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
>

Cato Iunio Neroni sal.

No offense taken, Nero, but if - and it's a big if - your adoption into my family were to be considered, your cultus privatus would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever in that decision. I have even, in the physical presence of Maior, poured out a libation to Apollo before a meal. I have unofficially adopted Neptune, the god of the sea and horses, as my household god.

I grew up in a household mixture of Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, and pure Sicilian superstitions; my move to Eastern Orthodoxy was my own desire to be as authentically close to the Apostolic teachings as possible; however, having grown up in a great and wonderful mixture of religious expression, I am not closed-minded in any way whatsoever - whatever deity or deities live in heaven cause the sun to shine on all of us equally.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, 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@...>
> 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]
>

Cato Maiori sal.

It's 97 degrees Fahrenheit in NYC and I happened to have gone to play in a pool. Sorry I wasn't stationed at my computer 24/7 to listen to your ranting.

Vale,

A much tanned and relaxed Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "rory12001" <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
> >
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Valeriano salutem dicit

We should be grateful that so many people care about Nova Roma. That is at
least something many of us have in common!

You should not give up your aspiration to become an augur if that is where
your heart rests! I applied to become an augur at least three times before
I was finally admitted into the Collegium Augurum. I don't typically give
up and neither should you.

I have read our constitution many many times. I have dealt with the laws on
comitia as a tribune (when I was a plebeian) and then as consul -- this is
not an "appeal to authority" fallacy, simply context in my understanding of
our laws. If there was not a Lex Fabia de ratione comitiorum centuriatorum
and Decretum collegii pontificum et augurum de iure auspicandi et tripudio I
would likely agree with you; however, these two laws have provisions for
dealing with the auspices and are important to understanding how augury is
viewed in Nova Roma. The constitution is important but it
is supplemented by other documents that are also binding.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:

>
>
> 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]

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

"I am not closed-minded in any way whatsoever - whatever deity or deities
live in heaven cause the sun to shine on all of us equally."

I like this statement. Very well said.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
>
> No offense taken, Nero, but if - and it's a big if - your adoption into my
> family were to be considered, your cultus privatus would have absolutely no
> bearing whatsoever in that decision. I have even, in the physical presence
> of Maior, poured out a libation to Apollo before a meal. I have unofficially
> adopted Neptune, the god of the sea and horses, as my household god.
>
> I grew up in a household mixture of Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, and
> pure Sicilian superstitions; my move to Eastern Orthodoxy was my own desire
> to be as authentically close to the Apostolic teachings as possible;
> however, having grown up in a great and wonderful mixture of religious
> expression, I am not closed-minded in any way whatsoever - whatever deity or
> deities live in heaven cause the sun to shine on all of us equally.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>


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

Salve,

My apologies Nero I did not mean to come across as harsh as I did, the
problem with e-mail communication is that it is very hard at times to
understand one's "tone". Your tone seemed to the effect of attempting to be
"picky", as I said had stated previously and also defended that is right to
chose in whatever you chose is your choice and yours alone.

I am still one of your champions in this, and I would like to see you become
a Patrician but I also know there is limits to such a feat.. I'm also giving
a dose of reality to this special situation.

I too respect your decision about the religious aspect, go you :-)

Vale Optime,
Aeternia

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Riku Demyx <rikudemyx@...> wrote:

>
>
> 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@... <syrenslullaby%40gmail.com>>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.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@...<rikudemyx%40yahoo.com>>
> 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><syrenslullaby%
> 40gmail.com>>
>
> >
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.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><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> <catoinnyc%
> > 40gmail.com>>
> > >
> > > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.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><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]
>
>
>


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

Cato Modiano sal.

Every now and then amidst all the roaring a gem of truth falls out :)

But seriously, the crux of the matter here is this idea of supplementation, Modiane. If the Constitution said this about the consuls:

"To call the Senate, the comitia centuriata, and the comitia populi tributa to order *in accordance with [or "pursuant to"] any applicable legislation*",

instead of simply giving the consuls the authority to do so, your point would be valid and supported in law and I would wholeheartedly agree.

But it does not.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>
> "I am not closed-minded in any way whatsoever - whatever deity or deities
> live in heaven cause the sun to shine on all of us equally."
>
> I like this statement. Very well said.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cato Iunio Neroni sal.
> >
> > No offense taken, Nero, but if - and it's a big if - your adoption into my
> > family were to be considered, your cultus privatus would have absolutely no
> > bearing whatsoever in that decision. I have even, in the physical presence
> > of Maior, poured out a libation to Apollo before a meal. I have unofficially
> > adopted Neptune, the god of the sea and horses, as my household god.
> >
> > I grew up in a household mixture of Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, and
> > pure Sicilian superstitions; my move to Eastern Orthodoxy was my own desire
> > to be as authentically close to the Apostolic teachings as possible;
> > however, having grown up in a great and wonderful mixture of religious
> > expression, I am not closed-minded in any way whatsoever - whatever deity or
> > deities live in heaven cause the sun to shine on all of us equally.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

C. Maria Caeca Neroni Sal,

I was gong to stay put of this, until I had put my thoughts more in order, but I will say this to you. Be patient with us. What you are seeing now is the sometimes messy mechanics of trying to do the almost *almost* impossible, and that is to recreate the Roman Republic in such a way that it would be easily recognizable by any Ancient roman *and* be able to function completely and productively in the modern world. And ...we have a great deal of material and secondary commentary to work with ...but we are trying to, as it were, spin a thread from what was ..to what is ...with no breaks and is little difference between the thread *we* are spinning, and the thread to which we attach it. sometimes, that thread gets tangled. sometimes it breaks. sometimes we get it wrong, and we have to remove what we have done, and do it again. sometimes every person involved has different ideas about how we should do this ...and, usually, each of those different ideas has things of merit, and things that are, well, incorrect, in one context or another. Decisions will not, and must not, be made quickly. Many decisions will be very difficult, because so much must be considered ...and, also keep in mind that we may love Roma Antiqua ...but we are *not* Ancient Romans. We are learning, sometimes slowly and painfully, how to be more roman, yes ...and each time you see something that seems to be tearing the Res Publica apart ...what you are seeing is something that, in the end, if we wish it, and are willing to do the work, make us stronger, healthier, and more viable.

Even in our differences, we are more united than it might appear. Not completely, no ...there are those who would have things according to their particular view, and if they can't, would destroy the whole endeavor. there are those who have very opposite, and seemingly irreconcilable views ...and, in the end, they may never reconcile them ...but, for the most part, the Cives here want, and will work, stumble, slog, and sometimes fight their way through each difficulty. Growth is never simple, and the larger and more complex the organism, the more this is true.

This, of course, is only *my* personal view ...I speak only for myself ...but again, I ask that you be patient with us, use this opportunity to learn about Roma Antiqua *and* Nova roma, and read for substance, not drama. It is the substance of a post that is, ultimately important, and, while flame wars are unfortunate, and should, I think be conducted privately, if at all, we are human ...and situations like this bring out the best, and the worst, in us.

Vale Bene,
CMC

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

Valerianus Catoni Modianoque S.D.

Cato wrote:

> But seriously, the crux of the matter here is this idea of supplementation,
> Modiane. If the Constitution said this about the consuls:
>
> "To call the Senate, the comitia centuriata, and the comitia populi tributa
> to order *in accordance with [or "pursuant to"] any applicable
> legislation*",
>
> instead of simply giving the consuls the authority to do so, your point
> would be valid and supported in law and I would wholeheartedly agree.
>
> But it does not.
>
> To which I add: Note our Constitution: 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, we have a conflict between the Constitution and some other
laws and decrees - but the Constitution wins in any such conflict. Leges
don't matter, decreta don't matter, nothing matters if it conflicts with the
Constitution. That's the way it's written, anyway. I don't see any way
around that fact.

Valete!


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

Salvete;

Caeca is, in my considered opinion, both considerate and wise.

Brava!

Valete - Venator

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

You have been involved in Nova Roma a fairly long time and you are just now
voicing your opinion on this? We have always, since I've been a citizen,
had laws that govern how a magistrate convenes a comitia. There is a clause
in the constitution that states, "...only the *comitia centuriata* shall
pass laws governing the rules by which it shall operate internally." Our
laws indicate that favorable omens are needed for a comitia, and the ars
auguria is the responsibility of the college of augures.

Vale;

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> Every now and then amidst all the roaring a gem of truth falls out :)
>
> But seriously, the crux of the matter here is this idea of supplementation,
> Modiane. If the Constitution said this about the consuls:
>
> "To call the Senate, the comitia centuriata, and the comitia populi tributa
> to order *in accordance with [or "pursuant to"] any applicable
> legislation*",
>
> instead of simply giving the consuls the authority to do so, your point
> would be valid and supported in law and I would wholeheartedly agree.
>
> But it does not.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>


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

Salvete,

But there is NO conflict between the constitution and the laws we have
dealing with the comitia. No conflict at all and these laws have been in
force for years and have been observed for years. Precedent and custom has
been established and that is how we develop our own unique mos maiorum.

Valete,

Modianus

On Jul 7, 2010 5:00 PM, "Colin Brodd" <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:



Valerianus Catoni Modianoque S.D.



Cato wrote:
> But seriously, the crux of the matter here is this idea of
supplementation,
> Modian...
> To which I add: Note our Constitution: 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, we have a conflict between the Constitution and some other
laws and decrees - but the Constitution wins in any such conflict. Leges
don't matter, decreta don't matter, nothing matters if it conflicts with the
Constitution. That's the way it's written, anyway. I don't see any way
around that fact.

Valete!



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



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

Are you advocating Civil War, Hortensia?

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:32 AM, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>


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

Ah Dexter, and when did you convert to Judaism? lol

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:20 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>
>
>


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

Cato Modiano sal.

Well, it's never really been put to the test this way before. That doesn't mean it hasn't always been true.

Now, with Piscinus making what appears by any reasonable standard to be a "power play" against the consulship - for whatever reasons he may have - he strikes at the heart of the Constitution. And he is bringing the whole College of Augurs with him - willingly, apparently and very unfortunately.

Now that it is being tested, we see quite clearly more of the weaknesses inherent in the use of an 18th-century, Age of Enlightenment-inspired legal instrument to run a system of government that is 2500 years old. This has been my constant cry against the Constitution as it stands. Yet, it stands, and as Lentulus so aptly put it, it must be obeyed whether it is palatable or not.

