <gaiuspopillius@...> wrote:

>
>
> >>We can afford a state of the art website and JSTOR. We have $20,000. Our
> members
> deserve it; and these 2 projects benefit them. Not a few individuals.<<
>
> Salve et salvete,
>
> Just to re-iterate, it is not for the website, it is the voting system,
> century point system, assiudi tracking and various tools Magistrates
> (principally the Censors) use. If it were for a website, I certainly would
> oppose spending $10,000.
>
> Maybe some perspective will help. I was here before we had "taxes". I was
> the Consular Quaestor who organized out first tax collection. It was a
> tremendous battle just to get the idea of a membership fee enacted. Up until
> about a year ago, we had no idea we had $20,000 in the bank. It took us 7 or
> 8 years to build up that amount. As soon as we found out we had it, there
> were numerous ideas about how we could spend it. Once it is gone, it would
> take 7 or 8 years to build it up again and probably more since the tax base
> has been declining since year one.
>
> The re-do of the systems I describe above may indeed be in order. I myself
> could not vote for Tribune this year because the system said I was
> Partrician - symptom of the problem.
>
> If it turns out we DO need to spend these funds because it is an emergency,
> we would certainly have to do away with discretionary spending such as JSTOR
> and scholarships until our finances improve once more. As I recall, the
> annual cost of JSTOR alone is about 80% of our current annual tax
> collection. It is not inconsistent with non-profit custodianship to be
> conservative with limited resources, especially when the prospects for
> rebuilding them are dim.
>
> I agree on one thing - the Senate should never have been prevented from
> discussing the topic.
>
> Finally, who are the "few individuals" benefiting from not spending the
> funds? I may have missed something while I was away. Is someone within NR
> making money from investing the funds?
>
> Vale et valete,
>
> Laenas
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77455 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Religiosum
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

Treason is it? I bet the Back Alley is alive about now; I'm sure it's
entertaining for you folks there :) If you feel it necessary to bring
charges of treason against me please do so. I don't have the time or energy
to engage in a "defense" so you shouldn't have much trouble getting a
conviction!

Please see my response to another citizen on my position regarding this
particular round of conflict.

Vale;

Modianus

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> Then my apologies, Modianus, because then you can, indeed, take the public
> auspices, as a patrician - just as, in ancient Rome, I would be able to.
>
> The argumentam ad auctoritatem doesn't work - even the President of The
> United States can engage in criminal behavior, so just because you have two
> consulars in your trio means nothing.
>
> If the attempt to usurp the legal functions of the civil government of the
> Respublica continues - (and if Piscinus does *not* convene the lictors at
> the appropriate time, he should be stripped of his office at the very least)
> - then the College of Augurs can be considered to be attempting a coup
> d'etat and is committing treason under our law.
>
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77456 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Cato Modiano sal.

That's a nice construct, but it simply doesn't cut water.

The Constitution clearly and directly gives consuls the authority to call the Senate and comitia - and there is no clause stating (as might be found in other places) "pursuant to applicable law".

This means that according to the Constitution, there is nothing that limits the consuls' authority to do so.

The Constitution also clearly and directly says that it itself limits any leges, decreta, edicta, etc., reserving for itself the highest legal precedence. Any of those legal entities which attempt to limit the Constitution are overridden by its authority.

It doesn't even matter that you *assume* that the leges and decreta are intended to "supplement" the Constitution; the Constitution doesn't give you that right.

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77457 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

Now you're just being difficult. It is okay to acknowledge that you're
wrong, no one will consider you a lesser person. You don't always "have to
be" right!

According to your logic then a consul can call the comitia today and convene
it twenty minutes later and then close it an hour after that to pass
legislation and say, "it passed, I was the only one who voted." The
constitution states a consul can call the comitia but it doesn't state HOW a
consul does that, that is spelled out in a lex.

The constitution states that LAWs are passed in comitia that are binding and
it gives the collegium the right to create decretum that are binding as law
too.

This is why I usually chose NOT to argue with you because it is a waste of
time. You don't see any other point other than your own and your arguments
are so extreme and one sided.

There are a lot of things that are not spelled out in our constitution but
is supplemented by our laws. They are not around for sport.

Vale;

Modianus



On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> That's a nice construct, but it simply doesn't cut water.
>
> The Constitution clearly and directly gives consuls the authority to call
> the Senate and comitia - and there is no clause stating (as might be found
> in other places) "pursuant to applicable law".
>
> This means that according to the Constitution, there is nothing that limits
> the consuls' authority to do so.
>
> The Constitution also clearly and directly says that it itself limits any
> leges, decreta, edicta, etc., reserving for itself the highest legal
> precedence. Any of those legal entities which attempt to limit the
> Constitution are overridden by its authority.
>
> It doesn't even matter that you *assume* that the leges and decreta are
> intended to "supplement" the Constitution; the Constitution doesn't give you
> that right.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77458 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Cato Modiano sal.

The Constitution says what it says, Modianus, whether or not it has been tested. This decretum has tested it, and come up wanting. If you don't like the law, then prepare legislation to change it.

The key phrase, one which you find in every set of bylaws imaginable - and in the US Constitution, for that matter - would refer to "applicable" or "pursuant to" in some form. The Constitution does not.

My argument is simplicity itself. The decretum attempts to subvert the Constitutional authority of the consuls to call the Senate and comitia. The end.

Vale,

Cato



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>
> Now you're just being difficult. It is okay to acknowledge that you're
> wrong, no one will consider you a lesser person. You don't always "have to
> be" right!
>
> According to your logic then a consul can call the comitia today and convene
> it twenty minutes later and then close it an hour after that to pass
> legislation and say, "it passed, I was the only one who voted." The
> constitution states a consul can call the comitia but it doesn't state HOW a
> consul does that, that is spelled out in a lex.
>
> The constitution states that LAWs are passed in comitia that are binding and
> it gives the collegium the right to create decretum that are binding as law
> too.
>
> This is why I usually chose NOT to argue with you because it is a waste of
> time. You don't see any other point other than your own and your arguments
> are so extreme and one sided.
>
> There are a lot of things that are not spelled out in our constitution but
> is supplemented by our laws. They are not around for sport.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cato Modiano sal.
> >
> > That's a nice construct, but it simply doesn't cut water.
> >
> > The Constitution clearly and directly gives consuls the authority to call
> > the Senate and comitia - and there is no clause stating (as might be found
> > in other places) "pursuant to applicable law".
> >
> > This means that according to the Constitution, there is nothing that limits
> > the consuls' authority to do so.
> >
> > The Constitution also clearly and directly says that it itself limits any
> > leges, decreta, edicta, etc., reserving for itself the highest legal
> > precedence. Any of those legal entities which attempt to limit the
> > Constitution are overridden by its authority.
> >
> > It doesn't even matter that you *assume* that the leges and decreta are
> > intended to "supplement" the Constitution; the Constitution doesn't give you
> > that right.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77459 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
I would go even FURTHER than that.

Lets take alook at this section of the Constitution:

*2*. The *Collegium Augurum* (College of Augurs) shall be the second-highest
ranked of the priestly *Collegia*. The eldest member of the
*Collegium*shall be the
*Magister Collegii*. The *Collegium Augurum* shall consist of nine Augurs,
five from the Plebeian order and four from the Patrician order. They shall
be appointed by the *Collegium Pontificum*, and shall hold their offices for
life, excepting in cases of resignation of office, resignation of
citizenship, or loss of *Assiduus* citizenship by process of law.
Resignation of office or citizenship by an Augur must be made in writing to
the *Pontifex Maximus* and the *Magister Collegii*; the *Pontifex Maximus*and
*Magister Collegii* shall be informed in writing of any process of law by
which such an *Augur* has lost citizenship. Augurs who have resigned their
office, resigned their citizenship, or have lost their citizenship by
process of law shall remain *sacri* in their persons but may exercise no
augural powers or functions, nor shall they be accounted members of
the *Collegium
Augurum*. *a*. The *collegium augurum* shall have the following honors,
powers, and responsibilities: *1*. To research, practice, and uphold the *ars
auguria* (the art of interpreting divine signs and omens, solicited or
otherwise); *2*. To issue *decreta* (decrees) on matters of the *ars auguria
* and its own internal procedures (such *decreta* may not be overruled by
laws passed in the *comitia* or *Senatus consultum*). *b*. Individual augurs
shall have the following honors, powers, and responsibilities: *1*. To
define *templum* (sacred space) and celebrate *auguria* (the rites of
augury); *2*. To declare *obnuntiatio* (a declaration that unfavorable and
unsolicited omens have been observed that justify a delay of a meeting of
one of the *comitia* or the Senate). The key section is To Issue Decreta.
The CA can make a decree that states within the CA lightening is no longer a
valid way of interpreting the gods will. But, if the CA chooses to create a
decree that states from this point forward within NR lightening is no longer
a valid way of interpreting the gods will. That is illegal as it oversteps
the "its own internal procedures).

If you want to create a CA decree that can be expanded OUTSIDE of the CA's
own internal rules you have to change this section of the Constitution as
well of at least 2 other sections of the Constitution.

The decree you wrote is not enforceable and it is in fact in violation of
the Constitution of Nova Roma. The Constitution trumps all lower level
forms of law from Leges on down to Edicts.

Vale,

Sulla


On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> The Constitution says what it says, Modianus, whether or not it has been
> tested. This decretum has tested it, and come up wanting. If you don't like
> the law, then prepare legislation to change it.
>
> The key phrase, one which you find in every set of bylaws imaginable - and
> in the US Constitution, for that matter - would refer to "applicable" or
> "pursuant to" in some form. The Constitution does not.
>
> My argument is simplicity itself. The decretum attempts to subvert the
> Constitutional authority of the consuls to call the Senate and comitia. The
> end.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, David
> Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
> >
> > Now you're just being difficult. It is okay to acknowledge that you're
> > wrong, no one will consider you a lesser person. You don't always "have
> to
> > be" right!
> >
> > According to your logic then a consul can call the comitia today and
> convene
> > it twenty minutes later and then close it an hour after that to pass
> > legislation and say, "it passed, I was the only one who voted." The
> > constitution states a consul can call the comitia but it doesn't state
> HOW a
> > consul does that, that is spelled out in a lex.
> >
> > The constitution states that LAWs are passed in comitia that are binding
> and
> > it gives the collegium the right to create decretum that are binding as
> law
> > too.
> >
> > This is why I usually chose NOT to argue with you because it is a waste
> of
> > time. You don't see any other point other than your own and your
> arguments
> > are so extreme and one sided.
> >
> > There are a lot of things that are not spelled out in our constitution
> but
> > is supplemented by our laws. They are not around for sport.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Modianus
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Modiano sal.
> > >
> > > That's a nice construct, but it simply doesn't cut water.
> > >
> > > The Constitution clearly and directly gives consuls the authority to
> call
> > > the Senate and comitia - and there is no clause stating (as might be
> found
> > > in other places) "pursuant to applicable law".
> > >
> > > This means that according to the Constitution, there is nothing that
> limits
> > > the consuls' authority to do so.
> > >
> > > The Constitution also clearly and directly says that it itself limits
> any
> > > leges, decreta, edicta, etc., reserving for itself the highest legal
> > > precedence. Any of those legal entities which attempt to limit the
> > > Constitution are overridden by its authority.
> > >
> > > It doesn't even matter that you *assume* that the leges and decreta are
> > > intended to "supplement" the Constitution; the Constitution doesn't
> give you
> > > that right.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Cato
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77460 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: OUR WEBSITE - Open letter to the Consuls, the Curator Rei Inform
M. Hortensia Gaio Popillio Caesoni Fabio spd;

I agree a respectful discussion is the way to go. I understand that it took 7-8 years to build this sum. We need the tools, especially for voting, we might be the only org in the world with Roman voting and I for sure want it back.

As a non-profit we know our costs. JSTOR, would bring us members, most Americans don't know this; but there is no library loan in Europe, some universities like Lentulus' can't afford a subscription to JSTOR. We would really be fufilling our mission.

Finally joining Nova Roma would finally give a benefit to members. Why save $10,000 for 10 more years? How does it advance Nova Roma the non-profit?
optime vale
Maior




- but do know as a censor that we need
> to do something!! We should be talking about it in the senate in a civil
> manner where every opinion is RESPECTED and discussed.
>
> The constant conflict within Nova Roma is demoralizing and tiring and really
> needs to stop if we are going to progress beyond the few that remain active
> year after year.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Gaius <gaiuspopillius@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >>We can afford a state of the art website and JSTOR. We have $20,000. Our
> > members
> > deserve it; and these 2 projects benefit them. Not a few individuals.<<
> >
> > Salve et salvete,
> >
> > Just to re-iterate, it is not for the website, it is the voting system,
> > century point system, assiudi tracking and various tools Magistrates
> > (principally the Censors) use. If it were for a website, I certainly would
> > oppose spending $10,000.
> >
> > Maybe some perspective will help. I was here before we had "taxes". I was
> > the Consular Quaestor who organized out first tax collection. It was a
> > tremendous battle just to get the idea of a membership fee enacted. Up until
> > about a year ago, we had no idea we had $20,000 in the bank. It took us 7 or
> > 8 years to build up that amount. As soon as we found out we had it, there
> > were numerous ideas about how we could spend it. Once it is gone, it would
> > take 7 or 8 years to build it up again and probably more since the tax base
> > has been declining since year one.
> >
> > The re-do of the systems I describe above may indeed be in order. I myself
> > could not vote for Tribune this year because the system said I was
> > Partrician - symptom of the problem.
> >
> > If it turns out we DO need to spend these funds because it is an emergency,
> > we would certainly have to do away with discretionary spending such as JSTOR
> > and scholarships until our finances improve once more. As I recall, the
> > annual cost of JSTOR alone is about 80% of our current annual tax
> > collection. It is not inconsistent with non-profit custodianship to be
> > conservative with limited resources, especially when the prospects for
> > rebuilding them are dim.
> >
> > I agree on one thing - the Senate should never have been prevented from
> > discussing the topic.
> >
> > Finally, who are the "few individuals" benefiting from not spending the
> > funds? I may have missed something while I was away. Is someone within NR
> > making money from investing the funds?
> >
> > Vale et valete,
> >
> > Laenas
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77461 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

I'm finished debating with you and Sulla on this issue. Take your concerns
to the tribunes. I have presented my position and nothing further to say.

Vale,

Modianus

On Jul 6, 2010 8:13 PM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:



Cato Modiano sal.

The Constitution says what it says, Modianus, whether or not it has been
tested. This decretum has tested it, and come up wanting. If you don't like
the law, then prepare legislation to change it.

The key phrase, one which you find in every set of bylaws imaginable - and
in the US Constitution, for that matter - would refer to "applicable" or
"pursuant to" in some form. The Constitution does not.

My argument is simplicity itself. The decretum attempts to subvert the
Constitutional authority of the consuls to call the Senate and comitia. The
end.

Vale,

Cato



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

> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cato Modiano sal.
> >
>...

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77462 From: C. Iulia Eucharis Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Salve Sulla!

As you have clairified, there is no current budget, and hence no budget priorities. With no participation in the Senate by the general citizenry, perhaps Cato's suggestion of holding a discussion on the de facto tax moratorium, and its possible ramifications on the needed new budget in this forum might be a good idea - right here in this yahoo group.

The Senatores could garner what applies and provide feedback as they see fit. Since capite censii are enrolled in this forum, they would have the opportunity to voice their opinions. Whether or not the capite censii identify themselves as such would be up to them. If there were some tacit agreement not to berate them, perhaps all could benefit from an open invitation to hear their reasons for non-payment of taxes.

The capite censii all at some time were motivated to be Nova Roma citizens. Not paying taxes could be motivated by any number of reasons. One simple reason could be losing access to a Nova Roma account login or it's associated email. I do not know if there might have been an analogous situation that could have caused ancient Romans to fall behind in their taxes.

It might not be unreasonable to impose a small administrative fee for someone to help get such citizens able to log in to their accounts. But, that would possibly take some IT work to enable that. It certainly takes work to do that.

Otherwise, reinstatement requires no more than paying the current year. As it stands, there is an indefinite deferral on tax payments for capite censii - a de facto endless moratorium. And I think that is perhaps what Modianus and others oppose more than the fact that they be allowed to reinstate their citizenships.

If there is, in fact, some movement in the Senate to eliminate the capite censi status as evidenced by Modianus stated opinion, it would seem appropriate to get the word out in time to allow as many citizens as possible to rejoin the assiduii before such an edict were to be implemented. And if so, after that, I am suggesting that back taxes would be imposed at some point to be determined by the Senate, to provide some motivation for the capite censii to pay taxes.

I am not of the position that Nova Roma assidui cives status should be expanded simply to increase the tax base. What I am suggesting is that existing citizens be encouraged to correct their assidui status. Some kind of deadline to pay the current year, under the existing rules and according to the way payment is currently set up on the website, could be an incentive for an undetermined number of capite censii. How many, I have no idea.

It just seems to be a possible compromise vis a vis terminating the citizenship of all capite censii.

Vale bene,

Eucharis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> I think some of your suggestions warrant future discussion. But, I would
> like to point out that there is no plan in place to prioritize expenses.
> For that matter our financials have not been updated since 1st Quarter
> 2009. And, if I recall correctly there is no budget for this year.
>
> The last yearly budget was posted in 2009 and it reflected a $-93.00 - yes a
> deficit.
>
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Approved_Budget_2009
>
> And nothing to reflect any budget for Fiscal year 2010.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:31 AM, C.iulia Eucharis <
> c.iulia_eucharis@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve et salvete,
> >
> > Merely as a suggestion, perhaps some moratorium period could be extended to
> > non-assidui in order to pay up the current amount due. If that were to be
> > something like the end of the calendar year, then they could keep their
> > citizenship for much less than they probably owe in back taxes.
> >
> > Once the word were to go out that they would thereafter need to pay up all
> > of the entire amount of back taxes due in order to regain assidui status,
> > perhaps a large number of the capite censi would decide to take advantage of
> > such a tax break and simply pay the current year's tax. That could bring in
> > some much needed revenue.
> >
> > Concurrently, it would be a good idea to develop/publicize a plan as to how
> > expenses would be prioritized. A complete overhaul of the Nova Roma Wiki
> > would probably not be a strong selling point. But fixing what is wrong might
> > make sense to those who are passively voicing discontent through non-payment
> > of taxes.
> >
> > The capite censi, regardless of how they are viewed, would appear to be the
> > best potential source of immediate revenue. They should enroll in some
> > discussion list, perhaps not the ML, and participate in information exchange
> > regarding how such revenue would be used. It may be worth adapting
> > priorities based upon some of their opinions. They do outnumber the assidui
> > about 4 to 1, if you look at it that way.
> >
> > Following the moratorium suggested herein, there might be some extended
> > future period to pay the full amount of back taxes due. At some point, their
> > debt would possibly outweigh any benefit of regaining assidui status, and
> > some other ruling would then be needed.
> >
> > There would be no IT cost to adopt this policy during the moratorium
> > period.
> >
> > Vale et valete,
> >
> > C. Iulia Eucharis
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> > >
> > To: nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma%40yahoogroups.com>; BackAlley <
> > backalley@yahoogroups.com <backalley%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 9:02:44 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Math Involved - Tax Base
> >
> >
> > Ave!
> >
> > 2760 - 235 paying tax members
> > 2761 - 230 paying tax members - 2.2% loss from the previous year
> > 2762 - 219 paying tax members - 4.8 % loss from the previous year (NET 6.9%
> > loss from 2760)
> > At current only 7 are listed.
> >
> > All of this individuals who know me going back to 1998 will confirm that I
> > have NEVER been a numbers person. I have never been an individual who felt
> > that the sheer number of persons in NR was the most important thing ever.
> > Far from it. I always looked at the bottom line.
> >
> > For example when Lentulus posted the number of registered citizens and gave
> > out the figure of 1159 members I just smiled because when he did that I did
> > a simple calculation in my head. What is the % of those registered citizens
> > vs the tax paying citizens.
> >
> > 219 tax paying citizens as a % of 1159 (registered citizens) I get this
> > precentage: 18.9 (Basically 19%). For every 5 members of NR 1 of them is a
> > tax payer. Kinda striking when you put it like that?
> >
> > When one is working on budges and allocations one cannot use the best
> > figure, one must use the real figure.
> >
> > Simply put, NR does not have the tax base to sustain the costs being
> > requested by those who advocate for the IT restructure.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77463 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Again the Tribunes have nothing to say on this matter. The Decree should
simply be ignored and you, and all the rest of the Augurs placed on Trial.

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:21 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>
> I'm finished debating with you and Sulla on this issue. Take your concerns
> to the tribunes. I have presented my position and nothing further to say.
>
> Vale,
>
> Modianus
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2010 8:13 PM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...<catoinnyc%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> The Constitution says what it says, Modianus, whether or not it has been
> tested. This decretum has tested it, and come up wanting. If you don't like
> the law, then prepare legislation to change it.
>
> The key phrase, one which you find in every set of bylaws imaginable - and
> in the US Constitution, for that matter - would refer to "applicable" or
> "pursuant to" in some form. The Constitution does not.
>
> My argument is simplicity itself. The decretum attempts to subvert the
> Constitutional authority of the consuls to call the Senate and comitia. The
> end.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, David
> Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo M...
>
>
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cato Modiano sal.
> > >
> >...
>
>
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77464 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-06
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit

Like I mentioned to Cato I have neither time or energy to sustain a legal
defense so go ahead and bring forth a law suit. You'll get no defense from
me.

Vale,

Modianus

On Jul 6, 2010 9:39 PM, "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

Again the Tribunes have nothing to say on this matter. The Decree should
simply be ignored and you, and all the rest of the Augurs placed on Trial.

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:21 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:


>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>
> I'm finished debating with you and Sulla...
> On Jul 6, 2010 8:13 PM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...<catoinnyc%40gmail.com
>>

> wrote:
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> The Constitution says what it says, Modianus, whether or not it h...
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, David

> Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo M...
>
>
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7...

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

Yahoo! Groups Links


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77465 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
M. Hortensia K. Fabio Modiano spd;
Observe the lack of pietas. Sulla, Cato et al; their contempt for the gods, the cultus deorum, augury; everything the Romans respected and held dear.

They create nothing; they believe nothing, they are atheists and may the gods deal with them!!!

Even though I might have won my election, I follow the decision of the College of Augurs voluntarily, just like our noble ancestors!

May the gods watch over Nova Roma! May Fortuna favour me!
M. Hortensia Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
>
> Like I mentioned to Cato I have neither time or energy to sustain a legal
> defense so go ahead and bring forth a law suit. You'll get no defense from
> me.
>
> Vale,
>
> Modianus
>
> On Jul 6, 2010 9:39 PM, "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Again the Tribunes have nothing to say on this matter. The Decree should
> simply be ignored and you, and all the rest of the Augurs placed on Trial.
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:21 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
> >
> > I'm finished debating with you and Sulla...
> > On Jul 6, 2010 8:13 PM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...<catoinnyc%40gmail.com
> >>
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Cato Modiano sal.
> >
> > The Constitution says what it says, Modianus, whether or not it h...
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, David
>
> > Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo M...
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7...
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77466 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Non. Quinct.
Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est Nonis Quinctilibus; haec dies nefastus est.

"This day is called the Nones Caprotinae because on this day, in Latiun, the women offer sacrifice to Juno Caprotina, which they do under a caprificus (wild-fig) tree. They use a branch from the fig tree. Why this was done, the toga praetexta presented to them at the Ludi Apollinares enlightened the People." - Varro, "Lingua Latinae" 6.18

"Some, however, say this was not in imitation of a flight, but of a quick and
hasty onset, referring it to the following occasion: After the Gauls who had
taken Rome were driven out by Camillus, and the city was scarcely as yet
recovering her strength, many of the Latins, under the command of Livius
Postumius, took this time to march against her. Postumius, halting not far from
Rome, sent a herald, signifying that the Latins were desirous to renew their
former alliance and affinity (that was now almost decayed) by contracting new
marriages between both nations; if, therefore, they would send forth a good
number of their virgins and widows, they should have peace and friendship, such
as the Sabines had formerly had on the like conditions. The Romans, hearing
this, dreaded a war, yet thought a surrender of their women little better than
mere captivity. Being in this doubt, a servant-maid called Philotis (or, as some
say, Tutola), advised them to do neither, but, by a stratagem, avoid both
fighting and the giving up of such pledges. The stratagem was this, that they
should send herself, with other well looking servant-maids, to the enemy, in the
dress of free-born virgins, and she should in the night light up a fire signal,
at which the Romans should come armed and surprise them asleep. The Latins were
thus deceived, and accordingly Philotis set up a torch in a wild fig-tree,
screening it behind with curtains and coverlets from the sight of the enemy,
while visible to the Romans. They, when they saw it, eagerly ran out of the
gates, calling in their haste to each other as they went out, and so, falling in
unexpectedly upon the enemy, they defeated them, and upon that made a feast of
triumph, called the Nonae Caprotinae, because of the wild fig-tree, called by
the Romans Caprificus, or the goat-fig. They feast the women without the city in
arbours made of fig-tree boughs, and the maid-servants gather together and run
about playing; afterwards they fight in sport, and throw stones one at another,
in memory that they then aided and assisted the Roman men in fight. - Plutarch, "Romulus" 29.3-6

Today is the observance of the Nonae Caprotina - a special feast
celebrated in honor of Iuno Caprotina. Caprotina is an epithet of Juno
in Her aspect as a fertility Goddess. As Iuno Caprotina She is
associated with goats (Latin capra, "she-goat", caper, "he-goat") and
with figs ("caprificus"), both of which are symbolic of fertility: the
fig fruit bears many seeds, and goats are well-known for their
randiness. Her festival was called the Nonae Caprotina, or the "Nones
of Caprotina", held on the nones or 7th day of July, and it was
exclusively celebrated by women, especially slave-women.

The Roman explanation of the Nonae Caprotina is thus: after Rome had
survived a siege by the Gauls, some of the less-friendly neighboring
Latin tribes decided to take advantage of Rome's weakened position and
demanded Roman women in marriage, under the threat of destroying the
city. While the Senate debated what to do, a slave-woman named Tutela
took the matter into her own hands: with a group of other slave-women
dressed as free women, she went to the amassed enemy army, and under
the guise of celebrating a wedding feast, got the Latins quite drunk.
After they had fallen asleep the slave-girls took their weapons, and
Tutela climbed a nearby wild fig tree (caproficus in the Latin) and
waved a torch as signal for the Romans to attack. This they did, and
as a reward for the resulting victory, the Senate gave each
slave-woman who participated her freedom, as well as a generous dowry.
After that, in remembrance of the victory, the Nonae Caprotina were
celebrated. Fig-branches and the milky sap of the fig-tree were
offered to Juno, and festivities, feasts and rites were held in the
fig-grove of the Campus Martius (the Plain of Mars).

Another explanation for this festival was that it commemorated the day
that Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, mysteriously vanished
during a thunderstorm, after which He was believed to have been taken
by the Gods and made immortal. The site of His disappearance was the
Palus Caprae (or "Goat's Marsh") in the Campus Martius, a swampy basin
not far from the spot where the Pantheon is nowadays. The Nonae
Caprotinae were also connected with the Poplifugia of the 5th of July,
traditionally said to commemorate the people's panicky flight when
faced with either a) the enemy army come to seize the women, or b) the
occasion of Romulus's disappearence into thin air. The actual,
original meaning of the Poplifugia had been long forgotten, though it
may have referred to the ritual defeat or chasing away of the
neighboring Latin armies. Another connection between the Nonae
Caprotinae and the Poplifugia is that is was traditional on the Nonae
Caprotinae for the women to run or be chased from the Temple of Iuno
to the fig-grove where a feast was held.

