Salve et salvete;

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 2:30 PM, lathyrus77 wrote:
>
> Salve,
>
> hehe! I guess I'm a kid cause I left because of Sulla's litigiousness and the senate and censors' cowtowing.
>
> My character is so weak - I dislike being sued.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>

You reacted as you chose. I react as I choose; whether it is
reasoned, or emotional. I'm glad you gain some amusement from my
observations.

One can stay and fix things by being a member of an organization and
getting involved, forming with like-minded individuals...or leave and
snipe from the outside, effecting no change...unless there exists a
large store of residual respect garnered through past accomplishment.
This latter is rare, indeed.

In my long walk about voluntary associations of all sorts, I've never
seen positive change effected from outside. I have seen groups
destroyed by such, as often as from within.

Much as I like Sulla, I doubt a lawsuit would have gone much of
anywhere, save in further enriching some attorney or attorneys to the
detriment of our mutual treasury and perhaps some individual pockets.
Nova Roma is neither large enough, nor interesting enough, at this
time...nor profitable enough.

A sane judge would throw us out of court with the admonition to learn
how to play nice with each other. A law firm would see that we are
capable of financing perhaps a week of billable hours.

In my observation; a demand letters holds up, only until a court
challenge fails to over-ride it (much like hold harmless agreements
and housing development covenants). Nothing is certain until a
judgment and the final appeals are complete.

I believe the old admonition, lead, follow or get out of the way is appropriate.

You have a lot to offer Anna, I've seen it elsewhere.

Vale et Valete - Venator

C. Lucretius Seneca omnibus in foro S.P.D.

Though I'm a new member, I've been following the list since I first
joined it, back in April or so. I don't have time to read every post,
but I try to at least skim through every message. I have read all
discussions regarding the current political situation thoroughly and
with interest, trying to figure out what's going on, who is being honest
and sincere, and who is not. I now feel that it's time to say what's on
my mind and let the chips fall where they may.

There is a long history here that I was not present to witness, so I
expect there might be some who don't like what I have to say and cite
that as a reason for my conclusions. But I can judge that which I have
been around to see for myself, the words spoken and actions undertaken
by the principle players during my time here.

I cannot verify every last claim made by the Pontifex Maximus and his
supporters, or Consul Albucius and his. But in the last few months,
certain patterns have emerged for me; patterns that support the claims
of one side, and not the other. I've seen questions being asked,
questions I would like answered, ignored when answering would be
inconvenient, rather than discussed openly as part of the conversation.
I've seen the constitution being quoted, but only those clauses which
are useful, contradictory clauses - again - ignored, rather than
disputed. And this behavior appears very one-sided to me.

But worst of all, I see a failure of certain officials to simply DO
THEIR JOB. And here is where I ask myself - is P. Albucius just trying
to do his job as consul? As I see it, yes he is. Is M. Piscinus just
trying to do his job as Pontifex Maximus and Augur? I have to say no.
He seems intent on politicizing his offices, throwing his weight
around. He claims to essentially be above the law. When Consul
Albucius decided to take his own auspices - as he had a legal right to
do - and then botched it, instead of being helpful, the Pontifex Maximus
decided to be vindictive. He tried and convicted the Consul in a secret
court, with no opportunity for the accused to even defend himself. What
was the Consul's crime again? He was standing instead of sitting down?
Frankly, Piscinus doesn't seem to act like most religious leaders I've
ever met.

As far as the other side goes - some would have us believe that L. Sulla
is single-handedly responsible for a mass exodus of Nova Romans. I'll
admit, I find him on occasion to be a bit grating. But I'm not going to
leave just because I find someone here to be obnoxious. Likewise, C.
Cato can be a bit pedantic. But neither of those things makes somebody
wrong, and I can't find fault with their arguments. I hear constantly
about their so-called "lies" but I have yet to see one that I can
verify. Their arguments are met with either an emotional response or
silence, but rarely disputed on the basis of their merits alone.

A case in point: Cato recently posted an idea for a basic Nova Roma law
"refresher course" of some sort for incoming magistrates. It's a great
idea, I can't imagine why anybody would be against it. But instead of
agreeing that it's a good idea, the Pontifex Maximus immediately accused
Cato of wanting to teach this course himself as a way to further his "plot".

I wanted to remain neutral, but I just can't. I'm sick of the paranoia
and persecution emanating from the Pontifex Maximus' office. I think if
anybody here is guilty of disrespecting the Gods of Rome, it's the man
who uses them as a political weapon.

Salve et Salvete QSP...

After watching the by-play of past few years, I wanted to look back
across time to when I first "set foot" in Nova Roma, and a little
thereafter.

I was the 78th Cives, a Plebian.

I came here, after corresponding with Vedius several times and Cassius
once or twice. I saw this place as useful to me personally in
honoring part of my maternal heritage.

Yes, I am one of those who believe that modern Italians are descended,
at least in part, from those who lived in the time of Roma Antiqua,
especially folks from more rural and mountainous areas like my
forebears.

A little after I joined, a crisis in conscience arose. Here I was, an
adherent of the Holy Ones of my Germanic ancestors, mixing with
Romans, adversaries at best and enemies at worse throughout our
ancient dealings.

But then there's that pesky notion of honoring my ancestors, all of
them (I keep a statue of Saint Francis of Assisi on the mantel above
my fireplace, to honor my Christian forebears).

I am also a great believer that we can interact with the Holy Powers,
when they see a need, which they wish to address.

In this time of reawakening for Ancient Ways and relationships, I
think that the Immortals do see our efforts and want to encourage us.

Within my household, we do look to Apollo Sagittarius and Minerva as
special. Minerva doubly so as my wife is Greek and her maternal line
comes thorough Athens, special to Minerva's sister goddess.

One day, when I was out hunting, I had a waking dream of visiting my
patron, Uller, in his hunting lodge in the Yewdales outside Asgard.
He had a visitor for the 1st time in the 9 years in which he'd been
Gifting me with these Seeings.

To my perception, she was Minerva, letting me know that I was right to
be in Nova Roma, and acknowledging that I was a Man of the North...who
was supposed to be here helping to keep alive that Southern part of my
Heritage.

Since then my level of participation has ebbed and flowed, coincident
with health issues; sometimes bottoming out when I had undertaken an
office. I like to think I've done well, when I was able. I know I
have been a disappointment at times.

But I have never, save for a few moments here and there, sought to
leave completely.

I choose to stay, and I hope Nova Roma does not leave me.

=====================================
In amicitia et fide
Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator
Civis circa Quintilis MMDCCLI a.u.c.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:

>
> I believe the old admonition, lead, follow or get out of the way is appropriate.
>
> You have a lot to offer Anna, I've seen it elsewhere.
>

Salve,

I totally agree. I doubt any court of law would've even let the lawsuit contiue, let alone find him in favour. If that had been the sole problem I would've stayed. But the thing is, this stuff builds up over time. The pay off to cassius, the idiotic fake trials, the drama filled politics, etc. Sulla's straw broke the camel's back, as it were.

I am just too stubborn to return as long as the Sulla remains. I would prefer a new NR org, or remain sniping from the sidelines, than to beg for my citizenship to be reinstated after a 90 day waiting period only to have to deal with such a terrible character. I don't think I could ever be in an organization that would have him as a member. It's the principle of the matter. Even if I were a citizen again I would be taking many respites from this place, as some have done(and are currently doing).

One shouldn't have to to take vacations from NR to be in NR.

Vale,

Anna Bucci

Salve Seneca,

Forgive my rudeness for not including in my very first message to you that I
think the Facebook prototype is coming along nicely!

Great Job!

Vale,

Gaius Octavius Priscus




________________________________
From: Gaius Lucretius Seneca <c.lucretius.seneca@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 4:52:59 PM
Subject: Re: R: [Nova-Roma] The Dispute


C. Lucretius Seneca omnibus in foro S.P.D.

Though I'm a new member, I've been following the list since I first
joined it, back in April or so. I don't have time to read every post,
but I try to at least skim through every message. I have read all
discussions regarding the current political situation thoroughly and
with interest, trying to figure out what's going on, who is being honest
and sincere, and who is not. I now feel that it's time to say what's on
my mind and let the chips fall where they may.

There is a long history here that I was not present to witness, so I
expect there might be some who don't like what I have to say and cite
that as a reason for my conclusions. But I can judge that which I have
been around to see for myself, the words spoken and actions undertaken
by the principle players during my time here.

I cannot verify every last claim made by the Pontifex Maximus and his
supporters, or Consul Albucius and his. But in the last few months,
certain patterns have emerged for me; patterns that support the claims
of one side, and not the other. I've seen questions being asked,
questions I would like answered, ignored when answering would be
inconvenient, rather than discussed openly as part of the conversation.
I've seen the constitution being quoted, but only those clauses which
are useful, contradictory clauses - again - ignored, rather than
disputed. And this behavior appears very one-sided to me.

But worst of all, I see a failure of certain officials to simply DO
THEIR JOB. And here is where I ask myself - is P. Albucius just trying
to do his job as consul? As I see it, yes he is. Is M. Piscinus just
trying to do his job as Pontifex Maximus and Augur? I have to say no.
He seems intent on politicizing his offices, throwing his weight
around. He claims to essentially be above the law. When Consul
Albucius decided to take his own auspices - as he had a legal right to
do - and then botched it, instead of being helpful, the Pontifex Maximus
decided to be vindictive. He tried and convicted the Consul in a secret
court, with no opportunity for the accused to even defend himself. What
was the Consul's crime again? He was standing instead of sitting down?
Frankly, Piscinus doesn't seem to act like most religious leaders I've
ever met.

As far as the other side goes - some would have us believe that L. Sulla
is single-handedly responsible for a mass exodus of Nova Romans. I'll
admit, I find him on occasion to be a bit grating. But I'm not going to
leave just because I find someone here to be obnoxious. Likewise, C.
Cato can be a bit pedantic. But neither of those things makes somebody
wrong, and I can't find fault with their arguments. I hear constantly
about their so-called "lies" but I have yet to see one that I can
verify. Their arguments are met with either an emotional response or
silence, but rarely disputed on the basis of their merits alone.

A case in point: Cato recently posted an idea for a basic Nova Roma law
"refresher course" of some sort for incoming magistrates. It's a great
idea, I can't imagine why anybody would be against it. But instead of
agreeing that it's a good idea, the Pontifex Maximus immediately accused
Cato of wanting to teach this course himself as a way to further his "plot".

I wanted to remain neutral, but I just can't. I'm sick of the paranoia
and persecution emanating from the Pontifex Maximus' office. I think if
anybody here is guilty of disrespecting the Gods of Rome, it's the man
who uses them as a political weapon.







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

Salve,

Perfectly clear noble Venator.
C. Pompeius Marcellus


On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:19:26 -0500
Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:

> Ave;
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Tragedienne wrote:
>>
>> Salve,
>>
>> Always feel hokey doing these, but my previous post is not showing up.
>>
>> Can anyone see this?
>>
>> Thank you, and pardon the interuption.
>>
>> Vale,
>> Aeternia
>>
>
> Transmission received; 5 X 5...
>
> Vale - Venator

Cn. Iulius Caesar sal.

I can confirm this, that Mr. Vogel certainly supported my stance on the MMP. He
and I functioned well in the aedlician cohors, despite having opposite political
stances on a number of issues. He loyally defended my decision on the MMP
website, and certainly seemed, at that time, to have a full grasp of
macronational legal concerns, at least in relation to the MMP.

I am not sure what issues were even happening in early March concerning the
senior consul, that would have made him resign for that reason he now states.
However who knows what has transpired since, or who he blames, or who, if
anyone, might have contacted him to possibly encourage him to post this and join
in the debate :)


Optime valete




________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 1:24:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Why I left Nova Roma !

Ave,

I do apologize but I am still puzzled in this.  According to the Wiki, you
resigned on March 5th of this year, barely two months into the term.  Now, 8
months later out of no where you voice your reason for resigning, fine and
good.  But I seem to recall you supporting the ending of the MMP project
given macronational concerns, if I recall correctly. And, I am sure Senator
Caesar can expand if I am mistaken.  So, at what point did you stop given
consideration to macronational requirements?


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

Caesar sal.

Ah, but if you incorporate for legal purposes you are obliged to act legally,
within the bounds of state law.

Optime valete




________________________________
From: lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 1:25:17 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Why I left Nova Roma !

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave,
>
> You do realize you are like 12 years too late!  Nova Roma has been
> incorporated since almost the moment it was founded.  So, you joined when NR
> was incorporated, you ran for office when NR was incorporated, but now that
> Nr is being forced to follow the laws that that incorporation requires is
> when you quite.  Something does not sound Kosher with this.
>


Salve,

In my opinion, taking a non-profit and incorporating it for legal purposes is
not the same as turning Nova Roma into a corporation.


Vale,

Anna Bucci



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Ave!

This is why, I suggested to Modianus when he complained about the Corporate
requirements that perhaps if the corporation is such a burden then
dissolving the corporation and giving the money to other not for profits
would be the best way to go.