I have actually seen citizens write expressing their concerns that the Respublica not be run by "ayatollahs"; this is not the impression that the College of Augurs wishes to give, yet that is precisely what it is doing. To claim ultimate religious power over the civil government - when that power is *not* sanctioned by the highest legal authority we have - is creating the fear of rule by religious fiat.

You may see that as an extreme, but it is, in fact, a very real fear.

Vale,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit
>
> You have been involved in Nova Roma a fairly long time and you are just now
> voicing your opinion on this? We have always, since I've been a citizen,
> had laws that govern how a magistrate convenes a comitia. There is a clause
> in the constitution that states, "...only the *comitia centuriata* shall
> pass laws governing the rules by which it shall operate internally." Our
> laws indicate that favorable omens are needed for a comitia, and the ars
> auguria is the responsibility of the college of augures.
>
> Vale;
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Cato Modiano sal.
> >
> > Every now and then amidst all the roaring a gem of truth falls out :)
> >
> > But seriously, the crux of the matter here is this idea of supplementation,
> > Modiane. If the Constitution said this about the consuls:
> >
> > "To call the Senate, the comitia centuriata, and the comitia populi tributa
> > to order *in accordance with [or "pursuant to"] any applicable
> > legislation*",
> >
> > instead of simply giving the consuls the authority to do so, your point
> > would be valid and supported in law and I would wholeheartedly agree.
> >
> > But it does not.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

She is certainly directly violating the law:

"Whoever incites in another person hatred, despite or enmity towards a person or group on the basis of the religious beliefs or practices of that person or group, or who in any other way infringes the freedom of another person to hold religious beliefs or to engage in religious teaching, practice, worship or observance, shall make a DECLARATIO PVBLICA and may also be moderated as in paragraph XIV.B. above." - lex Salicia poenalis, pars altera 19

She may very well find herself up on charges of contumelia pietate.

Vale,

Cato

> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:32 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salvete quirites;

> >
> > Cultores it is US. vs them
> > Nova Roma for the gods and Rome!
> > Atheists OUT!!!!!
> >
> > M. Hortensia Maior
> > Flaminica Carmentalis

C. Tullius Valerianus Germanicus L. Cornelio Sullae Felici S.P.D.

The first became a citizen of NR almost exactly a year after the civil war
of A.U.C. MMDCCLII, and was grateful I did not have to go through it. I
would hope that I shall never see a civil war in NR. But it sounds like that
is precisely what Maior is advocating. I lost my head today. Perhaps she did
too. Let her cool down. No one really wants another civil war, right?

Vale

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Are you advocating Civil War, Hortensia?
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:32 AM, 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!!!!!
>

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

C. Maria Caeca Cn. Cornelio Lentulo Pontifici S. P. D.

I, also, thank you for posting this. As I have found so often, you manage to uncomplicate things for me, which helps me understand them far better, which, in turn will aid me in being a more productive and valuable (someday) cives.

You will make a Romana of me, yet, Pontifex! (smile)

Vale quam optime,
CMC


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

Cato Modiano sal.

First, I will thank you openly for actually considering what I have to say rather than simply brushing it off. We can have very civil and serious discussion without resorting to the vacuous and senseless ranting that we see coming from... other parts...

Anyways, it just dawned on me that in a very crucial way we are talking about two different things, perhaps.

You are concerned with the *internal* laws regarding the comitia; what happens in the process of their being made valid. These rules are, as you state, made within the comitia and are in fact subject only to the comitia in question's authority as far as their operation. You are absolutely right in this.

But I am talking about the actual *call* itself. The consuls are given the authority to *call* the comitia and the Senate without reservation or modification or supplementation by any other law - it is in their powers as given by the Constitution. They simply have the power to do so.

Once that call is *made*, perhaps, the rest of the legal procedures which are in place become active.

The decretum attempted to stop the consul from calling the comitia and erase the session of the Senate, which no authority in our law has the power to do. The decretum cannot stand.

Vale,

Cato

V Rutilia Enodiaria omnibusque spd

We seem to have reached an impasse once again. Since there appears to be funds in the treasury, perhaps now is the time to use some of them to convene a physical meeting of the Senate, with airfare & accommodations provided by NR. This would provide an opportunity for face to face discussions.

We might also be wise to bring in a meeting facilitator to assist in keeping things on track.

Optime vale,

Enodia

I was there for the first civil war. I remember it quite well..having to
call Fabius on the phone to ask him why is the website down!

Those days were like a roller coaster of stress and anxiety trying to figure
out what was going on! Doubly so since the first Nr list was out of
commission at the same time the website was knocked offline.

At times it feels like it happened yesterday. Except, at the same time it
does not feel like yesterday since almost everyone who was there has left
NR.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:

>
>
> C. Tullius Valerianus Germanicus L. Cornelio Sullae Felici S.P.D.
>
> The first became a citizen of NR almost exactly a year after the civil war
> of A.U.C. MMDCCLII, and was grateful I did not have to go through it. I
> would hope that I shall never see a civil war in NR. But it sounds like
> that
> is precisely what Maior is advocating. I lost my head today. Perhaps she
> did
> too. Let her cool down. No one really wants another civil war, right?
>
> Vale
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>wrote:
>
>
> > Are you advocating Civil War, Hortensia?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:32 AM, rory12001 <rory12001@...<rory12001%40yahoo.com>>
> 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!!!!!
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

It should be the only item for discussion, given its importance.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 2:56 PM, enodia2002 <walkyr@...> wrote:

>
>
> V Rutilia Enodiaria omnibusque spd
>
> We seem to have reached an impasse once again. Since there appears to be
> funds in the treasury, perhaps now is the time to use some of them to
> convene a physical meeting of the Senate, with airfare & accommodations
> provided by NR. This would provide an opportunity for face to face
> discussions.
>
> We might also be wise to bring in a meeting facilitator to assist in
> keeping things on track.
>
> Optime vale,
>
> Enodia
>
>
>


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

Diribitori Moravio s.d.



I am sorry stating, Moravi, that again, you are not answering simply to my simple questions, and seem confusing your various roles.



My question is not on the election that should have, in your mind, been presided by my colleague but on the election that I called.



My question is not asked to the citizen, the RR cultor, etc., but to the *diribitor* concerning his office.

　

So, may I keep, so that we go forward, as an objective answer: "No centuria praerogativa was chosen for elections you called" ?



Second, if I am not wrong -even if I do like the beautiful flight "The Gods selected centuria XIV as praerogativa centuria." - may you simply, as I am very "down-to-earth" and addressing here, in the frame of my modest consular charge, a diribitor and not the Gods, just confirm that you are referring to the selection that you - for I sure would have noticed if a God had sent me an e-mail! - sent the report to the consuls on Mon. June 14, 14:38, and which follows? That's it?



Last, do you speak here just for yourself, or for the three other diribitors with their previous agreement?



Thanks still for your quick answer, and for answering the above additional points ; vale.



　

Albucius cos.

________________________________________________________________________________



""M. Moravius Piscinus Magister Collegium Augurum K. Fabio Butone et P. Memmio Consilibus salutem plurimam dicit:

PRAEFATIO

"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor, uti sis volens propitius nobis custodibus diribitoribusque, magistratibus candidatis, consuli Kaesone Fabio Buteone Quintiliano et Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus, mihi, domo, familiae!"

Jupiter, Best and Greatest, by offering You this incense I pray good prayers so that You are benevolent and propitious to us, the Custodes and Diribitores, to the candidates for magistracies, to the Presiding Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites, to the Senate and People of the Nova Roman Quirites, to me, to my household and to my family.

(Incense is offered.)


"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto!"

Jupiter, Best and Greatest, while offering incense I have prayed good prayers, for the very same reason may You be strengthen by this wine.

(A libation is offered.)

PRECATIO

"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, te precor, quaesoque: uti suffragia tu custodias utique centuria praerogativa voluntate tua decernas, cum sestertio Novo Romano sortem faciam; utique sies volens propitius nobis custodibus diribitoribusque, magistratibus candidatis, consuli K. Fabio Buteone Quintiliano et Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus, mihi, domo, familiae!"

Jupiter, Best and Greatest, I pray and ask You so that You watch over our elections, and You decide the Centuria Praerogativa according to Your will when I will draw the lots by tossing a Nova Roman sesterce; and that You be benevolent and propitious to us, the Custodes and Diribitores, to the candidates for magistracies, to the Presiding Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites, to the Senate and People of the Nova Roman Quirites, to me, to my household and to my family.


SACRIFICIUM

"Cuius rei ergo macte hoc vino libando, hoc ture ommovendo esto fito volens propitius nobis custodibus diribitoribusque, magistratibus candidatis, consuli M. Curiatio et Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus, mihi, domo, familiae!"

For this reason, strengthened by this offering of wine, by this offering of incense, may You be benevolent and propitious to us, the Custodes and Diribitores, to the candidates for magistracies, to the Presiding Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites, to the Senate and People of the Nova Roman Quirites, to me, to my household and to my family.

After this rite I took up the sesterces of Nova Roma to determine the centuria praerogativa for the election in the comitia for a praetor suffectus.

"Sancte Pater, velis dexter inesse meo."

"Holy Father, may You wish to be in my right hand."

First I asked whether the centuria chosen ought to be an odd-numbered centuria, since odd numbers are propitious. Ill-omened centuriae were excluded. Using two sesterces, I designated that two obverse or two reverso shall be accepted to mean "Yes" and that one obverso and one reverso shall be accepted as "No."

"Di prohibete minas"

After receiving an answer of "No" I then asked whether an even-numbered centuria would be acceptable. Neither selected, I continued the process until an answer selected that an even-numbered centuria ought to be the centuria praerogativa.

Next I asked whether the centuria praerogativa ought to be selected from the first decade of centuriae. The answer being "No" I proceeded then to ask whether the selection should be from the second decade. The reply was "Yes." Thus the selection was to be between 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20.


Proceeding as I had earlier, selected as the centuria Praerogativa was Centuria XIV.

Nil amplius te hodie posco, Iove, satis est. Gratias magnas tibi ago.

Then offering incense once more in thanks for His participation I ended the rite.