Goats, figs, and a fleeing populace are the common threads in these
traditions; also located near the Palus Caprae (which is the name
given to that area only in the legend of Romulus' disappearance) were
the Aedicula Capraria, the Shrine of the Goat, and the Vicus
Caprarius, a road literally named "Goat Street", which was probably
named so because it led to the Aedicula Capraria. It is not known if
the Aedicula Capraria was used in the festivities of the Nonae
Caprotina, though that would seem likely. And yet another tradition
names the invading army that frightened the populace so as being from
Ficulea or Ficulnea, an ancient Sabine town whose name means "Of the
Fig-Tree".

The various and confused explanations given for the two related
festivals point to both their importance and their ancient origins.
Probably they are both linked to the fig-harvest, which takes place in
Italy in June and July, and to Iuno as a Goddess of the fig tree who
ensured a bountiful crop. The milk-like sap of the fig tree connects
it with fertility, both of Iuno as the Mother Goddess — who was after
all equated with the Greek Hera, whose spilled breast milk was said to
have formed the Milky Way — and of goats themselves, who were often
kept for milk (even now a bowl of goat's milk is a part of the
traditional breakfast offered in Rome). The fertility of the figs and
goats brought by Iuno Caprotina was probably seen as encouraging the
fertility of the women, as certain of the rites of the Nonae
Caprotinae compare with the Lupercalia, a festival also dedicated to
fertility. The other major theme of the Poplifugia and the Nonae
Caprotina (as well as the Lupercalia) was the ritual spiritual
cleansing of the city: the fig was known in ancient times as a
purgative, and thus associated with the driving out of evil (as both
figs and fig-branches were used in the Greek rite of the Thargelia,
when Athens was symbolically cleansed), so that the people and the
crops might prosper. The Flight of the People (enemy army or panicky
populace) may also connect to a symbolic driving out of enemies or bad
spirits.

Iuno Caprotina was usually depicted with goats, naturally enough: on
one coin She rides a biga, a two "horse" chariot in this case drawn by
a pair of goats; Her dress flows in the wind of Her speed and She
holds what looks like a riding crop. On another coin, on which Her
portrait is stamped, She wears a head-dress made of goat-hide, with
the goat's head over Her own so that the horns are preserved in the
back, and the lower jawline of the goat runs along Her own.

Valete bene!

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77467 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
My concern is for the Constitution and the LAW only.

I do have have a whit of concern for the corruption that goes on in the
secret CP List. A list headed by a failed extortionist. IF the Gods find
someone with that contemptible character as their liaison, then I as a
rationale human being have to question the value of Gods that accept that.

When Modianus complained and used NR law to toss Cincinnatus out of NR for
failing to include him/flat out refusal to add him to the list that
Cincinnatus created. And yet right now by passing this decree Modianus is
doing the very same thing by trying to impede a Consul from executing his
duties of office - screams double standard to me. And Again, if the Gods
find someone with that type of a contemptible character as their liaison
then I as a rationale human being have to question the value of the Gods to
accept that.

And Maior, you yourself were declared Nefas. NEFAS. Again, if the Gods
find someone with that contemptble character as their liason, then I as a
ratoinale human being have to question the value of the Gods that accept
that.

All I can say is Thank G-d I am Jewish.

Vale,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix


On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:19 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> M. Hortensia K. Fabio Modiano spd;
> Observe the lack of pietas. Sulla, Cato et al; their contempt for the gods,
> the cultus deorum, augury; everything the Romans respected and held dear.
>
> They create nothing; they believe nothing, they are atheists and may the
> gods deal with them!!!
>
> Even though I might have won my election, I follow the decision of the
> College of Augurs voluntarily, just like our noble ancestors!
>
> May the gods watch over Nova Roma! May Fortuna favour me!
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, David
> Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
> >
> > Like I mentioned to Cato I have neither time or energy to sustain a legal
> > defense so go ahead and bring forth a law suit. You'll get no defense
> from
> > me.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Modianus
> >
> > On Jul 6, 2010 9:39 PM, "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Again the Tribunes have nothing to say on this matter. The Decree should
> > simply be ignored and you, and all the rest of the Augurs placed on
> Trial.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:21 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
> > >
> > > I'm finished debating with you and Sulla...
> > > On Jul 6, 2010 8:13 PM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...<catoinnyc%40gmail.com
>
> > >>
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Modiano sal.
> > >
> > > The Constitution says what it says, Modianus, whether or not it h...
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, David
> >
> > > Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Caeso Fabius Buteo M...
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7...
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77468 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Yo Maior,

So, you are calling Cato an Atheist?

But when you moderated him you justified it because he was "proselytizing"
Christianity.

So, were you lying then when you used that as justification moderating him
or are you lying now? Because one way or the other you are lying. So which
is it?

And as for me, you know from our debate years ago, regarding the resumption
of Animal sacrifice once the Third Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt that I am
not an Atheist. Remember, when I asked those Orthodox Rabbis at your
request and you got HOSED in that debate. Because, well....you are one of
those "reformed" types.

If you are going to throw around Atheist, look at various members of the CP
like Caeso Fabius (or is he Zen Buddhist - I keep hearing different stories)
or that Lentulus is Catholic and Piscinus is Stregheria (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stregheria) And you, you Buddhist/"Reformed
Jewish" whatever is in fashion this week. Then Modianus who was
well..everything including the kitchen sink.

So, yeah, I am still glad I am Jewish. Because the people running my
religion know what they are running.

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:19 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> M. Hortensia K. Fabio Modiano spd;
> Observe the lack of pietas. Sulla, Cato et al; their contempt for the gods,
> the cultus deorum, augury; everything the Romans respected and held dear.
>
> They create nothing; they believe nothing, they are atheists and may the
> gods deal with them!!!
>
> Even though I might have won my election, I follow the decision of the
> College of Augurs voluntarily, just like our noble ancestors!
>
> May the gods watch over Nova Roma! May Fortuna favour me!
> M. Hortensia Maior
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, David
> Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
> >
> > Like I mentioned to Cato I have neither time or energy to sustain a legal
> > defense so go ahead and bring forth a law suit. You'll get no defense
> from
> > me.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Modianus
> >
> > On Jul 6, 2010 9:39 PM, "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Again the Tribunes have nothing to say on this matter. The Decree should
> > simply be ignored and you, and all the rest of the Augurs placed on
> Trial.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:21 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
> > >
> > > I'm finished debating with you and Sulla...
> > > On Jul 6, 2010 8:13 PM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...<catoinnyc%40gmail.com
>
> > >>
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Cato Modiano sal.
> > >
> > > The Constitution says what it says, Modianus, whether or not it h...
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, David
> >
> > > Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Caeso Fabius Buteo M...
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7...
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77469 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Salve Sulla,
as a custos and a lictor, I will not ignore the decree. I know it doesn't
mean much to someone who is not a cultor, like yourself, but I'm not about
to defy the collegium augurum and be declared impious.

I'm afraid there is no other choice than call new elections, and let's hope
that next time the members of the collegium augurum will be so kind as to
take auspices when requested to do so, and will not leave consul Albucius to
take them himself.

Vale,
Livia


> Again the Tribunes have nothing to say on this matter. The Decree should
> simply be ignored and you, and all the rest of the Augurs placed on Trial.
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:21 PM, David Kling
> <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>>
>> I'm finished debating with you and Sulla on this issue. Take your
>> concerns
>> to the tribunes. I have presented my position and nothing further to say.
>>
>> Vale,
>>
>> Modianus
>>
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2010 8:13 PM, "Cato"
>> <catoinnyc@...<catoinnyc%40gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Cato Modiano sal.
>>
>> The Constitution says what it says, Modianus, whether or not it has been
>> tested. This decretum has tested it, and come up wanting. If you don't
>> like
>> the law, then prepare legislation to change it.
>>
>> The key phrase, one which you find in every set of bylaws imaginable -
>> and
>> in the US Constitution, for that matter - would refer to "applicable" or
>> "pursuant to" in some form. The Constitution does not.
>>
>> My argument is simplicity itself. The decretum attempts to subvert the
>> Constitutional authority of the consuls to call the Senate and comitia.
>> The
>> end.
>>
>> Vale,
>>
>> Cato
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, David
>> Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Caeso Fabius Buteo M...
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Cato Modiano sal.
>> > >
>> >...
>>
>>
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77470 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
The election is valid and legal and within the constitutional rights of the
Consul(s) to call. Period end of story.

Any attempt to invalidate the election, illegally should be met with the
full punishment of law.

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:25 PM, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>wrote:

> Salve Sulla,
> as a custos and a lictor, I will not ignore the decree. I know it doesn't
> mean much to someone who is not a cultor, like yourself, but I'm not about
> to defy the collegium augurum and be declared impious.
>
> I'm afraid there is no other choice than call new elections, and let's hope
> that next time the members of the collegium augurum will be so kind as to
> take auspices when requested to do so, and will not leave consul Albucius
> to
> take them himself.
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
>
> > Again the Tribunes have nothing to say on this matter. The Decree should
> > simply be ignored and you, and all the rest of the Augurs placed on
> Trial.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:21 PM, David Kling
> > <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
> >>
> >> I'm finished debating with you and Sulla on this issue. Take your
> >> concerns
> >> to the tribunes. I have presented my position and nothing further to
> say.
> >>
> >> Vale,
> >>
> >> Modianus
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 6, 2010 8:13 PM, "Cato"
> >> <catoinnyc@...<catoinnyc%40gmail.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Cato Modiano sal.
> >>
> >> The Constitution says what it says, Modianus, whether or not it has been
> >> tested. This decretum has tested it, and come up wanting. If you don't
> >> like
> >> the law, then prepare legislation to change it.
> >>
> >> The key phrase, one which you find in every set of bylaws imaginable -
> >> and
> >> in the US Constitution, for that matter - would refer to "applicable" or
> >> "pursuant to" in some form. The Constitution does not.
> >>
> >> My argument is simplicity itself. The decretum attempts to subvert the
> >> Constitutional authority of the consuls to call the Senate and comitia.
> >> The
> >> end.
> >>
> >> Vale,
> >>
> >> Cato
> >>
> >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, David
> >> Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo M...
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Cato Modiano sal.
> >> > >
> >> >...
> >>
> >>
> >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77471 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Salve Sulla,
there is nothing strange in calling Christians atheists. Romans often did.
It's a matter of quantity: believing in only one god is certainly very close
to atheism, specially when opposed to believing in a huge pantheon.

It's like calling someone who only drinks a glass of wine a month a
teetotaller. Certainly it's not overly precise, but it's true if you compare
him with someone who drinks two bottles of whiskey a day.

Vale,
Livia


> Yo Maior,
>
> So, you are calling Cato an Atheist?
>
> But when you moderated him you justified it because he was "proselytizing"
> Christianity.
>
> So, were you lying then when you used that as justification moderating him
> or are you lying now? Because one way or the other you are lying. So
> which
> is it?
>
> And as for me, you know from our debate years ago, regarding the
> resumption
> of Animal sacrifice once the Third Temple in Jerusalem is rebuilt that I
> am
> not an Atheist. Remember, when I asked those Orthodox Rabbis at your
> request and you got HOSED in that debate. Because, well....you are one of
> those "reformed" types.
>
> If you are going to throw around Atheist, look at various members of the
> CP
> like Caeso Fabius (or is he Zen Buddhist - I keep hearing different
> stories)
> or that Lentulus is Catholic and Piscinus is Stregheria (
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stregheria) And you, you Buddhist/"Reformed
> Jewish" whatever is in fashion this week. Then Modianus who was
> well..everything including the kitchen sink.
>
> So, yeah, I am still glad I am Jewish. Because the people running my
> religion know what they are running.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:19 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> M. Hortensia K. Fabio Modiano spd;
>> Observe the lack of pietas. Sulla, Cato et al; their contempt for the
>> gods,
>> the cultus deorum, augury; everything the Romans respected and held dear.
>>
>> They create nothing; they believe nothing, they are atheists and may the
>> gods deal with them!!!
>>
>> Even though I might have won my election, I follow the decision of the
>> College of Augurs voluntarily, just like our noble ancestors!
>>
>> May the gods watch over Nova Roma! May Fortuna favour me!
>> M. Hortensia Maior
>>
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, David
>> Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
>> >
>> > Like I mentioned to Cato I have neither time or energy to sustain a
>> > legal
>> > defense so go ahead and bring forth a law suit. You'll get no defense
>> from
>> > me.
>> >
>> > Vale,
>> >
>> > Modianus
>> >
>> > On Jul 6, 2010 9:39 PM, "Robert Woolwine" <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Again the Tribunes have nothing to say on this matter. The Decree
>> > should
>> > simply be ignored and you, and all the rest of the Augurs placed on
>> Trial.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:21 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>> > >
>> > > I'm finished debating with you and Sulla...
>> > > On Jul 6, 2010 8:13 PM, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...<catoinnyc%40gmail.com
>>
>> > >>
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Cato Modiano sal.
>> > >
>> > > The Constitution says what it says, Modianus, whether or not it h...
>> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>> > > <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
>> 40yahoogroups.com>, David
>> >
>> > > Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Caeso Fabius Buteo M...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7...
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77472 From: Nero Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: SO have we....?
Salvete,
So have we as a community mad a decision that we don't want to cooperate with each other, that we're going to propose change but never actually change? Why is it so easy to deny a simple request for a simple change from plebian to patrician but everything else seems to be beyond our grasp? Taxes, Augurs, flame wars? I'm only hearing(reading) things that are tearing the republic apart. These petty differences are like the Gauls and if we don't band together as a group as a republic AS ROME, the way we're supposed to we will be nothing but the ruin in some old IP address graveyard.
P.S. I still want to be a patrician. HELP! SUBVENIO!
Di Vos Imcolumes Custodiant
Nero.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77473 From: gualterus_graecus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Salve Livia,

I think you raise a legitimate concern, but in turn I think this raises a deeper issue. If the augurs have not reconstructed the rites properly, do their condemnations carry any weight in terms of piety? In addition, what does this mean for every other election for which they took the auspices?

Vale,

Gualterus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Sulla,
> as a custos and a lictor, I will not ignore the decree. I know it doesn't
> mean much to someone who is not a cultor, like yourself, but I'm not about
> to defy the collegium augurum and be declared impious.
>
> I'm afraid there is no other choice than call new elections, and let's hope
> that next time the members of the collegium augurum will be so kind as to
> take auspices when requested to do so, and will not leave consul Albucius to
> take them himself.
>
> Vale,
> Livia
>
>
> > Again the Tribunes have nothing to say on this matter. The Decree should
> > simply be ignored and you, and all the rest of the Augurs placed on Trial.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:21 PM, David Kling
> > <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
> >>
> >> I'm finished debating with you and Sulla on this issue. Take your
> >> concerns
> >> to the tribunes. I have presented my position and nothing further to say.
> >>
> >> Vale,
> >>
> >> Modianus
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jul 6, 2010 8:13 PM, "Cato"
> >> <catoinnyc@...<catoinnyc%40gmail.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Cato Modiano sal.
> >>
> >> The Constitution says what it says, Modianus, whether or not it has been
> >> tested. This decretum has tested it, and come up wanting. If you don't
> >> like
> >> the law, then prepare legislation to change it.
> >>
> >> The key phrase, one which you find in every set of bylaws imaginable -
> >> and
> >> in the US Constitution, for that matter - would refer to "applicable" or
> >> "pursuant to" in some form. The Constitution does not.
> >>
> >> My argument is simplicity itself. The decretum attempts to subvert the
> >> Constitutional authority of the consuls to call the Senate and comitia.
> >> The
> >> end.
> >>
> >> Vale,
> >>
> >> Cato
> >>
> >> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, David
> >> Kling <tau.athanasios@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Caeso Fabius Buteo M...
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Cato Modiano sal.
> >> > >
> >> >...
> >>
> >>
> >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77474 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Cato Liviae sal.

As purely a question of practice, Livia, I have a question for you. How can you possibly accept the idea - directly contrary to everything we actually know about ancient augury - that the augurs should be taking them? In ancient Rome the augurs were *not* allowed to take them, only magistrates did, and the augurs' advice sought when necessary. The magistrate would take them, and declare the result, and the augur would agree or not. So Albucius - and all other magistrates - *should* be taking the auspices themselves.

I'm not talking here about Nova Roman law - because in order to bring our law into accordance with ancient practice we would have to repeal most of the decreta regarding augury as they stand now.

How do you, as a cultor Deorum, accept this incredible discrepancy between actual ancient practice and what we have now? Note well that I am *not* asking to start an argument, but purely as a matter of interest.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Sulla,
> as a custos and a lictor, I will not ignore the decree. I know it doesn't
> mean much to someone who is not a cultor, like yourself, but I'm not about
> to defy the collegium augurum and be declared impious.
>
> I'm afraid there is no other choice than call new elections, and let's hope
> that next time the members of the collegium augurum will be so kind as to
> take auspices when requested to do so, and will not leave consul Albucius to
> take them himself.
>
> Vale,
> Livia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77475 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Cato Liviae omnibusque in foro SPD

Another question I'd like to raise:

On a.d. IV Kal. Quinct. (29 July) you wrote (#77079):

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

L. Livia Plauta custos A. Tulliae Scholasticae S.P.D.

The centuria Praerogativa has been chosen by sortition by diribitor M.
Moravius Piscinus and it's Centuria XIV. The result has been notified to the consuls.

I remind everybody that with the current electoral system the centuria
praerogativa votes at the same time as all the others, but its results will be announced first.

Optime vale,
Livia

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


Now, the question: why would Piscinus have chosen a centuria praerogative for elections that he acting as pontifex maximus considered invalid? Or more accurately, why would the gods have done so, as Piscinus has claimed loudly and repeatedly that the gods are in charge of sortition?

Did he take off his pontifex maximus hat and put on his diribitor's hat and suddenly forget his responsibilities as pontifex maximus? Did he ignore his responsibilities as pontifex maximus and claim that the gods were favorable anyways by sortition?

How do we reconcile the very same person declaring the gods' favor by sortition in the choosing of a centuria prearogativa and yet then declaring the elections themselves inauspicious?

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77476 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit

I did not toss Cincinnatus out. I filed a petitio actionis against him.
Similar to what Metellus has done to Maior. The actions of Cincinnatus and
Complutensis are their own actions and not mine.

You are correct that Maior was declared nefas but that declaration was
overturned by the Collegium Pontificum, or did you miss that?

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> My concern is for the Constitution and the LAW only.
>
> I do have have a whit of concern for the corruption that goes on in the
> secret CP List. A list headed by a failed extortionist. IF the Gods find
> someone with that contemptible character as their liaison, then I as a
> rationale human being have to question the value of Gods that accept that.
>
> When Modianus complained and used NR law to toss Cincinnatus out of NR for
> failing to include him/flat out refusal to add him to the list that
> Cincinnatus created. And yet right now by passing this decree Modianus is
> doing the very same thing by trying to impede a Consul from executing his
> duties of office - screams double standard to me. And Again, if the Gods
> find someone with that type of a contemptible character as their liaison
> then I as a rationale human being have to question the value of the Gods to
> accept that.
>
> And Maior, you yourself were declared Nefas. NEFAS. Again, if the Gods
> find someone with that contemptble character as their liason, then I as a
> ratoinale human being have to question the value of the Gods that accept
> that.
>
> All I can say is Thank G-d I am Jewish.
>
> Vale,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77477 From: Christer Edling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
Salve C. Iulia Eucharis

There _is_ a Budget! The Senate has approved it. Who on earth has said
anything else? Are You listening to Sulla, You shouldn't.

**********

7 jul 2010 kl. 03.27 skrev C. Iulia Eucharis:

Salve Sulla!

As you have clairified, there is no current budget, and hence no
budget priorities.
...............
...............

Vale bene,

Eucharis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> I think some of your suggestions warrant future discussion. But, I
> would
> like to point out that there is no plan in place to prioritize
> expenses.
> For that matter our financials have not been updated since 1st Quarter
> 2009. And, if I recall correctly there is no budget for this year.
>
> The last yearly budget was posted in 2009 and it reflected a $-93.00
> - yes a
> deficit.
>
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Approved_Budget_2009
>
> And nothing to reflect any budget for Fiscal year 2010.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla

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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Consul Iterum
Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77478 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Centuria Praerogativa
Cn. Lentulus pontifex C. Equitio sal.


You ask a question about M. Piscinus augur and about the centuria praerogativa. You quote custos Livia:

"The centuria Praerogativa has been chosen by sortition by diribitor M. Moravius Piscinus and it's Centuria XIV. The result has been notified to the consuls."

The trouble is made by an innocent mistake by custos Livia Plauta, because this was incorrect information - in the current chaos I believe it can easily happen.

Augur M. Piscinus did not choose the centuria praerogativa for this centuriate election. He choose for consul K. Buteo, as it was originally planned, but later we had another presiding magistrate, consul Albucius, and for him no centuria praerogativa was ever selected to this election.


>>> Now, the question: why would Piscinus have chosen a centuria praerogative for elections that he acting as pontifex maximus considered invalid? Or more accurately, why would the gods have done so, as Piscinus has claimed loudly and repeatedly that the gods are in charge of sortition? <<<


We can *not* blame Piscinus for acting inconsistently. Right from the beginning, he as a dutiful augur, notified the people and the magistrates about the auspicious invalidity of this election, on June 20, in this letter to the main list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/76674

In this message he even asked the tribunes to veto.

You may disagree with the decretum augurum, but you have to confess that M. Moravius Piscinus augur acted consistently from the very first moment regarding the question of this centuriate election, and the decretum augurum is just the final result of this process.









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77479 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's per
Cn. Lentulus C. Equitio sal.


Although I am not Livia Plauta, please allow me to answer this question, because that's a good question concerning our most important mission, reconstructionism, and concerning the reality of rules and customs, that Nova Roma has, and has to face.


>>> How
can you possibly accept the idea - directly contrary to everything we
actually know about ancient augury - that the augurs should be taking
them? <<<<


I don't accept the idea, but as soon as our rules dictate that the augurs can take and "govern" the auspices, it has to be obeyed. I hope we have legislation that will change that, but that's the future and we live in the now. Now the augures has all power over auspices. It was created for a reason. The reason was the we are in a journey towards reconstructing the Roman culture, the cultus, and we currently can not be sure that an non-practitioner magistrate would be attentive enough and respectful for the auspices. This was why in NR we have the collegium fixed over the head of magistrates in question of auspices, because they are required to be practitioners and experienced in augury, so that's built in the system as a guarantee factor for respecting the cultural religious correctness.

Is it good that way? Would not there be another solution?

Good questions by me, I don't have the answer now, but I feel that we have to make our system as Roman as it is possible, so some changes in the current practice are needed, but that is a future question for a legislative comitia.


>>>> In ancient Rome the augurs were *not* allowed to take them, only
magistrates did, and the augurs' advice sought when necessary. The
magistrate would take them, and declare the result, and the augur would
agree or not. So Albucius - and all other magistrates - *should* be
taking the auspices themselves.  <<<<


I agree with you about the theory, but it is currently impossible. We have legal documents, we have law in force: the decrees of the augures that regulates matters of ars auguria. As the Constitution IV. B. 2. a. 2. says, the CA has the power alone to issue decrees on matters of the ars auguria and which may not be overruled by other laws.

As a cultor, I wish we had other rules, but if I am adherent to the law, I have to obey the law. The law now empowers the augures to take auspices and to decide who and how one can take auspices. This is what happened now. There is only one thing a cultor who disagrees with the current decree can do: to obey it now, and to try to propose different legislation tomorrow.


Vale!




---



--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:

>

> Salve Sulla,

> as a custos and a lictor, I will not ignore the decree. I know it doesn't

> mean much to someone who is not a cultor, like yourself, but I'm not about

> to defy the collegium augurum and be declared impious.

>

> I'm afraid there is no other choice than call new elections, and let's hope

> that next time the members of the collegium augurum will be so kind as to

> take auspices when requested to do so, and will not leave consul Albucius to

> take them himself.

>

> Vale,

> Livia

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77480 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Cn. Cornelio Lentulo salutem dicit

Thank you for posting this. A very good summation.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <
cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cn. Lentulus pontifex C. Equitio sal.
>
> You ask a question about M. Piscinus augur and about the centuria
> praerogativa. You quote custos Livia:
>
> "The centuria Praerogativa has been chosen by sortition by diribitor M.
> Moravius Piscinus and it's Centuria XIV. The result has been notified to the
> consuls."
>
> The trouble is made by an innocent mistake by custos Livia Plauta, because
> this was incorrect information - in the current chaos I believe it can
> easily happen.
>
> Augur M. Piscinus did not choose the centuria praerogativa for this
> centuriate election. He choose for consul K. Buteo, as it was originally
> planned, but later we had another presiding magistrate, consul Albucius, and
> for him no centuria praerogativa was ever selected to this election.
>
> >>> Now, the question: why would Piscinus have chosen a centuria
> praerogative for elections that he acting as pontifex maximus considered
> invalid? Or more accurately, why would the gods have done so, as Piscinus
> has claimed loudly and repeatedly that the gods are in charge of sortition?
> <<<
>
> We can *not* blame Piscinus for acting inconsistently. Right from the
> beginning, he as a dutiful augur, notified the people and the magistrates
> about the auspicious invalidity of this election, on June 20, in this letter
> to the main list:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/76674
>
> In this message he even asked the tribunes to veto.
>
> You may disagree with the decretum augurum, but you have to confess that M.
> Moravius Piscinus augur acted consistently from the very first moment
> regarding the question of this centuriate election, and the decretum augurum
> is just the final result of this process.
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77481 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
C. Aemilius Crassus Lentulo omnibusque SPD,



As former Diribitor I would like to clarify that in light of our laws the
Centuria Praerogativa is choosen by lot by the Deribitores and not by the
Augeres.



Valete optime bene.



From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 10:14
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Centuria Praerogativa





Cn. Lentulus pontifex C. Equitio sal.

You ask a question about M. Piscinus augur and about the centuria
praerogativa. You quote custos Livia:

"The centuria Praerogativa has been chosen by sortition by diribitor M.
Moravius Piscinus and it's Centuria XIV. The result has been notified to the
consuls."

The trouble is made by an innocent mistake by custos Livia Plauta, because
this was incorrect information - in the current chaos I believe it can
easily happen.

Augur M. Piscinus did not choose the centuria praerogativa for this
centuriate election. He choose for consul K. Buteo, as it was originally
planned, but later we had another presiding magistrate, consul Albucius, and
for him no centuria praerogativa was ever selected to this election.

>>> Now, the question: why would Piscinus have chosen a centuria
praerogative for elections that he acting as pontifex maximus considered
invalid? Or more accurately, why would the gods have done so, as Piscinus
has claimed loudly and repeatedly that the gods are in charge of sortition?
<<<

We can *not* blame Piscinus for acting inconsistently. Right from the
beginning, he as a dutiful augur, notified the people and the magistrates
about the auspicious invalidity of this election, on June 20, in this letter
to the main list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/76674

In this message he even asked the tribunes to veto.

You may disagree with the decretum augurum, but you have to confess that M.
Moravius Piscinus augur acted consistently from the very first moment
regarding the question of this centuriate election, and the decretum augurum
is just the final result of this process.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77482 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Cn. Lentulus C. Aemilio sal.