It cannot go both ways. Ether NR stays incorporated and follows ALL the
laws of the incorporation or NR inc gets dissolved, has no money and can
become like an MMORPG. There is a case to be made with both avenues but
while NR is a corporation ALL of the laws must be complied with even the
ones that some individuals find inconvenient.

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
>
> Caesar sal.
>
> Ah, but if you incorporate for legal purposes you are obliged to act
> legally,
> within the bounds of state law.
>
> Optime valete
>
> ________________________________
> From: lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@... <lathyrus77%40yahoo.com>>
>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Fri, September 24, 2010 1:25:17 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Why I left Nova Roma !
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > You do realize you are like 12 years too late! Nova Roma has been
> > incorporated since almost the moment it was founded. So, you joined when
> NR
> > was incorporated, you ran for office when NR was incorporated, but now
> that
> > Nr is being forced to follow the laws that that incorporation requires is
> > when you quite. Something does not sound Kosher with this.
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> In my opinion, taking a non-profit and incorporating it for legal purposes
> is
> not the same as turning Nova Roma into a corporation.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Salve Vedi,
that's exactly what happens very often, and the reason for my resignation.
If you are going to sanction resignments there should be a worse sanction
for being inactive without resigning.
There should be a mechanism according to which two or three times of missed
duties (a tribune on duty failing to report a senate session, a diribitor
not counting votes, etc.) count as a de facto resignation.

Optime vale,
Livia

> Salve Tiberi Galeri,
>
> Given your suggestion, what would prevent a magistrate from simply going
> silent, dropping out in practical terms but not officially tendering a
> resignation, simply to avoid forfeiting their bond of surety?
>
> It might even make things worse, having "ghost" magistrates taking up
> offices that could, in theory, be refilled by more active cives.
>
> I like the idea, just working through some of the practicalities.
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
>
> On 9/24/2010 1:44 PM, Timothy or Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> Salve Anna,
>>
>> Yes the Senate would be included. If you can not pay a fee to stand then
>> you need to be doing something else anyway.
>>
>> The full details of this lex can be worked out but the goal would be for
>> ROMANS to act like ROMANS.
>>
>> When the going gets tough you STICK IT OUT. YOU STAY THE COURSE. YOU KEEP
>> THE OATH YOU TOOK.
>>
>>
>> Vale
>>
>> Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
>> From: lathyrus77@...
>> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:17:21 +0000
>> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Resignation from office.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Salve,
>>
>> Does that count for the senate? Does that count for people who resign and
>> then want to be reinstated after changing their mind a day later(a la
>> Cato)? What if someone can't afford $50?
>>
>> If someone lives outside the US and has to convert their currency to USD
>> to pay the fee, will that person get the same exchange rate in return?
>>
>> Just some questions.
>>
>> Vale,
>>
>> Anna Bucci
>>
>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Timothy or Stephen
>> Gallagher<spqr753@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Salvete
>>>
>>> If we ever have elections again, when we repeal some laws we need to
>>> adopt a Lex on those who resign from office.
>>>
>>> Either we need a fee to stand for office , say $50.00 which a person
>>> gets back if they serve the full turn or we need to bar a person who
>>> resigns
>>> from holding office for a set number of years. Exceptions for illness
>>> and other REAL macro world would be included.
>>>
>>>
>>> Valete
>>>
>>> Ti. Galerius Paulinus
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
> Caesar sal.
>
> Ah, but if you incorporate for legal purposes you are obliged to act legally,
> within the bounds of state law.
>

Salve,

Yep. So you better make sure the organizational bylaws don't conflict and create idiotic messes.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Vedi,
> that's exactly what happens very often, and the reason for my resignation.
> If you are going to sanction resignments there should be a worse sanction
> for being inactive without resigning.
> There should be a mechanism according to which two or three times of missed
> duties (a tribune on duty failing to report a senate session, a diribitor
> not counting votes, etc.) count as a de facto resignation.
>

Salve,

Or if a senator hasn't voted and isn't heard from for years. And it shouldn't count if his taxes are paid for by a buddy.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

Salve Anna,
yes, and it would be better if the people who created the conflicting laws
in the first place stopped blaming those who have been trying to fix them.
But that's wishful thinking, right, Anna?

Optime vale,
Livia

----- Original Message -----
From: "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...>
To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 1:21 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Why I left Nova Roma !




--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
<gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Caesar sal.
>
> Ah, but if you incorporate for legal purposes you are obliged to act
> legally,
> within the bounds of state law.
>


Salve,

Yep. So you better make sure the organizational bylaws don't conflict and
create idiotic messes.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Anna,
> yes, and it would be better if the people who created the conflicting laws
> in the first place stopped blaming those who have been trying to fix them.
> But that's wishful thinking, right, Anna?
>

Salve,

Indeed.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

Ave,

Which is exactly what Consul Albicius has been trying to do. Irony, it
writes itself in NR!

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:50 PM, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve Anna,
> yes, and it would be better if the people who created the conflicting laws
> in the first place stopped blaming those who have been trying to fix them.
> But that's wishful thinking, right, Anna?
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 1:21 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Why I left Nova Roma !
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Gnaeus
> Iulius Caesar
> <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> >
> > Caesar sal.
> >
> > Ah, but if you incorporate for legal purposes you are obliged to act
> > legally,
> > within the bounds of state law.
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> Yep. So you better make sure the organizational bylaws don't conflict and
> create idiotic messes.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>


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

Ave Livia,
No; keep trying. That's what attorney's call practice. For example, imagine if
Bill Gates stopped before developing the internet.

Vale,
Ti. Marci Quadra


________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, September 25, 2010 10:00:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Why I left Nova Roma !

Ave,

Which is exactly what Consul Albicius has been trying to do. Irony, it
writes itself in NR!

Vale,
Sulla

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:50 PM, L. Livia Plauta <livia.plauta@...>wrote:
>
> Salve Anna,
> yes, and it would be better if the people who created the conflicting laws
> in the first place stopped blaming those who have been trying to fix them.
> But that's wishful thinking, right, Anna?
>
> Optime vale,
> Livia
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...>
> To: <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 1:21 AM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Why I left Nova Roma !
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Gnaeus
> Iulius Caesar
> <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> >
> > Caesar sal.
> >
> > Ah, but if you incorporate for legal purposes you are obliged to act
> > legally, within the bounds of state law.
>
> Salve,
>
> Yep. So you better make sure the organizational bylaws don't conflict and
> create idiotic messes.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links






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

>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica L. Cornelio Sullae quiritibus bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
>
> Ave!
>
> In the event that the senate needs to appoint temporary magistrates
>
> ATS: Do you actually think that the Senate will be allowed to meet
> without being under some kind of cloud? If Albucius vetoes any Senate call
> issued by Quintilianus, and the CP / CA views Albucius as being impius and
> unable to enter the curia, let alone call the Senate, how will we get
> anywhere? And if Quintilianus decides to veto any call by Albucius, then
> what? Do you have some magical solution cooked up on the BA? Partition?
> Dissolution? These do not appeal to me, but someone, somewhere, must give in
> so we can conduct the business of government, however loathsome it might be to
> some of the citizens and socii.
>
>
> I would like to volunteer my service and time to assist in the need and
> requirement to certify the upcoming elections in nova Roma.
>
> Vale
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>
> On Sep 22, 2010, at 3:28 PM, "L. Livia Plauta" <livia.plauta@...
> <mailto:livia.plauta%40gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> > L. Livia Plauta omnibus S.P.D.
>> >
>> > As much as I hate to break my oath of office, I find myself compelled to
>> > resign my office as a Custos, because the current conditions are very
>> > different from those at the time when I gave my oath.
>> >
>> > When I was elected Custos, the understanding was that I was going to be one
>> > of two Custodes, sharing the task of supervising the Diribitores and
>> > certifying election results, and that elections were going to be held via
>> > the semi-automated system of the NR cista.
>> >
>> > After the first few months of activity it became clear that my Custos
>> > colleague was not to be relied on for any activity except approving what I
>> > had already approved.
>> >
>> > Out of the four Diribitores, only two were active: M. Arminius Maior and M.
>> > Moravius Piscinus.
>> > Another Diribitrix went as far as to count part of the votes durning the
>> > second elections, but then was never heard from again.
>> >
>> > M. Moravius Piscinus has been induced to resign by a campaign of attacks
>> > agains his holding a religious and a civilian office at the same time, so
>> we
>> > are now left with only one reliable diribitor, M. Arminius Maior.
>> >
>> > Consul Albucius' veto of the senate session when the money for a rehaul of
>> > the NR censorial database and cista (automated voting system) was going to
>> > be allocated has ensured that there is now no way of running elections with
>> > the old automated system, since we have nobody with both the competence and
>> > the access privileges to run them.
>> >
>> > So currently the only possible way to hold elections is by email, a very
>> > unsafe and labour-intensive system.
>> > In all conscience, I would find myself unable to certify the results of
>> > elections run by email and with one diribitor only, so I tend my
>> > resignation.
>> >
>> > I hope consul P. Memmius Albucius, who prevented the technical catastrophe
>> > affecting NR from being solved, will now take steps to find someone else to
>> > run and certify elections. Maybe he would like to do it himself, since he
>> > seems so fond of accumulating offices, as shown by his obvious enjoyment in
>> > acting as a praetor, office which afforded him the opportunity to get rid
>> of
>> > Hortensia Maior with a rigged-up trial.
>> > In any case, good luck to him, and to anyone else who may want to take NR
>> > elections in their hands.
>> >
>> > I have to express my excuses to M. Arminius Maior for leaving him alone in
>> > charge of counting votes, and my endless gratitude for being always
>> > available and reliable as a diribitor.
>> >
>> > Optime valete,
>> > L. Livia Plauta
>> >
>> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Caesar sal.

Ah, but many times there was no conflicting law in NR. Take the issue of filing the relevant paperwork with the state authorities. Other examples would include removing senators/directors, in breach of both sets of laws.

Optime valete

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
> Caesar sal.
>
> Ah, but many times there was no conflicting law in NR. Take the issue of filing the relevant paperwork with the state authorities. Other examples would include removing senators/directors, in breach of both sets of laws.
>

Salve,

Why would removing a senator or member of the board be against both set of laws? Both NR and Maine law provide for their removal.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

Salve Anna.

If due process is followed, which it wasn't in either case.

Vale
Caesar

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Anna.
>
> If due process is followed, which it wasn't in either case.
>

Salve,

That's subjective.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

Salve Anna

<lol> of course it isn't. You parse the law to the facts and it is clear it wasnt followed under Maine state law, and under NR law.

But I know you are in your debating mode so ...

Vale bene
Caesar

--- On Fri, 9/24/10, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

> From: lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...>
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Why I left Nova Roma !
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, September 24, 2010, 11:14 PM
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com,
> Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve Anna.
> >
> > If due process is followed, which it wasn't in
> either case.
> >
>
>
> Salve,
>
> That's subjective.
>
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     Nova-Roma-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Anna
>
> <lol> of course it isn't. You parse the law to the facts and it is clear it wasnt followed under Maine state law, and under NR law.
>
> But I know you are in your debating mode so ...
>

Salve,

I'm just stating reality. The laws are interpreted, they are subjective. By your logic we shouldn't have ANY arguments over the laws in NR, yet they consume %75 of the discussions here. Even the word "shall"is debated.


Reality. Get some.

Vale,

Anna Bucci

Salve Anna

There isnt anything subjective about reading the conditions for dismissing a director under Maine law and applying those conditions to the facts.

But sadly I will have to leave potentially circular debate as I have work to do :)

Have good night!

Vale
Caesar

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

>
> Salve Anna
>
> There isnt anything subjective about reading the conditions for dismissing a director under Maine law and applying those conditions to the facts.
>
> But sadly I will have to leave potentially circular debate as I have work to do :)
>

Salve,

You can deny reality all you want. It doesn't actually get you anywhere.

Laws have been interpreted since forever. If you don't realize that then you're naive.

Vale,

Anna Bucci

C. Petronius Dexter C. Lucretio Senecae omnibusque in foro S.P.D.

> A case in point: Cato recently posted an idea for a basic Nova Roma law "refresher course" of some sort for incoming magistrates. It's a great idea, I can't imagine why anybody would be against it.

Generally, those do not want people informed are gurus, prophets and some leaders. The idea of Cato is a great idea because the NR laws are a sort of unclear mess. Some laws are opposite on 1 point with another who speaks about a different thing. You have laws but also the Constitution, the decreta pontificum and others in which yearly decreta of different officers... and sometime laws are not very clear. You can read debates on "words". As ancient said: "summum ius, summa iniuria".

But a law in force can be not applied. For example the trial of M. Hortensia Maior. A roman attitude was to self resign from the offices she hold after the judgement. Not only she did not, but she was pushed to not follow the judgement by Piscinus, for example. The Pontifex Maximus counted her vote when she was condemned to leave the CP. Law, in NR does not have police.

I had before my eyes another out law great power, on the CP, that if an owner of a list wants to guest men he wants, even if those men are not members of the CP nor senators, he can subscribe them as he might, in other hand, in one day expulse all the senators from the list.