Vadete in pace Deorum""


　



To: zidel333@...; fabiadrusilla@...; marminius@...; albucius_aoe@...
CC: christer.edling@...; tau.athanasios@...; iulius_sabinus@...; novaromacomitiacenturiata@yahoogroups.com; nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; nr_senaculum@yahoogroups.com; livia.plauta@...
From: mhoratius@...
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 09:52:51 -0700
Subject: [NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata] Re: On now closed CC's centuria praerogativa










M. Moravius Piscinus P. Memmio Albucio Consuli dicit

Auspices were taken for the call of the Comitia Centuriata made by Counsul K. Fabio maior. The Gods selected centuria XIV as praerogativa centuria. The Gods are not subject to your laws.

No centuria praerogativa was chosen for elections you called under vitiated auspices.

The whole election was vitiated by your actions. The lack of a legal centuria praerogativa is just one more example. We were warned by the Gods when They selected centuria XIV that these elections would be vitiated. Factum est.

As you pointed out in your recent declaration, a consul is obligated under the Constitution to uphold the Religio Romana. You have not done so, not by the procedures you followed in taking a vitiated tripudium, not by claiming to take auspices for another magistrate, the convening magistrate, not by your many refusals to discuss your improper procedures with me individually, with Augur Agricola, with the Collegium Augurum as a whole, and not by your repeated examples of ignoring the advice of the Collegium Augurum. Nor have you upheld the Religio Romana by attempting to usurp the authority of the augures, of the Collegium Augurum, by attempting to overrule the Collegium and its decreta over matters under its provincia. It is your actions, and yours alone, that have vitiated the entire electoreal process.

If you uphold the Religio Romana, then there can be no other choice then that you throw out the results as unacceptable due to vitium, as there is no way that any praetores suffecti can take office without being declared in vitio creati.

--- On Wed, 7/7/10, Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:


From: Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...>
Subject: On now closed CC's centuria praerogativa
To: zidel333@..., fabiadrusilla@..., "M. Arminius Maior" <marminius@...>, "Marcus Moravius Horatius Piscinus" <mhoratius@...>
Cc: "Caeso Fabius Quintilianus" <christer.edling@...>, "Fabius Buteo Modianus" <tau.athanasios@...>, "Iulius Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...>, novaromacomitiacenturiata@yahoogroups.com, nova-roma@yahoogroups.com, nr_senaculum@yahoogroups.com, "Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...>
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2010, 10:09 AM


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


Votre vie privée l'est-elle vraiment ? Internet Explorer 8 vous protège gratuitement


_________________________________________________________________
Le nouveau Hotmail est presque arrivé, ne le manquez pas !
http://www.windowslive.fr/nouveau-hotmail/

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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

Of course a consul can convene the comitia. I would never dispute such a
thing. I would even state that a consul is the "ordinary" magistrate to
convene the centuries. However, our law requires that it be auspicious and
that is what is being called into question. The auspicious nature of the
comitia call. The auspicious nature is the responsibility of the Collegium
Augurum. It is not a power grab, it is a statement that the convening was
not auspicious and therefore the root of the problem. Not a power grab,
simply the Collegium Augurum stating that a do over is necessary to ensure
an auspicious election.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> First, I will thank you openly for actually considering what I have to say
> rather than simply brushing it off. We can have very civil and serious
> discussion without resorting to the vacuous and senseless ranting that we
> see coming from... other parts...
>
> Anyways, it just dawned on me that in a very crucial way we are talking
> about two different things, perhaps.
>
> You are concerned with the *internal* laws regarding the comitia; what
> happens in the process of their being made valid. These rules are, as you
> state, made within the comitia and are in fact subject only to the comitia
> in question's authority as far as their operation. You are absolutely right
> in this.
>
> But I am talking about the actual *call* itself. The consuls are given the
> authority to *call* the comitia and the Senate without reservation or
> modification or supplementation by any other law - it is in their powers as
> given by the Constitution. They simply have the power to do so.
>
> Once that call is *made*, perhaps, the rest of the legal procedures which
> are in place become active.
>
> The decretum attempted to stop the consul from calling the comitia and
> erase the session of the Senate, which no authority in our law has the power
> to do. The decretum cannot stand.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>


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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus V. Rutiliae Enodiariae salutem dicit

Not a bad idea but I fear it would deplete our entire budget with
International airfare, but something that would certainly be helpful.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:56 PM, enodia2002 <walkyr@...> wrote:

>
>
> V Rutilia Enodiaria omnibusque spd
>
> We seem to have reached an impasse once again. Since there appears to be
> funds in the treasury, perhaps now is the time to use some of them to
> convene a physical meeting of the Senate, with airfare & accommodations
> provided by NR. This would provide an opportunity for face to face
> discussions.
>
> We might also be wise to bring in a meeting facilitator to assist in
> keeping things on track.
>
> Optime vale,
>
> Enodia
>


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

M. Moravius C. Equitio s. p. d.

As only I can really answer some of your questions, I shall try to do so.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

First Consul K. Fabius Quintilianus requested that I take the auspices on his behalf to hold elections in the Comitia Populi. A range of dates were proposed on when he might like to hold the elections. My report to the consules, recorded in the Collegium Augurum, states:

"Inquiring whether it would be proper for K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus to conduct elections in the Comitia Populi Tributa as he had planned, I heard thunder occur behind the station of Flora, denoting terrestrial matters, and a bolt of lightning appeared to another who was present, looking south, as I saw the lightning ahead of me in the east by southeast near the station of Jupiter. I took this as an approving sign."

So, I specifically asked, by name, about whether Consul Fabius, not Consul Memmius, was accepted as the convening magistrate. When later I was then asked to take auspices again on whether the Comitia Centuriata could also be called, under Consul Fabius, with voting to begin on the same date as the Comitia Populi (as those questions were put to me in his request) I again specifically named Kaeso Fabius Buteo Quintilianus as the convening magistrate.


Now, in anticipation of another pertinent question on what date was selected to hold elections, that too began with the auspices taken for the Comitia Populi. The later auspices for the Comitia Centuriata, after all, was on whether the same date could be used. So, let me quote my report once more:

"Next I inquired about specific dates on which to begin voting in the comitia. When I inquired about begining the vote on 22 June, I received several claps of thunder in the southwest and when asked for confirmation I received a lighting bolt on the right: ENEBRA: it is prohibited to hold the elections beginning on 22 June.

"Next I inquired about 23 June. Lightning struck in the south, on the right, and a line of thunder sounded from the south through the southwest: REMORA: the comitia would have to be postponed for another day.

"Therefore I inquired about begining the comitia vote on 24 June, Midsummer's Day. Immediately a great wind came up from the south, bending trees towards the east, and a second wind came out of the northwest, bending northern trees towards the east as well, so that they appeared as two hands of several fingers arching towards the east. Lightning appeared over the station of Flora, granting approval but without the aid of the God for these elections. When I then asked for a confirmation, which I did three separate times, I saw approving lightning strikes repeated ahead of me in the east high above the station of Jupiter, and my fellow observer, from her position, viewed these same lightning bolts on her left above Jupiter's puteal. When the sun had then reached its highest point that day, I arose from my seat to end the auspicium.

"By the auspicia maxima ex caelo that I have received this day, the Gods have indicated Their approval of Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus holding elections in the Comitia Populi Tributa beginning on 24 Juno 2763 AUC."

First, 24 June was indicated by the the auspicium remora given in reply to the suggested date of 23 June, as remora means postponing another 24 hours. Then approving signs were received for 24 June when I inquired of that date, and it was then further confirmed three more times by both the auspex and his assistant. And when on a later date I again inquired, as required by Consul Fabius, whether this date of 24 June could be used by Consul Fabius to begin voting, that date was again confirmed by Jupiter Optimus Maximus in no uncertain terms.


> 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.
>

Actually the constitutional responsibility is with the Collegium Augurum, not the Collegium Pontificum. By ancient law, three make a collegium. We have three augures. They acted together as a collegium. And in point of fact the Collegium Augurum is bringing the practice of the auspicia back into line with the ancient ars auguria. As for what Consul Memmius did, waving his blue hankerchief about and placing it on his head and all the other details of his report, I don't know what it was, but he did not take auspices ex avibus, nor by auspicia ex caelo as I had done, and if you knew anything about the ars augurum you would know the order of hierarchy here. Auspicia for a comitia is to be taken by ex avibus, and only ex caelo are higher in precedence. Tripudia were not used inside the City or for comitia until late, and then only as a substitute to be able to manipulate the auspices. To quote Gualterus:

"Cicero's well-known condemnation of the forced tripudium (divination by chickens) whereby they are caged and starved such that when finally given food they will eat greedily and let some drop to the ground (Div. 2.73)."

Cicero condemn the practice as false auspices.

Gualterus also quotes from Pliny, although he completely missed the point Pliny was making:

"At all events, it is a principle in the doctrine of the augurs, that neither imprecations nor auspices of any kind have any effect upon those who, when entering upon an undertaking, declare that they will pay no attention whatever to them; a greater instance than which, of the indulgent disposition of the gods towards us, cannot be found. (N.H. 28.4)"

In other words, the Gods only send true auspices to those who actually believe in the Gods, who are in fact cultores Deorum. I seriously doubt that waving a blue kerchief got Their attention.


> 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.
>

As I see it, the Tridentine Mass is a foreign ritual of symbolic human sacrifice and cannabalism that has no relation whatsoever to the practice of Roman auspicia. So why even bring it up? The Collegium Augurum, not the pontifices, can correct errors by instruction, which is exactly what the Augures publici have done in their decreta. The so-called tripudia of Consul Memmius were done in error, vitiated. The Collegium Augurum examined them, discussed them, researched and discussed them more, and then we made our determination as a collegium. That is ancient practice and what the Constitution lays out as the responsibility of the Collegium Augurum. Not the uneducated opinions of non-practitioners in back alleys.


> 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.
>

Calling the Senate and comitia "to order." Selective reading again? First, however, the Senate or comitia have to be duly constituted, and that is done under proper auspices. And the Constitution, with which you seem to have such a problem understanding, stipulates that it is the Collegium Augurum, and the Collegium Augurum alone, that is responsible "To research, practice, and uphold the ars auguria." It is only the Collegium Augurum that determines what are or are not proper auspices.


> 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
>

Precisely. And the fact is that the Gods were very clear in providing us with auspices. Consul Memmius chose to ignore Them. The Constitution states: "All magistrates and Senators, as officers of the State, shall be required to publicly show respect for the Religio Romana and the Gods and Goddesses that made Rome great." Ignoring the constitutional determinations of the sacerdotal Collegia, attempting to usurp their constitutional authority over religious matters and religious institutions, ignoring the auspices provided by the Gods, illegally attempting to overrule decreta of the Collegia, which the Constitution prohibits consules from doing, does not "publicly show respect for the Religio Romana." And a former decretum said that to hold comitia without proper auspices, as Consul Memmius has been determined to have done, will be held as a crime of impietas prudens dolo malo.

