Ave!

So, let me see if I understand the rationale....

Dexter wanted a declaration of war a verbal/textual declaration of war.

Nevermind the fact that Pearl Harbor had been bombed.....no the actions did
not matter, it is only the declaration of war that is the most important?

Is that what you are saying?

Vale,

Sulla

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <
gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:

>
>
> Ave Sulla,
>
> I cannot speak for Dexter, but the difference he sees is probably that
> while
> Piscinus declared NR "accursed" and called upon "all true cultores deorum"
> to "dissociate" themselves from NR, after his attempt at a coup failed, and
> was therefore clearly an enemy of NR . . .
> Agricola was kind of quiet. Really, he hardly ever said a word. He
> certainly
> didn't call us all "accursed" or say he wanted to see us destroyed . . . .
>
> That's probably the difference. Piscinus has declared himself our enemy.
> Agricola . . . never did, really. But he apparently joined some groups that
> *do* consider us the enemy, and he apparently refused to obey the laws or
> our edicts, so he's gone. End of story.
>
> ~ Valerianus
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Robert Woolwine
>
> <robert.woolwine@...>wrote:
>
> > Ave!
> >
> > Of course I know that!
> >
> > But, you take what Dexter is stating to its logical conclusion and I have
> > to
> > ask it. Since the same freaking grounds that removed Piscinus are the
> same
> > grounds used to remove Agricola. But now, Dexter claims that we are using
> > the SCU as a toy. So, to me, it is a matter of CONSISTENCY and NO DOUBLE
> > STANDARDS. So, I have to ask Dexter if he will be wanting Piscinus to
> come
> > back since we are talking the same grounds and same issues are involved.
> >
> > I didn't WANT to ask the question, but my G-d someone has to!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Gaius Tullius Valerianus <
> > gaius.tullius.valerianus@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ave Sulla,
> > > Well, now, Sulla - Dexter was the one tribune who stood up to the worst
> > > excesses of Piscinus' final plot to seize the Republic. I don't think
> you
> > > can accuse him of *that*!
> > > ~ Valerianus
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Robert Woolwine
> > > <robert.woolwine@...>wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Wow by that super logic there what is next from you Dexter? Are you
> > going
> > > > to start chanting to bring back Piscinus?
> > > >
> > > > Vale,
> > > >
> > > > Sulla
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM, petronius_dexter <
> jfarnoud94@...
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > C. Petronius C. Mariae Caecae s.p.d.,
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> Thank you, Censor for answering my question. Given this, the
> only
> > > > thing
> > > > > I have left to say is that I wish M. Lucretius Agricola had chosen
> > > > > otherwise, and I shall still miss him.<<<
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is that this "RPR" is not an organization competing
> with
> > > NR,
> > > > it
> > > > > is a shadow of a dream of an organization. It is inactive and yet
> > > > abortive.
> > > > >
> > > > > If on Google you write "Nova Roma" you find our organization.
> > > > > If on Google you write "Res Publica Romana" you find a game, or
> many
> > > > things
> > > > > but no organization.
> > > > >
> > > > > Optime vale.
> > > > >
> > > > > C. Petronius Dexter
> > > > > Arcoiali scribebat
> > > > > a. d. V Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

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

> Nevermind the fact that Pearl Harbor had been bombed.....no the actions did not matter, it is only the declaration of war that is the most important?

Yes it is the most important. I remind you that we are not the general Custer against the Indians, nor the Japanese at Pearl Harbour, we are the Romans and the Romans declared the war with rituals and they had priests to do that, named the fetiales.

> Is that what you are saying?