Elementary laws did not exist on NR but many laws and decreta on details. So it is important to know them and the idea of Cato is a good idea.

For my own experience, I had to know faster the laws because I am a tribune in a very political period and I want to follow laws as I understand them, even if by principle Piscinus says that I misunderstand laws because I am not English native speaker. But I know this remark being rhetorical and bit against French people, because I know enough English to understand that laws are unclear and are interpreted in several ways. I know, dear friend, enough English to translate in Latin the English NR Declaration, Latin version that my friend Cn. Lentulus read on Youtube. You can read it on the NR web site if you click "Latine" on the Declaration English page.

> But instead of agreeing that it's a good idea, the Pontifex Maximus immediately accused Cato of wanting to teach this course himself as a way to further his "plot".

Piscinus is not the Pontifex Maximus, in best case he is a sort of interim Pontifex Maximus, I would say that he is an usurper Pontifex Maximus, because the actual Pontifex Maximus was expulsed from his position by him and his friends. And in my knowledge, the actual Pontifex Maximus who was created Pontifex Maximus for life is not yet dead. In fact, Piscinus is a man who has his "heads" and use Gods as political weapon against the heads he does not like; but if Augustus himself, the man with all powers in his hands, wanting to become PM waited the death of the precedent PM, Lepidus, Piscinus who is not Roman nor so wise as Augustus did not wait and made a coup against the PM in function. This brands the individual.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VII Kalendas Octobres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Hello,

I write to you from outside Nova Roma, but with a question regarding whether any Nova Roma citizens would know of a triclinium in the San Francisco area which could be rented.

I'm wanting to throw a proper Roman meal for my friends, and I've been practicing my recipes (some favorites so far: the medium-boiled eggs in pine-nut sauce, Pullus Varianus, the almond stuffed dates, and the must cakes!) and I'm ready to have a wonderful dinner party ... but my apartment isn't big enough, and I'd really like to have the most authentic setting possible.

If any San Francisco area Nova Roman could take a moment to let me know of an possibilities, I would deeply appreciate it!

Thank you for your time!

~Elisabeth

>
>
>
> A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus, sociis,
> peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> Salve,
>
> Hiyas Venii!!
>
> Now where did my other post go, I hope the Hydra didn't decide to swallow it.
>
> ATS: I just got two from the 22d. Maybe the Hydra didn¹t swallow it, but
> Yahoo did. It is always wise to assume that Yahoo did it. Legitimate posts
> end up in spam, where we don¹t look for them, and spam gets delivered. You
> figure it out...
>
>
>
> It was a rather good post IMHO.
>
> ATS: Let¹s hope it didn¹t get too far out of the solar system and will
> turn up.
>
>
> Vale,
> Aeternia
>
>
> Vale, et valete.
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Ave;
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Tragedienne wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Salve,
>>> > >
>>> > > Always feel hokey doing these, but my previous post is not showing up.
>>> > >
>>> > > Can anyone see this?
>>> > >
>>> > > Thank you, and pardon the interuption.
>>> > >
>>> > > Vale,
>>> > > Aeternia
>>> > >
>> >
>> > Transmission received; 5 X 5...
>> >
>> > Vale - Venator
>> >
>
>
>

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

M. Moravius Piscinus Pontifex Maximus Quiritibus, cultoribus Deorum et omnibus salutem plurimam dicit: Dea vos porrigat opitula.

Hodie est ante diem VII Kalendas Octobres; haec dies comitialis est: aequinoctium autumnale pluviam significat.

"Many receive advice, only the wise profit from it." ~ Publilius Syrus

The Flaminica Dialis

"The ceremonies of the flamenica Dialis are about the same; they say that she observes other separate ones as well: for example, that she wears a dyed robe, that she has a twig from an arbor felix in her head dress, that it is forbidden for her to go up more then three rounds of a ladder, except the so-called Greek ladder; also when she goes to the Argei (at the full moon of May), that she neither combs her hair nor dresses her hair." ~Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 10.15.26-30


AUC 458 / 295 BCE: The Wolf and the Stag

The Battle of Sentium, arguably the most important battle in Roman history, sealed Roman dominance over Italy south of the Po River. It came at the end of the Samnite Wars in which Rome struggled for control of access to southern Italy. The great Samnite leader Gellius Aegnatius had forged a coalition of the Samnite tribes with Umbrians, the Etruscans, and Gauls from northern Italy. Gellius moved his army into Picinum to link up with his allied contingents. Upon the arrival of the Romans under Q. Fabius Rullianus and Decius Mus, Gellius planned to meet them with an equal force of Samnites and Gauls, while his Umbrians and Etruscans would attack the Roman flank and rear. His plan failed, however, when Etruscan leaders from Clusium went over to the Romans and revealed Gellius' plans. Roman armies were then sent into Etruria and Umbria, drawing off those contingents. Thus left with only his Samnites and Gauls, Gellius still had a small advantage in numbers and terrain.

"The Romans, when they learned of this, were in a state of alarm, particularly since many portents were causing them anxiety. On the Capitol blood is reported to have issued for three days from the altar of Jupiter, also honey on one day and milk on another — if anybody can believe it; and in the Forum a bronze statue of Victory set upon a stone pedestal was found standing on the ground below, without any one's having moved it; and, as it happened, it was facing in that direction from which the Gauls were already approaching. This of itself was enough to terrify the populace, who were even more dismayed by ill-omened interpretations of the seers. However, a certain Manius, by birth an Etruscan, encouraged them by declaring that Victory, even if she had descended, had at any rate gone forward, and being now established more firmly on the ground, indicated to them mastery in the war. Accordingly, many sacrifices, too, would be offered to the gods; for their altars, and particularly those on the Capitol, where they sacrifice thank-offerings for victory, were regularly stained with blood on the occasion of Roman successes and not in times of disaster. From these circumstances, then, he persuaded them to expect some fortunate outcome, but from the honey to expect disease, since invalids crave it, and from the milk, famine; for they should encounter so great a scarcity of provisions that they would seek for food of natural and spontaneous origin.

"Manius, then, interpreted the omens in this way, and as his prophecy turned out to be in accordance with subsequent events, he gained a reputation for skill and foreknowledge. Now Volumnius was ordered to make war upon the Samnites, while Fabius Maximus Rullus and Publius Decius were chosen consuls and were sent to withstand the Gauls and their fellow-warriors. And when the consuls had come with speed to Etruria, and had seen the camp of Appius, which was fortified by a double palisade, they pulled up the stakes and carried them off, instructing the soldiers to place their hope of safety in their weapons. So they joined battle with the enemy. Meanwhile a wolf in pursuit of a hind entered the space between the two armies, and darting toward the Romans, passed through their ranks. This encouraged them, for they looked upon him as belonging to themselves, since, according to tradition, a she-wolf had reared Romulus. But the hind ran to the other side and was struck down, thus leaving to the enemy fear and the issue of disaster. When the armies clashed, Maximus quite easily conquered the foes opposed to him, but Decius was defeated. And recalling the self-devotion of his father, undertaken on account of the dream, he likewise devoted himself, though without sharing his intention with anybody. Scarcely had he been slain when the man ranged at his side, partly out of respect for him (since they felt he had perished voluntarily for them) and partly in the hope of certain victory as a result of his act, checked their flight and nobly withstood their pursuers. At this juncture Maximus, too, assailed the latter in the rear and slaughtered vast numbers. The survivors took to flight and were annihilated. Fabius Maximus then burned the corpse of Decius together with the spoils and made a truce with the enemy, who sued for peace." ~ Cassius Dio, Roman History 8.36.8


A longer account of the Battle of Sentium is found in Livy:

"On the third day the whole force on both sides marched down into the plain. Whilst the two armies were standing ready to engage, a hind driven by a wolf from the mountains ran down into the open space between the two lines with the wolf in pursuit. Here they each took a different direction, the hind ran to the Gauls, the wolf to the Romans. Way was made for the wolf between the ranks; the Gauls speared the hind. On this a soldier in the front rank exclaimed: "In that place where you see the creature sacred to Diana lying dead, flight and carnage will begin; here the wolf, whole and unhurt, a creature sacred to Mars, reminds us of our Founder and that we too are of the race of Mars." The Gauls were stationed on the right, the Samnites on the left. Q. Fabius posted the first and third legions on the right wing, facing the Samnites; to oppose the Gauls, Decius had the fifth and sixth legions, who formed the Roman left. The second and fourth legions were engaged in Samnium with L. Volumnius the proconsul. When the armies first met they were so evenly matched that had the Etruscans and Umbrians been present, whether taking part in the battle or attacking the camp, the Romans must have been defeated.

"But although neither side was gaining any advantage and Fortune had not yet indicated in any way to whom she would grant the victory, the fighting on the right wing was very different from that on the left. The Romans under Fabius were acting more on the defensive and were protracting the contest as long as possible. Their commander knew that it was the habitual practice of both the Gauls and the Samnites to make a furious attack to begin with, and if that were successfully resisted, it was enough; the courage of the Samnites gradually sank as the battle went on, whilst the Gauls, utterly unable to stand heat or exertion, found their physical strength melting away; in their first efforts they were more than men, in the end they were weaker than women. Knowing this, he kept the strength of his men unimpaired against the time when the enemy usually began to show signs of defeat. Decius, as a younger man, possessing more vigour of mind, showed more dash; he made use of all the strength he possessed in opening the attack, and as the infantry battle developed too slowly for him, he called on the cavalry. Putting himself at the head of a squadron of exceptionally gallant troopers, he appealed to them as the pick of his soldiers to follow him in charging the enemy, for a twofold glory would be theirs if victory began on the left wing and, in that wing, with the cavalry. Twice they swept aside the Gaulish horse. Making a third charge, they were carried too far, and whilst they were now fighting desperately in the midst of the enemy's cavalry they were thrown into consternation by a new style of warfare. Armed men mounted on chariots and baggage wagons came on with a thunderous noise of horses and wheels, and the horses of the Roman cavalry, unaccustomed to that kind of uproar, became uncontrollable through fright; the cavalry after their victorious charges, were now scattered in frantic terror; horses and men alike were overthrown in their blind flight. Even the standards of the legionaries were thrown into confusion, and many of the front rank men were crushed by the weight of the horses and vehicles dashing through the lines. When the Gauls saw their enemy thus demoralised they did not give them a moment's breathing space in which to recover themselves, but followed up at once with a fierce attack. Decius shouted to his men and asked them whither they were fleeing, what hope they had in flight; he tried to stop those who were retreating and recall the scattered units. Finding himself unable, do what he would, to check the demoralisation, he invoked the name of his father, P. Decius, and cried: "Why do I any longer delay the destined fate of my family? This is the privilege granted to our house that we should be an expiatory sacrifice to avert dangers from the State. Now will I offer the legions of the enemy together with myself as a sacrifice to Tellus and the Dii Manes." When he had uttered these words he ordered the pontiff, M. Livius, whom he had kept by his side all through the battle, to recite the prescribed form in which he was to devote "himself and the legions of the enemy on behalf of the army of the Roman people, the Quirites." He was accordingly devoted in the same words and wearing the same garb as his father, P. Decius, at the battle of Veseris in the Latin war. After the usual prayers had been recited he uttered the following awful curse: "I carry before me terror and rout and carnage and blood and the wrath of all the gods, those above and those below. I will infect the standards, the armour, the weapons of the enemy with dire and manifold death, the place of my destruction shall also witness that of the Gauls and Samnites." After uttering this imprecation on himself and on the enemy he spurred his horse against that part of the Gaulish line where they were most densely massed and leaping into it was slain by their missiles.

"From this moment the battle could hardly have appeared to any man to be dependent on human strength alone. After losing their leader, a thing which generally demoralises an army, the Romans arrested their flight and recommenced the struggle. The Gauls, especially those who were crowded round the consul's body, were discharging their missiles aimlessly and harmlessly as though bereft of their senses; some seemed paralysed, incapable of either fight or flight. But, in the other army, the pontiff Livius, to whom Decius had transferred his lictors and whom he had commissioned to act as propraetor, announced in loud tones that the consul's death had freed the Romans from all danger and given them the victory, the Gauls and Samnites were made over to Tellus the Mother and the Dii Manes, Decius was summoning and dragging down to himself the army which he had devoted together with himself, there was terror everywhere among the enemy, and the Furies were lashing them into madness. Whilst the battle was thus being restored, L. Cornelius Scipio and C. Marcius were ordered by Fabius to bring up the reserves from the rear to the support of his colleagues. There they learnt the fate of P. Decius, and it was a powerful encouragement to them to dare everything for the republic. The Gauls were standing in close order covered by their shields, and a hand-to-hand fight seemed no easy matter, but the staff officers gave orders for the javelins which were lying on the ground between the two armies to be gathered up and hurled at the enemy's shield wall. Although most of them stuck in their shields and only a few penetrated their bodies, the closely massed ranks went down, most of them falling without having received a wound, just as though they had been struck by lightning. Such was the change that Fortune had brought about in the Roman left wing.