Cato Modiano sal.

Here's the rub: where *in the Constitution* does it require that the consul can *only call the comitia* if the auspices have been taken? Not in any lex or decretum or edictum, but in the Constitution itself?

And all due respect, a decree stating that elections already underway and a Senate session already completed are invalid is a direct strike at the civil, legal functions of the Resublica.

Vale,

Cato

M. Moravius P. Memmio Consuli

I speak for myself, as a Diribitor, that as far as I know no centuria of the first class was ever chosen as the centuria praerogativa for these elections.

BTW had centuria XIV been the centuria praerogativa, then M. Hortensia Maior won it.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Diribitori Moravio s.d.
>
>
>
> I am sorry stating, Moravi, that again, you are not answering simply to my simple questions, and seem confusing your various roles.
>
>
>
> My question is not on the election that should have, in your mind, been presided by my colleague but on the election that I called.
>
>
>
> My question is not asked to the citizen, the RR cultor, etc., but to the *diribitor* concerning his office.
>
> 　
>
> So, may I keep, so that we go forward, as an objective answer: "No centuria praerogativa was chosen for elections you called" ?
>
>
>
> Second, if I am not wrong -even if I do like the beautiful flight "The Gods selected centuria XIV as praerogativa centuria." - may you simply, as I am very "down-to-earth" and addressing here, in the frame of my modest consular charge, a diribitor and not the Gods, just confirm that you are referring to the selection that you - for I sure would have noticed if a God had sent me an e-mail! - sent the report to the consuls on Mon. June 14, 14:38, and which follows? That's it?
>
>
>
> Last, do you speak here just for yourself, or for the three other diribitors with their previous agreement?
>
>
>
> Thanks still for your quick answer, and for answering the above additional points ; vale.
>
>
>
> 　
>
> Albucius cos.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ""M. Moravius Piscinus Magister Collegium Augurum K. Fabio Butone et P. Memmio Consilibus salutem plurimam dicit:
>
> PRAEFATIO
>
> "Iuppiter Optime Maxime, te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor, uti sis volens propitius nobis custodibus diribitoribusque, magistratibus candidatis, consuli Kaesone Fabio Buteone Quintiliano et Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus, mihi, domo, familiae!"
>
> Jupiter, Best and Greatest, by offering You this incense I pray good prayers so that You are benevolent and propitious to us, the Custodes and Diribitores, to the candidates for magistracies, to the Presiding Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites, to the Senate and People of the Nova Roman Quirites, to me, to my household and to my family.
>
> (Incense is offered.)
>
>
> "Iuppiter Optime Maxime, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces precatus sum,
> eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto!"
>
> Jupiter, Best and Greatest, while offering incense I have prayed good prayers, for the very same reason may You be strengthen by this wine.
>
> (A libation is offered.)
>
> PRECATIO
>
> "Iuppiter Optime Maxime, te precor, quaesoque: uti suffragia tu custodias utique centuria praerogativa voluntate tua decernas, cum sestertio Novo Romano sortem faciam; utique sies volens propitius nobis custodibus diribitoribusque, magistratibus candidatis, consuli K. Fabio Buteone Quintiliano et Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus, mihi, domo, familiae!"
>
> Jupiter, Best and Greatest, I pray and ask You so that You watch over our elections, and You decide the Centuria Praerogativa according to Your will when I will draw the lots by tossing a Nova Roman sesterce; and that You be benevolent and propitious to us, the Custodes and Diribitores, to the candidates for magistracies, to the Presiding Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites, to the Senate and People of the Nova Roman Quirites, to me, to my household and to my family.
>
>
> SACRIFICIUM
>
> "Cuius rei ergo macte hoc vino libando, hoc ture ommovendo esto fito volens propitius nobis custodibus diribitoribusque, magistratibus candidatis, consuli M. Curiatio et Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus, mihi, domo, familiae!"
>
> For this reason, strengthened by this offering of wine, by this offering of incense, may You be benevolent and propitious to us, the Custodes and Diribitores, to the candidates for magistracies, to the Presiding Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites, to the Senate and People of the Nova Roman Quirites, to me, to my household and to my family.
>
> After this rite I took up the sesterces of Nova Roma to determine the centuria praerogativa for the election in the comitia for a praetor suffectus.
>
> "Sancte Pater, velis dexter inesse meo."
>
> "Holy Father, may You wish to be in my right hand."
>
> First I asked whether the centuria chosen ought to be an odd-numbered centuria, since odd numbers are propitious. Ill-omened centuriae were excluded. Using two sesterces, I designated that two obverse or two reverso shall be accepted to mean "Yes" and that one obverso and one reverso shall be accepted as "No."
>
> "Di prohibete minas"
>
> After receiving an answer of "No" I then asked whether an even-numbered centuria would be acceptable. Neither selected, I continued the process until an answer selected that an even-numbered centuria ought to be the centuria praerogativa.
>
> Next I asked whether the centuria praerogativa ought to be selected from the first decade of centuriae. The answer being "No" I proceeded then to ask whether the selection should be from the second decade. The reply was "Yes." Thus the selection was to be between 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20.
>
>
> Proceeding as I had earlier, selected as the centuria Praerogativa was Centuria XIV.
>
> Nil amplius te hodie posco, Iove, satis est. Gratias magnas tibi ago.
>
> Then offering incense once more in thanks for His participation I ended the rite.
>
> Vadete in pace Deorum""
>
>
> 　
>
>
>
> To: zidel333@...; fabiadrusilla@...; marminius@...; albucius_aoe@...
> CC: christer.edling@...; tau.athanasios@...; iulius_sabinus@...; novaromacomitiacenturiata@yahoogroups.com; nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; nr_senaculum@yahoogroups.com; livia.plauta@...
> From: mhoratius@...
> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 09:52:51 -0700
> Subject: [NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata] Re: On now closed CC's centuria praerogativa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> M. Moravius Piscinus P. Memmio Albucio Consuli dicit
>
> Auspices were taken for the call of the Comitia Centuriata made by Counsul K. Fabio maior. The Gods selected centuria XIV as praerogativa centuria. The Gods are not subject to your laws.
>
> No centuria praerogativa was chosen for elections you called under vitiated auspices.
>
> The whole election was vitiated by your actions. The lack of a legal centuria praerogativa is just one more example. We were warned by the Gods when They selected centuria XIV that these elections would be vitiated. Factum est.
>
> As you pointed out in your recent declaration, a consul is obligated under the Constitution to uphold the Religio Romana. You have not done so, not by the procedures you followed in taking a vitiated tripudium, not by claiming to take auspices for another magistrate, the convening magistrate, not by your many refusals to discuss your improper procedures with me individually, with Augur Agricola, with the Collegium Augurum as a whole, and not by your repeated examples of ignoring the advice of the Collegium Augurum. Nor have you upheld the Religio Romana by attempting to usurp the authority of the augures, of the Collegium Augurum, by attempting to overrule the Collegium and its decreta over matters under its provincia. It is your actions, and yours alone, that have vitiated the entire electoreal process.
>
> If you uphold the Religio Romana, then there can be no other choice then that you throw out the results as unacceptable due to vitium, as there is no way that any praetores suffecti can take office without being declared in vitio creati.
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 7/7/10, Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...>
> Subject: On now closed CC's centuria praerogativa
> To: zidel333@..., fabiadrusilla@..., "M. Arminius Maior" <marminius@...>, "Marcus Moravius Horatius Piscinus" <mhoratius@...>
> Cc: "Caeso Fabius Quintilianus" <christer.edling@...>, "Fabius Buteo Modianus" <tau.athanasios@...>, "Iulius Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...>, novaromacomitiacenturiata@yahoogroups.com, nova-roma@yahoogroups.com, nr_senaculum@yahoogroups.com, "Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...>
> Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2010, 10:09 AM
>
>
> 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
>
>
> Votre vie privée l'est-elle vraiment ? Internet Explorer 8 vous protège gratuitement
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Le nouveau Hotmail est presque arrivé, ne le manquez pas !
> http://www.windowslive.fr/nouveau-hotmail/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Catoni salutem dicit

It doesn't need to specify that in the constitution. There is a lot that we
do that is not in the constitution.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

>
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> Here's the rub: where *in the Constitution* does it require that the consul
> can *only call the comitia* if the auspices have been taken? Not in any lex
> or decretum or edictum, but in the Constitution itself?
>
> And all due respect, a decree stating that elections already underway and a
> Senate session already completed are invalid is a direct strike at the
> civil, legal functions of the Resublica.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>


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

Cato Piscino sal.

Excellent. I shall have responses and more questions in a little while - but warning Maior! I am going out to dinner, I am not hiding anywhere! Even I must eat.

Vale,

Cato

Caeca Iuliae sal,

Gratias tibi ago, Amica! MMMM!!!! Another goodie to go on to my virtual TBR (to be read) bookshelf! Yeah! Running out of reading material is ...a fate worse than death!

Vale quam optime,
CMC

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

Catone sal.

First, the Constitution does not simply say "call a comitia" but says "call a comitia to order". Implicit is that a comitia has been properly constituted first.

Perhaps you do not understand the term "comitia" as it means an assembly of the people in a duly ecfeted templum under favorable auspices.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Cato" <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> Cato Modiano sal.
>
> Here's the rub: where *in the Constitution* does it require that the consul can *only call the comitia* if the auspices have been taken? Not in any lex or decretum or edictum, but in the Constitution itself?
>
> And all due respect, a decree stating that elections already underway and a Senate session already completed are invalid is a direct strike at the civil, legal functions of the Resublica.
>
> Vale,
>
> Cato
>

For 12 years the Comita has been called to order to vote regardless of
Auspices or not. That doesn't wash.