You may not know the exact story. The augur in question is a current diribitor who selected the centuria praerogativa in his capacity as diribitor.

Vale!
Lentulus


--- Mer 7/7/10, C. Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...> ha scritto:

Da: C. Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...>
Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] Centuria Praerogativa
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Data: Mercoledì 7 luglio 2010, 11:46







 









C. Aemilius Crassus Lentulo omnibusque SPD,



As former Diribitor I would like to clarify that in light of our laws the

Centuria Praerogativa is choosen by lot by the Deribitores and not by the

Augeres.



Valete optime bene.



From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf

Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus

Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 10:14

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [Nova-Roma] Centuria Praerogativa



Cn. Lentulus pontifex C. Equitio sal.



You ask a question about M. Piscinus augur and about the centuria

praerogativa. You quote custos Livia:



"The centuria Praerogativa has been chosen by sortition by diribitor M.

Moravius Piscinus and it's Centuria XIV. The result has been notified to the

consuls."



The trouble is made by an innocent mistake by custos Livia Plauta, because

this was incorrect information - in the current chaos I believe it can

easily happen.



Augur M. Piscinus did not choose the centuria praerogativa for this

centuriate election. He choose for consul K. Buteo, as it was originally

planned, but later we had another presiding magistrate, consul Albucius, and

for him no centuria praerogativa was ever selected to this election.



>>> Now, the question: why would Piscinus have chosen a centuria

praerogative for elections that he acting as pontifex maximus considered

invalid? Or more accurately, why would the gods have done so, as Piscinus

has claimed loudly and repeatedly that the gods are in charge of sortition?

<<<



We can *not* blame Piscinus for acting inconsistently. Right from the

beginning, he as a dutiful augur, notified the people and the magistrates

about the auspicious invalidity of this election, on June 20, in this letter

to the main list:



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/76674



In this message he even asked the tribunes to veto.



You may disagree with the decretum augurum, but you have to confess that M.

Moravius Piscinus augur acted consistently from the very first moment

regarding the question of this centuriate election, and the decretum augurum

is just the final result of this process.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77483 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Cn. Lentulus C. Iunio sal.


I sympathize with your desires, and with your enthusiasms. I wish I could help you, but I wish even more you could try to face the facts your fate led you into.


>>>> Why is it so easy to deny a simple request for a simple change from plebian to patrician but everything else seems to be beyond our grasp? <<<


The Romans had rules, customs, traditions about patrician status. We, Nova Roma, equally have rules about patrician status, and these rules are created to reflect the ancient sacred traditions. Do you want that the Romans and now we, the New Romans, change our entire system so that you can be patrician? And for what reason? Patrician status is name.

Patrician status is about name.

You don't have a Roman patrician name. You can not be therefore a Roman patrician.

You don't have a Nova Roman patrician name, either, so you can not be a Nova Roman patrician.

We proposed you a solution: adoption. All the other things depend on you? Did you find a patrician adoptive father (or mother) who is willing to consider and respect you almost as their real son?

If you have found that person, your problem is solved.

Finally, let me praise your dedication and willingness to Concordance and unity! These are the greatest virtues in Nova Roma, and these are the virtues that we miss from our politicians the most.


Vale!

Cn. Lentulus
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77484 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
C. Aemilius Crassus Lentulo omnibusque SPD,



I knew M. Piscinus is both Auger and Diribitor.



Anyway I thought a clarification was needed since in the debate was giving the impression that Centuria Praerogativa was chosen by an Auger, i.e. my point was the matter of the Auspices and of the Centuria Praerogativa are separate issues.



Valete optime bene.



From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 11:00
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Centuria Praerogativa





Cn. Lentulus C. Aemilio sal.

You may not know the exact story. The augur in question is a current diribitor who selected the centuria praerogativa in his capacity as diribitor.

Vale!
Lentulus

--- Mer 7/7/10, C. Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@... <mailto:c.aemilius.crassus%40gmail.com> > ha scritto:

Da: C. Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@... <mailto:c.aemilius.crassus%40gmail.com> >
Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] Centuria Praerogativa
A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
Data: Mercoledì 7 luglio 2010, 11:46



C. Aemilius Crassus Lentulo omnibusque SPD,

As former Diribitor I would like to clarify that in light of our laws the

Centuria Praerogativa is choosen by lot by the Deribitores and not by the

Augeres.

Valete optime bene.

From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf

Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus

Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 10:14

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: [Nova-Roma] Centuria Praerogativa

Cn. Lentulus pontifex C. Equitio sal.

You ask a question about M. Piscinus augur and about the centuria

praerogativa. You quote custos Livia:

"The centuria Praerogativa has been chosen by sortition by diribitor M.

Moravius Piscinus and it's Centuria XIV. The result has been notified to the

consuls."

The trouble is made by an innocent mistake by custos Livia Plauta, because

this was incorrect information - in the current chaos I believe it can

easily happen.

Augur M. Piscinus did not choose the centuria praerogativa for this

centuriate election. He choose for consul K. Buteo, as it was originally

planned, but later we had another presiding magistrate, consul Albucius, and

for him no centuria praerogativa was ever selected to this election.

>>> Now, the question: why would Piscinus have chosen a centuria

praerogative for elections that he acting as pontifex maximus considered

invalid? Or more accurately, why would the gods have done so, as Piscinus

has claimed loudly and repeatedly that the gods are in charge of sortition?

<<<

We can *not* blame Piscinus for acting inconsistently. Right from the

beginning, he as a dutiful augur, notified the people and the magistrates

about the auspicious invalidity of this election, on June 20, in this letter

to the main list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/76674

In this message he even asked the tribunes to veto.

You may disagree with the decretum augurum, but you have to confess that M.

Moravius Piscinus augur acted consistently from the very first moment

regarding the question of this centuriate election, and the decretum augurum

is just the final result of this process.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77485 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.

Are the auspices taken for the elections or the magistrate?

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Lentulus pontifex C. Equitio sal.
>
>
> You ask a question about M. Piscinus augur and about the centuria praerogativa. You quote custos Livia:
>
> "The centuria Praerogativa has been chosen by sortition by diribitor M. Moravius Piscinus and it's Centuria XIV. The result has been notified to the consuls."
>
> The trouble is made by an innocent mistake by custos Livia Plauta, because this was incorrect information - in the current chaos I believe it can easily happen.
>
> Augur M. Piscinus did not choose the centuria praerogativa for this centuriate election. He choose for consul K. Buteo, as it was originally planned, but later we had another presiding magistrate, consul Albucius, and for him no centuria praerogativa was ever selected to this election.
>
>
> >>> Now, the question: why would Piscinus have chosen a centuria praerogative for elections that he acting as pontifex maximus considered invalid? Or more accurately, why would the gods have done so, as Piscinus has claimed loudly and repeatedly that the gods are in charge of sortition? <<<
>
>
> We can *not* blame Piscinus for acting inconsistently. Right from the beginning, he as a dutiful augur, notified the people and the magistrates about the auspicious invalidity of this election, on June 20, in this letter to the main list:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/76674
>
> In this message he even asked the tribunes to veto.
>
> You may disagree with the decretum augurum, but you have to confess that M. Moravius Piscinus augur acted consistently from the very first moment regarding the question of this centuriate election, and the decretum augurum is just the final result of this process.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77486 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Cato Iunio Neroni sal.

Your desire to become patrician is a valid one but you must become one by adoption, as has been clearly - and repeatedly - stated. This would, again, require a change of your name to that of your adoptive (patrician) family's name.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Lentulus C. Iunio sal.
>
>
> I sympathize with your desires, and with your enthusiasms. I wish I could help you, but I wish even more you could try to face the facts your fate led you into.
>
>
> >>>> Why is it so easy to deny a simple request for a simple change from plebian to patrician but everything else seems to be beyond our grasp? <<<
>
>
> The Romans had rules, customs, traditions about patrician status. We, Nova Roma, equally have rules about patrician status, and these rules are created to reflect the ancient sacred traditions. Do you want that the Romans and now we, the New Romans, change our entire system so that you can be patrician? And for what reason? Patrician status is name.
>
> Patrician status is about name.
>
> You don't have a Roman patrician name. You can not be therefore a Roman patrician.
>
> You don't have a Nova Roman patrician name, either, so you can not be a Nova Roman patrician.
>
> We proposed you a solution: adoption. All the other things depend on you? Did you find a patrician adoptive father (or mother) who is willing to consider and respect you almost as their real son?
>
> If you have found that person, your problem is solved.
>
> Finally, let me praise your dedication and willingness to Concordance and unity! These are the greatest virtues in Nova Roma, and these are the virtues that we miss from our politicians the most.
>
>
> Vale!
>
> Cn. Lentulus
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77487 From: Maxima Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Religiosum
<<--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

The tribunes can do as they like. >>



ROFL Especially when it suits your needs.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77488 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Cato Aemilio Crasso Cornelio Lentulusque SPD

I understand the differentiation, but acting as diribitor does not nullify the responsibilities incumbent upon a pontiff.

Regardless, the question remains: were the auspices taken for the elections or for the magistrate; in other words, if one consul asked the gods "Is it propitious to have these elections at this time?" and the gods' answer is "YES", then the elections are auspicious, regardless of who the presiding magistrate might be.

In the end, though, this is a finer point and not really relevant to the fact that the augurs cannot override the Constitutional powers of the consuls.

Cornelius Lentulus, you wrote:

"As a cultor, I wish we had other rules, but if I am adherent to the law, I have
to obey the law. The law now empowers the augures to take auspices and to decide
who and how one can take auspices. This is what happened now. There is only one
thing a cultor who disagrees with the current decree can do: to obey it now, and
to try to propose different legislation tomorrow."

If I understand what you are saying, then, it is more important to you that we obey the law of the Respublica as it stands than to actually practice according to ancient augural law; this regardless of the fact that under every circumstance in which an augur took the auspices instead of the magistrate empowered to do so, the auspices would be invalid?

How can the College of Pontiffs possibly have allowed this to happen - and continue to happen - in direct contradiction to ancient practice, when all it would take is a decretum clarifying augural law to bring it into accordance with ancient practice and thus make the taking of auspices valid? Could this not be a serious breach of the pax Deorum?

Valete,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C. Aemilius Crassus" <c.aemilius.crassus@...> wrote:
>
> C. Aemilius Crassus Lentulo omnibusque SPD,
>
>
>
> I knew M. Piscinus is both Auger and Diribitor.
>
>
>
> Anyway I thought a clarification was needed since in the debate was giving the impression that Centuria Praerogativa was chosen by an Auger, i.e. my point was the matter of the Auspices and of the Centuria Praerogativa are separate issues.
>
>
>
> Valete optime bene.
>
>
>
> From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
> Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 11:00
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Centuria Praerogativa
>
>
>
>
>
> Cn. Lentulus C. Aemilio sal.
>
> You may not know the exact story. The augur in question is a current diribitor who selected the centuria praerogativa in his capacity as diribitor.
>
> Vale!
> Lentulus
>
> --- Mer 7/7/10, C. Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@... <mailto:c.aemilius.crassus%40gmail.com> > ha scritto:
>
> Da: C. Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@... <mailto:c.aemilius.crassus%40gmail.com> >
> Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] Centuria Praerogativa
> A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Data: Mercoledì 7 luglio 2010, 11:46
>
>
>
> C. Aemilius Crassus Lentulo omnibusque SPD,
>
> As former Diribitor I would like to clarify that in light of our laws the
>
> Centuria Praerogativa is choosen by lot by the Deribitores and not by the
>
> Augeres.
>
> Valete optime bene.
>
> From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
>
> Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
>
> Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 10:14
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Centuria Praerogativa
>
> Cn. Lentulus pontifex C. Equitio sal.
>
> You ask a question about M. Piscinus augur and about the centuria
>
> praerogativa. You quote custos Livia:
>
> "The centuria Praerogativa has been chosen by sortition by diribitor M.
>
> Moravius Piscinus and it's Centuria XIV. The result has been notified to the
>
> consuls."
>
> The trouble is made by an innocent mistake by custos Livia Plauta, because
>
> this was incorrect information - in the current chaos I believe it can
>
> easily happen.
>
> Augur M. Piscinus did not choose the centuria praerogativa for this
>
> centuriate election. He choose for consul K. Buteo, as it was originally
>
> planned, but later we had another presiding magistrate, consul Albucius, and
>
> for him no centuria praerogativa was ever selected to this election.
>
> >>> Now, the question: why would Piscinus have chosen a centuria
>
> praerogative for elections that he acting as pontifex maximus considered
>
> invalid? Or more accurately, why would the gods have done so, as Piscinus
>
> has claimed loudly and repeatedly that the gods are in charge of sortition?
>
> <<<
>
> We can *not* blame Piscinus for acting inconsistently. Right from the
>
> beginning, he as a dutiful augur, notified the people and the magistrates
>
> about the auspicious invalidity of this election, on June 20, in this letter
>
> to the main list:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/76674
>
> In this message he even asked the tribunes to veto.
>
> You may disagree with the decretum augurum, but you have to confess that M.
>
> Moravius Piscinus augur acted consistently from the very first moment
>
> regarding the question of this centuriate election, and the decretum augurum
>
> is just the final result of this process.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77489 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
C. Aemilius Crassus Lentulo omnibusque SPD,



I agree with you that the Collegium Augurum, in light of our laws, has the full power over auspices. The Collegium can decide what are valid auspices, who can take them and so on.



So in this particular case the Collegium Augurum can decide that the auspices were not properly taken. Then they should inform the presiding magistrate and if convinced that the matter wasn’t corrected than inform Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and the Tribunes requesting a veto for the elections, because they are the ones that could have done that in light of our laws.



The Collegium Augurum has not the power to declare as invalid any elections or Comitia sessions, as much the Diribitores can’t declare the elections invalid or the Magister Aranearius although they all are mentioned in the Lex that rules the Comitia Centuriata with specific rolls.



If the Collegium Augurum think this particular case has threaten the relationship between the Immortal Gods and the Res Publica then it should inform the Collegium Pontificum, who should determine if in fact that is the case and, being so, what public sacrifices should be performed to amend the situation.



Those are the sphere of duties of the Collegium Augurum in light of our laws and not behave as the Council of Purity overtaking the duties and powers of the Magistrates and Senate and declaring the elections as invalid.



And this is the perspective of this particular citizen.



Valete optime bene.



From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 10:40
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective





Cn. Lentulus C. Equitio sal.

Although I am not Livia Plauta, please allow me to answer this question, because that's a good question concerning our most important mission, reconstructionism, and concerning the reality of rules and customs, that Nova Roma has, and has to face.

>>> How
can you possibly accept the idea - directly contrary to everything we
actually know about ancient augury - that the augurs should be taking
them? <<<<

I don't accept the idea, but as soon as our rules dictate that the augurs can take and "govern" the auspices, it has to be obeyed. I hope we have legislation that will change that, but that's the future and we live in the now. Now the augures has all power over auspices. It was created for a reason. The reason was the we are in a journey towards reconstructing the Roman culture, the cultus, and we currently can not be sure that an non-practitioner magistrate would be attentive enough and respectful for the auspices. This was why in NR we have the collegium fixed over the head of magistrates in question of auspices, because they are required to be practitioners and experienced in augury, so that's built in the system as a guarantee factor for respecting the cultural religious correctness.

Is it good that way? Would not there be another solution?

Good questions by me, I don't have the answer now, but I feel that we have to make our system as Roman as it is possible, so some changes in the current practice are needed, but that is a future question for a legislative comitia.

>>>> In ancient Rome the augurs were *not* allowed to take them, only
magistrates did, and the augurs' advice sought when necessary. The
magistrate would take them, and declare the result, and the augur would
agree or not. So Albucius - and all other magistrates - *should* be
taking the auspices themselves. <<<<

I agree with you about the theory, but it is currently impossible. We have legal documents, we have law in force: the decrees of the augures that regulates matters of ars auguria. As the Constitution IV. B. 2. a. 2. says, the CA has the power alone to issue decrees on matters of the ars auguria and which may not be overruled by other laws.

As a cultor, I wish we had other rules, but if I am adherent to the law, I have to obey the law. The law now empowers the augures to take auspices and to decide who and how one can take auspices. This is what happened now. There is only one thing a cultor who disagrees with the current decree can do: to obey it now, and to try to propose different legislation tomorrow.

Vale!

---







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77490 From: Robert Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
It is not on the website! Refer to website! So who's fault is it for not updating this important information! And what about our financials while we are at it? Or is this an oopsie of one of your minions?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 7, 2010, at 2:17 AM, Christer Edling <christer.edling@...> wrote:

> Salve C. Iulia Eucharis
>
> There _is_ a Budget! The Senate has approved it. Who on earth has said
> anything else? Are You listening to Sulla, You shouldn't.
>
> **********
>
> 7 jul 2010 kl. 03.27 skrev C. Iulia Eucharis:
>
> Salve Sulla!
>
> As you have clairified, there is no current budget, and hence no
> budget priorities.
> ...............
> ...............
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Eucharis
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > I think some of your suggestions warrant future discussion. But, I
> > would
> > like to point out that there is no plan in place to prioritize
> > expenses.
> > For that matter our financials have not been updated since 1st Quarter
> > 2009. And, if I recall correctly there is no budget for this year.
> >
> > The last yearly budget was posted in 2009 and it reflected a $-93.00
> > - yes a
> > deficit.
> >
> > http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Approved_Budget_2009
> >
> > And nothing to reflect any budget for Fiscal year 2010.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
>
> *****************
> Vale
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus
>
> Consul Iterum
> Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
> Civis Romanus sum
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
> ************************************************
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
> "I'll either find a way or make one"
> ************************************************
> Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
> Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
> ************************************************
> Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
> Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77491 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Cn. Lentulus C. Aemilio sal.


>>>> I agree with you that the Collegium Augurum, in light of our laws, has
the full power over auspices. The Collegium can decide what are valid
auspices, who can take them and so on. <<<


I'm glad that you agree with me on these fundamental points.




>>>> So in this particular case the Collegium Augurum can decide that the
auspices were not properly taken. Then they should inform the presiding
magistrate and if convinced that the matter wasn’t corrected than
inform Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and the Tribunes requesting
a veto for the elections, because they are the ones that could have
done that in light of our laws. <<<<


Here I must correct what you write. It was K. Buteo consul, indeed for whom augur Piscinus took the auspices. But the centuriate election was changed in the meanwhile and P. Memmius consul became the presiding magistrate. He was publicly admonished by augur Piscinus that his presidency for these elections can not be accepted by the College, but the elections were started and P. Memmius dis not stop them. This constitutes the basis for the recent decree.




>>>> The Collegium Augurum has not the power to declare as invalid any
elections or Comitia sessions, as much the Diribitores can’t declare
the elections invalid or the Magister Aranearius although they all are
mentioned in the Lex that rules the Comitia Centuriata with specific
rolls. <<<<


You are right that the word "invalid" is probably not the exact expression what the augures can declare. They declared the magistrates-elect "vitio creati", and this is in the Constitution, because the Constitution IV. B. 2. a. 2. says, the CA has the power alone to issue decrees on
matters of the *ars auguria* and which may not be overruled by other laws. What does ars auguria include? It includes declaring magistrates-elect '"vitio creati", and inculdes many, many other things as well.




>>>> If the Collegium Augurum think this particular case has threaten the
relationship between the Immortal Gods and the Res Publica then it
should inform the Collegium Pontificum, who should determine if in fact
that is the case and, being so, what public sacrifices should be
performed to amend the situation. <<<<


For this situation we have no written guidelines in our legal documents, so it is imperative that as much as it's possible, we follow the Roman way. In the situation, the Roman religious and legal tradition dictates that magsitrates-elect in vitio creati must not accept their office, or if they have already accepted, they must resign. If they don't decline the magistracy, they will be prosecuted as nefarious, impious sacrilegae. 




>>>> Those are the sphere of duties of the Collegium Augurum in light of our
laws and not behave as the Council of Purity overtaking the duties and
powers of the Magistrates and Senate and declaring the elections as
invalid. <<<


The execution of the augural decree depends as a moral and religious duty on the magistrates, and on the magistrates-elect, in my view. As I have written, what they declaraed is not "invalid elections", but the praetores vitio creati, which is similar, but not the same. The elctions are valid, but a sacrilege. It is more serious than if they just were invalid, which is a legal term only.


Vale optime!

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

From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus

Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 10:40

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective



Cn. Lentulus C. Equitio sal.



Although I am not Livia Plauta, please allow me to answer this question, because that's a good question concerning our most important mission, reconstructionism, and concerning the reality of rules and customs, that Nova Roma has, and has to face.



>>> How

can you possibly accept the idea - directly contrary to everything we

actually know about ancient augury - that the augurs should be taking

them? <<<<



I don't accept the idea, but as soon as our rules dictate that the augurs can take and "govern" the auspices, it has to be obeyed. I hope we have legislation that will change that, but that's the future and we live in the now. Now the augures has all power over auspices. It was created for a reason. The reason was the we are in a journey towards reconstructing the Roman culture, the cultus, and we currently can not be sure that an non-practitioner magistrate would be attentive enough and respectful for the auspices. This was why in NR we have the collegium fixed over the head of magistrates in question of auspices, because they are required to be practitioners and experienced in augury, so that's built in the system as a guarantee factor for respecting the cultural religious correctness.



Is it good that way? Would not there be another solution?



Good questions by me, I don't have the answer now, but I feel that we have to make our system as Roman as it is possible, so some changes in the current practice are needed, but that is a future question for a legislative comitia.



>>>> In ancient Rome the augurs were *not* allowed to take them, only

magistrates did, and the augurs' advice sought when necessary. The

magistrate would take them, and declare the result, and the augur would

agree or not. So Albucius - and all other magistrates - *should* be

taking the auspices themselves. <<<<



I agree with you about the theory, but it is currently impossible. We have legal documents, we have law in force: the decrees of the augures that regulates matters of ars auguria. As the Constitution IV. B. 2. a. 2. says, the CA has the power alone to issue decrees on matters of the ars auguria and which may not be overruled by other laws.



As a cultor, I wish we had other rules, but if I am adherent to the law, I have to obey the law. The law now empowers the augures to take auspices and to decide who and how one can take auspices. This is what happened now. There is only one thing a cultor who disagrees with the current decree can do: to obey it now, and to try to propose different legislation tomorrow.



Vale!



---



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77492 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Consul maior responsa on the two decrees issued by the Collegium augurum on July 4th, 2010


(Responsa consularis de duobus decretis collegii augurum a.d. IV nonas Quint. 2763 auc)

In view of the:


Constitution of Nova Roma (http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_%28Nova_Roma%29), and specially in its article VI.B.2a2

decreta of the Collegium augurum, called 'de auspicatio' and 'de tripudio inrito', published a.d. IV nonas Quint. 2763 auc in Nova Roma Announce list

my five acts relative to the praetura and to the call for a subsequent meeting of the Comitia centuriata :


my edicta calling for candidates for the praetura issued first a.d. VII Idus 2763 auc (June 7) for the praetura minor (de petitione praeturae minoris) and second a.d. IV Idus 2763 auc (June 10) for the two seats of praetors (de petitione praeturae),

my statement of the candidacies of a.d. XV Kal.Quint. 2763 auc (June 17) laid by the five following candidates: P. Ullerius Stephanus Venator, Q. Fabius Maximus, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, A. Tullia Scholastica, M. Hortensia Maior,

my call for the comitia centuriata issued on a.d. XIV Kal.Quint. 2763 auc (June 18);

lex Salicia poenalis, specially article 21,


Considering that:




the Collegium augurum is allowed by the Constitution of Nova Roma, to �issue decreta (decrees) on matters of the ars auguria and its own internal procedures (such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum).� (Constitution VI.B.2a2) ;




the decree 'de auspicatio', the Collegium cannot constitutionally ''instruct'' (see 'pars II') a constitutional assembly, here the comitia curiatia, nor submit the legal force of our curiate laws to a previous intervention of an augur;




The decree 'de tripudio inrito' pretends:


declaring invalid the auspices taken by the consul maior, and thus invalid �the Senate session held in January 2763 AUC and the Comitia Centuriata held in April 2763 AUC�, as well as �the elections for praetores suffecti held this month of June 2763 AUC in the Comitia Centuriata�;

ignoring the call for candidacies and for the meeting of the comitia duly issued by the consul maior, and ignoring the fact that a presiding magistrate is the one who issues such acts, and not the one that is chosen as such by the Magister augurum or the Collegium;

charging for this the consul maior of an offence of 'impietas prudens dolo malo';

disallowing him ''from taking any further auspicia on public matters until the Collegium Augurum determines that his procedures conform to the requirements set by that body'';

instructing the Comitia curiata �not to pass a lex curiata de imperio for any magistrates who are not elected under proper and valid auspices.�;




This decretum 'de tripudio inrito':


makes an extensive interpretation of the article VI.B.2a2 of the Constitution of Nova Roma considering that the Collegium augurum may rule on every field concerned, even indirectly, by the practice of auspices ;

prefers ignoring, and after several recommendations addressed since four months by the consul maior to the magister augurum, the interpretation officially expressed by the consul of this article VI.B.2a2 which gives this provision its full meaning, and in the due respect of the powers and rights of the comitia and curule magistrates, i.e. the one which defines the �matters of the ars auguria� as the field concerning the technical aspects (�ars�) of the augural activity;

chooses to make prevail, this way, a reading of the Constitution which deprives the curule magistrates, and in the current case, the consuls, of their constitutional and traditional right and power to take their auspices as they see fit, and to confer to them their validity ;

pretends interfering in the work of the consuls and how they organize it and their presiding of the meetings they call for order;

pretends also giving 'instructions' to assemblies, ignoring that such assemblies are constitutionally free to define, as they see fit, their agenda and their internal rules;

brings, in order to support his reasoning inexact or partial informations on the chronological sequence of the convening of the comitia centuriata in June 2763 and on the acts made by augur Moravius;

forgets that the Collegium augurum, as religious institution, share its technical powers, as one of the bodies ruling on the Religio Romana, as a State religion, with several other bodies, magistracies, offices or persons, among which the consuls, as representing daily the Republic, must be considered that the most legitimate institution, under the moral authority of the Senate;

forgets thus that every interpretation of the Collegium, in the frame reminded here, cannot compete with a different interpretation, which is the case here, by the consul maior.


Considering that both decreta issued by the Collegium, who thus chose, on the proposal of his magister, to ignore the recommendations issued since four months by the consul maior as well as the proposal made by the same consul, to work on directions which would guarantee the best involvement of the augurs in the public action, constitute serious violations of Nova Roma constitution which may provoke major damages to Nova Roma public order, social peace and future, as well to weaken and upset the Religio Romana that the consuls are in charge to uphold;


Considering in addition, if it were necessary, the second sentence of article VI.B.2 of the Constitution that reminds that �the Collegium Augurum shall consist of nine Augurs, five from the Plebeian order and four from the Patrician order.�;




for these reasons, I, P. Memmius Albucius, consul maior for year 2763 a.u.c., issue the present responsa:




Article 1:


The two above evoked decreta of the Collegium augurum (a.d. IV nonas Quint. 2763 auc), called 'de auspicatio' and 'de tripudio inrito' are considered as unconstitutional and therefore void.


As such, no civil institution of Nova Roma shall be obliged to obey these provisions, and any officer, magistrate or institution which would nevertheless decide to do it, will commit its own responsibility and, for institutions, the responsibility of its members.