"On the right Fabius, as I have stated, was protracting the contest. When he found that neither the battle-shout of the enemy, nor their onset, nor the discharge of their missiles were as strong as they had been at the beginning, he ordered the officers in command of the cavalry to take their squadrons round to the side of the Samnite army, ready at a given signal to deliver as fierce a flank attack as possible. The infantry were at the same time to press steadily forwards and dislodge the enemy. When he saw that they were offering no resistance, and were evidently worn out, he massed all his support which he had kept in reserve for the supreme moment, and gave the signal for a general charge of infantry and cavalry. The Samnites could not face the onslaught and fled precipitately past the Gauls to their camp, leaving their allies to fight as best they could. The Gauls were still standing in close order behind their shield wall. Fabius, on hearing of his colleague's death, ordered a squadron of Campanian horse, about 500 strong, to go out of action and ride round to take the Gauls in the rear. The principes of the third legion were ordered to follow, and, wherever they saw the enemy's line disordered by the cavalry, to press home the attack and cut them down. He vowed a temple and the spoils of the enemy to Jupiter Victor, and then proceeded to the Samnite camp to which the whole crowd of panic-struck fugitives was being driven. As they could not all get through the gates, those outside tried to resist the Roman attack and a battle began close under the rampart. It was here that Gellius Egnatius, the captain-general of the Samnites, fell. Finally the Samnites were driven within their lines and the camp was taken after a brief struggle. At the same time the Gauls were attacked in the rear and overpowered; 25,000 of the enemy were killed in that day's fighting and 8000 made prisoners. The victory was by no means a bloodless one, for P. Decius lost 7000 killed and Fabius 1700. After sending out a search party to find his colleague's body, Fabius had the spoils of the enemy collected into a heap and burnt as a sacrifice to Jupiter Victor. The consul's body could not be found that day as it was buried under a heap of Gauls; it was discovered the next day and brought back to camp amidst the tears of the soldiers. Fabius laid aside all other business in order to pay the last rites to his dead colleague; the obsequies were conducted with every mark of honour and the funeral oration sounded the well-deserved praises of the deceased consul." ~ Titus Livius 10.27-29


Our thought for today is from Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 7.67:

"Nature has not so mingled the intelligence with the composition of the body, as not to have allowed thee the power of circumscribing thyself and of bringing under subjection to thyself all that is thy own; for ... very little indeed is necessary for living a happy life. And because thou hast despaired of becoming a dialectician and skilled in the knowledge of nature, do not for this reason renounce the hope of being both free and modest, social and obedient to God."



Religio_Romana_Cultorum_Deorum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

_____________________

Statia Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae Omnibus S.P.D.

I had a feeling that's what happened, yahoo in its monster form has indeed
the tenacity of a Hydra to vanquish one's e-mail into the aethers.


Yahoo's being a brat that simple.

Vale Bene,
Aeternia


On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:54 AM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...

> wrote:

>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus, sociis,
> > peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Hiyas Venii!!
> >
> > Now where did my other post go, I hope the Hydra didn't decide to swallow
> it.
> >
> > ATS: I just got two from the 22d. Maybe the Hydra didn�t swallow it, but
> > Yahoo did. It is always wise to assume that Yahoo did it. Legitimate
> posts
> > end up in spam, where we don�t look for them, and spam gets delivered.
> You
> > figure it out...
>
> >
> >
> >
> > It was a rather good post IMHO.
> >
> > ATS: Let�s hope it didn�t get too far out of the solar system and will
> > turn up.
> >
> >
> > Vale,
> > Aeternia
> >
> >
> > Vale, et valete.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:
> Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%2540yahoogroups.com>> ,
>
> > Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Ave;
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Tragedienne wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Salve,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Always feel hokey doing these, but my previous post is not showing
> up.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Can anyone see this?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Thank you, and pardon the interuption.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Vale,
> >>> > > Aeternia
> >>> > >
> >> >
> >> > Transmission received; 5 X 5...
> >> >
> >> > Vale - Venator
> >> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Salvete!I hope I find all of you in good health.Currently, I have only
provisional approval as a citizen of Nova Roma, therefore I feel a bit
odd jumping into a "debate" that apparently has much history behind it,
when I am so newly planted. Similarly, It is not without some
trepidation that I comment on a debate in which a name such as G. Iulius
Caesar is involved. My history and culture do leave me with a bit
of...superstition, for lack of a better term.However, I cannot stand to
read this, and feel that ignoring it would be unwise. As noble and
poignant as this "Re: Why I left Nova Roma !" argument may have been
when it began, it appears to have degenerated significantly. I'm
certain none of the participants in this dialogue had any intention or
knowledge of this degeneration, so I would like to point out that
whatever it's origins and intentions it now appears to resemble a base
argument, complete with veiled slights.I'm sure such a method of debate
holds no true benefit for any of us. I'm not trying to debate this, only
to point out things as I see it; you may agree or not.I don't know who
is "right", because I was not privy to events as they unfolded, however,
I would like to ask all interested parties to please work to make the
debate constructive at least in so far as it can potentially lead to a
solution, thesis, or other useful conclusion.Perhaps I have overstepped
my bounds, but in my own defense I leave you with the automatically
quoted text below:

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
gn_iulius_caesar@ wrote:
> >
> > Salve Anna
> >
> > There isnt anything subjective about reading the conditions for
dismissing a director under Maine law and applying those conditions to
the facts.
> >
> > But sadly I will have to leave potentially circular debate as I
have work to do :)
> >
>
>
> Salve,
>
> You can deny reality all you want. It doesn't actually get you
anywhere.
>
> Laws have been interpreted since forever. If you don't realize that
then you're naive.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>



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

P. Corva Gaudialis G. Octavio Prisco omnesque sal.

I agree with Gaius Octavius Priscus when he says that the issue to focus upon is restoring the ability to hold elections which are in accordance with our by-laws.

To that end, I have volunteered to serve as a diribitor or in whatever capacity is needed, to work on elections.

Since this is a volunteer organization, we really have no way of preventing people from resigning their offices. I don't really think a lex would be terribly effective in preventing resignations. Even though I don't make a great salary, $50 USD would not be a bothersome enough amount to keep me from resigning an NR office if I really wanted to. $300--now that would give me pause. But it would also make me reconsider running for office at all.

That would put us in the position of enabling only the wealthier cives among us to stand for office. While that is absolutely the way the Romans did it, I don't think it's a custom of theirs that we want to emulate.

Valete,

Paulla Corva Gaudialis

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Jean Courdant <jeancourdant@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> Being new here and still a probationary citizen, forgive me if I stick my neck
> way out there into matter I'm stilling trying to fathom completely.
>
> It would seem to me that the most pressing issue facing Nova Roma is the ability
> of the government to carry out it functions and most critically that means the
> ability for members to vote.
>
> I would suggest that ALL efforts be directed to that cause, and that cause
> alone.
>
> Proposing and debating a new lex designed to curtail excessive resignations is
> something that can certainly wait and is simply a distraction at this point in
> time. IMHO.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gaius Octavius Priscus

What you say, new citizen, is true. This debate serves no purpose to the general citizenry other than for a few select individuals to show their condescension to a few select others.

For them, I say: Hold a referendum. Vote out whom you don't want. Done. Stop playing lawyer. There are more important things to do, like enjoying life, raising one's family, and sharing the goodness of Roman Culture. Engaging in metal masturbation in a pseudo-intellectual orgy is not one of them.

As for the people, I say: Enjoy! There is philosophy, culture, architecture, religion, cuisine, and so much more than these silly debates, that you should not let it hamper your efforts to realize all that Roman Culture has to offer. Ignore the prattle, and delight in Latin, good wine, a cheese, or perhaps some oratory of a philosophical nature. Coordinate local dinners to discuss all things Roman, and simply use this list to communicate such ideas, questions, and answers to your fellow citizens.

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "Dale Parker" <uglyfruit@...> wrote:
>
> Salvete!I hope I find all of you in good health.Currently, I have only
> provisional approval as a citizen of Nova Roma, therefore I feel a bit
> odd jumping into a "debate" that apparently has much history behind it,
> when I am so newly planted. Similarly, It is not without some
> trepidation that I comment on a debate in which a name such as G. Iulius
> Caesar is involved. My history and culture do leave me with a bit
> of...superstition, for lack of a better term.However, I cannot stand to
> read this, and feel that ignoring it would be unwise. As noble and
> poignant as this "Re: Why I left Nova Roma !" argument may have been
> when it began, it appears to have degenerated significantly. I'm
> certain none of the participants in this dialogue had any intention or
> knowledge of this degeneration, so I would like to point out that
> whatever it's origins and intentions it now appears to resemble a base
> argument, complete with veiled slights.I'm sure such a method of debate
> holds no true benefit for any of us. I'm not trying to debate this, only
> to point out things as I see it; you may agree or not.I don't know who
> is "right", because I was not privy to events as they unfolded, however,
> I would like to ask all interested parties to please work to make the
> debate constructive at least in so far as it can potentially lead to a
> solution, thesis, or other useful conclusion.Perhaps I have overstepped
> my bounds, but in my own defense I leave you with the automatically
> quoted text below:
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "lathyrus77" <lathyrus77@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
> gn_iulius_caesar@ wrote:
> > >
> > > Salve Anna
> > >
> > > There isnt anything subjective about reading the conditions for
> dismissing a director under Maine law and applying those conditions to
> the facts.
> > >
> > > But sadly I will have to leave potentially circular debate as I
> have work to do :)
> > >
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > You can deny reality all you want. It doesn't actually get you
> anywhere.
> >
> > Laws have been interpreted since forever. If you don't realize that
> then you're naive.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Anna Bucci
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia P. Corvae Gaudiali (o?) G. Octavio Prisco Omnibusque
sal.


Apologies for jumping in on the thread, but let me give another perspective
to your post Paulla. How I see it, since we are such a small org our
numbers dwindle year by year, this could be another venue to generate income
to fill our Coffers. These monies could be set aside to help the provinces
or those who put on the Conventus' to help off-set the costs or help those
who would like to attend and are unable to do so otherwise. I have looked
into doing "Bakesale" type of Events for our own provincia but due to the
strict reg of 501-c3 orgs, we're not allowed to make profit or some other
hoopla as it was explained to me.

Just a suggestion for a better use of the funds so that we don't look like
scalawags :-)


Vale Optime,
Sta. Cornelia Aeternia

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:27 AM, aerdensrw <aerdensrw@...> wrote:

>
>
> P. Corva Gaudialis G. Octavio Prisco omnesque sal.
>
> I agree with Gaius Octavius Priscus when he says that the issue to focus
> upon is restoring the ability to hold elections which are in accordance with
> our by-laws.
>
> To that end, I have volunteered to serve as a diribitor or in whatever
> capacity is needed, to work on elections.
>
> Since this is a volunteer organization, we really have no way of preventing
> people from resigning their offices. I don't really think a lex would be
> terribly effective in preventing resignations. Even though I don't make a
> great salary, $50 USD would not be a bothersome enough amount to keep me
> from resigning an NR office if I really wanted to. $300--now that would give
> me pause. But it would also make me reconsider running for office at all.
>
> That would put us in the position of enabling only the wealthier cives
> among us to stand for office. While that is absolutely the way the Romans
> did it, I don't think it's a custom of theirs that we want to emulate.
>
> Valete,
>
> Paulla Corva Gaudialis
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Jean
> Courdant <jeancourdant@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salvete Omnes,
> >
> > Being new here and still a probationary citizen, forgive me if I stick my
> neck
> > way out there into matter I'm stilling trying to fathom completely.
> >
> > It would seem to me that the most pressing issue facing Nova Roma is the
> ability
> > of the government to carry out it functions and most critically that
> means the
> > ability for members to vote.
> >
> > I would suggest that ALL efforts be directed to that cause, and that
> cause
> > alone.
> >
> > Proposing and debating a new lex designed to curtail excessive
> resignations is
> > something that can certainly wait and is simply a distraction at this
> point in
> > time. IMHO.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Gaius Octavius Priscus
>
>
>


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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:

>
> Sta. Cornelia Aeternia P. Corvae Gaudiali (o?) G. Octavio Prisco Omnibusque
> sal.
>
>
> Apologies for jumping in on the thread, but let me give another perspective
> to your post Paulla. How I see it, since we are such a small org our
> numbers dwindle year by year, this could be another venue to generate income
> to fill our Coffers. These monies could be set aside to help the provinces
> or those who put on the Conventus' to help off-set the costs or help those
> who would like to attend and are unable to do so otherwise. I have looked
> into doing "Bakesale" type of Events for our own provincia but due to the
> strict reg of 501-c3 orgs, we're not allowed to make profit or some other
> hoopla as it was explained to me.
>
> Just a suggestion for a better use of the funds so that we don't look like
> scalawags :-)
>
>

Salve,

If you spent the money, how would the people get their money back at the end of their term in officer?