In the constitution the comitia is just a body of people who vote, at its
core, given that NR is a public benefit corporation and NR is not in any way
shape or form a religious based corporation. Given the fact that
non-cultors can be magistrates and summon the comitia you are treading a
very fine ground where the enroachment of religion in a non-religious based
corporation can be construed as discriminating against non-cultors.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:21 PM, marcushoratius <MHoratius@...>wrote:

>
>
> Catone sal.
>
> First, the Constitution does not simply say "call a comitia" but says "call
> a comitia to order". Implicit is that a comitia has been properly
> constituted first.
>
> Perhaps you do not understand the term "comitia" as it means an assembly of
> the people in a duly ecfeted templum under favorable auspices.
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, "Cato"
> <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
> >
> > Cato Modiano sal.
> >
> > Here's the rub: where *in the Constitution* does it require that the
> consul can *only call the comitia* if the auspices have been taken? Not in
> any lex or decretum or edictum, but in the Constitution itself?
> >
> > And all due respect, a decree stating that elections already underway and
> a Senate session already completed are invalid is a direct strike at the
> civil, legal functions of the Resublica.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Cato
> >
>
>
>


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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit

I have taken auspicies, over the years as an augur, several times for
comitia. Would you prefer we do away with augury all together? I consider
it an important part of our mos maiorum.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> For 12 years the Comita has been called to order to vote regardless of
> Auspices or not. That doesn't wash.
>
> In the constitution the comitia is just a body of people who vote, at its
> core, given that NR is a public benefit corporation and NR is not in any
> way
> shape or form a religious based corporation. Given the fact that
> non-cultors can be magistrates and summon the comitia you are treading a
> very fine ground where the enroachment of religion in a non-religious based
> corporation can be construed as discriminating against non-cultors.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla

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

Please do not put words in my mouth.

I prefer that the CA be in compliance with the constitution and concern
itself with its own internal affairs. And to assist and advise magistrates
on how to conduct auspices but not to exert a coercive role. Think of it
like an advisory body not an administrative one - as we already have an
administrative body - The Senate.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:34 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
>
> I have taken auspicies, over the years as an augur, several times for
> comitia. Would you prefer we do away with augury all together? I consider
> it an important part of our mos maiorum.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>wrote:
>
>
> > For 12 years the Comita has been called to order to vote regardless of
> > Auspices or not. That doesn't wash.
> >
> > In the constitution the comitia is just a body of people who vote, at its
> > core, given that NR is a public benefit corporation and NR is not in any
> > way
> > shape or form a religious based corporation. Given the fact that
> > non-cultors can be magistrates and summon the comitia you are treading a
> > very fine ground where the enroachment of religion in a non-religious
> based
> > corporation can be construed as discriminating against non-cultors.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit

The Collegium Augurum is more than just a group of advisors. We have
jurisdiction over the rites of augury, that is what the constitution states.
The constitution gives augures and augures alone the right to augury. That
this right has been given to magistrates via a decretum could be seen as
"unconstitutional" if you want to look at it from the lens that you and Cato
are using. Also, since the Collegium Augurum can issue decretum they are
more than just a group of advisors. You might not like that, but our
constitution gives the augures the right to assemble and issue decretum.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Please do not put words in my mouth.
>
> I prefer that the CA be in compliance with the constitution and concern
> itself with its own internal affairs. And to assist and advise magistrates
> on how to conduct auspices but not to exert a coercive role. Think of it
> like an advisory body not an administrative one - as we already have an
> administrative body - The Senate.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla

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

Ave,

No, you don't. When your actions prevent an elected magistrate and officer
of the corporation from carrying out his or her duties. You have crossed a
line. It can be viewed as blackmail/extortion or flat out discrimination.
It is something that if taken to Maine Court - what is a judge going to look
at? A public benefit not for profit officer is being prevented from his
duties and responsibilities by a select group of members who may or may not
be board members talking about a religion that has minimal legal authority
in the bylaws. Then toss in a non-cultor magistrate vs this body of
individuals and in the end it will simply destroy the organization.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
>
> The Collegium Augurum is more than just a group of advisors. We have
> jurisdiction over the rites of augury, that is what the constitution
> states.
> The constitution gives augures and augures alone the right to augury. That
> this right has been given to magistrates via a decretum could be seen as
> "unconstitutional" if you want to look at it from the lens that you and
> Cato
> are using. Also, since the Collegium Augurum can issue decretum they are
> more than just a group of advisors. You might not like that, but our
> constitution gives the augures the right to assemble and issue decretum.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Robert Woolwine
>
> <robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>wrote:
>
> > Please do not put words in my mouth.
> >
> > I prefer that the CA be in compliance with the constitution and concern
> > itself with its own internal affairs. And to assist and advise
> magistrates
> > on how to conduct auspices but not to exert a coercive role. Think of it
> > like an advisory body not an administrative one - as we already have an
> > administrative body - The Senate.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Valerianus Sullae Modianoque S.D.

Look, Sulla, Modianus is right - the augurs are not simply advisors, they
can enact decreta. Here is the Constitution:
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*).
BUT I think Cato's argument about the nature of the decreta is - they must
be about the ars auguria. They may decree that a purple bird flying in a
circle backwards is a bad sign. They may NOT decree that having seen said
purple bird, the ongoing election is invalid.

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:45 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
>
> The Collegium Augurum is more than just a group of advisors. We have
> jurisdiction over the rites of augury, that is what the constitution
> states.
> The constitution gives augures and augures alone the right to augury. That
> this right has been given to magistrates via a decretum could be seen as
> "unconstitutional" if you want to look at it from the lens that you and
> Cato
> are using. Also, since the Collegium Augurum can issue decretum they are
> more than just a group of advisors. You might not like that, but our
> constitution gives the augures the right to assemble and issue decretum.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
>


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

M. Hortensia; I have yet to see evidence of Sulla's law degree or certificates, I showed the apporpriate papers to the censors.

We have bylaws which are the Constitution. Nova Roma is a 501(c)(3) non profit devoted to "Dedicated to the restoration of classical Roman religion, culture and virtues"

Religion is a big part of it. Sulla's demand letter cost him $300, and that from a construction lawyer. That is a pittance compared to a suit against a non-profit. That's corporate law; you have to pay a lawyer. A Maine lawyer. So all of these legal threats are bluff and nonsense.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> No, you don't. When your actions prevent an elected magistrate and officer
> of the corporation from carrying out his or her duties. You have crossed a
> line. It can be viewed as blackmail/extortion or flat out discrimination.
> It is something that if taken to Maine Court - what is a judge going to look
> at? A public benefit not for profit officer is being prevented from his
> duties and responsibilities by a select group of members who may or may not
> be board members talking about a religion that has minimal legal authority
> in the bylaws. Then toss in a non-cultor magistrate vs this body of
> individuals and in the end it will simply destroy the organization.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
> >
> > The Collegium Augurum is more than just a group of advisors. We have
> > jurisdiction over the rites of augury, that is what the constitution
> > states.
> > The constitution gives augures and augures alone the right to augury. That
> > this right has been given to magistrates via a decretum could be seen as
> > "unconstitutional" if you want to look at it from the lens that you and
> > Cato
> > are using. Also, since the Collegium Augurum can issue decretum they are
> > more than just a group of advisors. You might not like that, but our
> > constitution gives the augures the right to assemble and issue decretum.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Modianus
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Robert Woolwine
> >
> > <robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>wrote:
> >
> > > Please do not put words in my mouth.
> > >
> > > I prefer that the CA be in compliance with the constitution and concern
> > > itself with its own internal affairs. And to assist and advise
> > magistrates
> > > on how to conduct auspices but not to exert a coercive role. Think of it
> > > like an advisory body not an administrative one - as we already have an
> > > administrative body - The Senate.
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > >
> > > Sulla
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Valerianus Maiori S.D.

Salve Maior, I know you don't like to listen to me, but please - be careful.
You sound like you're admitting that you know you're approving breaking the
law (macronational this time), but don't care because you think it's too
expensive for you to be prosecuted, so you don't think you'll be caught.
That is not the message you want to send.

And if I were you, I wouldn't bet - ever - on what Sulla is and isn't
willing to do, or how far he's willing to go. I don't speak for him, but . .
. Well, it is true. "No better friend, no worse enemy." Works for both the
ancient and modern Sullae.

I don't remember Sulla ever claiming to be a lawyer, practicing or
otherwise.

Vale

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:00 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> M. Hortensia; I have yet to see evidence of Sulla's law degree or
> certificates, I showed the apporpriate papers to the censors.
>
> We have bylaws which are the Constitution. Nova Roma is a 501(c)(3) non
> profit devoted to "Dedicated to the restoration of classical Roman religion,
> culture and virtues"
>
> Religion is a big part of it. Sulla's demand letter cost him $300, and that
> from a construction lawyer. That is a pittance compared to a suit against a
> non-profit. That's corporate law; you have to pay a lawyer. A Maine lawyer.
> So all of these legal threats are bluff and nonsense.
> vale
> Maior
>


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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit

I'm not concerned about Maine court. I care about the mos maiorum. I
didn't join Nova Roma to be a "Roman Club" but to be a part of something
bigger. Since you came back you have mentioned "board of directors,"
"bylaws," and other 'macronational' jargon that was not much of a part of
our culture. You have threatened lawsuit on several occassion, so claiming
the Collegium Augurum is engaging in extortion seems like deflection. I'm
sorry, but I do not accept your line of reasoning nor do I accept your
arguments.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Ave,
>
> No, you don't. When your actions prevent an elected magistrate and officer
> of the corporation from carrying out his or her duties. You have crossed a
> line. It can be viewed as blackmail/extortion or flat out discrimination.
> It is something that if taken to Maine Court - what is a judge going to
> look
> at? A public benefit not for profit officer is being prevented from his
> duties and responsibilities by a select group of members who may or may not
> be board members talking about a religion that has minimal legal authority
> in the bylaws. Then toss in a non-cultor magistrate vs this body of
> individuals and in the end it will simply destroy the organization.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla

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

Salve Collega,

　

First please, when you address our Quirites on a matter that concerns me, at least send a copy of your letter to me privately, as you do usually, and as we agreed in January.





On the matter of your first paragraph, I have already explained it privately to you and Moravius augur, but had the impress not being understood nor listened.



Let us re-put things on the table in full transparency.



Initially, between May 30 to June 1, was just at stake a comitia populi (CPT). At this time, we had still 2 praetors. Moravius augur took auspices which stated, for this CPT, that the recommended date, *for the vote*, was June 24th. A few days later, we agreed that we *might* place a Comitia centuriata, specially to evoke NR by-laws, at the end of June, and that, towards the IT difficulty we were stating ahead, having both comitia voting on the same day would be perfect.



Until that, every thing was ok, except the fact that a vote on June 24 demanded a session opening on 19 and a call on 15... nefastus publicus dies, so on *June 14*. But it could work.