Article 2:


As a good will gesture that both Roman values of bona fides and clementia support, every measure, that might be taken, in due proportion of their acts, against M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus, K. Fabius Buteo Modianus and M. Lucretius Agricola for their violations of the institutions of Nova Roma are hereby suspended in order to allow them to place themselves in a situation where they may work normally with all the civil institutions, and not try to replace them.


Article 3:


This responsa takes effect immediately. It will be included in the Tabularium Novae Romae, specially in the page which were to welcome the text of the referred decreta.


Article 4:

Every Nova Roman public officer shall, as far as their duties require, enforce the present edict, which will be published in the Tabularium Novae Romae and in Nova Roma relevant internet 'discussion' lists.




Datum nonas Quintilias 2763 a.u.c. (July 7h, 2010) P. Memmio Albucio K. Fabio Buteone Quintiliano II coss.








P. MEMMIUS ALBUCIUS cos.




-----------------------------------------------------end of the responsa-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_________________________________________________________________
Allumez et �teignez votre PC en un instant avec Windows 7 !
http://clk.atdmt.com/FRM/go/238030931/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77493 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Because the CP is corrupt and will do anything they can do to subvert a
lawful and legal election.

Lets not forget this is the same CP that gave us the "PLASTIC DICE" episode!

Need we say anymore?

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Aemilio Crasso Cornelio Lentulusque SPD
>
> I understand the differentiation, but acting as diribitor does not nullify
> the responsibilities incumbent upon a pontiff.
>
> Regardless, the question remains: were the auspices taken for the elections
> or for the magistrate; in other words, if one consul asked the gods "Is it
> propitious to have these elections at this time?" and the gods' answer is
> "YES", then the elections are auspicious, regardless of who the presiding
> magistrate might be.
>
> In the end, though, this is a finer point and not really relevant to the
> fact that the augurs cannot override the Constitutional powers of the
> consuls.
>
> Cornelius Lentulus, you wrote:
>
> "As a cultor, I wish we had other rules, but if I am adherent to the law, I
> have
> to obey the law. The law now empowers the augures to take auspices and to
> decide
> who and how one can take auspices. This is what happened now. There is only
> one
> thing a cultor who disagrees with the current decree can do: to obey it
> now, and
> to try to propose different legislation tomorrow."
>
> If I understand what you are saying, then, it is more important to you that
> we obey the law of the Respublica as it stands than to actually practice
> according to ancient augural law; this regardless of the fact that under
> every circumstance in which an augur took the auspices instead of the
> magistrate empowered to do so, the auspices would be invalid?
>
> How can the College of Pontiffs possibly have allowed this to happen - and
> continue to happen - in direct contradiction to ancient practice, when all
> it would take is a decretum clarifying augural law to bring it into
> accordance with ancient practice and thus make the taking of auspices valid?
> Could this not be a serious breach of the pax Deorum?
>
> Valete,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "C.
> Aemilius Crassus" <c.aemilius.crassus@...> wrote:
> >
> > C. Aemilius Crassus Lentulo omnibusque SPD,
> >
> >
> >
> > I knew M. Piscinus is both Auger and Diribitor.
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyway I thought a clarification was needed since in the debate was
> giving the impression that Centuria Praerogativa was chosen by an Auger,
> i.e. my point was the matter of the Auspices and of the Centuria
> Praerogativa are separate issues.
> >
> >
> >
> > Valete optime bene.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:
> Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Cn.
> Cornelius Lentulus
> > Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 11:00
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Centuria Praerogativa
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus C. Aemilio sal.
> >
> > You may not know the exact story. The augur in question is a current
> diribitor who selected the centuria praerogativa in his capacity as
> diribitor.
> >
> > Vale!
> > Lentulus
> >
> > --- Mer 7/7/10, C. Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@... <mailto:
> c.aemilius.crassus%40gmail.com <c.aemilius.crassus%2540gmail.com>> > ha
> scritto:
> >
> > Da: C. Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@... <mailto:
> c.aemilius.crassus%40gmail.com <c.aemilius.crassus%2540gmail.com>> >
>
> > Oggetto: RE: [Nova-Roma] Centuria Praerogativa
> > A: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:
> Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%2540yahoogroups.com>>
> > Data: Mercoled�� 7 luglio 2010, 11:46
>
> >
> >
> >
> > C. Aemilius Crassus Lentulo omnibusque SPD,
> >
> > As former Diribitor I would like to clarify that in light of our laws the
> >
> > Centuria Praerogativa is choosen by lot by the Deribitores and not by the
> >
> > Augeres.
> >
> > Valete optime bene.
> >
> > From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:
> Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%2540yahoogroups.com>> [mailto:
> Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:
> Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%2540yahoogroups.com>> ] On Behalf
> >
> > Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
> >
> > Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 10:14
> >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:
> Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%2540yahoogroups.com>>
> >
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Centuria Praerogativa
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus pontifex C. Equitio sal.
> >
> > You ask a question about M. Piscinus augur and about the centuria
> >
> > praerogativa. You quote custos Livia:
> >
> > "The centuria Praerogativa has been chosen by sortition by diribitor M.
> >
> > Moravius Piscinus and it's Centuria XIV. The result has been notified to
> the
> >
> > consuls."
> >
> > The trouble is made by an innocent mistake by custos Livia Plauta,
> because
> >
> > this was incorrect information - in the current chaos I believe it can
> >
> > easily happen.
> >
> > Augur M. Piscinus did not choose the centuria praerogativa for this
> >
> > centuriate election. He choose for consul K. Buteo, as it was originally
> >
> > planned, but later we had another presiding magistrate, consul Albucius,
> and
> >
> > for him no centuria praerogativa was ever selected to this election.
> >
> > >>> Now, the question: why would Piscinus have chosen a centuria
> >
> > praerogative for elections that he acting as pontifex maximus considered
> >
> > invalid? Or more accurately, why would the gods have done so, as Piscinus
> >
> > has claimed loudly and repeatedly that the gods are in charge of
> sortition?
> >
> > <<<
> >
> > We can *not* blame Piscinus for acting inconsistently. Right from the
> >
> > beginning, he as a dutiful augur, notified the people and the magistrates
> >
> > about the auspicious invalidity of this election, on June 20, in this
> letter
> >
> > to the main list:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/76674
> >
> > In this message he even asked the tribunes to veto.
> >
> > You may disagree with the decretum augurum, but you have to confess that
> M.
> >
> > Moravius Piscinus augur acted consistently from the very first moment
> >
> > regarding the question of this centuriate election, and the decretum
> augurum
> >
> > is just the final result of this process.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77494 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Cn. Lentulus C. Equitio s. d.




>>> Regardless, the question remains: were the auspices taken for the
elections or for the magistrate; in other words, if one consul asked
the gods "Is it propitious to have these elections at this time?" and
the gods' answer is "YES", then the elections are auspicious,
regardless of who the presiding magistrate might be. <<<<<


As far as I know, but I'm not expert on augury, such Roman rituals must be as precisely worded as it is possible, I dare to say, "hairsplittingly" exact. The question to the gods must include not only the dates, but the presiding magistrate, too. It was probably worded that way: "Is it propitious to have these elections on these items at this time by consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilanus?" But since the election was actually conducted by P. Memmius Albucius, the whole auspicium was ruined and nullified.




>>> If I understand what you are saying, then, it is more important to you
that we obey the law of the Respublica as it stands than to actually
practice according to ancient augural law; <<<<


To me is more important to practice according to ancient augural law, but we can not do this, because we have laws in force that order us to do otherwise. To change these rules is a lonmg procedure, and it is not sure the people in power or the citizenry would support it. This question was raised many times in the past. There was no consensus. The most important thing to me is to practice the Roman culture here in NR alive, including augury. But I can not do it, we can not do it, until we have other rules.


>>> this regardless of the fact
that under every circumstance in which an augur took the auspices
instead of the magistrate empowered to do so, the auspices would be
invalid? <<<


According to our religious rules and practices, no. The college set up the rules, so they are valid rules. They might differ from ancient practice and we can argue for a change, but this is similar to the problem of the Roman Catholics, who protested against the new liturgy of the mass intruduced after the II Vatican council, and thought that only the Tridentine mass is true and valid. Their arguments - according to the Church - were pointless, since it is the Church and the Church alone that decides the liturgy, and what is sanctified by the Church, it's the current valid practice of religious liturgy. The same function is fulfilled by several bodies in a Roman res publica: the college of pontiffs, the college of augurs just to name two. Our internal religious opposition may oppose the Nova Roman Practice of Augury as invalid and against tradition, but *in* Nova Roma, augury currently works *that way*. That's our ars auguria.


>>> How can the College of Pontiffs possibly have allowed this to happen -
and continue to happen - in direct contradiction to ancient practice,
when all it would take is a decretum clarifying augural law to bring it
into accordance with ancient practice and thus make the taking of
auspices valid? <<<


It was not "allowed" to happen, it was *intentionally designed* that way by the augures of Nova Roma in the first years of our republic. This current system was confirmed and strengthened by the famous decree of the augures ("de iure auspicandi et tripudio" = on the rights for auspices), issued in 2003, so the people responsible for this system are the first augures of Nova Roma, especially L. Equitius Cincinnatus, and his older colleagues.

They created what we have. None of the current augures were part of the religious colleges then.

But who can vituperate the former augures of NR? We have to be more appreciative and understanding towards rhem. The system they created under L. Equitius Cincinnatus was created for a reason. The reason was the we are in a journey
towards reconstructing the Roman culture, the "cultus", and we currently
can *not* be sure if a non-practitioner magistrate would be attentive
and respectful enough for the auspices. This was why the religious powers of NR in 2003 fixed the
collegium over the head of magistrates in regards to auspices,
because they augures were and are *required* to be practitioners and experienced in
augury, while magistrates are not. The system confirmed in 2003 is the guarantee factor for
respecting the cultural religious correctness.

I am not saying there is no better solution, but this is what we have, it is consecrated by augurial decree, by long years of tradition, and by the current augures as well.


>>>> Could this not be a serious breach of the pax Deorum? <<<


About this the senate and the collegium pontificum shall be officially asked by the consules. That's the method to clear up such a question. Probably it is not a violation of the pax deorum because the system was legally and properly established by the religious colleges. But I would advocate a change.
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77495 From: Publius Memmius Albucius Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: On now closed CC's centuria praerogativa
Diribitoribus Arminio Maiori, Claudiae Laurentiae, Fabiae Drusillae, Moravio Piscino Horatiano s.d.

The Comitia centuriata called for the election of our praetors suffecti is now closed.


As I may understand it, the intermediary tally states that two candidates are clearly ahead, compared to the three other competing candidates and that they would, in various simulations, be both elected.


The publication of our results were facing a first problem: the publication of two decrees by the Collegium augurum which pretended 'declaring' invalid the comitia. You are now informed of my position, expressed in my responsa published today, which closes the potential problem for you know, if ever you had a doubt that you would have surely, this said, expressed to me privately, which interpretation prevails.


But we are facing a second problem: the designation of a centuria praerogativa.


I will not remind you four that our laws, and specially Lex Fabia (modified by Curiatia Iulia) de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum, 5B1 says that: �1. The Diribitores shall select by lot one century from among the first class centuries to serve as the Centuria Praerogativa.�


The diribitors are to organize themselves and assume their duties, without reminders from the presiding magistrate. No need, as would say some of us, of ''micro-management'' here. Usually, things work normally.


In my mind, the centuria praerogativa had already been defined several weeks ago, according rules that you would have agreed upon.


At this time, I am informed that there would be a problem in this designation, and that we would face one of both following situations:


either no centuria would have been chosen;

or one centuria has been chosen, the XIV, but the conditions of its designation is challenged.


You are sure fully conscious that the absence of designation of the centuria praerogativa may question the normal process of comitia for which much time and energy were invested, and probably, in the special context we currently live, more than usual. I let you imagine, too, the reactions of every candidate to the praetura.


I therefore need, as presiding magistrate, to know:
1/ whether or not a centuria praerogativa has been chosen by you, and in conformity with lex Fabia;
2/ if yes, which century it is and when you will announce it and publish its results;
3/ if not, for what good argument no century was defined.


Thanks for your understanding and for a quick answer, Diribitores.



Valete,



P. Memmius Albucius
consul
_________________________________________________________________
Exclu�: T�l�chargez la nouvelle version de Messenger !
http://clk.atdmt.com/FRM/go/244627952/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77496 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Livia Lentulo Equitio sal.

I thank Lentulus for explaining the matter. I was going to write the same. I
have been with sporadic Internet access for over three weeks, so some
details had escaped my attention.
I can confirm that the Centuria Praerogativa was chosen by Piscinus (as a
diribitor) for the elections called by consul Quintilianus, and not for
those called by consul Albucius.

Optime valete,
Livia


> Cn. Lentulus pontifex C. Equitio sal.
>
>
> You ask a question about M. Piscinus augur and about the centuria
> praerogativa. You quote custos Livia:
>
> "The centuria Praerogativa has been chosen by sortition by diribitor M.
> Moravius Piscinus and it's Centuria XIV. The result has been notified to
> the consuls."
>
> The trouble is made by an innocent mistake by custos Livia Plauta, because
> this was incorrect information - in the current chaos I believe it can
> easily happen.
>
> Augur M. Piscinus did not choose the centuria praerogativa for this
> centuriate election. He choose for consul K. Buteo, as it was originally
> planned, but later we had another presiding magistrate, consul Albucius,
> and for him no centuria praerogativa was ever selected to this election.
>
>
>>>> Now, the question: why would Piscinus have chosen a centuria
>>>> praerogative for elections that he acting as pontifex maximus
>>>> considered invalid? Or more accurately, why would the gods have done
>>>> so, as Piscinus has claimed loudly and repeatedly that the gods are in
>>>> charge of sortition? <<<
>
>
> We can *not* blame Piscinus for acting inconsistently. Right from the
> beginning, he as a dutiful augur, notified the people and the magistrates
> about the auspicious invalidity of this election, on June 20, in this
> letter to the main list:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/76674
>
> In this message he even asked the tribunes to veto.
>
> You may disagree with the decretum augurum, but you have to confess that
> M. Moravius Piscinus augur acted consistently from the very first moment
> regarding the question of this centuriate election, and the decretum
> augurum is just the final result of this process.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77497 From: L. Livia Plauta Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Livia Lentulo Equitio sal.

The elections called by consul Albucius were on a different date than those
called by consul Quintilianus. That's why the auspices for the one were not
valid for the other.

Optime valete,
Livia

> Cn. Lentulus C. Equitio s. d.
>
>
>
>
>>>> Regardless, the question remains: were the auspices taken for the
> elections or for the magistrate; in other words, if one consul asked
> the gods "Is it propitious to have these elections at this time?" and
> the gods' answer is "YES", then the elections are auspicious,
> regardless of who the presiding magistrate might be. <<<<<
>
>
> As far as I know, but I'm not expert on augury, such Roman rituals must be
> as precisely worded as it is possible, I dare to say, "hairsplittingly"
> exact. The question to the gods must include not only the dates, but the
> presiding magistrate, too. It was probably worded that way: "Is it
> propitious to have these elections on these items at this time by consul
> K. Fabius Buteo Quintilanus?" But since the election was actually
> conducted by P. Memmius Albucius, the whole auspicium was ruined and
> nullified.
>
>
>
>
>>>> If I understand what you are saying, then, it is more important to you
> that we obey the law of the Respublica as it stands than to actually
> practice according to ancient augural law; <<<<
>
>
> To me is more important to practice according to ancient augural law, but
> we can not do this, because we have laws in force that order us to do
> otherwise. To change these rules is a lonmg procedure, and it is not sure
> the people in power or the citizenry would support it. This question was
> raised many times in the past. There was no consensus. The most important
> thing to me is to practice the Roman culture here in NR alive, including
> augury. But I can not do it, we can not do it, until we have other rules.
>
>
>>>> this regardless of the fact
> that under every circumstance in which an augur took the auspices
> instead of the magistrate empowered to do so, the auspices would be
> invalid? <<<
>
>
> According to our religious rules and practices, no. The college set up the
> rules, so they are valid rules. They might differ from ancient practice
> and we can argue for a change, but this is similar to the problem of the
> Roman Catholics, who protested against the new liturgy of the mass
> intruduced after the II Vatican council, and thought that only the
> Tridentine mass is true and valid. Their arguments - according to the
> Church - were pointless, since it is the Church and the Church alone that
> decides the liturgy, and what is sanctified by the Church, it's the
> current valid practice of religious liturgy. The same function is
> fulfilled by several bodies in a Roman res publica: the college of
> pontiffs, the college of augurs just to name two. Our internal religious
> opposition may oppose the Nova Roman Practice of Augury as invalid and
> against tradition, but *in* Nova Roma, augury currently works *that way*.
> That's our ars auguria.
>
>
>>>> How can the College of Pontiffs possibly have allowed this to happen -
> and continue to happen - in direct contradiction to ancient practice,
> when all it would take is a decretum clarifying augural law to bring it
> into accordance with ancient practice and thus make the taking of
> auspices valid? <<<
>
>
> It was not "allowed" to happen, it was *intentionally designed* that way
> by the augures of Nova Roma in the first years of our republic. This
> current system was confirmed and strengthened by the famous decree of the
> augures ("de iure auspicandi et tripudio" = on the rights for auspices),
> issued in 2003, so the people responsible for this system are the first
> augures of Nova Roma, especially L. Equitius Cincinnatus, and his older
> colleagues.
>
> They created what we have. None of the current augures were part of the
> religious colleges then.
>
> But who can vituperate the former augures of NR? We have to be more
> appreciative and understanding towards rhem. The system they created under
> L. Equitius Cincinnatus was created for a reason. The reason was the we
> are in a journey
> towards reconstructing the Roman culture, the "cultus", and we currently
> can *not* be sure if a non-practitioner magistrate would be attentive
> and respectful enough for the auspices. This was why the religious powers
> of NR in 2003 fixed the
> collegium over the head of magistrates in regards to auspices,
> because they augures were and are *required* to be practitioners and
> experienced in
> augury, while magistrates are not. The system confirmed in 2003 is the
> guarantee factor for
> respecting the cultural religious correctness.
>
> I am not saying there is no better solution, but this is what we have, it
> is consecrated by augurial decree, by long years of tradition, and by the
> current augures as well.
>
>
>>>>> Could this not be a serious breach of the pax Deorum? <<<
>
>
> About this the senate and the collegium pontificum shall be officially
> asked by the consules. That's the method to clear up such a question.
> Probably it is not a violation of the pax deorum because the system was
> legally and properly established by the religious colleges. But I would
> advocate a change.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77498 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Publio Memmio Albucio salutem dicit

You cannot veto a decretum of the Collegium Augurum. This "responsa" is
simply your opinion and is essentially the same as that of Sulla and Cato.
Duly noted and acknowledged but it doesn't change anything, the decretum
still stands.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Publius Memmius Albucius <
albucius_aoe@...> wrote:

>
> Consul maior responsa on the two decrees issued by the Collegium augurum on
> July 4th, 2010
>
>
> (Responsa consularis de duobus decretis collegii augurum a.d. IV nonas
> Quint. 2763 auc)
>
> In view of the:
>
>
> Constitution of Nova Roma (
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_%28Nova_Roma%29), and
> specially in its article VI.B.2a2
>
> decreta of the Collegium augurum, called 'de auspicatio' and 'de tripudio
> inrito', published a.d. IV nonas Quint. 2763 auc in Nova Roma Announce list
>
> my five acts relative to the praetura and to the call for a subsequent
> meeting of the Comitia centuriata :
>
>
> my edicta calling for candidates for the praetura issued first a.d. VII
> Idus 2763 auc (June 7) for the praetura minor (de petitione praeturae
> minoris) and second a.d. IV Idus 2763 auc (June 10) for the two seats of
> praetors (de petitione praeturae),
>
> my statement of the candidacies of a.d. XV Kal.Quint. 2763 auc (June 17)
> laid by the five following candidates: P. Ullerius Stephanus Venator, Q.
> Fabius Maximus, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, A. Tullia Scholastica, M. Hortensia
> Maior,
>
> my call for the comitia centuriata issued on a.d. XIV Kal.Quint. 2763 auc
> (June 18);
>
> lex Salicia poenalis, specially article 21,
>
>
> Considering that:
>
>
>
>
> the Collegium augurum is allowed by the Constitution of Nova Roma, to
> �issue decreta (decrees) on matters of the ars auguria and its own internal
> procedures (such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the comitia
> or Senatus consultum).� (Constitution VI.B.2a2) ;
>
>
>
>
> the decree 'de auspicatio', the Collegium cannot constitutionally
> ''instruct'' (see 'pars II') a constitutional assembly, here the comitia
> curiatia, nor submit the legal force of our curiate laws to a previous
> intervention of an augur;
>
>
>
>
> The decree 'de tripudio inrito' pretends:
>
>
> declaring invalid the auspices taken by the consul maior, and thus invalid
> �the Senate session held in January 2763 AUC and the Comitia Centuriata held
> in April 2763 AUC�, as well as �the elections for praetores suffecti held
> this month of June 2763 AUC in the Comitia Centuriata�;
>
> ignoring the call for candidacies and for the meeting of the comitia duly
> issued by the consul maior, and ignoring the fact that a presiding
> magistrate is the one who issues such acts, and not the one that is chosen
> as such by the Magister augurum or the Collegium;
>
> charging for this the consul maior of an offence of 'impietas prudens dolo
> malo';
>
> disallowing him ''from taking any further auspicia on public matters until
> the Collegium Augurum determines that his procedures conform to the
> requirements set by that body'';
>
> instructing the Comitia curiata �not to pass a lex curiata de imperio for
> any magistrates who are not elected under proper and valid auspices.�;
>
>
>
>
> This decretum 'de tripudio inrito':
>
>
> makes an extensive interpretation of the article VI.B.2a2 of the
> Constitution of Nova Roma considering that the Collegium augurum may rule on
> every field concerned, even indirectly, by the practice of auspices ;
>
> prefers ignoring, and after several recommendations addressed since four
> months by the consul maior to the magister augurum, the interpretation
> officially expressed by the consul of this article VI.B.2a2 which gives this
> provision its full meaning, and in the due respect of the powers and rights
> of the comitia and curule magistrates, i.e. the one which defines the
> �matters of the ars auguria� as the field concerning the technical aspects
> (�ars�) of the augural activity;
>
> chooses to make prevail, this way, a reading of the Constitution which
> deprives the curule magistrates, and in the current case, the consuls, of
> their constitutional and traditional right and power to take their auspices
> as they see fit, and to confer to them their validity ;
>
> pretends interfering in the work of the consuls and how they organize it
> and their presiding of the meetings they call for order;
>
> pretends also giving 'instructions' to assemblies, ignoring that such
> assemblies are constitutionally free to define, as they see fit, their
> agenda and their internal rules;
>
> brings, in order to support his reasoning inexact or partial informations
> on the chronological sequence of the convening of the comitia centuriata in
> June 2763 and on the acts made by augur Moravius;
>
> forgets that the Collegium augurum, as religious institution, share its
> technical powers, as one of the bodies ruling on the Religio Romana, as a
> State religion, with several other bodies, magistracies, offices or persons,
> among which the consuls, as representing daily the Republic, must be
> considered that the most legitimate institution, under the moral authority
> of the Senate;
>
> forgets thus that every interpretation of the Collegium, in the frame
> reminded here, cannot compete with a different interpretation, which is the
> case here, by the consul maior.
>
>
> Considering that both decreta issued by the Collegium, who thus chose, on
> the proposal of his magister, to ignore the recommendations issued since
> four months by the consul maior as well as the proposal made by the same
> consul, to work on directions which would guarantee the best involvement of
> the augurs in the public action, constitute serious violations of Nova Roma
> constitution which may provoke major damages to Nova Roma public order,
> social peace and future, as well to weaken and upset the Religio Romana that
> the consuls are in charge to uphold;
>
>
> Considering in addition, if it were necessary, the second sentence of
> article VI.B.2 of the Constitution that reminds that �the Collegium Augurum
> shall consist of nine Augurs, five from the Plebeian order and four from the
> Patrician order.�;
>
>
>
>
> for these reasons, I, P. Memmius Albucius, consul maior for year 2763
> a.u.c., issue the present responsa:
>
>
>
>
> Article 1:
>
>
> The two above evoked decreta of the Collegium augurum (a.d. IV nonas Quint.
> 2763 auc), called 'de auspicatio' and 'de tripudio inrito' are considered as
> unconstitutional and therefore void.
>
>
> As such, no civil institution of Nova Roma shall be obliged to obey these
> provisions, and any officer, magistrate or institution which would
> nevertheless decide to do it, will commit its own responsibility and, for
> institutions, the responsibility of its members.
>
>
> Article 2:
>
>
> As a good will gesture that both Roman values of bona fides and clementia
> support, every measure, that might be taken, in due proportion of their
> acts, against M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus, K. Fabius Buteo Modianus and
> M. Lucretius Agricola for their violations of the institutions of Nova Roma
> are hereby suspended in order to allow them to place themselves in a
> situation where they may work normally with all the civil institutions, and
> not try to replace them.
>
>
> Article 3:
>
>
> This responsa takes effect immediately. It will be included in the
> Tabularium Novae Romae, specially in the page which were to welcome the text
> of the referred decreta.
>
>
> Article 4:
>
> Every Nova Roman public officer shall, as far as their duties require,
> enforce the present edict, which will be published in the Tabularium Novae
> Romae and in Nova Roma relevant internet 'discussion' lists.
>
>
>
>
> Datum nonas Quintilias 2763 a.u.c. (July 7h, 2010) P. Memmio Albucio K.
> Fabio Buteone Quintiliano II coss.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> P. MEMMIUS ALBUCIUS cos.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77499 From: Christer Edling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Auspicia and Centuria Praerogativa
Salve Omnes!

As I was going to the Consular Conventus in Rome I asked Magister
Augurum Piscinus to take the auspicies fore three Comitia and my
Colleague to change the dates that he had planned for Comitia
Centuriata (the elctions) that we had agreed that he would preside
over.. In reallity he had already planned for the Comitia, but we
would later find that there would be practical problems. I never
understood why my Colleauge didn't change the dates. And my trip to
Rome kept me abit out of line.

The reason why I set the date for my question for auspices to the same
date for all Comitia was that Kristoffer From (Pius) had already said
that there would be no more elections set up by him accordning to the
old system. The reason for his refusal is manyfolded, he is no longer
a cityzen, every election need shell access which is complicated in
this case, he has been doing this behind the scenes for years and he
was tired of the inefficiency of Nova Roma and the time it takes to do
(if it was automated it could be done very easy by the convening
magistrate). He has kept the voting system that is only available and
understandable (undocumented) to him and Matt Hucke (Octavisu
Gracchus), Hucke set it up that way, going for years and he didn't
have time to do many different Comitia. Still Pius as a last personal
favour agreed to arrage the three Comitia as a personal favour to me,
but would be the end of his free work for Nova Roma. Well he has said
this over and over again, but I will not be the one to ask him to
stretch his decision next time.

I know that the Collegium Augurum have been prepared to have open
talks with my Colleague early on and why he hasn't taken their
proposals seriously I don't understand either. When wemet in Stockhol
I asked my Colleague to talk to Magister Augurum and told him that I
had the impression that they had a proposal how to solve the seemingly
upcoming problems with the auspices.

*********

7 jul 2010 kl. 17.29 skrev L. Livia Plauta:


Livia Lentulo Equitio sal.