Vale,

Anna Bucci

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:40 PM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >
> > Sta. Cornelia Aeternia P. Corvae Gaudiali (o?) G. Octavio Prisco
> Omnibusque
> > sal.
> >
> >
> > Apologies for jumping in on the thread, but let me give another
> perspective
> > to your post Paulla. How I see it, since we are such a small org our
> > numbers dwindle year by year, this could be another venue to generate
> income
> > to fill our Coffers. These monies could be set aside to help the
> provinces
> > or those who put on the Conventus' to help off-set the costs or help
> those
> > who would like to attend and are unable to do so otherwise. I have looked
> > into doing "Bakesale" type of Events for our own provincia but due to the
> > strict reg of 501-c3 orgs, we're not allowed to make profit or some other
> > hoopla as it was explained to me.
> >
> > Just a suggestion for a better use of the funds so that we don't look
> like
> > scalawags :-)
> >
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> If you spent the money, how would the people get their money back at the
> end of their term in officer?
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>

Salve Anna,

*sigh* crashing my idea kidding..

True, I think I was taking Paulinus' original idea and completely molding it
into something else wasn't I? Completely forgot about that addendum, that
was a my bad. So you're saying to treat this like a form of insurance
where you get your premium back on the standing of good behavior?


Vale,
Aeternia

>

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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:

> Salve Anna,
>
> *sigh* crashing my idea kidding..
>
> True, I think I was taking Paulinus' original idea and completely molding it
> into something else wasn't I? Completely forgot about that addendum, that
> was a my bad. So you're saying to treat this like a form of insurance
> where you get your premium back on the standing of good behavior?
>
>

Salve,

That's what Paulinus was saying. I don't think people should have to pay to volunteer for a non-profit org. If you don't want people to resign, then elect people that have shown they stay no matter what, and give them a penalty if they don't.

For those that abandon Nova Roma with no word, they should be surreptitiously removed and not allowed to return without a lengthy process to restore trust.

And no one should EVER get an office or title from threat of lawsuit. Anyone who threatens such should not only never have office, but they should also be subjected to a review of their membership, and possibly removed from the organization completely. Barred from returning.


Yea, we all know who I'm talking about.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:56 PM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> > Salve Anna,
> >
> > *sigh* crashing my idea kidding..
> >
> > True, I think I was taking Paulinus' original idea and completely molding
> it
> > into something else wasn't I? Completely forgot about that addendum, that
> > was a my bad. So you're saying to treat this like a form of insurance
> > where you get your premium back on the standing of good behavior?
> >
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> That's what Paulinus was saying. I don't think people should have to pay to
> volunteer for a non-profit org. If you don't want people to resign, then
> elect people that have shown they stay no matter what, and give them a
> penalty if they don't.
>
> For those that abandon Nova Roma with no word, they should be
> surreptitiously removed and not allowed to return without a lengthy process
> to restore trust.
>
> And no one should EVER get an office or title from threat of lawsuit.
> Anyone who threatens such should not only never have office, but they should
> also be subjected to a review of their membership, and possibly removed from
> the organization completely. Barred from returning.
>
> Yea, we all know who I'm talking about.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>

Salve Iterum Anna,


Okay I see where you're coming from and whom you speak of, but here's the
thing Life Happens. So someone should be punished because there home had a
fire, or someone in their family is deathly ill perhaps a spouse, child, or
parent. They are simply removed and barred, there should be case by case
scenarios if you are to look at it that way. Someone should be barred if
they disappear especially if they did years of good service? Where is the
fairness in that?

Although there are organizations that do "pay to play" techniques, if this
is strictly a "volunteer" org then why do we pay taxes every year? I mean
now that dues are involved, NR is not exactly in the status of Volunteerhood
completely.

Vale,
Aeterni

>
>

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

Ave,

The problem is no one has EVER done that. Therefore, it is a non issue.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 1:56 PM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> > Salve Anna,
> >
> > *sigh* crashing my idea kidding..
> >
> > True, I think I was taking Paulinus' original idea and completely molding
> it
> > into something else wasn't I? Completely forgot about that addendum, that
> > was a my bad. So you're saying to treat this like a form of insurance
> > where you get your premium back on the standing of good behavior?
> >
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> That's what Paulinus was saying. I don't think people should have to pay to
> volunteer for a non-profit org. If you don't want people to resign, then
> elect people that have shown they stay no matter what, and give them a
> penalty if they don't.
>
> For those that abandon Nova Roma with no word, they should be
> surreptitiously removed and not allowed to return without a lengthy process
> to restore trust.
>
> And no one should EVER get an office or title from threat of lawsuit.
> Anyone who threatens such should not only never have office, but they should
> also be subjected to a review of their membership, and possibly removed from
> the organization completely. Barred from returning.
>
> Yea, we all know who I'm talking about.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>


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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:

> Salve Iterum Anna,
>
>
> Okay I see where you're coming from and whom you speak of, but here's the
> thing Life Happens. So someone should be punished because there home had a
> fire, or someone in their family is deathly ill perhaps a spouse, child, or
> parent. They are simply removed and barred, there should be case by case
> scenarios if you are to look at it that way. Someone should be barred if
> they disappear especially if they did years of good service? Where is the
> fairness in that?
>
> Although there are organizations that do "pay to play" techniques, if this
> is strictly a "volunteer" org then why do we pay taxes every year? I mean
> now that dues are involved, NR is not exactly in the status of Volunteerhood
> completely.
>
> Vale,
> Aeterni
>

Salve,

Paying membership dues isn't the same as paying for the privilege of volunteering for an office, imo. Volunteering involves a bit more than just being a member. Membership is a requirement to be a volunteer, but volunteering isn't a requirement of being a member.


I never said people who disappear should be removed an barred. I said they should be "removed and not allowed to return without a lengthy process to restore trust." If someone is sick, or a tragedy happens, or other mitigating circumstances, etc, I believe Paulinus had already made exception for those. Just notify Nova Roma of what's going on and no one will hold it against that person. That's not disappearing, that's dealing with macro problems that come in life.

If someone has problems that last years, and never bothers to notify anyone, then they shouldn't hold office. Ever.

would you vote for a politician that disappeared for years at a time with no notice? I wouldn't. And I wouldn't let them be a member of the board.

There have been many responsible people here in Nova Roma who've held offices and when an emergency or illness comes up, they notify others and take a brief time away from NR. They do not leave for years and then demand to be reinstated through litigation after the organization pragmatically removes them from an office.


There is absolutely nothing any member can do, or has done, to excuse them from threatening a lawsuit against NR in order to get a position and title through extortion. Years of good volunteering and monetary donations does not allow people free reign to bully others. All previous good deeds are null and void after that.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

>
> Ave,
>
> The problem is no one has EVER done that. Therefore, it is a non issue.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla

Salve,

Except for you.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

Ave,

No, that is not what happened. So, I am going to give you a chance. State
the facts as you recall them, so we can compare them with the archive and we
can see who is correct and who is not. ;)

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:02 PM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > The problem is no one has EVER done that. Therefore, it is a non issue.
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
>
> Salve,
>
> Except for you.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>


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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

>
> Ave,
>
> No, that is not what happened.

Salve,


Just caught you in a lie. I was there when it happened. On the senate list and the back alley. I didn't get it second or third hand, I was there. You aren't going to be able to lie about it and think I'm going to believe you.


And FYI, I was told by Paulinus that you were going to be put back on the senate at the next census, so the whole threatening to sue NR was completely unnecessary. All you did was devalue all of your previous works, and showed what kind of horrible person you really are. You should be ashamed of yourself. And I am ashamed of Nova Roma for letting you get away with it.



Vale,

Anna Bucci

Salve,


And here we go again round no.? You been keep tracking of this by chance?
See commentary below etc etc...

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:00 PM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
> > Salve Iterum Anna,
> >
> >
> > Okay I see where you're coming from and whom you speak of, but here's the
> > thing Life Happens. So someone should be punished because there home had
> a
> > fire, or someone in their family is deathly ill perhaps a spouse, child,
> or
> > parent. They are simply removed and barred, there should be case by case
> > scenarios if you are to look at it that way. Someone should be barred if
> > they disappear especially if they did years of good service? Where is the
> > fairness in that?
> >
> > Although there are organizations that do "pay to play" techniques, if
> this
> > is strictly a "volunteer" org then why do we pay taxes every year? I mean
> > now that dues are involved, NR is not exactly in the status of
> Volunteerhood
> > completely.
> >
> > Vale,
> > Aeternia
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> Paying membership dues isn't the same as paying for the privilege of
> volunteering for an office, imo. Volunteering involves a bit more than just
> being a member. Membership is a requirement to be a volunteer, but
> volunteering isn't a requirement of being a member.
>

Aeternia: That's exactly right, but Magistrative offices especially the
more Higher Offices are coveted, I would have no problem paying a fee if
elected into position/or if I had to if I didn't fulfill my length of term a
penalty. Especially if the monies were put to a good use such as helping
out others or for gatherings, if such a Lex were created I believe that's
where the money should go or that whole insurance idea we debated earlier.
Paying a due for one's elected position would make one take into more
consideration for running for something, and resignations in general, the
whining chant of " You still have to respect me, because I still post on the
ML" would certainly vanish into the fire. But that is just my piffle of an
opinion.

>
> I never said people who disappear should be removed an barred. I said they
> should be "removed and not allowed to return without a lengthy process to
> restore trust." If someone is sick, or a tragedy happens, or other
> mitigating circumstances, etc, I believe Paulinus had already made exception
> for those. Just notify Nova Roma of what's going on and no one will hold it
> against that person. That's not disappearing, that's dealing with macro
> problems that come in life.
>

Aeternia: Ah but if there unable to get ahold of NR, and this is simply
hypothetical so humor me a moment, what happens then?

>
> If someone has problems that last years, and never bothers to notify
> anyone, then they shouldn't hold office. Ever.
>

Aeternia: Now that isn't fair, it could be someone of good character, I
believe in that case it should be if trust is earned back, then they may
return to serving the state.

>
> would you vote for a politician that disappeared for years at a time with
> no notice? I wouldn't. And I wouldn't let them be a member of the board.
>

Aeternia: Probably not without an incredibly good reason like fighting to
survive in the Himalyas or something. Here's the thing Anna, neither you
nor I are in the position to say who gets elected to the board of Directors
in NR now are we?

>
> There have been many responsible people here in Nova Roma who've held
> offices and when an emergency or illness comes up, they notify others and
> take a brief time away from NR. They do not leave for years and then demand
> to be reinstated through litigation after the organization pragmatically
> removes them from an office.
>

Aeternia: I do not agree with how the re-instatement occurred, but I believe
that play was taken by someone else's handbook in regarding how the very
first Pontifex Maximus was ushered out of NR. But how about we not go down
that road Anna, everybody else has done it, how about not we?

>
> There is absolutely nothing any member can do, or has done, to excuse them
> from threatening a lawsuit against NR in order to get a position and title
> through extortion. Years of good volunteering and monetary donations does
> not allow people free reign to bully others. All previous good deeds are
> null and void after that.
>
> Aeternia: Attempted extortion catch of the day? I agree lawsuits are not
the way to go, but I have seen bullying from others predominantly on the
other side of the coin. But I get the feeling you and I see different sides
of that same coin. But I do know good deeds should always get a kudos.





> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>


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

Ave,

So that is what you think the facts are? I just want you to state your
position first. So are those the facts as you see them? Or do you want to
add anything else?

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 5:03 PM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ave,
> >
> > No, that is not what happened.
>
> Salve,
>
> Just caught you in a lie. I was there when it happened. On the senate list
> and the back alley. I didn't get it second or third hand, I was there. You
> aren't going to be able to lie about it and think I'm going to believe you.
>
> And FYI, I was told by Paulinus that you were going to be put back on the
> senate at the next census, so the whole threatening to sue NR was completely
> unnecessary. All you did was devalue all of your previous works, and showed
> what kind of horrible person you really are. You should be ashamed of
> yourself. And I am ashamed of Nova Roma for letting you get away with it.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>


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

Ave!

On November 13, I was welcomed back to the senate of Nova Roma, by my
colleague Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12806. My first
message in the message was a response to that message , also on November
13th. It was: the very next email. Message 12807.

I have since posted the following messages:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12810 - explaining my
absence in 4 years.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12814 - Response to
Anna in welcoming me back
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12819 - Response to
Vedius welcoming me back
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12813 - Response to C.
Marius Merrulus - my Censorial Colleague
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12845 - item IV - of
that Senate call - my opinion
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12852 - Another item
that was being debated
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12857 - Debate item
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12859 - Independent
Contractor issue - my comments
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12862 - Response to
Senator Marinus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12866 - Currency
Conversion answers and examples

As you can see, I took part in the debates from the moment I reentered the
senate. On looking these over to this point it was productive, At that
time there was no dispute that I was a senator. I was asked, invited, and
resubscribed by Censor Paulinus. And, more importantly I took part in every
senate debate since that date.

Now, let's fast forward to right before Christmas that same year.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/13352 - Modianus's
illegal removal of myself from the senate list. And his admission that he
knew it was Illegal in that very message.