The first problem came when the praetor minor resigned on June 6. After a quick exchange, we agreed that it was better to fill the seat as soon as possible, and, as you were busy personally, I issued a call the next day, on 7, choosing to let a nundinum (9 days) to receive the candidacies. Naturally, I could have reduced the delay to 6 days, in order to issue the call for the comitia the day after the deadline, on 14.

But I thought at this time, and informed you of that and you did not contest the argument, that it is better, for such an important position, to let potential candidates a decent time to present their candidacy, in the special context we knew at this time. At the same time, it gave time enough to the augurs to organize and issue a second taking of auspices (for the CC), which would fit with my call.

So, from this very day on, voting on the 24th was no more legally possible, but we had all the time to organize, you with the IT technician (Pius) and the augurs to postpone the voting day of both comitia (CPT and CC) of a few days. It was *just a matter of good willing and coherent reaction*.



The 2nd problem we faced was the resignation of the praetor maior on June 9, which required a new adapted call for candidacies, this time for the 2 offices, on June 10.



And at this time, we see that the calendar that I set (candidacies for the 16th), and which was a comfortable one, was finally a just correct one, for it allowed a few cives, who had not intended running when just one seat of praetor was available, to do it but inside just 6 days.

The remaining is mechanical: once the candidacies were registered, and verified the next day on June 17, the call for the CC was issued on June 18 for a contio the 23, with a vote *therefore* which could never take place on 24th.

Now, you sure remember that I warned you and Moravius augur, before you left your office for Rome, that our initial wish to have a vote on June 24 was *impossible materially*.



This is why, and I am sure that you will now better understand it, as our augur seemed stuck on the day evoked on May 30, and ignoring the events occurring in the interval and my warnings, that I was obliged to re-take appropriate auspices for the comitia, which would have been vitiated, otherwise, by the initial ones.



Believe me, dear Colleague: if things were to happen again, I would let you dealing with the whole situation !!!



On your last paragraph, I do not remember at all your last sentence, while I well remembered having asked to you, more fluent in English that I am, to approach Moravius to explain to him that the positions he had taken on the auspices would bring us to a blockage, for I would never accept that the curule magistrates be contested their constitutional power to take the auspices. I also remember having added that, this point aside, everything was for discussion.



Vale sincerely,





Albucius cos.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Christer Edling <christer.edling@...> wrote:
>
> 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.






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

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

C. Tullius Valerianus omnibus in foro S.P.D.

Hey, let's all take a deep breath, and when we continue this, do it in a
different thread. Poor C. Iunius Nero! The thread about his plebian status
and wish to be a patrician has become the battleground of this crisis!

Valete!

--
"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]

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus S.P.D.

When Marca Hortensia Maior states, "I showed the apporpriate papers to the
censors" she is referring to a document from the State of New York
classifying her as an attorney in "retired" status. Therefore, the
accusations against her by both Sulla and Cato are unfounded and in error.
By myself and my colleague are in possession of a copy of this document.
Their attack on her character was unnecessary and insinuated something that
wasn't true.

Valete;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:00 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> M. Hortensia; I have yet to see evidence of Sulla's law degree or
> certificates, I showed the apporpriate papers to the censors.
>
> We have bylaws which are the Constitution. Nova Roma is a 501(c)(3) non
> profit devoted to "Dedicated to the restoration of classical Roman religion,
> culture and virtues"
>
> Religion is a big part of it. Sulla's demand letter cost him $300, and that
> from a construction lawyer. That is a pittance compared to a suit against a
> non-profit. That's corporate law; you have to pay a lawyer. A Maine lawyer.
> So all of these legal threats are bluff and nonsense.
> vale
> Maior
>


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

Salve Enodia!

THis was one of the purposes of the Consular Cobentuus that I called
for in June. Please observe my late report about it. Only one citizen
from Moldavia found his way to this meeting. The intention of the
Coventus was exactly to meet eye yo and to do it before we had acrisis
as we could feel it in the air that it was coming.

Soe people wa clear that they could come, many bever even responded
and te Conventus was a faulure. To use our money to pay for a second
attempt I fear would be futile.

In Nova Roma there ar talkers and doers and I am not even sure tat the
at talkers would be able to find time to come.

Ehe present problems are not so complicated that we have to have long
meetings about them. To me the questions are easy and the answers will
be clear pretty soon. Should we have a IT-system, should we honor the
Religio, should we have a CFO and should Nova Roma be working with RL
projects or should we just talk?

**********

7 jul 2010 kl. 23.56 skrev enodia2002:

V Rutilia Enodiaria omnibusque spd

We seem to have reached an impasse once again. Since there appears to
be funds in the treasury, perhaps now is the time to use some of them
to convene a physical meeting of the Senate, with airfare &
accommodations provided by NR. This would provide an opportunity for
face to face discussions.

We might also be wise to bring in a meeting facilitator to assist in
keeping things on track.

Optime vale,

Enodia





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

Moravio diribitori s.d.

OK ; thanks for this clear information. I am waiting for the information that the other diribitors may bring.

I will then consider whether or not we must complete, for all centuries, the information that you gave our Quirites for centuria XIV, concerning the winner.

Vale,


Albucius cos.



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

Re: On now closed CC's centuria praerogativa


M. Moravius P. Memmio Consuli

I speak for myself, as a Diribitor, that as far as I know no centuria of the
first class was ever chosen as the centuria praerogativa for these elections.

BTW had centuria XIV been the centuria praerogativa, then M. Hortensia Maior won
it.


--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...>
wrote:


From: albucius_aoe@...
To: mhoratius@...
CC: zidel333@...; fabiadrusilla@...; marminius@...; christer.edling@...; tau.athanasios@...; iulius_sabinus@...; novaromacomitiacenturiata@yahoogroups.com; nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; nr_senaculum@yahoogroups.com; livia.plauta@...
Subject: Re: On now closed CC's centuria praerogativa
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:07:42 +0200



Diribitori Moravio s.d.

I am sorry stating, Moravi, that again, you are not answering simply to my simple questions, and seem confusing your various roles.

My question is not on the election that should have, in your mind, been presided by my colleague but on the election that I called.

My question is not asked to the citizen, the RR cultor, etc., but to the *diribitor* concerning his office.
　
So, may I keep, so that we go forward, as an objective answer: "No centuria praerogativa was chosen for elections you called" ?

Second, if I am not wrong -even if I do like the beautiful flight "The Gods selected centuria XIV as praerogativa centuria." - may you simply, as I am very "down-to-earth" and addressing here, in the frame of my modest consular charge, a diribitor and not the Gods, just confirm that you are referring to the selection that you - for I sure would have noticed if a God had sent me an e-mail! - sent the report to the consuls on Mon. June 14, 14:38, and which follows? That's it?

Last, do you speak here just for yourself, or for the three other diribitors with their previous agreement?

Thanks still for your quick answer, and for answering the above additional points ; vale.

　
Albucius cos.
________________________________________________________________________________

""M. Moravius Piscinus Magister Collegium Augurum K. Fabio Butone et P. Memmio Consilibus salutem plurimam dicit:
PRAEFATIO
"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, te hoc ture commovendo bonas preces precor, uti sis volens propitius nobis custodibus diribitoribusque, magistratibus candidatis, consuli Kaesone Fabio Buteone Quintiliano et Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus, mihi, domo, familiae!"

Jupiter, Best and Greatest, by offering You this incense I pray good prayers so that You are benevolent and propitious to us, the Custodes and Diribitores, to the candidates for magistracies, to the Presiding Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites, to the Senate and People of the Nova Roman Quirites, to me, to my household and to my family.

(Incense is offered.)

"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, uti te ture commovendo bonas preces precatus sum,
eiusdem rei ergo macte vino inferio esto!"

Jupiter, Best and Greatest, while offering incense I have prayed good prayers, for the very same reason may You be strengthen by this wine.

(A libation is offered.)
PRECATIO
"Iuppiter Optime Maxime, te precor, quaesoque: uti suffragia tu custodias utique centuria praerogativa voluntate tua decernas, cum sestertio Novo Romano sortem faciam; utique sies volens propitius nobis custodibus diribitoribusque, magistratibus candidatis, consuli K. Fabio Buteone Quintiliano et Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus, mihi, domo, familiae!"

Jupiter, Best and Greatest, I pray and ask You so that You watch over our elections, and You decide the Centuria Praerogativa according to Your will when I will draw the lots by tossing a Nova Roman sesterce; and that You be benevolent and propitious to us, the Custodes and Diribitores, to the candidates for magistracies, to the Presiding Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites, to the Senate and People of the Nova Roman Quirites, to me, to my household and to my family.

SACRIFICIUM
"Cuius rei ergo macte hoc vino libando, hoc ture ommovendo esto fito volens propitius nobis custodibus diribitoribusque, magistratibus candidatis, consuli M. Curiatio et Rei Publicae Populi Novi Romani Quiritium, Senatui Populoque Novo Romano Quiritibus, mihi, domo, familiae!"

For this reason, strengthened by this offering of wine, by this offering of incense, may You be benevolent and propitious to us, the Custodes and Diribitores, to the candidates for magistracies, to the Presiding Consul K. Fabius Buteo Quintilianus and to the Republic of the Nova Roman People of Quirites, to the Senate and People of the Nova Roman Quirites, to me, to my household and to my family.
After this rite I took up the sesterces of Nova Roma to determine the centuria praerogativa for the election in the comitia for a praetor suffectus.
"Sancte Pater, velis dexter inesse meo."
"Holy Father, may You wish to be in my right hand."
First I asked whether the centuria chosen ought to be an odd-numbered centuria, since odd numbers are propitious. Ill-omened centuriae were excluded. Using two sesterces, I designated that two obverse or two reverso shall be accepted to mean "Yes" and that one obverso and one reverso shall be accepted as "No."
"Di prohibete minas"
After receiving an answer of "No" I then asked whether an even-numbered centuria would be acceptable. Neither selected, I continued the process until an answer selected that an even-numbered centuria ought to be the centuria praerogativa.
Next I asked whether the centuria praerogativa ought to be selected from the first decade of centuriae. The answer being "No" I proceeded then to ask whether the selection should be from the second decade. The reply was "Yes." Thus the selection was to be between 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20.