The elections called by consul Albucius were on a different date than
those
called by consul Quintilianus. That's why the auspices for the one
were not
valid for the other.

Optime valete,
Livia

> Cn. Lentulus C. Equitio s. d.
>
>
>
>
>>>> Regardless, the question remains: were the auspices taken for the
> elections or for the magistrate; in other words, if one consul asked
> the gods "Is it propitious to have these elections at this time?" and
> the gods' answer is "YES", then the elections are auspicious,
> regardless of who the presiding magistrate might be. <<<<<
>
>
> As far as I know, but I'm not expert on augury, such Roman rituals
> must be
> as precisely worded as it is possible, I dare to say,
> "hairsplittingly"
> exact. The question to the gods must include not only the dates, but
> the
> presiding magistrate, too. It was probably worded that way: "Is it
> propitious to have these elections on these items at this time by
> consul
> K. Fabius Buteo Quintilanus?" But since the election was actually
> conducted by P. Memmius Albucius, the whole auspicium was ruined and
> nullified.
>
>
>
>
>>>> If I understand what you are saying, then, it is more important
>>>> to you
> that we obey the law of the Respublica as it stands than to actually
> practice according to ancient augural law; <<<<
>
>
> To me is more important to practice according to ancient augural
> law, but
> we can not do this, because we have laws in force that order us to do
> otherwise. To change these rules is a lonmg procedure, and it is not
> sure
> the people in power or the citizenry would support it. This question
> was
> raised many times in the past. There was no consensus. The most
> important
> thing to me is to practice the Roman culture here in NR alive,
> including
> augury. But I can not do it, we can not do it, until we have other
> rules.
>
>
>>>> this regardless of the fact
> that under every circumstance in which an augur took the auspices
> instead of the magistrate empowered to do so, the auspices would be
> invalid? <<<
>
>
> According to our religious rules and practices, no. The college set
> up the
> rules, so they are valid rules. They might differ from ancient
> practice
> and we can argue for a change, but this is similar to the problem of
> the
> Roman Catholics, who protested against the new liturgy of the mass
> intruduced after the II Vatican council, and thought that only the
> Tridentine mass is true and valid. Their arguments - according to the
> Church - were pointless, since it is the Church and the Church alone
> that
> decides the liturgy, and what is sanctified by the Church, it's the
> current valid practice of religious liturgy. The same function is
> fulfilled by several bodies in a Roman res publica: the college of
> pontiffs, the college of augurs just to name two. Our internal
> religious
> opposition may oppose the Nova Roman Practice of Augury as invalid and
> against tradition, but *in* Nova Roma, augury currently works *that
> way*.
> That's our ars auguria.
>
>
>>>> How can the College of Pontiffs possibly have allowed this to
>>>> happen -
> and continue to happen - in direct contradiction to ancient practice,
> when all it would take is a decretum clarifying augural law to bring
> it
> into accordance with ancient practice and thus make the taking of
> auspices valid? <<<
>
>
> It was not "allowed" to happen, it was *intentionally designed* that
> way
> by the augures of Nova Roma in the first years of our republic. This
> current system was confirmed and strengthened by the famous decree
> of the
> augures ("de iure auspicandi et tripudio" = on the rights for
> auspices),
> issued in 2003, so the people responsible for this system are the
> first
> augures of Nova Roma, especially L. Equitius Cincinnatus, and his
> older
> colleagues.
>
> They created what we have. None of the current augures were part of
> the
> religious colleges then.
>
> But who can vituperate the former augures of NR? We have to be more
> appreciative and understanding towards rhem. The system they created
> under
> L. Equitius Cincinnatus was created for a reason. The reason was the
> we
> are in a journey
> towards reconstructing the Roman culture, the "cultus", and we
> currently
> can *not* be sure if a non-practitioner magistrate would be attentive
> and respectful enough for the auspices. This was why the religious
> powers
> of NR in 2003 fixed the
> collegium over the head of magistrates in regards to auspices,
> because they augures were and are *required* to be practitioners and
> experienced in
> augury, while magistrates are not. The system confirmed in 2003 is the
> guarantee factor for
> respecting the cultural religious correctness.
>
> I am not saying there is no better solution, but this is what we
> have, it
> is consecrated by augurial decree, by long years of tradition, and
> by the
> current augures as well.
>
>
>>>>> Could this not be a serious breach of the pax Deorum? <<<
>
>
> About this the senate and the collegium pontificum shall be officially
> asked by the consules. That's the method to clear up such a question.
> Probably it is not a violation of the pax deorum because the system
> was
> legally and properly established by the religious colleges. But I
> would
> advocate a change.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links






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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus

Consul Iterum
Princeps Senatus et Flamen Palatualis
Civis Romanus sum
http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Main_Page
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
Dignitas, Iustitia, Fidelitas et Pietas
Dignity, Justice, Loyalty and Dutifulness
************************************************
Mons Palatinus, Clivus Victoriae
Palatine Hill, Incline of Victoriae
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77500 From: luciaiuliaaquila Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Ancient Studies
Avete Quirites!

Today in commemoration of my beloved Father's birthday (He transitioned in 1972) I am beginning a new thread for Ancient Studies. I do hope you find the content interesting and I will continue to post such info as it comes available and as time permits.

I would like to offer to my fellow citizens an interesting link to Etruscan News put out by NYU:

http://ancientstudies.fas.nyu.edu/docs/CP/963/etruscannews_vol11_winter2009.pdf

For Livia, Messalina, Aeternia and others with a love of cats do not miss page 4 "Archeocats."


Valete optime!!!

Julia
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77501 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
He didn't use the word "veto" - he doesn't have to veto the decreta. He said
they are in violation if the Constitution, and since the Constitution trumps
everything, including decreta, the decreta are automatically void. He didn't
have to do anything to make them invalid - the augurs did that when they
promulgated unconstitutional decreta.

Cheers!

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:15 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Publio Memmio Albucio salutem dicit
>
> You cannot veto a decretum of the Collegium Augurum. This "responsa" is
> simply your opinion and is essentially the same as that of Sulla and Cato.
> Duly noted and acknowledged but it doesn't change anything, the decretum
> still stands.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Publius Memmius Albucius <
> albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Consul maior responsa on the two decrees issued by the Collegium augurum
> on
> > July 4th, 2010
> >
> >
> > (Responsa consularis de duobus decretis collegii augurum a.d. IV nonas
> > Quint. 2763 auc)
> >
> > In view of the:
> >
> >
> > Constitution of Nova Roma (
> > http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_%28Nova_Roma%29), and
> > specially in its article VI.B.2a2
> >
> > decreta of the Collegium augurum, called 'de auspicatio' and 'de tripudio
> > inrito', published a.d. IV nonas Quint. 2763 auc in Nova Roma Announce
> list
> >
> > my five acts relative to the praetura and to the call for a subsequent
> > meeting of the Comitia centuriata :
> >
> >
> > my edicta calling for candidates for the praetura issued first a.d. VII
> > Idus 2763 auc (June 7) for the praetura minor (de petitione praeturae
> > minoris) and second a.d. IV Idus 2763 auc (June 10) for the two seats of
> > praetors (de petitione praeturae),
> >
> > my statement of the candidacies of a.d. XV Kal.Quint. 2763 auc (June 17)
> > laid by the five following candidates: P. Ullerius Stephanus Venator, Q.
> > Fabius Maximus, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, A. Tullia Scholastica, M.
> Hortensia
> > Maior,
> >
> > my call for the comitia centuriata issued on a.d. XIV Kal.Quint. 2763 auc
> > (June 18);
> >
> > lex Salicia poenalis, specially article 21,
> >
> >
> > Considering that:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > the Collegium augurum is allowed by the Constitution of Nova Roma, to
> > �issue decreta (decrees) on matters of the ars auguria and its own
> internal
> > procedures (such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the
> comitia
> > or Senatus consultum).� (Constitution VI.B.2a2) ;
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > the decree 'de auspicatio', the Collegium cannot constitutionally
> > ''instruct'' (see 'pars II') a constitutional assembly, here the comitia
> > curiatia, nor submit the legal force of our curiate laws to a previous
> > intervention of an augur;
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The decree 'de tripudio inrito' pretends:
> >
> >
> > declaring invalid the auspices taken by the consul maior, and thus
> invalid
> > �the Senate session held in January 2763 AUC and the Comitia Centuriata
> held
> > in April 2763 AUC�, as well as �the elections for praetores suffecti held
> > this month of June 2763 AUC in the Comitia Centuriata�;
> >
> > ignoring the call for candidacies and for the meeting of the comitia duly
> > issued by the consul maior, and ignoring the fact that a presiding
> > magistrate is the one who issues such acts, and not the one that is
> chosen
> > as such by the Magister augurum or the Collegium;
> >
> > charging for this the consul maior of an offence of 'impietas prudens
> dolo
> > malo';
> >
> > disallowing him ''from taking any further auspicia on public matters
> until
> > the Collegium Augurum determines that his procedures conform to the
> > requirements set by that body'';
> >
> > instructing the Comitia curiata �not to pass a lex curiata de imperio for
> > any magistrates who are not elected under proper and valid auspices.�;
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This decretum 'de tripudio inrito':
> >
> >
> > makes an extensive interpretation of the article VI.B.2a2 of the
> > Constitution of Nova Roma considering that the Collegium augurum may rule
> on
> > every field concerned, even indirectly, by the practice of auspices ;
> >
> > prefers ignoring, and after several recommendations addressed since four
> > months by the consul maior to the magister augurum, the interpretation
> > officially expressed by the consul of this article VI.B.2a2 which gives
> this
> > provision its full meaning, and in the due respect of the powers and
> rights
> > of the comitia and curule magistrates, i.e. the one which defines the
> > �matters of the ars auguria� as the field concerning the technical
> aspects
> > (�ars�) of the augural activity;
> >
> > chooses to make prevail, this way, a reading of the Constitution which
> > deprives the curule magistrates, and in the current case, the consuls, of
> > their constitutional and traditional right and power to take their
> auspices
> > as they see fit, and to confer to them their validity ;
> >
> > pretends interfering in the work of the consuls and how they organize it
> > and their presiding of the meetings they call for order;
> >
> > pretends also giving 'instructions' to assemblies, ignoring that such
> > assemblies are constitutionally free to define, as they see fit, their
> > agenda and their internal rules;
> >
> > brings, in order to support his reasoning inexact or partial informations
> > on the chronological sequence of the convening of the comitia centuriata
> in
> > June 2763 and on the acts made by augur Moravius;
> >
> > forgets that the Collegium augurum, as religious institution, share its
> > technical powers, as one of the bodies ruling on the Religio Romana, as a
> > State religion, with several other bodies, magistracies, offices or
> persons,
> > among which the consuls, as representing daily the Republic, must be
> > considered that the most legitimate institution, under the moral
> authority
> > of the Senate;
> >
> > forgets thus that every interpretation of the Collegium, in the frame
> > reminded here, cannot compete with a different interpretation, which is
> the
> > case here, by the consul maior.
> >
> >
> > Considering that both decreta issued by the Collegium, who thus chose, on
> > the proposal of his magister, to ignore the recommendations issued since
> > four months by the consul maior as well as the proposal made by the same
> > consul, to work on directions which would guarantee the best involvement
> of
> > the augurs in the public action, constitute serious violations of Nova
> Roma
> > constitution which may provoke major damages to Nova Roma public order,
> > social peace and future, as well to weaken and upset the Religio Romana
> that
> > the consuls are in charge to uphold;
> >
> >
> > Considering in addition, if it were necessary, the second sentence of
> > article VI.B.2 of the Constitution that reminds that �the Collegium
> Augurum
> > shall consist of nine Augurs, five from the Plebeian order and four from
> the
> > Patrician order.�;
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > for these reasons, I, P. Memmius Albucius, consul maior for year 2763
> > a.u.c., issue the present responsa:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Article 1:
> >
> >
> > The two above evoked decreta of the Collegium augurum (a.d. IV nonas
> Quint.
> > 2763 auc), called 'de auspicatio' and 'de tripudio inrito' are considered
> as
> > unconstitutional and therefore void.
> >
> >
> > As such, no civil institution of Nova Roma shall be obliged to obey these
> > provisions, and any officer, magistrate or institution which would
> > nevertheless decide to do it, will commit its own responsibility and, for
> > institutions, the responsibility of its members.
> >
> >
> > Article 2:
> >
> >
> > As a good will gesture that both Roman values of bona fides and clementia
> > support, every measure, that might be taken, in due proportion of their
> > acts, against M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus, K. Fabius Buteo Modianus
> and
> > M. Lucretius Agricola for their violations of the institutions of Nova
> Roma
> > are hereby suspended in order to allow them to place themselves in a
> > situation where they may work normally with all the civil institutions,
> and
> > not try to replace them.
> >
> >
> > Article 3:
> >
> >
> > This responsa takes effect immediately. It will be included in the
> > Tabularium Novae Romae, specially in the page which were to welcome the
> text
> > of the referred decreta.
> >
> >
> > Article 4:
> >
> > Every Nova Roman public officer shall, as far as their duties require,
> > enforce the present edict, which will be published in the Tabularium
> Novae
> > Romae and in Nova Roma relevant internet 'discussion' lists.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Datum nonas Quintilias 2763 a.u.c. (July 7h, 2010) P. Memmio Albucio K.
> > Fabio Buteone Quintiliano II coss.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > P. MEMMIUS ALBUCIUS cos.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
"Qua(e) patres difficillime
adepti sunt nolite
turpiter relinquere" -
Monumentum Bradfordis, Tamaropoli, in civitate Massaciuseta
(Bradford Monument, Plymouth, MA)

Check out my books on Goodreads: <a href="
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus?utm_source=email_widget">
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus</a>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77502 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Let the Augurs try to use US macro law to try to enforce their decree and
see how far they get. ;)

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...>wrote:

> He didn't use the word "veto" - he doesn't have to veto the decreta. He
> said
> they are in violation if the Constitution, and since the Constitution
> trumps
> everything, including decreta, the decreta are automatically void. He
> didn't
> have to do anything to make them invalid - the augurs did that when they
> promulgated unconstitutional decreta.
>
> Cheers!
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:15 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...
> >wrote:
>
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Publio Memmio Albucio salutem dicit
> >
> > You cannot veto a decretum of the Collegium Augurum. This "responsa" is
> > simply your opinion and is essentially the same as that of Sulla and
> Cato.
> > Duly noted and acknowledged but it doesn't change anything, the decretum
> > still stands.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Modianus
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Publius Memmius Albucius <
> > albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Consul maior responsa on the two decrees issued by the Collegium
> augurum
> > on
> > > July 4th, 2010
> > >
> > >
> > > (Responsa consularis de duobus decretis collegii augurum a.d. IV nonas
> > > Quint. 2763 auc)
> > >
> > > In view of the:
> > >
> > >
> > > Constitution of Nova Roma (
> > > http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_%28Nova_Roma%29), and
> > > specially in its article VI.B.2a2
> > >
> > > decreta of the Collegium augurum, called 'de auspicatio' and 'de
> tripudio
> > > inrito', published a.d. IV nonas Quint. 2763 auc in Nova Roma Announce
> > list
> > >
> > > my five acts relative to the praetura and to the call for a subsequent
> > > meeting of the Comitia centuriata :
> > >
> > >
> > > my edicta calling for candidates for the praetura issued first a.d. VII
> > > Idus 2763 auc (June 7) for the praetura minor (de petitione praeturae
> > > minoris) and second a.d. IV Idus 2763 auc (June 10) for the two seats
> of
> > > praetors (de petitione praeturae),
> > >
> > > my statement of the candidacies of a.d. XV Kal.Quint. 2763 auc (June
> 17)
> > > laid by the five following candidates: P. Ullerius Stephanus Venator,
> Q.
> > > Fabius Maximus, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, A. Tullia Scholastica, M.
> > Hortensia
> > > Maior,
> > >
> > > my call for the comitia centuriata issued on a.d. XIV Kal.Quint. 2763
> auc
> > > (June 18);
> > >
> > > lex Salicia poenalis, specially article 21,
> > >
> > >
> > > Considering that:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > the Collegium augurum is allowed by the Constitution of Nova Roma, to
> > > �issue decreta (decrees) on matters of the ars auguria and its own
> > internal
> > > procedures (such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the
> > comitia
> > > or Senatus consultum).� (Constitution VI.B.2a2) ;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > the decree 'de auspicatio', the Collegium cannot constitutionally
> > > ''instruct'' (see 'pars II') a constitutional assembly, here the
> comitia
> > > curiatia, nor submit the legal force of our curiate laws to a previous
> > > intervention of an augur;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The decree 'de tripudio inrito' pretends:
> > >
> > >
> > > declaring invalid the auspices taken by the consul maior, and thus
> > invalid
> > > �the Senate session held in January 2763 AUC and the Comitia Centuriata
> > held
> > > in April 2763 AUC�, as well as �the elections for praetores suffecti
> held
> > > this month of June 2763 AUC in the Comitia Centuriata�;
> > >
> > > ignoring the call for candidacies and for the meeting of the comitia
> duly
> > > issued by the consul maior, and ignoring the fact that a presiding
> > > magistrate is the one who issues such acts, and not the one that is
> > chosen
> > > as such by the Magister augurum or the Collegium;
> > >
> > > charging for this the consul maior of an offence of 'impietas prudens
> > dolo
> > > malo';
> > >
> > > disallowing him ''from taking any further auspicia on public matters
> > until
> > > the Collegium Augurum determines that his procedures conform to the
> > > requirements set by that body'';
> > >
> > > instructing the Comitia curiata �not to pass a lex curiata de imperio
> for
> > > any magistrates who are not elected under proper and valid auspices.�;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This decretum 'de tripudio inrito':
> > >
> > >
> > > makes an extensive interpretation of the article VI.B.2a2 of the
> > > Constitution of Nova Roma considering that the Collegium augurum may
> rule
> > on
> > > every field concerned, even indirectly, by the practice of auspices ;
> > >
> > > prefers ignoring, and after several recommendations addressed since
> four
> > > months by the consul maior to the magister augurum, the interpretation
> > > officially expressed by the consul of this article VI.B.2a2 which gives
> > this
> > > provision its full meaning, and in the due respect of the powers and
> > rights
> > > of the comitia and curule magistrates, i.e. the one which defines the
> > > �matters of the ars auguria� as the field concerning the technical
> > aspects
> > > (�ars�) of the augural activity;
> > >
> > > chooses to make prevail, this way, a reading of the Constitution which
> > > deprives the curule magistrates, and in the current case, the consuls,
> of
> > > their constitutional and traditional right and power to take their
> > auspices
> > > as they see fit, and to confer to them their validity ;
> > >
> > > pretends interfering in the work of the consuls and how they organize
> it
> > > and their presiding of the meetings they call for order;
> > >
> > > pretends also giving 'instructions' to assemblies, ignoring that such
> > > assemblies are constitutionally free to define, as they see fit, their
> > > agenda and their internal rules;
> > >
> > > brings, in order to support his reasoning inexact or partial
> informations
> > > on the chronological sequence of the convening of the comitia
> centuriata
> > in
> > > June 2763 and on the acts made by augur Moravius;
> > >
> > > forgets that the Collegium augurum, as religious institution, share its
> > > technical powers, as one of the bodies ruling on the Religio Romana, as
> a
> > > State religion, with several other bodies, magistracies, offices or
> > persons,
> > > among which the consuls, as representing daily the Republic, must be
> > > considered that the most legitimate institution, under the moral
> > authority
> > > of the Senate;
> > >
> > > forgets thus that every interpretation of the Collegium, in the frame
> > > reminded here, cannot compete with a different interpretation, which is
> > the
> > > case here, by the consul maior.
> > >
> > >
> > > Considering that both decreta issued by the Collegium, who thus chose,
> on
> > > the proposal of his magister, to ignore the recommendations issued
> since
> > > four months by the consul maior as well as the proposal made by the
> same
> > > consul, to work on directions which would guarantee the best
> involvement
> > of
> > > the augurs in the public action, constitute serious violations of Nova
> > Roma
> > > constitution which may provoke major damages to Nova Roma public order,
> > > social peace and future, as well to weaken and upset the Religio Romana
> > that
> > > the consuls are in charge to uphold;
> > >
> > >
> > > Considering in addition, if it were necessary, the second sentence of
> > > article VI.B.2 of the Constitution that reminds that �the Collegium
> > Augurum
> > > shall consist of nine Augurs, five from the Plebeian order and four
> from
> > the
> > > Patrician order.�;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > for these reasons, I, P. Memmius Albucius, consul maior for year 2763
> > > a.u.c., issue the present responsa:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Article 1:
> > >
> > >
> > > The two above evoked decreta of the Collegium augurum (a.d. IV nonas
> > Quint.
> > > 2763 auc), called 'de auspicatio' and 'de tripudio inrito' are
> considered
> > as
> > > unconstitutional and therefore void.
> > >
> > >
> > > As such, no civil institution of Nova Roma shall be obliged to obey
> these
> > > provisions, and any officer, magistrate or institution which would
> > > nevertheless decide to do it, will commit its own responsibility and,
> for
> > > institutions, the responsibility of its members.
> > >
> > >
> > > Article 2:
> > >
> > >
> > > As a good will gesture that both Roman values of bona fides and
> clementia
> > > support, every measure, that might be taken, in due proportion of their
> > > acts, against M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus, K. Fabius Buteo Modianus
> > and
> > > M. Lucretius Agricola for their violations of the institutions of Nova
> > Roma
> > > are hereby suspended in order to allow them to place themselves in a
> > > situation where they may work normally with all the civil institutions,
> > and
> > > not try to replace them.
> > >
> > >
> > > Article 3:
> > >
> > >
> > > This responsa takes effect immediately. It will be included in the
> > > Tabularium Novae Romae, specially in the page which were to welcome the
> > text
> > > of the referred decreta.
> > >
> > >
> > > Article 4:
> > >
> > > Every Nova Roman public officer shall, as far as their duties require,
> > > enforce the present edict, which will be published in the Tabularium
> > Novae
> > > Romae and in Nova Roma relevant internet 'discussion' lists.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Datum nonas Quintilias 2763 a.u.c. (July 7h, 2010) P. Memmio Albucio K.
> > > Fabio Buteone Quintiliano II coss.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > P. MEMMIUS ALBUCIUS cos.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "Qua(e) patres difficillime
> adepti sunt nolite
> turpiter relinquere" -
> Monumentum Bradfordis, Tamaropoli, in civitate Massaciuseta
> (Bradford Monument, Plymouth, MA)
>
> Check out my books on Goodreads: <a href="
> http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus?utm_source=email_widget">
> http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus</a>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77503 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

It would seem that the impious are now relishing in their impiety and that
it also seems to be infectious.

A sad state indeed!

Valete;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:

> He didn't use the word "veto" - he doesn't have to veto the decreta. He
> said
> they are in violation if the Constitution, and since the Constitution
> trumps
> everything, including decreta, the decreta are automatically void. He
> didn't
> have to do anything to make them invalid - the augurs did that when they
> promulgated unconstitutional decreta.
>
> Cheers!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77504 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
The law shall prevail...and whether you like it or not, the CP and the CA is
a JUNIOR partner to the central government. That's the way it is. That is
why it is listed last in the Constitution and this is why the supremacy
clause is broken down in the Constitution. NR isn't even incorporated as a
religious corp, but as a public benefit corp.

The truth will set you free.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:20 AM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.
>
> It would seem that the impious are now relishing in their impiety and that
> it also seems to be infectious.
>
> A sad state indeed!
>
> Valete;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...<magisterbrodd%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > He didn't use the word "veto" - he doesn't have to veto the decreta. He
> > said
> > they are in violation if the Constitution, and since the Constitution
> > trumps
> > everything, including decreta, the decreta are automatically void. He
> > didn't
> > have to do anything to make them invalid - the augurs did that when they
> > promulgated unconstitutional decreta.
> >
> > Cheers!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77505 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Math Involved - Tax Base
2 of the Assidui (sic) are Machinatrix and I...

I would suspect that my good friend Clovius Ullerius Ursus is likewise...
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77506 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Modiane,

To me and to every other good citizen, the supreme impiety is using the gods
as your shield for criminal behavior, abusing the priesthoods with which you
have been entrusted for personal and political gain. You've already stated
that if tried, you would not defend. Glimmers of a dying conscience? Simple
acknowledgement of obvious guilt? Either way, if you loved the Republic as
you so claim, why not save us the trial and just get out? I'm no Cicero and
you are not up to the level of a Cataline by a long shot, but why not show
even the minimal integrity and get out? It'll be like Cincinnatus Augur,
except you'll deserve it as he did not! You took oaths to uphold the
Constitution that you now undermine. Impiety? Watch your words, sir!

You dare question my *pietas? *Watch out, Modiane. I know the gods are
watching us, and they know the truth of it!

Vale et discede.
~ Valerianus


On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.
>
> It would seem that the impious are now relishing in their impiety and that
> it also seems to be infectious.
>
> A sad state indeed!
>
> Valete;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...<magisterbrodd%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > He didn't use the word "veto" - he doesn't have to veto the decreta. He
> > said
> > they are in violation if the Constitution, and since the Constitution
> > trumps
> > everything, including decreta, the decreta are automatically void. He
> > didn't
> > have to do anything to make them invalid - the augurs did that when they
> > promulgated unconstitutional decreta.
> >
> > Cheers!
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
"Qua(e) patres difficillime
adepti sunt nolite
turpiter relinquere" -
Monumentum Bradfordis, Tamaropoli, in civitate Massaciuseta
(Bradford Monument, Plymouth, MA)

Check out my books on Goodreads: <a href="
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus?utm_source=email_widget">
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus</a>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77507 From: C. Aemilius Crassus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
C. Aemilius Crassus Lentulo omnibusque SPD,



We both agree that NR is a work being done, very far to be perfect, with the final goal to restore the Religio Romana and the ancient society in our days.



I think we both agree that this should be done as a society, i.e. by us all, and due to the fact that is a work being done there is many Laws that are unhistorical, imperfect and even some of them are bad laws (of course not everyone will agree which laws fall in which category but that is why we work as a community).



So rightly or wrongly our laws, starting by the Constitution states that Praetores and Consules are elected by the Comitia Centuriata. Also states that the procedures for the Comitia Centuriata are define only by itself.



The Lex Fabia de Ratione Comitiorum Centuriatorum (with latter amends) defines how the Comitia Centuriata should work.



In none of the above it is stated that the Collegium Augurum has the power to proclaim whatever concerning the results or validity of the work of the Comitia.



And then starts where we strongly disagree. You justify the action of the Collegium Augurum by costumes of our ancestors. Every citizen, magister and institution of NR should try to follow as close as possible those costumes within the frame of our laws, i.e. within the limits, powers and duties our society decided they should work on. It can not happen one magistrate or institution of NR claim the duties and powers of the equivalent magistrate or institution of ancient Roma if that was not approved by us all in several decision ways we have.



If that was the case who should decided what laws, powers and duties were to be taken from the ancient Roma? From which epoch? I thought we all did by approving (or not) the laws and constitutional amends, and not by few just pointing to particular cases. Why bother to vote and pay taxes if we are not real citizens with no voice on who we should walk to a modern Roma?



If that was the case who decided the Collegium Augurum had the power to decided if the election was “vitio Creati” and the Consul has not the power to take the auspices by himself and decide if the Comitia could proceed? Among a lot of other unhistorical rules we have.