Now, that was the legal wrong. The new Consuls decided to continue to
support the illegal action that was in violation of Maine Law, having my
attorney affectionately call Compy and Severus both dumber than a bag of
rocks, which we in the back alley then started calling them Rocks 1 & 2. I
then consulted my attorney who confirmed that the action taken was illegal
per Maine Law. I then had my attorney draft a demand letter to give Nova
Roma a chance to resolve the issue in house before it would escalate to a
lawsuit. Which I was preparing for that eventuality if the Consuls would
not work to resolve the issue. As I expected both Consuls did not
compromise. At that point the new Censors (Paulinus and Laenas) worked with
me to both compromise on the outstanding issues and we came to an amicable
arrangement. No lawsuit was persued (only the demand letter was needed) and
I was reinstated back to the Senate.

These are the facts. They are verifiable, even the conversation that I had
with the Consul and Praetors at the time are all available on the senate
archive.

Thank you for your time in listening to this. If anyone has any question -
please feel free to ask. Now I will put Anna back on my kill file because
she is consistently wrong, inaccurate and a just an argumentative
individual.

Vale,

Sulla


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

Now, let's fast forward to right before Christmas that same year.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/13352 - Modianus's
illegal removal of myself from the senate list. And his admission that he
knew it was Illegal in that very message.

Now, that was the legal wrong. The new Consuls decided to continue to
support the illegal action that was in violation of Maine Law, having my
attorney affectionately call Compy and Severus both dumber than a bag of
rocks, which we in the back alley then started calling them Rocks 1 & 2. I
then consulted my attorney who confirmed that the action taken was illegal
per Maine Law. I then had my attorney draft a demand letter to give Nova
Roma a chance to resolve the issue in house before it would escalate to a
lawsuit. Which I was preparing for that eventuality if the Consuls would
not work to resolve the issue. As I expected both Consuls did not
compromise. At that point the new Censors (Paulinus and Laenas) worked with
me to both compromise on the outstanding issues and we came to an amicable
arrangement. No lawsuit was persued (only the demand letter was needed) and
I was reinstated back to the Senate.
=====================================================
And where the hell was I during this donnybrook? In Haiti, unable to respond.

But if you read this debate in the e-mails it fairly obvious that Marinus was all ready being considered by the Euros to be dictator. Tribune Galerius request that Sulla issue an oath that he would not seek the dictatorship is pretty interesting, until we realize the plans were laid last year when Sulla returned. More and more it becomes apparent that we see Moravius far seeing eye behind this.
Excellent analysis as always, Guius Iulius.
Fabius




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

Ave Fabius,

This was why my price for my oath, which I was willing to give, was that
Marinus would also need to take the same oath as I. If Galerius Aurelinaus
wanted my word, there would be a fee. My fee was Marinus's oath as well. I
do not give away something an adversary wants freely. Supply and Demand.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 6:53 PM, <QFabiusMaxmi@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Now, let's fast forward to right before Christmas that same year.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/13352 - Modianus's
> illegal removal of myself from the senate list. And his admission that he
> knew it was Illegal in that very message.
>
> Now, that was the legal wrong. The new Consuls decided to continue to
> support the illegal action that was in violation of Maine Law, having my
> attorney affectionately call Compy and Severus both dumber than a bag of
> rocks, which we in the back alley then started calling them Rocks 1 & 2. I
> then consulted my attorney who confirmed that the action taken was illegal
> per Maine Law. I then had my attorney draft a demand letter to give Nova
> Roma a chance to resolve the issue in house before it would escalate to a
> lawsuit. Which I was preparing for that eventuality if the Consuls would
> not work to resolve the issue. As I expected both Consuls did not
> compromise. At that point the new Censors (Paulinus and Laenas) worked with
> me to both compromise on the outstanding issues and we came to an amicable
> arrangement. No lawsuit was persued (only the demand letter was needed) and
> I was reinstated back to the Senate.
> =====================================================
> And where the hell was I during this donnybrook? In Haiti, unable to
> respond.
>
> But if you read this debate in the e-mails it fairly obvious that Marinus
> was all ready being considered by the Euros to be dictator. Tribune Galerius
> request that Sulla issue an oath that he would not seek the dictatorship is
> pretty interesting, until we realize the plans were laid last year when
> Sulla returned. More and more it becomes apparent that we see Moravius far
> seeing eye behind this.
> Excellent analysis as always, Guius Iulius.
> Fabius
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Salvete
Opps, apologies to the Praetors' assistants. I forgot "Latin Greetings"
at the start and end of the message. I will endeavor to do better.
Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

Sent from my BlackBerry




MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.


Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.



Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use



.






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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

>
> As you can see, I took part in the debates from the moment I reentered the
> senate. On looking these over to this point it was productive, At that
> time there was no dispute that I was a senator. I was asked, invited, and
> resubscribed by Censor Paulinus. And, more importantly I took part in every
> senate debate since that date.

Salve,

You weren't actually a senator. You were erroneously made a senator by the censors after your litigious hissy fit.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

Ave,

Again, you are wrong.

The Articles of incorporation of Nova Roma does not make a distinction
regarding differing classes of Senator. Once one is in the senate list (if
they are not a Tribune of the Plebs) they ARE senators. The LEx Popilia
conflicts with the Articles of Incorporation and thusly with Maine Law.
And, I was willing to go the distance to have Maine Law decide the
resolution given the advice of my attorney that I would win the lawsuit.
When my attorney reviewed the Senate posts, the Articles of Incorporation,
Maine Revised Statutes, Maine Case Law, The Lex Popilia, and other
associated legal documents in the Tabularium he said two primary things.
First, that he believed I would prevail, quite easily. Second it wasn't
worth the money to do this. My response was it wasn't about the money, but
out of principle. That was when he said first we do the demand letter and
try to resolve the matter inhouse before I had to retain an attorney
licensed to practice in Maine if the matter was not resolved amicable
inhouse.

Your interpretation is only your opinion. And, it is one that had the
Consuls and Censors chosen to go that route would have resulted in the
action that I had outlined. You believe the Consuls were right. That's
does not change the fact that I had the advice of a corporate attorney who
examined all the relevant documents and had his assessment. An, assessment
I paid out of my own pocket. Had he not said I had a likelyhood of victory
we would not even be having this discussion right now.

And, what you call a litigious hissy fit, I guess you would call the
Plaintiff in Brown vs. The Board of Education also a legal hissy fit. And,
every legal issue is centered around hissy fit's in your world, I guess.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 8:12 PM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Robert
> Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> >
> > As you can see, I took part in the debates from the moment I reentered
> the
> > senate. On looking these over to this point it was productive, At that
> > time there was no dispute that I was a senator. I was asked, invited, and
> > resubscribed by Censor Paulinus. And, more importantly I took part in
> every
> > senate debate since that date.
>
> Salve,
>
> You weren't actually a senator. You were erroneously made a senator by the
> censors after your litigious hissy fit.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>


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

C. Petronius L. Sullae s.p.d.,

I wonder why you are answering to lathyrus77 in a such uninteresting debate, she is not yet citizen. She resigned herself and she preachs about resignation of others...

I think this discussion boring. The past is the past, now we must go ahead. Those who resign, voluntarily leaving their citizenship, only are guests on this list, they cannot feed a troll.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VI Kalendas Octobres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Ave Dexter,

I agree with you but history is important. Revising history is wrong and
this is the only reason why I addressed it. And disinformation, coming even
from Anna, needs to be corrected. This is why I even strove to be extra
polite in my responses. Now that the question has been answered my part is
done. If anyone has any other question, they can please feel free to
contact me privately.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:06 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae s.p.d.,
>
> I wonder why you are answering to lathyrus77 in a such uninteresting
> debate, she is not yet citizen. She resigned herself and she preachs about
> resignation of others...
>
> I think this discussion boring. The past is the past, now we must go ahead.
> Those who resign, voluntarily leaving their citizenship, only are guests on
> this list, they cannot feed a troll.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. VI Kalendas Octobres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.
>
>
>


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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

>
> Ave,
>
> Again, you are wrong.
>

Salve,

No, you're wrong, again.

I'm going to try to make this easy for you to understand:

Only the censors can appoint a senator. ONLY the censors can appoint a senator. ONLY THE CENSORS can appoint a senator.

Being on the senate list does not make you senator. Being on the senate list does NOT make you a senator.

You were removed from the senate years ago(in 2006).

"III. Section II c of the Lex Popillia Senatoria stipulates that the Censors shall provide a public explanation when we strike existing senators from the Senate list. Therefore the following public explanation is provided: Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix is stricken from the Senate list for nonparticipation in the Senate since October of 2757 auc." - http://novaroma.org/nr/Censorial_edicts_on_Senate_appointments_%28Nova_Roma%29


You were removed from the senate by the censors. You were REMOVED from the senate by the censors.


YOU WERE REMOVED from the SENATE by the CENSORS in 2006.

The next sentence in the censorial edict allowed you to be invites to the senate mailing list and vote, should you return.

"V. Future convening magistrates of the Senate of Nova Roma shall understand that Lucius Cornelius Sulla is welcome to join the Senate mailing list, participate in, and vote in meetings of the Senate of Nova Roma by virtue of his Consular and Censorius status."

This does not make you a senator. This DOES NOT make you a senator.

Wanna know how I know this? Wanna know why this isn't just my own interpretation of what was stated? Let's ask our friends Galerius Paulinus and
Popillius Laenus, when they were the censors:

"VI. Censorius Lucius Cornelius Sulla , Censorius Marcus Octavius Gracchus and Consular Po. Minucia Strabo are expressly not passed over for sublection to the Senate. They retain the right of ius sententiae to attend and vote in the Senate. They are not, however members of the Board of directors of Nova Roma, Inc. " - http://novaroma.org/nr/MMDCCLXII/Officium_Censorium

and

"These former magistrates, with the ius sententiae, may attend and vote in the Senate but are not currently Senators nor members of the Board of Directors of Nova Roma, Inc.

* Censorius Lucius Cornelius Sulla
* Censorius Marcus Octavius Gracchus
* Consular Po Minucia Strabo"



You were not a senator when you were allowed to go on the senate mailing list and vote. That was in January.

YOU WERE NOT A SENATOR.


You were made a senator in March, two months later AFTER your threat of lawsuit. Even on your biography page you Cursus Honorum shows the break in senate status:

* Senator

from a.d. III Non. Quin. ‡L. Equitio Dec. Iunio cos. ‡ MMDCCLII a.u.c. to a.d. XVI Kal. Nov. ‡C. Buteone Po. Minucia cos. ‡ MMDCCLIX a.u.c.
from a.d. III Kal. Mar. ‡ M. Curiatio M. Iulio cos. ‡ MMDCCLXII a.u.c.


http://novaroma.org/nr/Lucius_Cornelius_Sulla_Felix_%28Nova_Roma%29


Here is the edict from Galerius Paulinus and Popillius Laenus on March 3rd 2009:

"Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix is returned to the Album Senatorium. He is a Senator of Nova Roma and a member of the Board of Directors of Nova Roma, Inc.
This edict takes effect on a.d. V Non. Mar. M. Curiatio M. Iulio cos. MMDCCLXII a.u.c. at 1700 CET" - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/message/61986



And that is is why you fail. You can not win this argument; I will always crush any lie you bring forth. And I don't have to use links to the senate mailing list(which not everyone can see) to do it.


Sulla is a liar, he will always be a liar. He is a disgrace and embarrassment to Nova Roma. Enjoy him at your peril, citizens of Nova Roma.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, "petronius_dexter" <jfarnoud94@...> wrote:

>Those who resign, voluntarily leaving their citizenship, only are >guests on this list, they cannot feed a troll.
>

Salve,

A apologize for feeding the troll.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus, sociis,
peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.

> Statia Cornelia Aeternia A. Tulliae Scholasticae Omnibus S.P.D.
>
> I had a feeling that's what happened, yahoo in its monster form has indeed
> the tenacity of a Hydra to vanquish one's e-mail into the aethers.

That's for sure. This evening I received a post from---*drum
roll*--AUGUST 23RD! And why do we call the post office version 'snail mail?
' Yahoo just opened a new data center in our region; maybe they are finding
lost mail there.

>
>
> Yahoo's being a brat that simple.

Nothing new about that. At least some of them showed up....it's just
that they go visiting other stars and galaxies first.

>
> Vale Bene,
> Aeternia

Vale et valete bene.

>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:54 AM, A. Tullia Scholastica <fororom@...
>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A. Tullia Scholastica Statiae Corneliae Aeterniae quiritibus, sociis,
>>> peregrinisque bonae voluntatis S.P.D.
>>
>>>
>>> Salve,
>>>
>>> Hiyas Venii!!
>>>
>>> Now where did my other post go, I hope the Hydra didn't decide to swallow
>> it.
>>>
>>> ATS: I just got two from the 22d. Maybe the Hydra didn�t swallow it, but
>>> Yahoo did. It is always wise to assume that Yahoo did it. Legitimate
>> posts
>>> end up in spam, where we don�t look for them, and spam gets delivered..
>> You
>>> figure it out...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It was a rather good post IMHO.
>>>
>>> ATS: Let�s hope it didn�t get too far out of the solar system and will
>>> turn up.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vale,
>>> Aeternia
>>>
>>>
>>> Vale, et valete.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:
>> Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%2540yahoogroups.com>> ,
>>
>>> Publius Ullerius Stephanus Venator <famila.ulleria.venii@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ave;
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Tragedienne wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Salve,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Always feel hokey doing these, but my previous post is not showing
>> up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can anyone see this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you, and pardon the interuption.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vale,
>>>>>>> Aeternia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Transmission received; 5 X 5...
>>>>>
>>>>> Vale - Venator
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Salve Anna,

On 9/25/2010 10:30 PM, lathyrus77 wrote:
> Being on the senate list does not make you senator. Being on the
> senate list does NOT make you a senator.