Proceeding as I had earlier, selected as the centuria Praerogativa was Centuria XIV.
Nil amplius te hodie posco, Iove, satis est. Gratias magnas tibi ago.
Then offering incense once more in thanks for His participation I ended the rite.
Vadete in pace Deorum""

　



To: zidel333@...; fabiadrusilla@...; marminius@...; albucius_aoe@...
CC: christer.edling@...; tau.athanasios@...; iulius_sabinus@...; novaromacomitiacenturiata@yahoogroups.com; nova-roma@yahoogroups.com; nr_senaculum@yahoogroups.com; livia.plauta@...
From: mhoratius@...
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 09:52:51 -0700
Subject: [NovaRomaComitiaCenturiata] Re: On now closed CC's centuria praerogativa









M. Moravius Piscinus P. Memmio Albucio Consuli dicit

Auspices were taken for the call of the Comitia Centuriata made by Counsul K. Fabio maior. The Gods selected centuria XIV as praerogativa centuria. The Gods are not subject to your laws.

No centuria praerogativa was chosen for elections you called under vitiated auspices.

The whole election was vitiated by your actions. The lack of a legal centuria praerogativa is just one more example. We were warned by the Gods when They selected centuria XIV that these elections would be vitiated. Factum est.

As you pointed out in your recent declaration, a consul is obligated under the Constitution to uphold the Religio Romana. You have not done so, not by the procedures you followed in taking a vitiated tripudium, not by claiming to take auspices for another magistrate, the convening magistrate, not by your many refusals to discuss your improper procedures with me individually, with Augur Agricola, with the Collegium Augurum as a whole, and not by your repeated examples of ignoring the advice of the Collegium Augurum. Nor have you upheld the Religio Romana by attempting to usurp the authority of the augures, of the Collegium Augurum, by attempting to overrule the Collegium and its decreta over matters under its provincia. It is your actions, and yours alone, that have vitiated the entire electoreal process.

If you uphold the Religio Romana, then there can be no other choice then that you throw out the results as unacceptable due to vitium, as there is no way that any praetores suffecti can take office without being declared in vitio creati.

--- On Wed, 7/7/10, Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...> wrote:


From: Publius Memmius Albucius <albucius_aoe@...>
Subject: On now closed CC's centuria praerogativa
To: zidel333@..., fabiadrusilla@..., "M. Arminius Maior" <marminius@...>, "Marcus Moravius Horatius Piscinus" <mhoratius@...>
Cc: "Caeso Fabius Quintilianus" <christer.edling@...>, "Fabius Buteo Modianus" <tau.athanasios@...>, "Iulius Sabinus" <iulius_sabinus@...>, novaromacomitiacenturiata@yahoogroups.com, nova-roma@yahoogroups.com, nr_senaculum@yahoogroups.com, "Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...>
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2010, 10:09 AM


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


Votre vie privée l'est-elle vraiment ? Internet Explorer 8 vous protège gratuitement







Le nouveau Messenger arrive ! Téléchargez-le gratuitement et découvrez ses nouvelles fonctionnalités
_________________________________________________________________
Découvrez Microsoft Security Essentials, l'antivirus gratuit par Microsoft
http://clk.atdmt.com/FRM/go/212688364/direct/01/

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

Salve Valerianus;
what I said was as a 501(c)(3) dedicated to Roman religion, virtues and with our Constitution as Bylaws, Sulla's threats have no weight.

I studied the Main non-profit laws. I also discussed with Laeca Sulla's violation of his duty of loyalty as a director of Nova Roma Inc. That will weigh heavily against Sulla.

Sulla uses legal threats all the time; this time I've paid attention. Nova Roma has $20,000 in the till to fight a lawsuit.
vale
Maior

> You sound like you're admitting that you know you're approving breaking the
> law (macronational this time), but don't care because you think it's too
> expensive for you to be prosecuted, so you don't think you'll be caught.
> That is not the message you want to send.
>
> And if I were you, I wouldn't bet - ever - on what Sulla is and isn't
> willing to do, or how far he's willing to go. I don't speak for him, but . .
> . Well, it is true. "No better friend, no worse enemy." Works for both the
> ancient and modern Sullae.
>
> I don't remember Sulla ever claiming to be a lawyer, practicing or
> otherwise.
>
> Vale
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:00 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > M. Hortensia; I have yet to see evidence of Sulla's law degree or
> > certificates, I showed the apporpriate papers to the censors.
> >
> > We have bylaws which are the Constitution. Nova Roma is a 501(c)(3) non
> > profit devoted to "Dedicated to the restoration of classical Roman religion,
> > culture and virtues"
> >
> > Religion is a big part of it. Sulla's demand letter cost him $300, and that
> > from a construction lawyer. That is a pittance compared to a suit against a
> > non-profit. That's corporate law; you have to pay a lawyer. A Maine lawyer.
> > So all of these legal threats are bluff and nonsense.
> > vale
> > Maior
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Ave,

I understand that - but that is only tangentially related to my point.

I am not looking at this from an NR perspective. I never have. I am solely
looking at this at the corporate perspective.

In the corporate perspective the Religio has next to zero integration within
the corporate structure. Here you have corporate officers, elected
corporate officers who are being impeded from doing their duty by a small
group of unaccountable individuals who have no or VERY minimal corporate
standing. You toss in a non-cultor magsitrate in the mix and well you get
...fireworks.

You impede Corporate officer and as a general rule you will be doomed.
Corporate officers out rank any other individuals in the Organization in
terms of authority in terms of their ability to function and represent the
organization.

Be that as it may, I also agree with Cato's rationale as well. My focus is
just focused on the corporation entity.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:

>
>
> Valerianus Sullae Modianoque S.D.
>
> Look, Sulla, Modianus is right - the augurs are not simply advisors, they
> can enact decreta. Here is the Constitution:
> 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*).
> BUT I think Cato's argument about the nature of the decreta is - they must
> be about the ars auguria. They may decree that a purple bird flying in a
> circle backwards is a bad sign. They may NOT decree that having seen said
> purple bird, the ongoing election is invalid.
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:45 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...<tau.athanasios%40gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
> >
> > The Collegium Augurum is more than just a group of advisors. We have
> > jurisdiction over the rites of augury, that is what the constitution
> > states.
> > The constitution gives augures and augures alone the right to augury.
> That
> > this right has been given to magistrates via a decretum could be seen as
> > "unconstitutional" if you want to look at it from the lens that you and
> > Cato
> > are using. Also, since the Collegium Augurum can issue decretum they are
> > more than just a group of advisors. You might not like that, but our
> > constitution gives the augures the right to assemble and issue decretum.
> >
> > Vale;
> >
> > Modianus
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Then dissolve the corporation and you wont have these headaches. As
corporation we have responsibilities that we must hold with due diligence.
If you don't want to, then work to dissolve the corporation and NR will just
be that roman club and wont have any macronational entanglements. Because,
at present we must recognize, obey and comply with those entanglements.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
>
> I'm not concerned about Maine court. I care about the mos maiorum. I
> didn't join Nova Roma to be a "Roman Club" but to be a part of something
> bigger. Since you came back you have mentioned "board of directors,"
> "bylaws," and other 'macronational' jargon that was not much of a part of
> our culture. You have threatened lawsuit on several occassion, so claiming
> the Collegium Augurum is engaging in extortion seems like deflection. I'm
> sorry, but I do not accept your line of reasoning nor do I accept your
> arguments.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Robert Woolwine
>
> <robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>wrote:
>
> > Ave,
> >
> > No, you don't. When your actions prevent an elected magistrate and
> officer
> > of the corporation from carrying out his or her duties. You have crossed
> a
> > line. It can be viewed as blackmail/extortion or flat out discrimination.
> > It is something that if taken to Maine Court - what is a judge going to
> > look
> > at? A public benefit not for profit officer is being prevented from his
> > duties and responsibilities by a select group of members who may or may
> not
> > be board members talking about a religion that has minimal legal
> authority
> > in the bylaws. Then toss in a non-cultor magistrate vs this body of
> > individuals and in the end it will simply destroy the organization.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Salve Maior,

Sulla uses legal threats all the time; this time I've paid attention. Nova

> Roma has $20,000 in the till to fight a lawsuit.
>

Do we? That's great! I've been hearing a lot of rumors that no one actually
knows how much is there or where it is . . .

But you know how Rome is, rumors travel quickly, especially false ones. Fama
is a terrible goddess, as Vergil tells us . . .

Vale,
Valerianus


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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit

Then Nova Roma is no more than a "Roman SCA" according to you.

I don't believe that is the case and I have not stuck around Nova Roma all
these years to belong to a Roman club that pretends to support a Republic
when in reality it does not.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Ave,
>
> I understand that - but that is only tangentially related to my point.
>
> I am not looking at this from an NR perspective. I never have. I am
> solely
> looking at this at the corporate perspective.
>
> In the corporate perspective the Religio has next to zero integration
> within
> the corporate structure. Here you have corporate officers, elected
> corporate officers who are being impeded from doing their duty by a small
> group of unaccountable individuals who have no or VERY minimal corporate
> standing. You toss in a non-cultor magsitrate in the mix and well you get
> ...fireworks.
>
> You impede Corporate officer and as a general rule you will be doomed.
> Corporate officers out rank any other individuals in the Organization in
> terms of authority in terms of their ability to function and represent the
> organization.
>
> Be that as it may, I also agree with Cato's rationale as well. My focus is
> just focused on the corporation entity.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla

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

Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit

As a senator you did not have to take an oath of "office." However, as a
priest and magistrate I am under an oath and I will not entertain the
dissolving of the corporation as you seem to be advocating for. You mention
this frequently and I wonder what your agenda is in doing so.

Vale;

Modianus

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Robert Woolwine
<robert.woolwine@...>wrote:

> Then dissolve the corporation and you wont have these headaches. As
> corporation we have responsibilities that we must hold with due diligence.
> If you don't want to, then work to dissolve the corporation and NR will
> just
> be that roman club and wont have any macronational entanglements. Because,
> at present we must recognize, obey and comply with those entanglements.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla

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

Ave,

Why are you speaking and making generalizations about what you think, I
think?