The constitution and laws are clear, in no case is the Collegium Augurum is empowered to decided the validity or not of the magistrates elected, this falls only the powers of the Consuls and in the Laws decided by the Comitia itself.



Well I hope the matter is solved soon, probably in the Senate, so we are able to return to the work of building a modern Roma.



Vale optime bene.



From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 13:40
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective





Cn. Lentulus C. Aemilio sal.

>>>> I agree with you that the Collegium Augurum, in light of our laws, has
the full power over auspices. The Collegium can decide what are valid
auspices, who can take them and so on. <<<

I'm glad that you agree with me on these fundamental points.

>>>> So in this particular case the Collegium Augurum can decide that the
auspices were not properly taken. Then they should inform the presiding
magistrate and if convinced that the matter wasn’t corrected than
inform Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and the Tribunes requesting
a veto for the elections, because they are the ones that could have
done that in light of our laws. <<<<

Here I must correct what you write. It was K. Buteo consul, indeed for whom augur Piscinus took the auspices. But the centuriate election was changed in the meanwhile and P. Memmius consul became the presiding magistrate. He was publicly admonished by augur Piscinus that his presidency for these elections can not be accepted by the College, but the elections were started and P. Memmius dis not stop them. This constitutes the basis for the recent decree.

>>>> The Collegium Augurum has not the power to declare as invalid any
elections or Comitia sessions, as much the Diribitores can’t declare
the elections invalid or the Magister Aranearius although they all are
mentioned in the Lex that rules the Comitia Centuriata with specific
rolls. <<<<

You are right that the word "invalid" is probably not the exact expression what the augures can declare. They declared the magistrates-elect "vitio creati", and this is in the Constitution, because the Constitution IV. B. 2. a. 2. says, the CA has the power alone to issue decrees on
matters of the *ars auguria* and which may not be overruled by other laws. What does ars auguria include? It includes declaring magistrates-elect '"vitio creati", and inculdes many, many other things as well.

>>>> If the Collegium Augurum think this particular case has threaten the
relationship between the Immortal Gods and the Res Publica then it
should inform the Collegium Pontificum, who should determine if in fact
that is the case and, being so, what public sacrifices should be
performed to amend the situation. <<<<

For this situation we have no written guidelines in our legal documents, so it is imperative that as much as it's possible, we follow the Roman way. In the situation, the Roman religious and legal tradition dictates that magsitrates-elect in vitio creati must not accept their office, or if they have already accepted, they must resign. If they don't decline the magistracy, they will be prosecuted as nefarious, impious sacrilegae.

>>>> Those are the sphere of duties of the Collegium Augurum in light of our
laws and not behave as the Council of Purity overtaking the duties and
powers of the Magistrates and Senate and declaring the elections as
invalid. <<<

The execution of the augural decree depends as a moral and religious duty on the magistrates, and on the magistrates-elect, in my view. As I have written, what they declaraed is not "invalid elections", but the praetores vitio creati, which is similar, but not the same. The elctions are valid, but a sacrilege. It is more serious than if they just were invalid, which is a legal term only.

Vale optime!

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

From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus

Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 10:40

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective

Cn. Lentulus C. Equitio sal.

Although I am not Livia Plauta, please allow me to answer this question, because that's a good question concerning our most important mission, reconstructionism, and concerning the reality of rules and customs, that Nova Roma has, and has to face.

>>> How

can you possibly accept the idea - directly contrary to everything we

actually know about ancient augury - that the augurs should be taking

them? <<<<

I don't accept the idea, but as soon as our rules dictate that the augurs can take and "govern" the auspices, it has to be obeyed. I hope we have legislation that will change that, but that's the future and we live in the now. Now the augures has all power over auspices. It was created for a reason. The reason was the we are in a journey towards reconstructing the Roman culture, the cultus, and we currently can not be sure that an non-practitioner magistrate would be attentive enough and respectful for the auspices. This was why in NR we have the collegium fixed over the head of magistrates in question of auspices, because they are required to be practitioners and experienced in augury, so that's built in the system as a guarantee factor for respecting the cultural religious correctness.

Is it good that way? Would not there be another solution?

Good questions by me, I don't have the answer now, but I feel that we have to make our system as Roman as it is possible, so some changes in the current practice are needed, but that is a future question for a legislative comitia.

>>>> In ancient Rome the augurs were *not* allowed to take them, only

magistrates did, and the augurs' advice sought when necessary. The

magistrate would take them, and declare the result, and the augur would

agree or not. So Albucius - and all other magistrates - *should* be

taking the auspices themselves. <<<<

I agree with you about the theory, but it is currently impossible. We have legal documents, we have law in force: the decrees of the augures that regulates matters of ars auguria. As the Constitution IV. B. 2. a. 2. says, the CA has the power alone to issue decrees on matters of the ars auguria and which may not be overruled by other laws.

As a cultor, I wish we had other rules, but if I am adherent to the law, I have to obey the law. The law now empowers the augures to take auspices and to decide who and how one can take auspices. This is what happened now. There is only one thing a cultor who disagrees with the current decree can do: to obey it now, and to try to propose different legislation tomorrow.

Vale!

---

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77508 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Salvete Omnes et Ave Nero...

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Cato wrote:
>
> Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
>
> Your desire to become patrician is a valid one but you must become one by adoption, as has been clearly - and repeatedly - stated. This would, again, require a change of your name to that of your adoptive (patrician) family's name.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>

...or, have your family elevated to Patrician status for services
rendered to Nova Roma, as was mine.

Valete et Vale - Venator
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77509 From: Maxima Valeria Messallina Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Cornu Effervos and an Iguana for Rota
<<--- On Sat, 7/3/10, M Arminius Maior <marminius@...> wrote:
 
Salve

>>> [..] what do we call this game in Latin? There must be a Latin word for > this. Hmm... pedis ?<<<
 

"Pediludium"
http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pediludium

Vale
M. Arminius>>
 
 
Thank you so much, Arminius! Had no idea. Pediludium. Now, we all know! :)
 
Vale bene,
Maxima Valeria Messallina




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77510 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

It looks like someone here has "drank the cool-aid!"

Nice attempt at spin Valerianus!

Valete;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:

> Modiane,
>
> To me and to every other good citizen, the supreme impiety is using the
> gods
> as your shield for criminal behavior, abusing the priesthoods with which
> you
> have been entrusted for personal and political gain. You've already stated
> that if tried, you would not defend. Glimmers of a dying conscience? Simple
> acknowledgement of obvious guilt? Either way, if you loved the Republic as
> you so claim, why not save us the trial and just get out? I'm no Cicero and
> you are not up to the level of a Cataline by a long shot, but why not show
> even the minimal integrity and get out? It'll be like Cincinnatus Augur,
> except you'll deserve it as he did not! You took oaths to uphold the
> Constitution that you now undermine. Impiety? Watch your words, sir!
>
> You dare question my *pietas? *Watch out, Modiane. I know the gods are
> watching us, and they know the truth of it!
>
> Vale et discede.
> ~ Valerianus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77511 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Salve,
I never said no to adoption but who will adopt is the question now, it's a lot
to consider though. NR is as real to me as America is, and whether or not I
chose a patrician name I like mine very much. Adoption is a big decision and not
something one just waltzes into.
DVIC
Nero



________________________________
From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 3:54:56 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis


Cn. Lentulus C. Iunio sal.

I sympathize with your desires, and with your enthusiasms. I wish I could help
you, but I wish even more you could try to face the facts your fate led you
into.

>>>> Why is it so easy to deny a simple request for a simple change from plebian to
>>>>patrician but everything else seems to be beyond our grasp? <<<

The Romans had rules, customs, traditions about patrician status. We, Nova Roma,
equally have rules about patrician status, and these rules are created to
reflect the ancient sacred traditions. Do you want that the Romans and now we,
the New Romans, change our entire system so that you can be patrician? And for
what reason? Patrician status is name.

Patrician status is about name.

You don't have a Roman patrician name. You can not be therefore a Roman
patrician.

You don't have a Nova Roman patrician name, either, so you can not be a Nova
Roman patrician.

We proposed you a solution: adoption. All the other things depend on you? Did
you find a patrician adoptive father (or mother) who is willing to consider and
respect you almost as their real son?


If you have found that person, your problem is solved.

Finally, let me praise your dedication and willingness to Concordance and unity!
These are the greatest virtues in Nova Roma, and these are the virtues that we
miss from our politicians the most.

Vale!

Cn. Lentulus







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77512 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Well said, Crasse!


> The constitution and laws are clear, in no case is the Collegium Augurum is
> empowered to decided the validity or not of the magistrates elected, this
> falls only the powers of the Consuls and in the Laws decided by the Comitia
> itself.
>
>
And, I would add, we are free citizens in a free Republic, we are not
subjects or slaves of some *king. *No citizen, regardless of how many
religious titles they hold, can make us slaves or subjects. We are citizens!
Our assemblies decide the magistrates, we are not ruled by the *fiat *of
unelected individuals. Anyone trying to deny the rights of the citizens of
Nova Roma to decide their own destinies is worse than a tyrant, they are
trying to be a *king! * We are the Republic Reborn, and the Republic will
not be allowed to die a second time, even if those at its heart, who have
sworn to uphold the Republic, are now forsworn and attempt to kill it!

~ Valerianus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77513 From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Cn. Lentulus C. Aemilio omnibusque s. p. d.





>>>> So
rightly or wrongly our laws, starting by the Constitution states that
Praetores and Consules are elected by the Comitia Centuriata. Also
states that the procedures for the Comitia Centuriata are define only
by itself. <<<





However, the Constitution gives power to augures to decide matters of
ars auguria. The ars auguria, as regulated by decrees of the collegium
augurum, includes deciding the validity of the auspices and the
procedures of taking them, which are necessary for holding an election,
so the augures *are* part of each election process in the comitia, and
the augures are an unavoidable authority in deciding what is a valid
auspicium for an election.



As I have clarified in my previous message, what the augures precisely
do is NOT declaring the elections invalid: it's incorrect word usage.
The augures can only declare the magistrates-elect "vitio creati", but,
in fact, it is even more serious than if the elections would have just
been simply invalid. After that it is their religious and moral duty
not to commit the sacrilege by accepting the office, and they have to
decline it, and run for the next elections. If they do not act that
way, they as nefarious persons, will be sued for committing nefas.



So, summarizing it: the procedures for the comitia centuriata are
regulated by the lex Fabia, but the validity of the auspices' depends
on the judgement of the collegium augurum. The augural decree does
*not* delete or modify the results of the elections, but it declares
the praetores designati (praetors-elect) as vitio creati. What the
praetores designati react on this, it depends on how Roman they are,
how seriously they take the augural law, how much they respect the
Roman religion. They can enter into office, but they will so commit
nefas, and will be prosecuted after their term. It's not a modern way
of thinking, it's not European, American, French or Brasilian. It's
Roman culture, tradition and way of thinking.





>>> In
none of the above it is stated that the Collegium Augurum has the power
to proclaim whatever concerning the results or validity of the work of
the Comitia. <<<





Let me repeat here, that the augures could not, therefore do NOT declare the elections invalid: the augures declared the
magistrates-elect "vitio creati", which is equally serious, but it is not the same thing.



We have to clear something here and now. The decretum indeed used the
expression "invalid" in connection with the results of the election.
This phrase of the decretum is null and void, since the election can
not be declared invalid by the collegium augurum. They can, however,
declare invalid the auspices, and that part of the decree is 100%
constitutional, lawful and legal. So this incorrect usage of the word
"invalid", that I mentioned in my previous posts, does *not* nullify
the full decretum, just that one sentence in question. And one can
argue that "invalid" here was not used as a terminus technicus just as
colloquial form for describing the situation of an election with
vitium. The election with auspicial vitium is very close to be invalid,
though not in civil legal terms but religious law terms.





>>>>> You justify the action of the Collegium Augurum by costumes
of our ancestors. Every citizen, magister and institution of NR should
try to follow as close as possible those costumes within the frame of
our laws, i.e. within the limits, powers and duties our society decided
they should work on. <<<<





I agree with you in this.





>>> It can not happen one magistrate or institution of
NR claim the duties and powers of the equivalent magistrate or
institution of ancient Roma if that was not approved by us all in
several decision ways we have. <<<<





The mechanism we have is established as the practice in NR since 2003,
if not even from earlier. And it was always a practice in NR that when
our laws are ambiguous or silent, ancient Roman law and tradition
applies. Our institutions should work in the same form as their name
suggests, with the limitations that are necessary. This means the
consuls can not use their lictors to physically punish our citizens, of
course, that is nonsense, but they can have similar rights in many
other things - unless our written law explicitly states otherwise. But
in the case of the augures, our Constitution IV. B. 2. a. 2. clearly
orders that the Collegium Augurum must have the power alone to issue
decrees on
matters of the ars auguria and these decrees may not be overruled by
other laws or legal documents. From ars auguria it consequently follows that the augures are empowered to do all what the ancient augures did,
and it goes ever *further*, because our Constitution empowers the
augures to create, set up and establish the whole system of augury for
Nova Roma - which means that it allows progressive creativity,
altogether in its own internal procedures of the auspication. I should
note, however, that I vituperate that much liberty was given to the
college of augures, but that is given, and even written in legal
documents, too, in form of various augural decrees since the early
2000s.






>>>> If that was the case who
should decided what laws, powers and duties were to be taken from the
ancient Roma? From which epoch? I thought we all did by approving (or
not) the laws and constitutional amends, and not by few just pointing
to particular cases. Why bother to vote and pay taxes if we are not
real citizens with no voice on who we should walk to a modern Roma? <<<<





We have our rules, and everyone must obey them. Ancient practices are
followed only when they are not forbidden by our laws. We are not grown
out from nowhere. We have a heritage, a culture a tradition, an
ancestry that we imitate and revive, the Romans, especially in the
republican period. We don't have to have laws to say it flat out that
the consuls are the presidents of the republic. Nowhere is this stated
in Nova Roman law, but everyone knows that this is a legal fact.
Because we are grown from a tradition, with us, more and more living
tradition, and the more we rely on the Roman tradition, the more real
Nova Roma becomes. I repeat I don't argue for neglecting any of the NR
laws. But they always must be interpreted and seen in the light of the
Roman tradition, and in the case of controversy, we always have to ask
what the Romans whould do.



In this particular case: what the Romans would do if the college of
augurs would have declared the magistrates-elect as vitio creati? Pious
Romans would have resigned or would have declined accepting the office,
and such elections would have been repeated. For the Romans a religious
mistake in the elections, like disregarding the auspices, was a
vitium, which tainted the outcome. The augurs
issued a decree on a given vitium, but these were not necessarily
binding: the magistrate who did not obey, became nefas, and could
be prosecuted after his term. In 215 BC the newly elected plebeian
consul M. Claudius Marcellus resigned when the augurs and the senate
decided that a thunderclap expressed divine disapproval of his
election. In 444 BC, the augures reported some irregularity in the
asupices for the election of A. Sempronius Atratinus, L. Atilius and T.
Caecilius, and in consequence of the
decision of the augurs they resigned after three months, owing to this
irregularity in their election. As Livy writes: "C. Curtius, who had
presided over their election, had not rightly selected his position for
taking the auspices". (Liv. 4. 7.)



This is what a Roman would do in our position. We likewise shall do the same.





>>>> Well I hope the
matter is solved soon, probably in the Senate, so we are able to return
to the work of building a modern Roma. <<<<





I share your hopes, and I join with my words to yours: let the augures
do what their job with the auspices is, and let's return to the work of
building the New Rome, the Nova Roma.







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




From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus

Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 13:40

To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective



Cn. Lentulus C. Aemilio sal.



>>>> I agree with you that the Collegium Augurum, in light of our laws, has

the full power over auspices. The Collegium can decide what are valid

auspices, who can take them and so on. <<<



I'm glad that you agree with me on these fundamental points.



>>>> So in this particular case the Collegium Augurum can decide that the

auspices were not properly taken. Then they should inform the presiding

magistrate and if convinced that the matter wasn’t corrected than

inform Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and the Tribunes requesting

a veto for the elections, because they are the ones that could have

done that in light of our laws. <<<<



Here I must correct what you write. It was K. Buteo consul, indeed for whom augur Piscinus took the auspices. But the centuriate election was changed in the meanwhile and P. Memmius consul became the presiding magistrate. He was publicly admonished by augur Piscinus that his presidency for these elections can not be accepted by the College, but the elections were started and P. Memmius dis not stop them. This constitutes the basis for the recent decree.



>>>> The Collegium Augurum has not the power to declare as invalid any

elections or Comitia sessions, as much the Diribitores can’t declare

the elections invalid or the Magister Aranearius although they all are

mentioned in the Lex that rules the Comitia Centuriata with specific

rolls. <<<<



You are right that the word "invalid" is probably not the exact expression what the augures can declare. They declared the magistrates-elect "vitio creati", and this is in the Constitution, because the Constitution IV. B. 2. a. 2. says, the CA has the power alone to issue decrees on

matters of the *ars auguria* and which may not be overruled by other laws. What does ars auguria include? It includes declaring magistrates-elect '"vitio creati", and inculdes many, many other things as well.



>>>> If the Collegium Augurum think this particular case has threaten the

relationship between the Immortal Gods and the Res Publica then it

should inform the Collegium Pontificum, who should determine if in fact

that is the case and, being so, what public sacrifices should be

performed to amend the situation. <<<<



For this situation we have no written guidelines in our legal documents, so it is imperative that as much as it's possible, we follow the Roman way. In the situation, the Roman religious and legal tradition dictates that magsitrates-elect in vitio creati must not accept their office, or if they have already accepted, they must resign. If they don't decline the magistracy, they will be prosecuted as nefarious, impious sacrilegae.



>>>> Those are the sphere of duties of the Collegium Augurum in light of our

laws and not behave as the Council of Purity overtaking the duties and

powers of the Magistrates and Senate and declaring the elections as

invalid. <<<



The execution of the augural decree depends as a moral and religious duty on the magistrates, and on the magistrates-elect, in my view. As I have written, what they declaraed is not "invalid elections", but the praetores vitio creati, which is similar, but not the same. The elctions are valid, but a sacrilege. It is more serious than if they just were invalid, which is a legal term only.



Vale optime!



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



From: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus



Sent: quarta-feira, 7 de Julho de 2010 10:40



To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>



Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective



Cn. Lentulus C. Equitio sal.



Although I am not Livia Plauta, please allow me to answer this question, because that's a good question concerning our most important mission, reconstructionism, and concerning the reality of rules and customs, that Nova Roma has, and has to face.



>>> How

can you possibly accept the idea - directly contrary to everything we

actually know about ancient augury - that the augurs should be taking

them? <<<<



I don't accept the idea, but as soon as our rules dictate that the augurs can take and "govern" the auspices, it has to be obeyed. I hope we have legislation that will change that, but that's the future and we live in the now. Now the augures has all power over auspices. It was created for a reason. The reason was the we are in a journey towards reconstructing the Roman culture, the cultus, and we currently can not be sure that an non-practitioner magistrate would be attentive enough and respectful for the auspices. This was why in NR we have the collegium fixed over the head of magistrates in question of auspices, because they are required to be practitioners and experienced in augury, so that's built in the system as a guarantee factor for respecting the cultural religious correctness.



Is it good that way? Would not there be another solution?



Good questions by me, I don't have the answer now, but I feel that we have to make our system as Roman as it is possible, so some changes in the current practice are needed, but that is a future question for a legislative comitia.



>>>> In ancient Rome the augurs were *not* allowed to take them, only

magistrates did, and the augurs' advice sought when necessary. The

magistrate would take them, and declare the result, and the augur would

agree or not. So Albucius - and all other magistrates - *should* be

taking the auspices themselves. <<<<



I agree with you about the theory, but it is currently impossible. We have legal documents, we have law in force: the decrees of the augures that regulates matters of ars auguria. As the Constitution IV. B. 2. a. 2. says, the CA has the power alone to issue decrees on matters of the ars auguria and which may not be overruled by other laws.



As a cultor, I wish we had other rules, but if I am adherent to the law, I have to obey the law. The law now empowers the augures to take auspices and to decide who and how one can take auspices. This is what happened now. There is only one thing a cultor who disagrees with the current decree can do: to obey it now, and to try to propose different legislation tomorrow.



Vale!



---



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77514 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Salve,
And as I have stated I don't entirely have a problem with that the question is
who?
DVIC
Nero



________________________________
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 4:15:40 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis


Cato Iunio Neroni sal.

Your desire to become patrician is a valid one but you must become one by
adoption, as has been clearly - and repeatedly - stated. This would, again,
require a change of your name to that of your adoptive (patrician) family's
name.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cn. Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...>
wrote:
>
> Cn. Lentulus C. Iunio sal.
>
>
> I sympathize with your desires, and with your enthusiasms. I wish I could help
>you, but I wish even more you could try to face the facts your fate led you
>into.
>
>
> >>>> Why is it so easy to deny a simple request for a simple change from
>plebian to patrician but everything else seems to be beyond our grasp? <<<
>
>
> The Romans had rules, customs, traditions about patrician status. We, Nova
>Roma, equally have rules about patrician status, and these rules are created to
>reflect the ancient sacred traditions. Do you want that the Romans and now we,
>the New Romans, change our entire system so that you can be patrician? And for
>what reason? Patrician status is name.
>
> Patrician status is about name.
>
> You don't have a Roman patrician name. You can not be therefore a Roman
>patrician.
>
> You don't have a Nova Roman patrician name, either, so you can not be a Nova
>Roman patrician.
>
> We proposed you a solution: adoption. All the other things depend on you? Did
>you find a patrician adoptive father (or mother) who is willing to consider and
>respect you almost as their real son?
>
>
> If you have found that person, your problem is solved.
>
> Finally, let me praise your dedication and willingness to Concordance and
>unity! These are the greatest virtues in Nova Roma, and these are the virtues
>that we miss from our politicians the most.
>
>
> Vale!
>
> Cn. Lentulus
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77515 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Salve,
If I may ask how did you elevate your name? What services does the republic
require?
DVIC
Nero



________________________________
From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 12:00:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis


Salvete Omnes et Ave Nero...

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Cato wrote:
>
> Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
>
> Your desire to become patrician is a valid one but you must become one by
>adoption, as has been clearly - and repeatedly - stated. This would, again,
>require a change of your name to that of your adoptive (patrician) family's
>name.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>

...or, have your family elevated to Patrician status for services
rendered to Nova Roma, as was mine.

Valete et Vale - Venator






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77516 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Salvete quirites;

Rome was founded upon auspices; signs from the gods. State auspices come from Iuppiter Optimus Maximus himself.

The college of augurs interprets these signs and when they speak as a college all Romans voluntarily obeyed; such was the piety of our ancestors.


Those that refuse to listen to the college of augurs; refuse to listen to the signs from Iuppiter Optimus Maximus himself!

These people don't respect or believe in Iuppiter O.M., our gods, and their signs. It is an attempt to secularize Nova Roma and replace the gods and their signs with atheism!

Sulla, Cato, Albucius and their friends won't stop until the gods are mocked and their temples empty. Already they are trying to throw out our beloved Pontifex Maximus!

Cultores it is US. vs them
Nova Roma for the gods and Rome!
Atheists OUT!!!!!

M. Hortensia Maior
Flaminica Carmentalis
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77517 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The Augurs and the Constitution - a citizen's perspective
Salvete...

Ars = Art

Art is by its very nature is personal, interpretive and imprecise;
something that one person sees as art, another will see as
meaningless. I speak to this as both a poet and abstract artist.

Art is an important part of any culture.

However, Art does not make for good, logical or practical policy or
polity, nor is Art necessary for survival.

Our Nova Roma Constitution is our basis, and any level below, IS
subservient to it. Like it or not, Art is levels below.

mea sententia - Venator
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77518 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Ignore the "spin" then, and answer the question. Shall we take your
admission that you will not defend as an admission of guilt? Shall we assume
that this constitutes your notice to the consuls and censors that you resign
your citizenship?

Qui tacet consentire videtur . . .

~ Valerianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:15 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.
>
> It looks like someone here has "drank the cool-aid!"
>
> Nice attempt at spin Valerianus!
>
> Valete;
>
> Modianus
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...<magisterbrodd%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Modiane,
> >
> > To me and to every other good citizen, the supreme impiety is using the
> > gods
> > as your shield for criminal behavior, abusing the priesthoods with which
> > you
> > have been entrusted for personal and political gain. You've already
> stated
> > that if tried, you would not defend. Glimmers of a dying conscience?
> Simple
> > acknowledgement of obvious guilt? Either way, if you loved the Republic
> as
> > you so claim, why not save us the trial and just get out? I'm no Cicero
> and
> > you are not up to the level of a Cataline by a long shot, but why not
> show
> > even the minimal integrity and get out? It'll be like Cincinnatus Augur,
> > except you'll deserve it as he did not! You took oaths to uphold the
> > Constitution that you now undermine. Impiety? Watch your words, sir!
> >
> > You dare question my *pietas? *Watch out, Modiane. I know the gods are
> > watching us, and they know the truth of it!
> >
> > Vale et discede.
> > ~ Valerianus
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
"Qua(e) patres difficillime
adepti sunt nolite
turpiter relinquere" -
Monumentum Bradfordis, Tamaropoli, in civitate Massaciuseta
(Bradford Monument, Plymouth, MA)

Check out my books on Goodreads: <a href="
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus?utm_source=email_widget">
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus</a>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77519 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Aeternia Neroni sal,

Ahem.. Its understandable to feel wary about such a decision.. But it seems
before that you were invited to join the family of the Fabii and even
possibly the Equitii if I read the posts correctly. You'd be well mentored
by either Gens IMO, thats something for the Patricians are very few here in
NR...


Vale,
Aeternia
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve,
> And as I have stated I don't entirely have a problem with that the question
> is
> who?
> DVIC
> Nero
>
> ________________________________
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@... <catoinnyc%40gmail.com>>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 4:15:40 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
>
>
> Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
>
> Your desire to become patrician is a valid one but you must become one by
> adoption, as has been clearly - and repeatedly - stated. This would, again,
>
> require a change of your name to that of your adoptive (patrician) family's
>
> name.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Cn.
> Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus C. Iunio sal.
> >
> >
> > I sympathize with your desires, and with your enthusiasms. I wish I could
> help
> >you, but I wish even more you could try to face the facts your fate led
> you
> >into.
> >
> >
> > >>>> Why is it so easy to deny a simple request for a simple change from
> >plebian to patrician but everything else seems to be beyond our grasp? <<<
> >
> >
> > The Romans had rules, customs, traditions about patrician status. We,
> Nova
> >Roma, equally have rules about patrician status, and these rules are
> created to
> >reflect the ancient sacred traditions. Do you want that the Romans and now
> we,
> >the New Romans, change our entire system so that you can be patrician? And
> for
> >what reason? Patrician status is name.
> >
> > Patrician status is about name.
> >
> > You don't have a Roman patrician name. You can not be therefore a Roman
> >patrician.
> >
> > You don't have a Nova Roman patrician name, either, so you can not be a
> Nova
> >Roman patrician.
> >
> > We proposed you a solution: adoption. All the other things depend on you?
> Did
> >you find a patrician adoptive father (or mother) who is willing to
> consider and
> >respect you almost as their real son?
> >
> >
> > If you have found that person, your problem is solved.
> >
> > Finally, let me praise your dedication and willingness to Concordance and
>
> >unity! These are the greatest virtues in Nova Roma, and these are the
> virtues
> >that we miss from our politicians the most.
> >
> >
> > Vale!
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77520 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
>
>
> Sulla, Cato, Albucius and their friends won't stop until the gods are
> mocked and their temples empty. Already they are trying to throw out our
> beloved Pontifex Maximus!
>
> You mean Cassius Pater Patriae Pontifex Maximus? Already done, my dear
Maior, already done . . .