Are we talking about the Album Senatorium, the list of senators
maintained by the censors, or the SenatusRomanus mailing list? If he
meant the former, then by definition being on that list would make him
senator, since it's the list of senators. I thought he meant the
mailing list too, the first time I read it. Now I'm not sure.

Vale,
Seneca



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

Ave,

I am referring to the Senate email list. Which is what is listed in the
Articles of incorporation. Which is where the Senate does it's business and
conducts its business. By the illegal removal of Modianus that act violated
Maine Law as it prevents a Board member from completing his (in this case)
my duty and responsibility as a Board member.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Gaius Lucretius Seneca <
c.lucretius.seneca@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Anna,
>
> On 9/25/2010 10:30 PM, lathyrus77 wrote:
> > Being on the senate list does not make you senator. Being on the
> > senate list does NOT make you a senator.
>
> Are we talking about the Album Senatorium, the list of senators
> maintained by the censors, or the SenatusRomanus mailing list? If he
> meant the former, then by definition being on that list would make him
> senator, since it's the list of senators. I thought he meant the
> mailing list too, the first time I read it. Now I'm not sure.
>
> Vale,
> Seneca
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Salve Sulla,

On 9/26/2010 12:30 AM, Robert Woolwine wrote:
> I am referring to the Senate email list. Which is what is listed in the
> Articles of incorporation. Which is where the Senate does it's business and
> conducts its business. By the illegal removal of Modianus that act violated
> Maine Law as it prevents a Board member from completing his (in this case)
> my duty and responsibility as a Board member.

Hmm, I can't find any mention of any email lists from the incorporation
documents listed on http://novaroma.org/nr/Incorporation. Am I looking
in the right place?

Vale,
Seneca

Ave,

Yes a different place. I will find it and forward it to you in the morning.


Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Gaius Lucretius Seneca <
c.lucretius.seneca@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve Sulla,
>
>
> On 9/26/2010 12:30 AM, Robert Woolwine wrote:
> > I am referring to the Senate email list. Which is what is listed in the
> > Articles of incorporation. Which is where the Senate does it's business
> and
> > conducts its business. By the illegal removal of Modianus that act
> violated
> > Maine Law as it prevents a Board member from completing his (in this
> case)
> > my duty and responsibility as a Board member.
>
> Hmm, I can't find any mention of any email lists from the incorporation
> documents listed on http://novaroma.org/nr/Incorporation. Am I looking
> in the right place?
>
> Vale,
> Seneca
>
>

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

Salve,

I was referring to the mailing list. sorry, I should've been more specific.

Vale,

Anna Bucci

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gaius Lucretius Seneca <c.lucretius.seneca@...> wrote:
>
> Salve Anna,
>
> On 9/25/2010 10:30 PM, lathyrus77 wrote:
> > Being on the senate list does not make you senator. Being on the
> > senate list does NOT make you a senator.
>
> Are we talking about the Album Senatorium, the list of senators
> maintained by the censors, or the SenatusRomanus mailing list? If he
> meant the former, then by definition being on that list would make him
> senator, since it's the list of senators. I thought he meant the
> mailing list too, the first time I read it. Now I'm not sure.
>
> Vale,
> Seneca
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

C. Petronius C. Senecae salutem,

> Hmm, I can't find any mention of any email lists from the incorporation documents listed on http://novaroma.org/nr/Incorporation. Am I looking

in the right place?

See perhaps here:
http://novaroma.org/nr/Mailing_lists_%28Nova_Roma%29

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VI Kalendas Octobres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

> C. Petronius C. Senecae salutem,

You can find many interesting things on the civic life in NR here:
http://novaroma.org/nr/Res_publica_Novae_Romae

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. VI Kalendas Octobres P. Memmio K. Fabio II coss.

Salve Sulla,

My only question is how does this show anything to anyone who isn't a senator or
magistrate? We can't see any of the links you posted so the information is
unreachable and unverifiable for us.

Vale,

Gaius Octavius Priscus




________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <nova-roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, September 25, 2010 9:00:06 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Recap


Ave!

On November 13, I was welcomed back to the senate of Nova Roma, by my
colleague Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12806. My first
message in the message was a response to that message , also on November
13th. It was: the very next email. Message 12807.

I have since posted the following messages:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12810 - explaining my
absence in 4 years.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12814 - Response to
Anna in welcoming me back
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12819 - Response to
Vedius welcoming me back
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12813 - Response to C.
Marius Merrulus - my Censorial Colleague
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12845 - item IV - of
that Senate call - my opinion
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12852 - Another item
that was being debated
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12857 - Debate item
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12859 - Independent
Contractor issue - my comments
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12862 - Response to
Senator Marinus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12866 - Currency
Conversion answers and examples

As you can see, I took part in the debates from the moment I reentered the
senate. On looking these over to this point it was productive, At that
time there was no dispute that I was a senator. I was asked, invited, and
resubscribed by Censor Paulinus. And, more importantly I took part in every
senate debate since that date.

Now, let's fast forward to right before Christmas that same year.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/13352 - Modianus's
illegal removal of myself from the senate list. And his admission that he
knew it was Illegal in that very message.

Now, that was the legal wrong. The new Consuls decided to continue to
support the illegal action that was in violation of Maine Law, having my
attorney affectionately call Compy and Severus both dumber than a bag of
rocks, which we in the back alley then started calling them Rocks 1 & 2. I
then consulted my attorney who confirmed that the action taken was illegal
per Maine Law. I then had my attorney draft a demand letter to give Nova
Roma a chance to resolve the issue in house before it would escalate to a
lawsuit. Which I was preparing for that eventuality if the Consuls would
not work to resolve the issue. As I expected both Consuls did not
compromise. At that point the new Censors (Paulinus and Laenas) worked with
me to both compromise on the outstanding issues and we came to an amicable
arrangement. No lawsuit was persued (only the demand letter was needed) and
I was reinstated back to the Senate.

These are the facts. They are verifiable, even the conversation that I had
with the Consul and Praetors at the time are all available on the senate
archive.

Thank you for your time in listening to this. If anyone has any question -
please feel free to ask. Now I will put Anna back on my kill file because
she is consistently wrong, inaccurate and a just an argumentative
individual.

Vale,

Sulla

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







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

Salve,

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Aeternia: Ah but if there unable to get ahold of NR, and this is simply
> hypothetical so humor me a moment, what happens then?
>

If they are prevented from contacting anyone in Nova Roma(which is a rare occurrence in this modern age), then a friend or family member could do it.

If this were more than a volunteer position in a non-profit org, say if this were a job, should a company keep employing someone who doesn't show up for work for years? If someone was in a coma for 4 yrs, and then came back to work, should the company rehire him to his former position automatically? And since when do people not tell their employer of their absence?

Imo, people who volunteer for positions in a non-profit organization should treat it more seriously, like it were a job.


> >
> > If someone has problems that last years, and never bothers to notify
> > anyone, then they shouldn't hold office. Ever.
> >
>
> Aeternia: Now that isn't fair, it could be someone of good character, I
> believe in that case it should be if trust is earned back, then they may
> return to serving the state.
>

Someone of good character can still be unreliable.




> Aeternia: Probably not without an incredibly good reason like fighting to
> survive in the Himalyas or something. Here's the thing Anna, neither you
> nor I are in the position to say who gets elected to the board of Directors
> in NR now are we?
>

Nope, but I am in position to not support an org that goes against my principles.

Vale,

Anna Bucci

Salvete
i am sory about the spam messages you get from me . i dont know how to stop them. somebody hacked my yahoo account.dont be mad at me i am doing my best to fix this.
Valete




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

Salve,

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 7:52 AM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salve,
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Aeternia: Ah but if there unable to get ahold of NR, and this is simply
> > hypothetical so humor me a moment, what happens then?
> >
>
> If they are prevented from contacting anyone in Nova Roma(which is a rare
> occurrence in this modern age), then a friend or family member could do it.
>
> If this were more than a volunteer position in a non-profit org, say if
> this were a job, should a company keep employing someone who doesn't show up
> for work for years? If someone was in a coma for 4 yrs, and then came back
> to work, should the company rehire him to his former position automatically?
> And since when do people not tell their employer of their absence?
>

Aeternia:The only time a company will keep someone on board for years and
they are M.I.A. is if they are Military and I do know of people that
situation has happened... But if someone were in a coma say for four years,
and they want to their old job automatically, it would depend what they did
how good they were, thats a variable situation imo. But you are correct
usually on most jobs especially in the sales field two NCNS and you are sent
to the vortex of the unemployed.

Here's the crux though Anna, there's a fine line of treating NR like an
actual job, does it pay like an actual job? Do you get medical benefits
like a job? Vacation time? Is one able to live off the bounties of Nova
Roma alone? No we cannot, lets face it in order to be in Nova Roma, one
must be employed in the mundane macronational world. Now can NR take time
away from your family? Can it cause chaos in your home? Do you receive
benefits of meeting really cool and brilliant people from all over the
world? The answer is yes to all those questions, but an elected position is
not a paying job, but the activity it requires equates to practically a
job. And that depends on each individual how that is to be treated but that
is also my piffle of an opinion mind you.


> Imo, people who volunteer for positions in a non-profit organization should
> treat it more seriously, like it were a job.
>

Aeternia: See my comment above..

>
>
> > >
> > > If someone has problems that last years, and never bothers to notify
> > > anyone, then they shouldn't hold office. Ever.
> > >
> >
> > Aeternia: Now that isn't fair, it could be someone of good character, I
> > believe in that case it should be if trust is earned back, then they may
> > return to serving the state.
> >
>
> Someone of good character can still be unreliable.
>
> Aeternia:Usually someone of good character displays reliability...

>
> > Aeternia: Probably not without an incredibly good reason like fighting to
> > survive in the Himalyas or something. Here's the thing Anna, neither you
> > nor I are in the position to say who gets elected to the board of
> Directors
> > in NR now are we?
> >
>
> Nope, but I am in position to not support an org that goes against my
> principles.
>


Aeternia: Then Anna and please take no offense to this, but why are you
here? And not the answer of I'm sniping from the outside till someone gets
my point nonsense, no seriously why are you here? Have you been promised
something? I honestly don't get it but again not to be offensive so please
explain to those of us in the forum who are scratching our heads in
puzzlement.



>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>


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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:

>
> Salve,
>
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 7:52 AM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> > Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Aeternia: Ah but if there unable to get ahold of NR, and this is simply
> > > hypothetical so humor me a moment, what happens then?
> > >
> >
> > If they are prevented from contacting anyone in Nova Roma(which is a rare
> > occurrence in this modern age), then a friend or family member could do it.
> >
> > If this were more than a volunteer position in a non-profit org, say if
> > this were a job, should a company keep employing someone who doesn't show up
> > for work for years? If someone was in a coma for 4 yrs, and then came back
> > to work, should the company rehire him to his former position automatically?
> > And since when do people not tell their employer of their absence?
> >
>
> Aeternia:The only time a company will keep someone on board for years and
> they are M.I.A. is if they are Military and I do know of people that
> situation has happened... But if someone were in a coma say for four years,
> and they want to their old job automatically, it would depend what they did
> how good they were, thats a variable situation imo. But you are correct
> usually on most jobs especially in the sales field two NCNS and you are sent
> to the vortex of the unemployed.
>
> Here's the crux though Anna, there's a fine line of treating NR like an
> actual job, does it pay like an actual job? Do you get medical benefits
> like a job? Vacation time? Is one able to live off the bounties of Nova
> Roma alone? No we cannot, lets face it in order to be in Nova Roma, one
> must be employed in the mundane macronational world. Now can NR take time
> away from your family? Can it cause chaos in your home? Do you receive
> benefits of meeting really cool and brilliant people from all over the
> world? The answer is yes to all those questions, but an elected position is
> not a paying job, but the activity it requires equates to practically a
> job. And that depends on each individual how that is to be treated but that
> is also my piffle of an opinion mind you.
>
>

If volunteering for a non-profit org is nothing but a lark, then don't bother volunteering. If you're too busy, or you have other more imnportant things going on, then don't include volunteering as a boardmember or any other position. It's not a requirement. If I volunteered for the Red Cross, but didn't actually do anything, would they keep me on as a volunteer? It doesn't pay anything, I don't get any vacation time, and yet if I don't actually don't show up to do anything for 4 yrs they most likely would not keep me on as a volunteer.

I say you should treat it as a job, because it makes you commit to something more than you would a hobby. People who treat this org like a hobby tend to disappear without notice, or resign on a whim.