I am doing my due diligence in regards to my responsibility as a board
member of the corporation. That is the primary importance that must be
met. Once the foundation is maintained then the building can be built.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:34 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
>
> Then Nova Roma is no more than a "Roman SCA" according to you.
>
> I don't believe that is the case and I have not stuck around Nova Roma all
> these years to belong to a Roman club that pretends to support a Republic
> when in reality it does not.
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Robert Woolwine
>
> <robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>wrote:
>
> > Ave,
> >
> > I understand that - but that is only tangentially related to my point.
> >
> > I am not looking at this from an NR perspective. I never have. I am
> > solely
> > looking at this at the corporate perspective.
> >
> > In the corporate perspective the Religio has next to zero integration
> > within
> > the corporate structure. Here you have corporate officers, elected
> > corporate officers who are being impeded from doing their duty by a small
> > group of unaccountable individuals who have no or VERY minimal corporate
> > standing. You toss in a non-cultor magsitrate in the mix and well you get
> > ...fireworks.
> >
> > You impede Corporate officer and as a general rule you will be doomed.
> > Corporate officers out rank any other individuals in the Organization in
> > terms of authority in terms of their ability to function and represent
> the
> > organization.
> >
> > Be that as it may, I also agree with Cato's rationale as well. My focus
> is
> > just focused on the corporation entity.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Ave,

Again, speaking for me. Come now.

As a Senator/Board member take my duties with utmost seriousness. You of
all people know that well.

And, I think that if you and others want to limit the macronational
entanglements that require us to take it into consideration of how we run
the corporation then it is a compelling arguement that dissolving the
corporation might be something worthy to explore. Lets face it. You would
not have this argument nor even need to consider the implications of
impeding a corporate officer from his or her responsibility. In fact
dissolving the corporation would actually strengthen the "preceived power"
of the CP and CA as it would be able to then impeded magistrates without
macronational consequences.

Vale,

Suila

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:36 PM, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...>wrote:

>
>
> Caeso Fabius Buteo Modianus Lucio Cornelio Sullae Felici salutem dicit
>
> As a senator you did not have to take an oath of "office." However, as a
> priest and magistrate I am under an oath and I will not entertain the
> dissolving of the corporation as you seem to be advocating for. You mention
> this frequently and I wonder what your agenda is in doing so.
>
>
> Vale;
>
> Modianus
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Robert Woolwine
> <robert.woolwine@... <robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>>wrote:
>
> > Then dissolve the corporation and you wont have these headaches. As
> > corporation we have responsibilities that we must hold with due
> diligence.
> > If you don't want to, then work to dissolve the corporation and NR will
> > just
> > be that roman club and wont have any macronational entanglements.
> Because,
> > at present we must recognize, obey and comply with those entanglements.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Maior Valeriano spd;

I am more than happy to have a civil discussion with you about facts. If you wish to acertain the state of our treasury I direct you to Gn. Equitius Marinus.
vale

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Maior,
>
> Sulla uses legal threats all the time; this time I've paid attention. Nova
> > Roma has $20,000 in the till to fight a lawsuit.
> >
> Do we? That's great! I've been hearing a lot of rumors that no one actually
> knows how much is there or where it is . . .
>
> But you know how Rome is, rumors travel quickly, especially false ones. Fama
> is a terrible goddess, as Vergil tells us . . .
>
> Vale,
> Valerianus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Valerianus Maiori S.D.

Thank you, Maior! As I said, I'd been hearing some pretty bad rumors, but I
assumed they were only rumors. Glad to have it confirmed that the rumors
aren't true, though.

Gratias tibi ago et vale!

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:13 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Maior Valeriano spd;
>
> I am more than happy to have a civil discussion with you about facts. If
> you wish to acertain the state of our treasury I direct you to Gn. Equitius
> Marinus.
> vale
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Colin
> Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Maior,
> >
> > Sulla uses legal threats all the time; this time I've paid attention.
> Nova
> > > Roma has $20,000 in the till to fight a lawsuit.
> > >
> > Do we? That's great! I've been hearing a lot of rumors that no one
> actually
> > knows how much is there or where it is . . .
> >
> > But you know how Rome is, rumors travel quickly, especially false ones.
> Fama
> > is a terrible goddess, as Vergil tells us . . .
> >
> > Vale,
> > 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]

Maior Valerianus spd;

I said for you to ask Gn. Equitius Marinus and get the facts. No more no less.
vale
Maior

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Colin Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:
>
> Valerianus Maiori S.D.
>
> Thank you, Maior! As I said, I'd been hearing some pretty bad rumors, but I
> assumed they were only rumors. Glad to have it confirmed that the rumors
> aren't true, though.
>
> Gratias tibi ago et vale!
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:13 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Maior Valeriano spd;
> >
> > I am more than happy to have a civil discussion with you about facts. If
> > you wish to acertain the state of our treasury I direct you to Gn. Equitius
> > Marinus.
> > vale
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Colin
> > Brodd <magisterbrodd@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Maior,
> > >
> > > Sulla uses legal threats all the time; this time I've paid attention.
> > Nova
> > > > Roma has $20,000 in the till to fight a lawsuit.
> > > >
> > > Do we? That's great! I've been hearing a lot of rumors that no one
> > actually
> > > knows how much is there or where it is . . .
> > >
> > > But you know how Rome is, rumors travel quickly, especially false ones.
> > Fama
> > > is a terrible goddess, as Vergil tells us . . .
> > >
> > > Vale,
> > > 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]
>

Valerianus Maiori S.D.

Oops! I think I read more into what you said than you intended. Well, I
guess we'll all see what Marinus says. Anyway, you never know how these
things get started. In an organization like NR, it can be hard to sort the
fact from the rumor, sometimes. Thanks again,

Vale

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:23 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:

>
>
> Maior Valerianus spd;
>
> I said for you to ask Gn. Equitius Marinus and get the facts. No more no
> less.
> vale
> Maior
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Colin
> Brodd <magisterbrodd@...> wrote:
> >
> > Valerianus Maiori S.D.
> >
> > Thank you, Maior! As I said, I'd been hearing some pretty bad rumors, but
> I
> > assumed they were only rumors. Glad to have it confirmed that the rumors
> > aren't true, though.
> >
> > Gratias tibi ago et vale!
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:13 PM, rory12001 <rory12001@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Maior Valeriano spd;
> > >
> > > I am more than happy to have a civil discussion with you about facts.
> If
> > > you wish to acertain the state of our treasury I direct you to Gn.
> Equitius
> > > Marinus.
> > > vale
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, Colin
>
> > > Brodd <magisterbrodd@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Salve Maior,
> > > >
> > > > Sulla uses legal threats all the time; this time I've paid attention.
> > > Nova
> > > > > Roma has $20,000 in the till to fight a lawsuit.
> > > > >
> > > > Do we? That's great! I've been hearing a lot of rumors that no one
> > > actually
> > > > knows how much is there or where it is . . .
> > > >
> > > > But you know how Rome is, rumors travel quickly, especially false
> ones.
> > > Fama
> > > > is a terrible goddess, as Vergil tells us . . .
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > > 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]
> >
>
>
>



--
"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]

Ocella Caecae sal,

Though I am sometimes frustrated with how long my "to be read" list gets, I too would hate to not have anything left on it! Thankfully it does not seem that there will ever come a time when there is nothing left to read.

Also, many thanks to you, Iulia, for posting that. How fascinating! :)

Valete,
Cn. Livia Ocella

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "C.Maria Caeca" <c.mariacaeca@...> wrote:
>
> Caeca Iuliae sal,
>
> Gratias tibi ago, Amica! MMMM!!!! Another goodie to go on to my virtual TBR (to be read) bookshelf! Yeah! Running out of reading material is ...a fate worse than death!
>
> Vale quam optime,
> CMC
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Caeca Venator(I?) sal,

And you, sir, are most kind.

Gratias tibi ago,
C. Maria Caeca

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

SALVETE!

--- On Thu, 7/8/10, David Kling <tau.athanasios@...> wrote:

When Marca Hortensia Maior states, "I showed the apporpriate papers to the
censors" she is referring to a document from the State of New York
classifying her as an attorney in "retired" status. Therefore, the
accusations against her by both Sulla and Cato are unfounded and in error.
By myself and my colleague are in possession of a copy of this document.
Their attack on her character was unnecessary and insinuated something that
wasn't true.>>>

 
I confirm am in possesion of a copy of this document.
 
VALETE,
T. Iulius Sabinus






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

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Junio Neroni quiritibus, sociis, peregrinisque bonae
> voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Neroni Aeternia sal,
>
> I was told I could join the Fabii family on the condition that I work for NR
>
> ATS: Presumably get involved, and run for a magistracy...but you are too
> young.
>
>
> 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.
>
> ATS: In antiquity, multiple names were used later on. We aim at the
> Republican period, and accept names in use up to the end of the Julio-Claudian
> dynasty. We use three names, rarely four, and follow standard practices which
> were researched and digested and put on the nomenclature pages. The short
> answer, then, is no, you cannot have all of these names. You would have your
> praenomen, the nomen of the adopting party, and Junianus as your cognomen.
>
> As far as responses are concerned, Nero, please remember that we are all
> volunteers here, and that a lot of us are swamped with work both in and out of
> NR. Many of us have work and / or families to tend to, and some are in
> graduate school. People go away on vacations, people have exams, people have
> family business, some must care for elderly parents and / or young children,
> etc., and this one is just now winding up teaching five college level courses
> for free...only to have to do extensive site preparation for the next year and
> frequent nagging to get the students to so much as show up and collect their
> grades so we can move on.
>
>
> 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.
>
> ATS: C. Equitius Cato is Christian, but there are other members of the
> gens Equitia who are not. The requirement is that the adoptive parent be at
> least 18 years your senior, which is not difficult since you are quite young.
>
>
> 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.
>
> ATS: Be sure you learn as much as you can about any prospective adoptive
> parent so that you can see whether or not you would be a good fit with that
> family. There are some who worked hard to get out of at least a couple of
> these gentes when there was a pater for the entire gens, a situation which is
> not the way things were done in ancient Rome. Choose someone of good
> character, and see if you would fit in with him or her...but really, there is
> no need to be a patrician; the plebeians have more rights as they can vote for
> the tribunes and the plebeian aediles, whereas we patricians cannot. In NR,
> at least, there is nothing shameful about being plebeian; the newer domús
> (families) and newer citizens are all plebeian unless born to a patrician.
>
> Di Te Incolumem Custodiant.
> Nero
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Belle Morte <syrenslullaby@... <mailto:syrenslullaby%40gmail.com>
> >
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto: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@...
> <mailto: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@... <mailto:catoinnyc%40gmail.com>
>> <catoinnyc%40gmail.com>>
>> >
>> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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]