~ Valerianus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77521 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
And more to the point, according to your argument are all who participated
in the removal of Cassius enemies of the state? Atheists?

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:

>
>> Sulla, Cato, Albucius and their friends won't stop until the gods are
>> mocked and their temples empty. Already they are trying to throw out our
>> beloved Pontifex Maximus!
>>
>> You mean Cassius Pater Patriae Pontifex Maximus? Already done, my dear
> Maior, already done . . .
>
> ~ Valerianus
>



--
"Qua(e) patres difficillime
adepti sunt nolite
turpiter relinquere" -
Monumentum Bradfordis, Tamaropoli, in civitate Massaciuseta
(Bradford Monument, Plymouth, MA)

Check out my books on Goodreads: <a href="
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus?utm_source=email_widget">
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus</a>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77522 From: marcushoratius Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
M. Moravius P Memmio s. p. d.

Considering the fact that as consul you have no constitutional authority over the ars auguria, you have no constitutional authority to overrule decreta of the Quattor Summa Collegia, and you have no constitutional authority over the religious institution of the Comitia Curiata, which is solely under the authority of the Collegium Pontificum, your edict is unconstitutional and therefore disregarded as null and void.


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
>
> Consul maior responsa on the two decrees issued by the Collegium augurum on July 4th, 2010
>
>
> (Responsa consularis de duobus decretis collegii augurum a.d. IV nonas Quint. 2763 auc)
>
> In view of the:
>
>
> Constitution of Nova Roma (http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Current_constitution_%28Nova_Roma%29), and specially in its article VI.B.2a2
>
> decreta of the Collegium augurum, called 'de auspicatio' and 'de tripudio inrito', published a.d. IV nonas Quint. 2763 auc in Nova Roma Announce list
>
> my five acts relative to the praetura and to the call for a subsequent meeting of the Comitia centuriata :
>
>
> my edicta calling for candidates for the praetura issued first a.d. VII Idus 2763 auc (June 7) for the praetura minor (de petitione praeturae minoris) and second a.d. IV Idus 2763 auc (June 10) for the two seats of praetors (de petitione praeturae),
>
> my statement of the candidacies of a.d. XV Kal.Quint. 2763 auc (June 17) laid by the five following candidates: P. Ullerius Stephanus Venator, Q. Fabius Maximus, Ti. Galerius Paulinus, A. Tullia Scholastica, M. Hortensia Maior,
>
> my call for the comitia centuriata issued on a.d. XIV Kal.Quint. 2763 auc (June 18);
>
> lex Salicia poenalis, specially article 21,
>
>
> Considering that:
>
>
>
>
> the Collegium augurum is allowed by the Constitution of Nova Roma, to "issue decreta (decrees) on matters of the ars auguria and its own internal procedures (such decreta may not be overruled by laws passed in the comitia or Senatus consultum)." (Constitution VI.B.2a2) ;
>
>
>
>
> the decree 'de auspicatio', the Collegium cannot constitutionally ''instruct'' (see 'pars II') a constitutional assembly, here the comitia curiatia, nor submit the legal force of our curiate laws to a previous intervention of an augur;
>
>
>
>
> The decree 'de tripudio inrito' pretends:
>
>
> declaring invalid the auspices taken by the consul maior, and thus invalid "the Senate session held in January 2763 AUC and the Comitia Centuriata held in April 2763 AUC", as well as "the elections for praetores suffecti held this month of June 2763 AUC in the Comitia Centuriata";
>
> ignoring the call for candidacies and for the meeting of the comitia duly issued by the consul maior, and ignoring the fact that a presiding magistrate is the one who issues such acts, and not the one that is chosen as such by the Magister augurum or the Collegium;
>
> charging for this the consul maior of an offence of 'impietas prudens dolo malo';
>
> disallowing him ''from taking any further auspicia on public matters until the Collegium Augurum determines that his procedures conform to the requirements set by that body'';
>
> instructing the Comitia curiata "not to pass a lex curiata de imperio for any magistrates who are not elected under proper and valid auspices.";
>
>
>
>
> This decretum 'de tripudio inrito':
>
>
> makes an extensive interpretation of the article VI.B.2a2 of the Constitution of Nova Roma considering that the Collegium augurum may rule on every field concerned, even indirectly, by the practice of auspices ;
>
> prefers ignoring, and after several recommendations addressed since four months by the consul maior to the magister augurum, the interpretation officially expressed by the consul of this article VI.B.2a2 which gives this provision its full meaning, and in the due respect of the powers and rights of the comitia and curule magistrates, i.e. the one which defines the "matters of the ars auguria" as the field concerning the technical aspects ("ars") of the augural activity;
>
> chooses to make prevail, this way, a reading of the Constitution which deprives the curule magistrates, and in the current case, the consuls, of their constitutional and traditional right and power to take their auspices as they see fit, and to confer to them their validity ;
>
> pretends interfering in the work of the consuls and how they organize it and their presiding of the meetings they call for order;
>
> pretends also giving 'instructions' to assemblies, ignoring that such assemblies are constitutionally free to define, as they see fit, their agenda and their internal rules;
>
> brings, in order to support his reasoning inexact or partial informations on the chronological sequence of the convening of the comitia centuriata in June 2763 and on the acts made by augur Moravius;
>
> forgets that the Collegium augurum, as religious institution, share its technical powers, as one of the bodies ruling on the Religio Romana, as a State religion, with several other bodies, magistracies, offices or persons, among which the consuls, as representing daily the Republic, must be considered that the most legitimate institution, under the moral authority of the Senate;
>
> forgets thus that every interpretation of the Collegium, in the frame reminded here, cannot compete with a different interpretation, which is the case here, by the consul maior.
>
>
> Considering that both decreta issued by the Collegium, who thus chose, on the proposal of his magister, to ignore the recommendations issued since four months by the consul maior as well as the proposal made by the same consul, to work on directions which would guarantee the best involvement of the augurs in the public action, constitute serious violations of Nova Roma constitution which may provoke major damages to Nova Roma public order, social peace and future, as well to weaken and upset the Religio Romana that the consuls are in charge to uphold;
>
>
> Considering in addition, if it were necessary, the second sentence of article VI.B.2 of the Constitution that reminds that "the Collegium Augurum shall consist of nine Augurs, five from the Plebeian order and four from the Patrician order.";
>
>
>
>
> for these reasons, I, P. Memmius Albucius, consul maior for year 2763 a.u.c., issue the present responsa:
>
>
>
>
> Article 1:
>
>
> The two above evoked decreta of the Collegium augurum (a.d. IV nonas Quint. 2763 auc), called 'de auspicatio' and 'de tripudio inrito' are considered as unconstitutional and therefore void.
>
>
> As such, no civil institution of Nova Roma shall be obliged to obey these provisions, and any officer, magistrate or institution which would nevertheless decide to do it, will commit its own responsibility and, for institutions, the responsibility of its members.
>
>
> Article 2:
>
>
> As a good will gesture that both Roman values of bona fides and clementia support, every measure, that might be taken, in due proportion of their acts, against M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus, K. Fabius Buteo Modianus and M. Lucretius Agricola for their violations of the institutions of Nova Roma are hereby suspended in order to allow them to place themselves in a situation where they may work normally with all the civil institutions, and not try to replace them.
>
>
> Article 3:
>
>
> This responsa takes effect immediately. It will be included in the Tabularium Novae Romae, specially in the page which were to welcome the text of the referred decreta.
>
>
> Article 4:
>
> Every Nova Roman public officer shall, as far as their duties require, enforce the present edict, which will be published in the Tabularium Novae Romae and in Nova Roma relevant internet 'discussion' lists.
>
>
>
>
> Datum nonas Quintilias 2763 a.u.c. (July 7h, 2010) P. Memmio Albucio K. Fabio Buteone Quintiliano II coss.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> P. MEMMIUS ALBUCIUS cos.
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------end of the responsa-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Allumez et éteignez votre PC en un instant avec Windows 7 !
> http://clk.atdmt.com/FRM/go/238030931/direct/01/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77523 From: Gnaea Livia Ocella Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Ocella Neroni sal,

Forgive my interruption of this discussion, but I'm hard-put to understand what exactly it is you are requesting in regards to becoming patrician. I see that you want to become patrician, and I also see that a solution was offered - via adoption into a patrician family - but you have put this on hold as it is a big decision (and you are quite right)... yet you also state that your request has been denied. It seems that this is not the case, but rather the proper avenues were suggested to you by more than one person, most recently Lentulus and Cato (I hope I am not referring to you two improperly in this context).

Is there a part of this discussion I missed? I am very much interested in it as I myself am a young citizen and this may be relevant to me in future; however I cannot seem to find an instance in which anyone has told you flat-out that you cannot be a patrician at all. It does not seem impossible! I hope you soon find a way to achieve the status you want :) Good luck to you!


Optime vale,
Ocella

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
> I never said no to adoption but who will adopt is the question now, it's a lot
> to consider though. NR is as real to me as America is, and whether or not I
> chose a patrician name I like mine very much. Adoption is a big decision and not
> something one just waltzes into.
> DVIC
> Nero
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 3:54:56 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
>
>
> Cn. Lentulus C. Iunio sal.
>
> I sympathize with your desires, and with your enthusiasms. I wish I could help
> you, but I wish even more you could try to face the facts your fate led you
> into.
>
> >>>> Why is it so easy to deny a simple request for a simple change from plebian to
> >>>>patrician but everything else seems to be beyond our grasp? <<<
>
> The Romans had rules, customs, traditions about patrician status. We, Nova Roma,
> equally have rules about patrician status, and these rules are created to
> reflect the ancient sacred traditions. Do you want that the Romans and now we,
> the New Romans, change our entire system so that you can be patrician? And for
> what reason? Patrician status is name.
>
> Patrician status is about name.
>
> You don't have a Roman patrician name. You can not be therefore a Roman
> patrician.
>
> You don't have a Nova Roman patrician name, either, so you can not be a Nova
> Roman patrician.
>
> We proposed you a solution: adoption. All the other things depend on you? Did
> you find a patrician adoptive father (or mother) who is willing to consider and
> respect you almost as their real son?
>
>
> If you have found that person, your problem is solved.
>
> Finally, let me praise your dedication and willingness to Concordance and unity!
> These are the greatest virtues in Nova Roma, and these are the virtues that we
> miss from our politicians the most.
>
> Vale!
>
> Cn. Lentulus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77524 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Aeternia Neroni s.p.d.

Yes it's me again. Although I know the always wise Venator will give you a
better answer(he's awesome at that). I must share so its storytime. I have
not seen a Gens elevated to "Patrician" status for quite a long time, I
remember my former Gens Iulia Caesaria which started out as a plebian gens
but was elevated to "Patrician" status after I had left and joined Gens
Cornelia (I know that speaks volumes lol) based upon the factors of : gens
longevity, and having various members being very active..

Being active meaning doing more than just posting on the ML, doing
Scribework, things of that nature. as I said haven't seen a plebian gens
elevated for quite a while, I'm not even sure if that's still being done in
NR at this current time..

So with that being said, the statements of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus and Cato,
are correct... Adoption may be the only way to go on this..

I could be wrong though, so a Magsitrate may correct me at any time or
Venii...

Vale Bene,
Aeternia





On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve,
> If I may ask how did you elevate your name? What services does the republic
>
> require?
> DVIC
> Nero
>
> ________________________________
> From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...<famila.ulleria.venii%40gmail.com>>
>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 12:00:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
>
>
> Salvete Omnes et Ave Nero...
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Cato wrote:
> >
> > Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
> >
> > Your desire to become patrician is a valid one but you must become one by
>
> >adoption, as has been clearly - and repeatedly - stated. This would,
> again,
> >require a change of your name to that of your adoptive (patrician)
> family's
> >name.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
> ...or, have your family elevated to Patrician status for services
> rendered to Nova Roma, as was mine.
>
> Valete et Vale - Venator
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77525 From: Robert Woolwine Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Yes Cassius is the true and rightful Pontifex Maximus. The position is for
life and he was appointed. Piscnus is a interloper not any different than
the numerous antipopes of the Catholic Religion.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...>wrote:

>
>
> >
> >
> > Sulla, Cato, Albucius and their friends won't stop until the gods are
> > mocked and their temples empty. Already they are trying to throw out our
> > beloved Pontifex Maximus!
> >
> > You mean Cassius Pater Patriae Pontifex Maximus? Already done, my dear
> Maior, already done . . .
>
> ~ Valerianus
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77526 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Cassius; that useless sack started Nova Byzantium!

Let him worship the superstitio of the christians!

Under our PM M. Moravius Piscinus Iuppiter OM had a sacrifice of oxen in Sarmatia; 2 auguracula established in America Austroorientalis, a temple to Venus Genetrix established. The auspices taught and taken!

the cultores taught the gods worshipped!

And this to be destroyed by our ancient enemies...
Defend Iuppiter OM! Defend the gods!!
M. Hortensia Maior
Flaminica Carmentalis




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Sulla, Cato, Albucius and their friends won't stop until the gods are
> > mocked and their temples empty. Already they are trying to throw out our
> > beloved Pontifex Maximus!
> >
> > You mean Cassius Pater Patriae Pontifex Maximus? Already done, my dear
> Maior, already done . . .
>
> ~ Valerianus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77527 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Valeriano salutem dicit

Seriously?

I've really made an effort to be civil on the main list, you know... do
something different. But I've been reading your comments and seriously
wonder if there is something wrong with you!

I really don't know you, and you certainly do not know me; however, reading
some of the recent posts by you directed towards me it is evident that you
are not someone I wish to know better. You're rude and obnoxious and I have
no use in entertaining any sort of discussion with you.

And by the way. I am a censor.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:

> Ignore the "spin" then, and answer the question. Shall we take your
> admission that you will not defend as an admission of guilt? Shall we
> assume
> that this constitutes your notice to the consuls and censors that you
> resign
> your citizenship?
>
> Qui tacet consentire videtur . . .
>
> ~ Valerianus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77528 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Aeternia Ocellae Neroni sal,

Ocella you are correct in your viewing of this... No you are not interupting
its good to ask questions like this, it gives everyone a better
understanding in case this scenario appears again in the future.

I do not believe you are interupting I will correct myself :-)


Vale,
Aeternia

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Gnaea Livia Ocella <lbciddio@...>wrote:

>
>
> Ocella Neroni sal,
>
> Forgive my interruption of this discussion, but I'm hard-put to understand
> what exactly it is you are requesting in regards to becoming patrician. I
> see that you want to become patrician, and I also see that a solution was
> offered - via adoption into a patrician family - but you have put this on
> hold as it is a big decision (and you are quite right)... yet you also state
> that your request has been denied. It seems that this is not the case, but
> rather the proper avenues were suggested to you by more than one person,
> most recently Lentulus and Cato (I hope I am not referring to you two
> improperly in this context).
>
> Is there a part of this discussion I missed? I am very much interested in
> it as I myself am a young citizen and this may be relevant to me in future;
> however I cannot seem to find an instance in which anyone has told you
> flat-out that you cannot be a patrician at all. It does not seem impossible!
> I hope you soon find a way to achieve the status you want :) Good luck to
> you!
>
> Optime vale,
> Ocella
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Riku Demyx
> <rikudemyx@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve,
> > I never said no to adoption but who will adopt is the question now, it's
> a lot
> > to consider though. NR is as real to me as America is, and whether or not
> I
> > chose a patrician name I like mine very much. Adoption is a big decision
> and not
> > something one just waltzes into.
> > DVIC
> > Nero
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...>
>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 3:54:56 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
> >
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus C. Iunio sal.
> >
> > I sympathize with your desires, and with your enthusiasms. I wish I could
> help
> > you, but I wish even more you could try to face the facts your fate led
> you
> > into.
> >
> > >>>> Why is it so easy to deny a simple request for a simple change from
> plebian to
> > >>>>patrician but everything else seems to be beyond our grasp? <<<
> >
> > The Romans had rules, customs, traditions about patrician status. We,
> Nova Roma,
> > equally have rules about patrician status, and these rules are created to
>
> > reflect the ancient sacred traditions. Do you want that the Romans and
> now we,
> > the New Romans, change our entire system so that you can be patrician?
> And for
> > what reason? Patrician status is name.
> >
> > Patrician status is about name.
> >
> > You don't have a Roman patrician name. You can not be therefore a Roman
> > patrician.
> >
> > You don't have a Nova Roman patrician name, either, so you can not be a
> Nova
> > Roman patrician.
> >
> > We proposed you a solution: adoption. All the other things depend on you?
> Did
> > you find a patrician adoptive father (or mother) who is willing to
> consider and
> > respect you almost as their real son?
> >
> >
> > If you have found that person, your problem is solved.
> >
> > Finally, let me praise your dedication and willingness to Concordance and
> unity!
> > These are the greatest virtues in Nova Roma, and these are the virtues
> that we
> > miss from our politicians the most.
> >
> > Vale!
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77529 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Sullae,

> Because the CP is corrupt

The CP is not corrupt. The Centuria praerogativa is not a CP affair.

> and will do anything they can do to subvert a
> lawful and legal election.

You want your dream made true.

> Lets not forget this is the same CP that gave us the "PLASTIC DICE" episode!

Lol. All is good to spread your humor.

> Need we say anymore?

Get new glasses.

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Nonis Quintilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77530 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Salve Nero;

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Riku Demyx wrote:
>
> Salve,
> If I may ask how did you elevate your name? What services does the republic
> require?
> DVIC
> Nero
>

I have been a Cives Nova Roma for 12 years, as of 1 July, and entered
into the new City as a Plebeian.

I have served as Rogator (when that was the election custodian office
now split between the offices of Diribitor and Custos), a partial term
as Rogator ("membership" secretary), Diribitor (vote counter, both
elected and Suffectus [IIRC]), Custos (election judge [imprecise
definition]), Quaestor (financial assistant, 3 times), Provincial
Legate, Senator, Lictor, founded the Sodality for Cooks and brewers,
have written articles for the "Aquila," performed the 1st major
fundraiser (I wrote a book about brewing mead in early 1999 and all
the proceeds for the 1st 200 copies went to Nova Roma), I have offered
my poems (both sacred and profane) for the enjoyment of our Cives... I
have done this as a Germanic Pagan, rather than as a Practitioner of
the Religio Romana.

Nova Roma exists, I believe, to give a place for those who are not
Roman in ancestry (or may be at least a bit Roman, truly) to bring
into Today, that which is Best And Brightest of Roma Antiqua.

I have attempted (and sometimes failed) to be a moderate voice here.

Some have called me a good Roman, which I take as a very well-meant compliment.

I have sought to serve our Res Publica without self-aggrandizement, as
my life is well-rounded and what I do here is not essential to my
self-image, like some. I lack for nothing, neither outside of Nova
Roma nor within myself.

I have had illness related withdrawals, which have resulted in
incomplete terms of office.

In toto, I am honest about myself, my reasons for being here and my
reasons for being.

Vale - Venator
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77531 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Neroni Aeternia sal,

I was told I could join the Fabii family on the condition that I work for NR
When I asked what work I received no reply I also received no reply on the name
issue that I had. The name issue being that in antiquity there were quite afew
citizen I saw that had five names such as Marcus Julius Caesar Agrippa
Postumus and Tiberius Julius Caesar Nero Gemellus I asked whether I could still
keep my names in addition to my adoptive name and still received no reply.
As for the Equitii family, Cato never actually said I could join his family he
just used his family as an example of adoptive names, but in any case and with
no disrespect to Cato I cannot join a Christian family, as I understand it I
would have to officially worship as my adoptive father does and I am a Cultor.
Once again no disrespect to Cato or Christians but it is simply not who I am.
As soon as I receive answers to my other two questions I can better assess my
position and whether or not I want to accept Fabius's offer.
Di Te Incolumem Custodiant.
Nero



________________________________
From: Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 12:35:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis

Aeternia Neroni sal,

Ahem.. Its understandable to feel wary about such a decision.. But it seems
before that you were invited to join the family of the Fabii and even
possibly the Equitii if I read the posts correctly. You'd be well mentored
by either Gens IMO, thats something for the Patricians are very few here in
NR...


Vale,
Aeternia
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve,
> And as I have stated I don't entirely have a problem with that the question
> is
> who?
> DVIC
> Nero
>
> ________________________________
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@... <catoinnyc%40gmail.com>>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 4:15:40 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
>
>
> Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
>
> Your desire to become patrician is a valid one but you must become one by
> adoption, as has been clearly - and repeatedly - stated. This would, again,
>
> require a change of your name to that of your adoptive (patrician) family's
>
> name.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Cn.
> Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus C. Iunio sal.
> >
> >
> > I sympathize with your desires, and with your enthusiasms. I wish I could
> help
> >you, but I wish even more you could try to face the facts your fate led
> you
> >into.
> >
> >
> > >>>> Why is it so easy to deny a simple request for a simple change from
> >plebian to patrician but everything else seems to be beyond our grasp? <<<
> >
> >
> > The Romans had rules, customs, traditions about patrician status. We,
> Nova
> >Roma, equally have rules about patrician status, and these rules are
> created to
> >reflect the ancient sacred traditions. Do you want that the Romans and now
> we,
> >the New Romans, change our entire system so that you can be patrician? And
> for
> >what reason? Patrician status is name.
> >
> > Patrician status is about name.
> >
> > You don't have a Roman patrician name. You can not be therefore a Roman
> >patrician.
> >
> > You don't have a Nova Roman patrician name, either, so you can not be a
> Nova
> >Roman patrician.
> >
> > We proposed you a solution: adoption. All the other things depend on you?
> Did
> >you find a patrician adoptive father (or mother) who is willing to
> consider and
> >respect you almost as their real son?
> >
> >
> > If you have found that person, your problem is solved.
> >
> > Finally, let me praise your dedication and willingness to Concordance and
>
> >unity! These are the greatest virtues in Nova Roma, and these are the
> virtues
> >that we miss from our politicians the most.
> >
> >
> > Vale!
> >
> > Cn. Lentulus
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77532 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit

When the Collegium Pontificum was convened to remove Marcus Cassius Julianus
as Pontifex Maximus one of your friends also voted to approve his removal --
that would be Pontifex Metellus. Strange that you don't condemn him but
condemn others who approved of removing Cassius.

Oddly enough the constitution states the Collegium Pontificum will issues
decretum that includes internal procedures. Where in the constitution does
it state a Pontifex Maximus is appointed in the senate for life?

Practice what you preach.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Yes Cassius is the true and rightful Pontifex Maximus. The position is for
> life and he was appointed. Piscnus is a interloper not any different than
> the numerous antipopes of the Catholic Religion.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...
> >wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sulla, Cato, Albucius and their friends won't stop until the gods are
> > > mocked and their temples empty. Already they are trying to throw out
> our
> > > beloved Pontifex Maximus!
> > >
> > > You mean Cassius Pater Patriae Pontifex Maximus? Already done, my dear
> > Maior, already done . . .
> >
> > ~ Valerianus
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77533 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
{sigh} You are right about one thing, Modiane, if only one.

I am being rude and uncivil. I apologize. I am angry, and I am speaking in
anger.

I have endeavored to be civil about this from the beginning - In fact, I
sought advice from several cives about my wording in the beginning of this
to ensure I was not being unintentionally rude. But now I have crossed that
line.

So again, I apologize.

But I feel that the matter at stake here is the very heart of our Republic.
I feel that the Constitution is being ignored by those who ought to defend
it. I feel like Nova Roma is imploding, and I can't allow that to happen.

Perhaps *amor patriae *is not an excuse, but I hope it is an explanation.

with contrition for his temper but not his love of country,
~ Valerianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:58 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Valeriano salutem dicit
>
> Seriously?
>
> I've really made an effort to be civil on the main list, you know... do
> something different. But I've been reading your comments and seriously
> wonder if there is something wrong with you!
>
> I really don't know you, and you certainly do not know me; however, reading
> some of the recent posts by you directed towards me it is evident that you
> are not someone I wish to know better. You're rude and obnoxious and I have
> no use in entertaining any sort of discussion with you.
>
> And by the way. I am a censor.
>
> Vale;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...<magisterbrodd%40gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > Ignore the "spin" then, and answer the question. Shall we take your
> > admission that you will not defend as an admission of guilt? Shall we
> > assume
> > that this constitutes your notice to the consuls and censors that you
> > resign
> > your citizenship?
> >
> > Qui tacet consentire videtur . . .
> >
> > ~ Valerianus
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>



--
"Qua(e) patres difficillime
adepti sunt nolite
turpiter relinquere" -
Monumentum Bradfordis, Tamaropoli, in civitate Massaciuseta
(Bradford Monument, Plymouth, MA)

Check out my books on Goodreads: <a href="
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus?utm_source=email_widget">
http://www.goodreads.com/profile/Valerianus</a>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77534 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Caeso Fabius buteo Modianus Valeriano salutem dicit

Thank you for your apology.

I have been active in Nova Roma since I joined in 2002. I've served in many
capacities and am very fond of the friendships I have made, and saddened
when good friends have faded away. My actions are motivated by my desire to
see Nova Roma prosper and it saddens me to see Nova Roma become torn apart
by so much conflict. I do not have the solution on how to fix things. In
the past I thought I could broker "peace," but my attempts have failed as
have the attempts of others.

I pray that Nova Roma has the fortitude to withstand it's own citizens and
persevere after we are all gone.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:

> {sigh} You are right about one thing, Modiane, if only one.
>
> I am being rude and uncivil. I apologize. I am angry, and I am speaking in
> anger.
>
> I have endeavored to be civil about this from the beginning - In fact, I
> sought advice from several cives about my wording in the beginning of this
> to ensure I was not being unintentionally rude. But now I have crossed that
> line.
>
> So again, I apologize.
>
> But I feel that the matter at stake here is the very heart of our Republic.
> I feel that the Constitution is being ignored by those who ought to defend
> it. I feel like Nova Roma is imploding, and I can't allow that to happen.
>
> Perhaps *amor patriae *is not an excuse, but I hope it is an explanation.
>
> with contrition for his temper but not his love of country,
> ~ Valerianus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77535 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
[Message deleted due to its intemperate, immoderate and unintelligent
nature in reply to the comment about my friend Marcus Cassius
Iulianus, Pater Patriae Nova Roma, who has done more than his critics
in my view,]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77536 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Maior Modiano spd;

and it all comes down to politics for them; they don't care about the gods at all.

We have a great PM M. Moravius Piscinus; we have a great active College of Augurs. We have an active Virgo Maxima with vestals in training.

They hate our activity! Which is why the support the creator of a Christian State: Nova Byzantium. This is what they want for Nova Roma;
to abandon the gods and their signs!