> > Imo, people who volunteer for positions in a non-profit organization should
> > treat it more seriously, like it were a job.
> >
>

^THIS

I added that sentence in anticipation of your "but it's not a job, cause you don't get paid and you can't pay your bills from it" argument.

No, it isn't a real job. It's VOLUNTEERING. That means you're doing a job without pay. If you disappear for years on end, should an org really trust you? Wouldn't you be considered unreliable? Is Nova Roma in such dire need of unreliable people to run the organization?

>
> >
> > Someone of good character can still be unreliable.
> >
> > Aeternia:Usually someone of good character displays reliability...
>

Usually, but not always. I have a friend who is a very nice, giving, and selfless person. He would give you the shirt off his back. He's a tech sgt in the Air Force and performs his duties well. A person with very good moral character. But he's the most unreliable person I ever met. I don't ask him to do any favors, because he forgets about them.

>
> Aeternia: Then Anna and please take no offense to this, but why are you
> here?

I'm not always here. I come and I go. I'm currently here posting to the main list because I'm hoping something will be done, either the separation of NR into 2 new roman orgs, or something else to change the status quo for the better.




And not the answer of I'm sniping from the outside till someone gets

> my point nonsense, no seriously why are you here?

Seriously, I answered it already.

Have you been promised

> something?

No.



I honestly don't get it but again not to be offensive so please

> explain to those of us in the forum who are scratching our heads in
> puzzlement.
>

It's not that hard to understand, so don't feign puzzlement. I suspect I'm here for the same reason as former citizen Octavius Gracchus(Matt Hucke). I could be wrong though, since he's one of the back alley rats, as you know.

I will remain an ex-citizen as long as Nova Roma persists on being submissive to extortion and faction intimidation. Should a miracle occur and I am no longer prevented from joining based on principle, I will gladly apply to be a citizen again, resume my meager financial support, and offer my services at volunteering.

I don't know how to say that any plainer, so if my reasons for being here still elude you, there's nothing I can do about and we should cease this discussion.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:

>

Salve,

>but that
> is also my piffle of an opinion mind you.

Also, I'm not really interested in your "piffle" opinions. Whether this is an attempt at humility, or self-deprecation, or some kind of passive agressive thing, I don't really care. It's annoying.

If your thoughts are really piffle then I will cease giving them any attention, or serious response.


Vale,

Anna Bucci

C. Maria Caeca T. Flavio Aquilae S. P. D.

I am delighted to see your presence on this list, regardless of whether or not I have always agreed with you. I am glad that you have not, after all, quite forgotten or forsaken us.

Respectfully,
Vale bene,
CMC

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

Salve,


Annoying? You'd know about annoying more than I would, but since my
comments don't really matter I won't expect a response.



And to think once I got an argument with Sulla once defending your sorry
cause, he deserves an apology from me.


Vale,
Aeternia

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:51 AM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >
>
> Salve,
>
>
> >but that
> > is also my piffle of an opinion mind you.
>
> Also, I'm not really interested in your "piffle" opinions. Whether this is
> an attempt at humility, or self-deprecation, or some kind of passive
> agressive thing, I don't really care. It's annoying.
>
> If your thoughts are really piffle then I will cease giving them any
> attention, or serious response.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>


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

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:

>
> Salve,
>
>
> Annoying? You'd know about annoying more than I would, but since my
> comments don't really matter I won't expect a response.
>
>
>
> And to think once I got an argument with Sulla once defending your sorry
> cause, he deserves an apology from me.
>

Salve,

Ah your true face shows up. And all it took was my not appreciating your "piffle". I appreciate honesty and frankness more than piffle and two-faced niceties.

I do not have a sorry cause and I do not require your sorry defense. Go ahead an apologize to your BFF.

Vale,

Anna Bucci

Salve,


So I'm two-faced because I won't take your crap? I'm a very nice person
thank you much.


And he's my roommate not my BFF!


Vale,
Aeternia

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 11:12 AM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> >
> > Annoying? You'd know about annoying more than I would, but since my
> > comments don't really matter I won't expect a response.
> >
> >
> >
> > And to think once I got an argument with Sulla once defending your sorry
> > cause, he deserves an apology from me.
> >
>
> Salve,
>
> Ah your true face shows up. And all it took was my not appreciating your
> "piffle". I appreciate honesty and frankness more than piffle and two-faced
> niceties.
>
> I do not have a sorry cause and I do not require your sorry defense. Go
> ahead an apologize to your BFF.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>
>
>


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

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:33 AM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
> Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...> wrote:
> >
> > Salve,
>
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 7:52 AM, lathyrus77 <lathyrus77@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Salve,
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com><Nova-Roma%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, Belle
>
> > > Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Aeternia: Ah but if there unable to get ahold of NR, and this is
> simply
> > > > hypothetical so humor me a moment, what happens then?
> > > >
> > >
> > > If they are prevented from contacting anyone in Nova Roma(which is a
> rare
> > > occurrence in this modern age), then a friend or family member could do
> it.
> > >
> > > If this were more than a volunteer position in a non-profit org, say if
> > > this were a job, should a company keep employing someone who doesn't
> show up
> > > for work for years? If someone was in a coma for 4 yrs, and then came
> back
> > > to work, should the company rehire him to his former position
> automatically?
> > > And since when do people not tell their employer of their absence?
> > >
> >
> > Aeternia:The only time a company will keep someone on board for years and
> > they are M.I.A. is if they are Military and I do know of people that
> > situation has happened... But if someone were in a coma say for four
> years,
> > and they want to their old job automatically, it would depend what they
> did
> > how good they were, thats a variable situation imo. But you are correct
> > usually on most jobs especially in the sales field two NCNS and you are
> sent
> > to the vortex of the unemployed.
> >
> > Here's the crux though Anna, there's a fine line of treating NR like an
> > actual job, does it pay like an actual job? Do you get medical benefits
> > like a job? Vacation time? Is one able to live off the bounties of Nova
> > Roma alone? No we cannot, lets face it in order to be in Nova Roma, one
> > must be employed in the mundane macronational world. Now can NR take time
> > away from your family? Can it cause chaos in your home? Do you receive
> > benefits of meeting really cool and brilliant people from all over the
> > world? The answer is yes to all those questions, but an elected position
> is
> > not a paying job, but the activity it requires equates to practically a
> > job. And that depends on each individual how that is to be treated but
> that
> > is also my piffle of an opinion mind you.
> >
> >
>
> If volunteering for a non-profit org is nothing but a lark, then don't
> bother volunteering. If you're too busy, or you have other more imnportant
> things going on, then don't include volunteering as a boardmember or any
> other position. It's not a requirement. If I volunteered for the Red Cross,
> but didn't actually do anything, would they keep me on as a volunteer? It
> doesn't pay anything, I don't get any vacation time, and yet if I don't
> actually don't show up to do anything for 4 yrs they most likely would not
> keep me on as a volunteer.
>
> I say you should treat it as a job, because it makes you commit to
> something more than you would a hobby. People who treat this org like a
> hobby tend to disappear without notice, or resign on a whim.
>
>
> > > Imo, people who volunteer for positions in a non-profit organization
> should
> > > treat it more seriously, like it were a job.
> > >
> >
>
> ^THIS
>
> I added that sentence in anticipation of your "but it's not a job, cause
> you don't get paid and you can't pay your bills from it" argument.
>
> No, it isn't a real job. It's VOLUNTEERING. That means you're doing a job
> without pay. If you disappear for years on end, should an org really trust
> you? Wouldn't you be considered unreliable? Is Nova Roma in such dire need
> of unreliable people to run the organization?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Someone of good character can still be unreliable.
> > >
> > > Aeternia:Usually someone of good character displays reliability...
> >
>
> Usually, but not always. I have a friend who is a very nice, giving, and
> selfless person. He would give you the shirt off his back. He's a tech sgt
> in the Air Force and performs his duties well. A person with very good moral
> character. But he's the most unreliable person I ever met. I don't ask him
> to do any favors, because he forgets about them.
>
>
> >
> > Aeternia: Then Anna and please take no offense to this, but why are you
> > here?
>
> I'm not always here. I come and I go. I'm currently here posting to the
> main list because I'm hoping something will be done, either the separation
> of NR into 2 new roman orgs, or something else to change the status quo for
> the better.
>
>
> And not the answer of I'm sniping from the outside till someone gets
> > my point nonsense, no seriously why are you here?
>
> Seriously, I answered it already.
>
>
> Have you been promised
> > something?
>
> No.
>
>
> I honestly don't get it but again not to be offensive so please
> > explain to those of us in the forum who are scratching our heads in
> > puzzlement.
> >
>
> It's not that hard to understand, so don't feign puzzlement. I suspect I'm
> here for the same reason as former citizen Octavius Gracchus(Matt Hucke). I
> could be wrong though, since he's one of the back alley rats, as you know.
>
> I will remain an ex-citizen as long as Nova Roma persists on being
> submissive to extortion and faction intimidation. Should a miracle occur and
> I am no longer prevented from joining based on principle, I will gladly
> apply to be a citizen again, resume my meager financial support, and offer
> my services at volunteering.
>
> I don't know how to say that any plainer, so if my reasons for being here
> still elude you, there's nothing I can do about and we should cease this
> discussion.
>
> Vale,
>
> Anna Bucci
>

Salve,

Anna we disagree, our perspectives are different, you haven't convinced me
at all nor have I convinced you, you are right lets not continue this
discussion I'm sick of feeding your pathetic attempt at angst. You wanna
pull the Ice Queen sniping from the Igloo act, please continue but people
think you are Trolling and even I am more inclined to agree. I don't
understand why people feel the need to "watch the train wreck" if I was that
unhappy in an organization I would either do something about it or simply
walk away and move on with my life, but as you can tell not everyone thinks
alike.

I thought you a better individual despite what others have said, I am sorry
to have been so wrong, maybe I did learn something afterall. One day
hopefully you'll find a medium Anna.

Vale,
Aeternia

>
>

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

Ave,

I can't the Senate is a closed list but I have given just a taste of the
posts I have done in the Senate since I was returned to the Senate by at the
time, Censor Paulinus. It is the best I can do and it proves the
allegations made by ex citizen Anna as inaccurate.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Jean Courdant <jeancourdant@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve Sulla,
>
> My only question is how does this show anything to anyone who isn't a
> senator or
> magistrate? We can't see any of the links you posted so the information is
> unreachable and unverifiable for us.
>
> Vale,
>
> Gaius Octavius Priscus
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...<robert.woolwine%40gmail.com>
> >
> To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com <Nova-Roma%40yahoogroups.com>" <
> nova-roma@yahoogroups.com <nova-roma%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Sat, September 25, 2010 9:00:06 PM
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Recap
>
> Ave!
>
> On November 13, I was welcomed back to the senate of Nova Roma, by my
> colleague Decius Iunius Palladius Invictus:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12806. My first
> message in the message was a response to that message , also on November
> 13th. It was: the very next email. Message 12807.
>
> I have since posted the following messages:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12810 - explaining my
> absence in 4 years.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12814 - Response to
> Anna in welcoming me back
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12819 - Response to
> Vedius welcoming me back
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12813 - Response to
> C.
> Marius Merrulus - my Censorial Colleague
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12845 - item IV - of
> that Senate call - my opinion
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12852 - Another item
> that was being debated
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12857 - Debate item
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12859 - Independent
> Contractor issue - my comments
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12862 - Response to
> Senator Marinus
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12866 - Currency
> Conversion answers and examples
>
> As you can see, I took part in the debates from the moment I reentered the
> senate. On looking these over to this point it was productive, At that
> time there was no dispute that I was a senator. I was asked, invited, and
> resubscribed by Censor Paulinus. And, more importantly I took part in every
> senate debate since that date.
>
> Now, let's fast forward to right before Christmas that same year.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/13352 - Modianus's
> illegal removal of myself from the senate list. And his admission that he
> knew it was Illegal in that very message.
>
> Now, that was the legal wrong. The new Consuls decided to continue to
> support the illegal action that was in violation of Maine Law, having my
> attorney affectionately call Compy and Severus both dumber than a bag of
> rocks, which we in the back alley then started calling them Rocks 1 & 2. I
> then consulted my attorney who confirmed that the action taken was illegal
> per Maine Law. I then had my attorney draft a demand letter to give Nova
> Roma a chance to resolve the issue in house before it would escalate to a
> lawsuit. Which I was preparing for that eventuality if the Consuls would
> not work to resolve the issue. As I expected both Consuls did not
> compromise. At that point the new Censors (Paulinus and Laenas) worked with
> me to both compromise on the outstanding issues and we came to an amicable
> arrangement. No lawsuit was persued (only the demand letter was needed) and
> I was reinstated back to the Senate.
>
> These are the facts. They are verifiable, even the conversation that I had
> with the Consul and Praetors at the time are all available on the senate
> archive.
>
> Thank you for your time in listening to this. If anyone has any question -
> please feel free to ask. Now I will put Anna back on my kill file because
> she is consistently wrong, inaccurate and a just an argumentative
> individual.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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