They hate the gods; and Nova Roma will turn into an
atheist-monotheism under them!!!
Maior
Flaminica Carmentalis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
>
> When the Collegium Pontificum was convened to remove Marcus Cassius Julianus
> as Pontifex Maximus one of your friends also voted to approve his removal --
> that would be Pontifex Metellus. Strange that you don't condemn him but
> condemn others who approved of removing Cassius.
>
> Oddly enough the constitution states the Collegium Pontificum will issues
> decretum that includes internal procedures. Where in the constitution does
> it state a Pontifex Maximus is appointed in the senate for life?
>
> Practice what you preach.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@...>wrote:
>
> > Yes Cassius is the true and rightful Pontifex Maximus. The position is for
> > life and he was appointed. Piscnus is a interloper not any different than
> > the numerous antipopes of the Catholic Religion.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...
> > >wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sulla, Cato, Albucius and their friends won't stop until the gods are
> > > > mocked and their temples empty. Already they are trying to throw out
> > our
> > > > beloved Pontifex Maximus!
> > > >
> > > > You mean Cassius Pater Patriae Pontifex Maximus? Already done, my dear
> > > Maior, already done . . .
> > >
> > > ~ Valerianus
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77537 From: petronius_dexter Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: The joker of the Res Publica
Sullae,

> Yes Cassius is the true and rightful Pontifex Maximus.

Lol. Came from you this sentence is certainly yiddish humor. Is it that that you call freedom of speech?

I like your humor. But here we have to speak more seriously. Fortunately kids have a garden called back alley in which you can practice your spiritual humor.

> The position is for
> life and he was appointed.

By himself. As a tyran.

> Piscnus is a interloper not any different than
> the numerous antipopes of the Catholic Religion.

Yes, definitely it is yiddish humor.

Vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
Nonis Quintilibus P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77538 From: Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: OT: Freemasonry - Pgan-Masons elist
Hail;

I found one of the Pagan Masons' list I recalled...

PaganMasons-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

It is very low volume, but the Owner-Moderator does monitor and I was
approved for membership within 2 days.

Be well - Frater Venii
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77539 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Marcae Hortensiae Maiori salutem dicit

I cannot, and will not, question a person's faith. I believe there are
people who oppose the decretum of the Collegium Augurum who are genuinely
good people and who have faith in the Gods. I don't judge the faith of
others and recommend that others here refrain from doing that as well.

I am not proud of the decision that the Collegium Pontificum made to remove
Marcus Cassius Julianus as Pontifex Maximus. I would have preferred he have
remain as Pontifex Maximus but I could not see the status quo continue and
something had to change. It must be hard on Cassius and very humbling;
therefore, I cannot fault him for trying to create something new that will
give him some satisfaction. I wish there was a way for him to return to the
Collegium Pontificum and old animosities put aside; however, I'm not sure if
that is possible at this point. Much hurt has been done and we are all
"damaged."

Finally, while the ancient Romans might have used the term "atheist" as an
attack I don't think it necessary for us to do that. I know several good
and ethical people who are atheists and I don't wish to dishonor them by
seeing that term used in such a distasteful light.

We must be civil, even if it hurts. And when we are not we need to correct
one another kindly; otherwise, Nova Roma will destroy itself and I do not
want to see that happen.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:13 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Maior Modiano spd;
>
> and it all comes down to politics for them; they don't care about the gods
> at all.
>
> We have a great PM M. Moravius Piscinus; we have a great active College of
> Augurs. We have an active Virgo Maxima with vestals in training.
>
> They hate our activity! Which is why the support the creator of a Christian
> State: Nova Byzantium. This is what they want for Nova Roma;
> to abandon the gods and their signs!
>
> They hate the gods; and Nova Roma will turn into an
> atheist-monotheism under them!!!
> Maior
> Flaminica Carmentalis
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77540 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
C. Tullius Valerianus Modiano S.D.

I have been a citizen of NR since 2000, but I have rarely had the
opportunity to be very active (macronational demands have prevented that). I
envy you your ability and opportunity to serve the Republic. I join you in
your prayer that Nova Roma has the fortitude to withstand its own citizens
and persevere once we're all gone.

Modiane, I have been furious with you in this matter, and I still am. But
like you, I have been saddened to see so many citizens leave Nova Roma. I
feel I must apologize again for encouraging you to leave. But I hope you
understand that I do not apologize for my belief that you are arguing
against our most important laws right now, and I encourage you to
reconsider!

Vale!

>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77541 From: Belle Morte Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Aeternia Neroni sal,

No offense young Nero, but this is beginning to look like a case of "
Having your Cake and Eating it Too"..

Alright so the Fabii want you to do a little grunt work, I'm assuming "work"
means taking on a more active role in NR (Fabii am I correct?)

And Cato, well not sure what to say about the whole Cato angle in this, so
we're moving along.

I would offer to make a plea to Cornelia and ask Sulla on your behalf, but
he's jewish so that wouldn't fit into your plans.

I'd adopt you into the Cornelii Valerii, but we have two problems I practice
a Celtic-Norse tradition and Im only ten years your senior, so again that
doesn't fit into your plans..

Your options are very limited I'm afraid Nero, it has been explained over
and over to you.. I'm sorry this sounds harsh I do apologize, but you're
losing your champions, if this keeps up and that's me being honest.

It's time for you to accept the terms that were offered and act
accordingly..

Vale Optime,
Aeternia
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

>
>
> Neroni Aeternia sal,
>
> I was told I could join the Fabii family on the condition that I work for
> NR
> When I asked what work I received no reply I also received no reply on the
> name
> issue that I had. The name issue being that in antiquity there were quite
> afew
> citizen I saw that had five names such as Marcus Julius Caesar Agrippa
> Postumus and Tiberius Julius Caesar Nero Gemellus I asked whether I could
> still
> keep my names in addition to my adoptive name and still received no reply.
> As for the Equitii family, Cato never actually said I could join his family
> he
> just used his family as an example of adoptive names, but in any case and
> with
> no disrespect to Cato I cannot join a Christian family, as I understand it
> I
> would have to officially worship as my adoptive father does and I am a
> Cultor.
> Once again no disrespect to Cato or Christians but it is simply not who I
> am.
> As soon as I receive answers to my other two questions I can better assess
> my
> position and whether or not I want to accept Fabius's offer.
> Di Te Incolumem Custodiant.
> Nero
>
> ________________________________
> From: Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@... <syrenslullaby%40gmail.com>>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 12:35:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
>
>
> Aeternia Neroni sal,
>
> Ahem.. Its understandable to feel wary about such a decision.. But it seems
> before that you were invited to join the family of the Fabii and even
> possibly the Equitii if I read the posts correctly. You'd be well mentored
> by either Gens IMO, thats something for the Patricians are very few here in
> NR...
>
> Vale,
> Aeternia
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...<rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> > And as I have stated I don't entirely have a problem with that the
> question
> > is
> > who?
> > DVIC
> > Nero
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@... <catoinnyc%40gmail.com> <catoinnyc%
> 40gmail.com>>
> >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 4:15:40 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
> >
> >
> > Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
> >
> > Your desire to become patrician is a valid one but you must become one by
> > adoption, as has been clearly - and repeatedly - stated. This would,
> again,
> >
> > require a change of your name to that of your adoptive (patrician)
> family's
> >
> > name.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, "Cn.
>
> > Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Cn. Lentulus C. Iunio sal.
> > >
> > >
> > > I sympathize with your desires, and with your enthusiasms. I wish I
> could
> > help
> > >you, but I wish even more you could try to face the facts your fate led
> > you
> > >into.
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>> Why is it so easy to deny a simple request for a simple change
> from
> > >plebian to patrician but everything else seems to be beyond our grasp?
> <<<
> > >
> > >
> > > The Romans had rules, customs, traditions about patrician status. We,
> > Nova
> > >Roma, equally have rules about patrician status, and these rules are
> > created to
> > >reflect the ancient sacred traditions. Do you want that the Romans and
> now
> > we,
> > >the New Romans, change our entire system so that you can be patrician?
> And
> > for
> > >what reason? Patrician status is name.
> > >
> > > Patrician status is about name.
> > >
> > > You don't have a Roman patrician name. You can not be therefore a Roman
> > >patrician.
> > >
> > > You don't have a Nova Roman patrician name, either, so you can not be a
> > Nova
> > >Roman patrician.
> > >
> > > We proposed you a solution: adoption. All the other things depend on
> you?
> > Did
> > >you find a patrician adoptive father (or mother) who is willing to
> > consider and
> > >respect you almost as their real son?
> > >
> > >
> > > If you have found that person, your problem is solved.
> > >
> > > Finally, let me praise your dedication and willingness to Concordance
> and
> >
> > >unity! These are the greatest virtues in Nova Roma, and these are the
> > virtues
> > >that we miss from our politicians the most.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale!
> > >
> > > Cn. Lentulus
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77542 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Valerianus omnibus S.P.D.

I am even more embarrassed and chagrined at my own behavior to see these
words coming from Modianus, a man whom I wronged. I agree with and approve
of all of this, except perhaps that I would not have voted to remove
Cassius. But then, it wasn't my call to make. It is hard for me to say this
to someone who is currently my opponent, but thank you for these words,
Modiane.

Vale

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:25 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Marcae Hortensiae Maiori salutem dicit
>
> I cannot, and will not, question a person's faith. I believe there are
> people who oppose the decretum of the Collegium Augurum who are genuinely
> good people and who have faith in the Gods. I don't judge the faith of
> others and recommend that others here refrain from doing that as well.
>
> I am not proud of the decision that the Collegium Pontificum made to remove
> Marcus Cassius Julianus as Pontifex Maximus. I would have preferred he have
> remain as Pontifex Maximus but I could not see the status quo continue and
> something had to change. It must be hard on Cassius and very humbling;
> therefore, I cannot fault him for trying to create something new that will
> give him some satisfaction. I wish there was a way for him to return to the
> Collegium Pontificum and old animosities put aside; however, I'm not sure
> if
> that is possible at this point. Much hurt has been done and we are all
> "damaged."
>
> Finally, while the ancient Romans might have used the term "atheist" as an
> attack I don't think it necessary for us to do that. I know several good
> and ethical people who are atheists and I don't wish to dishonor them by
> seeing that term used in such a distasteful light.
>
> We must be civil, even if it hurts. And when we are not we need to correct
> one another kindly; otherwise, Nova Roma will destroy itself and I do not
> want to see that happen.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77543 From: rory12001 Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Salvete;

I see Sulla and Cato are hiding; cultores they have always despised our gods and this is the logical conclusion.


Say goodbye to Nova Roma; and welcome Novum Byzantium
Maior
Flaminica Carmentalis


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:
>
> Valerianus omnibus S.P.D.
>
> I am even more embarrassed and chagrined at my own behavior to see these
> words coming from Modianus, a man whom I wronged. I agree with and approve
> of all of this, except perhaps that I would not have voted to remove
> Cassius. But then, it wasn't my call to make. It is hard for me to say this
> to someone who is currently my opponent, but thank you for these words,
> Modiane.
>
> Vale
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:25 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Marcae Hortensiae Maiori salutem dicit
> >
> > I cannot, and will not, question a person's faith. I believe there are
> > people who oppose the decretum of the Collegium Augurum who are genuinely
> > good people and who have faith in the Gods. I don't judge the faith of
> > others and recommend that others here refrain from doing that as well.
> >
> > I am not proud of the decision that the Collegium Pontificum made to remove
> > Marcus Cassius Julianus as Pontifex Maximus. I would have preferred he have
> > remain as Pontifex Maximus but I could not see the status quo continue and
> > something had to change. It must be hard on Cassius and very humbling;
> > therefore, I cannot fault him for trying to create something new that will
> > give him some satisfaction. I wish there was a way for him to return to the
> > Collegium Pontificum and old animosities put aside; however, I'm not sure
> > if
> > that is possible at this point. Much hurt has been done and we are all
> > "damaged."
> >
> > Finally, while the ancient Romans might have used the term "atheist" as an
> > attack I don't think it necessary for us to do that. I know several good
> > and ethical people who are atheists and I don't wish to dishonor them by
> > seeing that term used in such a distasteful light.
> >
> > We must be civil, even if it hurts. And when we are not we need to correct
> > one another kindly; otherwise, Nova Roma will destroy itself and I do not
> > want to see that happen.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Modianus
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77544 From: Riku Demyx Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Salve,
So how we came to me losing my champions I have no idea.
I never said I would not accept Fabius's offer I was simply curious as to what
work it was. Curiosity. I merely asked that is all, if I am to take a more
active role in NR then I will by all means even without adoption I would very
much like to be a magistrate, senator, maybe consul one day. My age offers some
resistance but I'm sure I can make Quaestor or Scribe right now.
Now with the religion thing there can be no compromise, I would rather be a
slave with the Gods then a patrician without. For what would we be, what would
Rome be without the Gods?
Other then that I hope the above paragraph shows that I'm not being picky just
thinking before I leap as it were.
Di Te Incolumem Custodiant
Nero.




________________________________
From: Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 1:29:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis

Aeternia Neroni sal,

No offense young Nero, but this is beginning to look like a case of "
Having your Cake and Eating it Too"..

Alright so the Fabii want you to do a little grunt work, I'm assuming "work"
means taking on a more active role in NR (Fabii am I correct?)

And Cato, well not sure what to say about the whole Cato angle in this, so
we're moving along.

I would offer to make a plea to Cornelia and ask Sulla on your behalf, but
he's jewish so that wouldn't fit into your plans.

I'd adopt you into the Cornelii Valerii, but we have two problems I practice
a Celtic-Norse tradition and Im only ten years your senior, so again that
doesn't fit into your plans..

Your options are very limited I'm afraid Nero, it has been explained over
and over to you.. I'm sorry this sounds harsh I do apologize, but you're
losing your champions, if this keeps up and that's me being honest.

It's time for you to accept the terms that were offered and act
accordingly..

Vale Optime,
Aeternia
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

>
>
> Neroni Aeternia sal,
>
> I was told I could join the Fabii family on the condition that I work for
> NR
> When I asked what work I received no reply I also received no reply on the
> name
> issue that I had. The name issue being that in antiquity there were quite
> afew
> citizen I saw that had five names such as Marcus Julius Caesar Agrippa
> Postumus and Tiberius Julius Caesar Nero Gemellus I asked whether I could
> still
> keep my names in addition to my adoptive name and still received no reply.
> As for the Equitii family, Cato never actually said I could join his family
> he
> just used his family as an example of adoptive names, but in any case and
> with
> no disrespect to Cato I cannot join a Christian family, as I understand it
> I
> would have to officially worship as my adoptive father does and I am a
> Cultor.
> Once again no disrespect to Cato or Christians but it is simply not who I
> am.
> As soon as I receive answers to my other two questions I can better assess
> my
> position and whether or not I want to accept Fabius's offer.
> Di Te Incolumem Custodiant.
> Nero
>
> ________________________________
> From: Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@... <syrenslullaby%40gmail.com>>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 12:35:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
>
>
> Aeternia Neroni sal,
>
> Ahem.. Its understandable to feel wary about such a decision.. But it seems
> before that you were invited to join the family of the Fabii and even
> possibly the Equitii if I read the posts correctly. You'd be well mentored
> by either Gens IMO, thats something for the Patricians are very few here in
> NR...
>
> Vale,
> Aeternia
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Riku Demyx
><rikudemyx@...<rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> > And as I have stated I don't entirely have a problem with that the
> question
> > is
> > who?
> > DVIC
> > Nero
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@... <catoinnyc%40gmail.com> <catoinnyc%
> 40gmail.com>>
> >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 4:15:40 AM
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
> >
> >
> > Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
> >
> > Your desire to become patrician is a valid one but you must become one by
> > adoption, as has been clearly - and repeatedly - stated. This would,
> again,
> >
> > require a change of your name to that of your adoptive (patrician)
> family's
> >
> > name.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, "Cn.
>
> > Cornelius Lentulus" <cn_corn_lent@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Cn. Lentulus C. Iunio sal.
> > >
> > >
> > > I sympathize with your desires, and with your enthusiasms. I wish I
> could
> > help
> > >you, but I wish even more you could try to face the facts your fate led
> > you
> > >into.
> > >
> > >
> > > >>>> Why is it so easy to deny a simple request for a simple change
> from
> > >plebian to patrician but everything else seems to be beyond our grasp?
> <<<
> > >
> > >
> > > The Romans had rules, customs, traditions about patrician status. We,
> > Nova
> > >Roma, equally have rules about patrician status, and these rules are
> > created to
> > >reflect the ancient sacred traditions. Do you want that the Romans and
> now
> > we,
> > >the New Romans, change our entire system so that you can be patrician?
> And
> > for
> > >what reason? Patrician status is name.
> > >
> > > Patrician status is about name.
> > >
> > > You don't have a Roman patrician name. You can not be therefore a Roman
> > >patrician.
> > >
> > > You don't have a Nova Roman patrician name, either, so you can not be a
> > Nova
> > >Roman patrician.
> > >
> > > We proposed you a solution: adoption. All the other things depend on
> you?
> > Did
> > >you find a patrician adoptive father (or mother) who is willing to
> > consider and
> > >respect you almost as their real son?
> > >
> > >
> > > If you have found that person, your problem is solved.
> > >
> > > Finally, let me praise your dedication and willingness to Concordance
> and
> >
> > >unity! These are the greatest virtues in Nova Roma, and these are the
> > virtues
> > >that we miss from our politicians the most.
> > >
> > >
> > > Vale!
> > >
> > > Cn. Lentulus
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77545 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Valerianus Maiori S.D.

and it all comes down to politics for them; they don't care about the gods
> at all.
>
I care about the gods. And I think the gods care about justice. Which is why
I can't stand by and see the Constitution ignored and trampled. It is a
sacred obligation as well a a civil one. Maybe some of those who agree with
me are not cultores. That does not make them any less committed to Nova
Roma.


> They hate our activity! Which is why the support the creator of a Christian
> State: Nova Byzantium. This is what they want for Nova Roma;
> to abandon the gods and their signs!
>
"hate our activity?" Is this like the rhetoric of the last United States
presidential administration that the enemies of America "hate our freedoms"?
You say it all the time, yet the people about whom you say it ARE the active
ones, as much as you. Maior, you may find this hard to believe, but unlike
some of those with whom I am currently arrayed, I *do* believe that you have
a certain commitment to living Romanitas. You learn Latin, celebrate
holidays, and otherwise make efforts to live as a Roman. But you need to
stop claiming that you and your friends are the only ones doing it.
As for the "supporting the creator of a Christian state," first of all
- you and all of NR owes a huge debt to Cassius Pater Patriae, without whom
you would not be a citizen of NR for there would not be a NR. We ought all
to support him, we are in his debt. Secondly, Byzantium Novum is not an
exclusively Christian state, it has cultores deorum. None of which has
anything with wanting NR to abandon the gods and their signs. Why do you
want to abandon your oaths and the constitution?

>
> They hate the gods; and Nova Roma will turn into an
> atheist-monotheism under them!!!
>

As you know, the "them" you're attacking does not hate the gods. Nor did NR
turn into an atheist-monotheism when Sulla was consul, for example. Nor
would it were he to be consul again. Because tolerance for other faiths was
one of the core beliefs with which NR was founded, if for no other reason.

Vale,
Valerianus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77546 From: David Kling Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus C. Tullio Valeriano salutem dicit

It is easy to get upset within Nova Roma; likely, because several of us are
so passionate about it and that passion comes through.

I thought long and seriously whether to support the decretum presented in
the Collegium Augurum and voted my conscious. It is important that the
auspicies be respected and honored for what they are. We seek favorable
signs and omens in our major endeavors as a Republic. It is paramount that
we honor those signs and turn against unfavorable signs. Whoever wins the
election should win knowing they were elected auspiciously. Proper
auspicies are important and should not be ignored. You should know this,
you had applied to be an augur if I remember correctly. Augury needs to be
respected. I believe my position is consistent with my interpretation of
the Lex and Decretum I mentioned to you yesterday, and I stand firm behind
that interpretation.

It is my intention in supporting the decretum to ensure that the comitia
election is auspicious. That is my obligation as an augur, and I believe
I fulfilled my oath in advocating for an auspicious comitia.

I am sure given other circumstances you and I would have a lot in common and
would get along admirably. It is unfortunate that troubling times as these
bring out the worst in all of us.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:

>
>
> C. Tullius Valerianus Modiano S.D.
>
> I have been a citizen of NR since 2000, but I have rarely had the
> opportunity to be very active (macronational demands have prevented that).
> I
> envy you your ability and opportunity to serve the Republic. I join you in
> your prayer that Nova Roma has the fortitude to withstand its own citizens
> and persevere once we're all gone.
>
> Modiane, I have been furious with you in this matter, and I still am. But
> like you, I have been saddened to see so many citizens leave Nova Roma. I
> feel I must apologize again for encouraging you to leave. But I hope you
> understand that I do not apologize for my belief that you are arguing
> against our most important laws right now, and I encourage you to
> reconsider!
>
> Vale!
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77547 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: R: [Nova-Roma] Re: Centuria Praerogativa
Cato Cornelio Lentulo sal.

Thank you for your direct and clear response, and mostly for being willing to simply discuss this without anger or criticism.

I'd like to follow up with a couple of things if I may.

First, it would be interesting to know exactly what verbiage was used when taking the auspices; i.e., whether or not the name of the presiding magistrate was actually used. That might be key.

Second, as far as changing the rules governing the taking of auspices, it actually, as far as I can see, require only that the College of Pontiffs issue a new decretum overturning those in place now and bringing the practice back into line with the ancients.

Third, I see the temptation to equate the Tridentine Mass with the ancient practices of augury; the key difference, however, is that it *is* within our power to correct what we *know* is incorrect based on ancient practice. The College of Pontiffs could correct it swiftly if they chose to do so.

Fourthly, no decree of any college can overrule the Constitution, so the decree of the augurs did *not* "[fix] the collegium over the head of magistrates" at all; that is at the heart of the argument here. The Constitutional authority of the consuls is paramount, without exception or supplementation (to use Modianus' word), in calling the Senate and the comitia.

Lastly, I think it is important to recognize that the auspices come from the gods, not from men; the gods created the usefulness of augury in a specific way and under specific circumstances. It is of no importance what men think regarding these ancient practices; if we want to further the pax Deorum I think it would be incumbent upon us to correct what we know to be wrong as quickly as possible, and obey the gods rather than men's alterations of Their expressed will.

Vale,

Cato
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77548 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
Cato Iunio Neroni sal.

You have every right to like your name. I certainly like mine :)

You are equally right that adoption is a serious undertaking not to be considered lightly.

So now you and only you can decide whether being a patrician is worth the amendment of your name or not.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:
>
> Salve,
> I never said no to adoption but who will adopt is the question now, it's a lot
> to consider though. NR is as real to me as America is, and whether or not I
> chose a patrician name I like mine very much. Adoption is a big decision and not
> something one just waltzes into.
> DVIC
> Nero
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, July 7, 2010 3:54:56 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] De patriciatu C. Iunii Neronis
>
>
> Cn. Lentulus C. Iunio sal.
>
> I sympathize with your desires, and with your enthusiasms. I wish I could help
> you, but I wish even more you could try to face the facts your fate led you
> into.
>
> >>>> Why is it so easy to deny a simple request for a simple change from plebian to
> >>>>patrician but everything else seems to be beyond our grasp? <<<
>
> The Romans had rules, customs, traditions about patrician status. We, Nova Roma,
> equally have rules about patrician status, and these rules are created to
> reflect the ancient sacred traditions. Do you want that the Romans and now we,
> the New Romans, change our entire system so that you can be patrician? And for
> what reason? Patrician status is name.
>
> Patrician status is about name.
>
> You don't have a Roman patrician name. You can not be therefore a Roman
> patrician.
>
> You don't have a Nova Roman patrician name, either, so you can not be a Nova
> Roman patrician.
>
> We proposed you a solution: adoption. All the other things depend on you? Did
> you find a patrician adoptive father (or mother) who is willing to consider and
> respect you almost as their real son?
>
>
> If you have found that person, your problem is solved.
>
> Finally, let me praise your dedication and willingness to Concordance and unity!
> These are the greatest virtues in Nova Roma, and these are the virtues that we
> miss from our politicians the most.
>
> Vale!
>
> Cn. Lentulus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77549 From: Colin Brodd Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: Responsa cos. Memmius on both augurs' decreta
Valerianus Modiano S.D.

It is easy to get upset within Nova Roma; likely, because several of us are
> so passionate about it and that passion comes through.
>

This being so, we can be grateful that so many of us care so much, at least!


> I thought long and seriously whether to support the decretum presented in
> the Collegium Augurum and voted my conscious. It is important that the
> auspicies be respected and honored for what they are. We seek favorable
> signs and omens in our major endeavors as a Republic. It is paramount that
> we honor those signs and turn against unfavorable signs. Whoever wins the
> election should win knowing they were elected auspiciously. Proper
> auspicies are important and should not be ignored. You should know this,
> you had applied to be an augur if I remember correctly. Augury needs to be
> respected. I believe my position is consistent with my interpretation of
> the Lex and Decretum I mentioned to you yesterday, and I stand firm behind
> that interpretation.
>
You do remember correctly, and that is why I began my involvement in this
matter with a statement of my respect for our religio and especially the
auguate, to which I once aspired. I was certain that I was giving up any
hope of my dream of being an augur by taking the stand that I have, but I
must do so because I believe that I am right, and that the law is on the
side I have taken. So you know how important this is to me. It means giving
up one of the most important dreams I have cherished in Nova Roma, but I
cannot remain silent for my own ambitions! I agree that augury needs to be
respected - but using it as a bludgeon to overturn the Constitution is not
the way to ensure that respect, and that is what the decreta of the CA
appear to me to be doing.

It is my intention in supporting the decretum to ensure that the comitia
> election is auspicious. That is my obligation as an augur, and I believe
> I fulfilled my oath in advocating for an auspicious comitia.
>
> I am sure given other circumstances you and I would have a lot in common
> and
> would get along admirably. It is unfortunate that troubling times as these
> bring out the worst in all of us.
>
I now understand that you are doing what you think is best under the
circumstances, although I still think that you are wrong. Please, look with
an open mind at the Constitution and try to see the argument for a moment.

Vale,
~ Valerianus


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Group: Nova-Roma Message: 77550 From: Cato Date: 2010-07-07
Subject: Re: state auspices come from Iuppiter O.M
Cato Maiori sal.

You are beginning - or continuing, rather - to sound a sour and irrational note, unsupported by fact or relevance. I challenge you to find one speech of mine in which I have mocked the gods or taken Their role in this any less seriously than They deserve. If you do, I will resign from Nova Roma forever.

For one who claims to know about these things, you certainly are unaware that augurs in ancient Rome did *not* have the right to take State auspices. Augurs didn't take auspices at all - magistrates did. And if there was a break in the magistracies, the right to take the auspices returned to the patricians in the Senate as a whole.

So now, Maior, please either put up or shut up. Your caterwauling is an offense to every deity in the heavens.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete quirites;
>
> Rome was founded upon auspices; signs from the gods. State auspices come from Iuppiter Optimus Maximus himself.
>
> The college of augurs interprets these signs and when they speak as a college all Romans voluntarily obeyed; such was the piety of our ancestors.
>
>
> Those that refuse to listen to the college of augurs; refuse to listen to the signs from Iuppiter Optimus Maximus himself!
>
> These people don't respect or believe in Iuppiter O.M., our gods, and their signs. It is an attempt to secularize Nova Roma and replace the gods and their signs with atheism!
>
> Sulla, Cato, Albucius and their friends won't stop until the gods are mocked and their temples empty. Already they are trying to throw out our beloved Pontifex Maximus!
>
> Cultores it is US. vs them
> Nova Roma for the gods and Rome!
> Atheists OUT!!!!!
>
> M. Hortensia Maior
> Flaminica Carmentalis
>