My point of view is you cannot condemned somebody only because he is accused. We have to hear his defence.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. III Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

Ave

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:49 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae s.p.d.,
>
>
> > Nevermind the fact that Pearl Harbor had been bombed.....no the actions
> did not matter, it is only the declaration of war that is the most
> important?
>
> Yes it is the most important. I remind you that we are not the general
> Custer against the Indians, nor the Japanese at Pearl Harbour, we are the
> Romans and the Romans declared the war with rituals and they had priests to
> do that, named the fetiales.
>

Yes, and I am stating again that he has done the same actions that Piscinus
has done. He helped build the RPR, he is a Senator of the RPR so the same
standard that was held to Piscinus is just as equally applicable here.


>
>
> > Is that what you are saying?
>
> My point of view is you cannot condemned somebody only because he is
> accused. We have to hear his defence.
>

Really we do? I know he has had two months to communicate with Cato
regarding his defense. His silence = consent given his silence has been
going on for OVER two months. Is that not long enough for you - given the
fact that he has been posting on other lists - which by default means he has
been ignoring Cato? If we have to wait for the defendant to draft his
defense there would be no trials EVER because defendants will work to
actively subvert the system of justice for their own benefit.

Vale,

Sulla


>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. III Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.
>
>
>


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

V. Valérius Volusus C. Mariae Caecae et L. Cornelio Sullae S.P.D

As both Consul and one of his Junior colleagues have made quite clear, the
only article of the SCU that is truly effective is article 4, which leaves
everything entirely at the discretion of the Consul. The good Senátor Sulla,
with the best will in the world, is not authorized to interpret when and
upon whom this SCU might be applied. Therefore, esteemed lady, your question
has not actually been answered. The only person who possibly can answer your
question remains silent. As it stands It can include ANY organization and
ANY person in NR at the discretion of the Consul.

Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the SCU seem to serve no other purpose than to entice
the Senators into voting it into effect and as a means of manipulating the
consent of the People. Article 4 is the only substantive provision with any
legal applicability, since it overrides all the other pseudo-provisions. As
Consul Cato has demonstrated and Cn. Iulius Caesar has recently asserted
publicly, that is the "whole point of an SCU". There is no room for
argument, civil discourse or appeal. It is martial law enacted for the full
term of office.

If we had a just polity there would be a concerted effort to replace this
SCU with genuine legislation enacted by and for the People. The current
regime seems to have no interest in legislation that would establish limits
and public oversight that might curb their use of this power. None of our
elected Magistrates, including the Tribuni have stepped forward to propose
permanent legislation to deal with the legitimate concern with regard to
"conflict of interest" among our public officials. There is no political
will to operate Nova Roma under rule of law. This SCU is being treated as a
"business as usual" legal instrument.

Consul Cato has been asked repeatedly by numerous citizens to provide an
operating definition of a "competing organization", but he refuses to answer
the question. He has not answered your question with regard to whom it might
apply either: he is the ONLY person who can - Senator Sulla is just another
interested bystander, just as much as the rest of us, and whatever response
he might give represents his personal opinion on the matter and nothing with
any legal weight whatsoever.

On 10 June 2011 23:33, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:

> Ave,
>
> Let me just try to summarize this, as I believe it to be, and someone can
> correct me if I am wrong:
>
> 1. NR Citizen can be a member of the competing organization.
>

There is no provision for this in the text of the SCU. Article 1 allows for
an interpretation that can cover any member of Nova Roma: "*No member of
Nova Roma Inc. or the Republic of Nova Roma* shall be allowed to use their
her/his membership either to create, develop or promote such competing
organizations, or to act negatively towards Nova Roma, its citizenry". If I,
or any other private citizen, were to openly endorse or seem to support RPR
or some other such organization there is nothing to prevent the Consul from
invoking Article 4 to remove my citizenship.

That is why citizens such as Livia Plauta, and possibly others who may fear
to speak openly at all, are justifiably concerned that this SCU hangs over
them like a "sword of Damocles". While there is any law that exists entirely
in the head of one man who admits to his personal penchant for imperiousness
there is every reason to be worried, despite well-intentioned claims to the
contrary.

At the very least the People have a right to demand that the Consul publicly
state his interpretation of the SCU under Article 4 in precise terms prior
to it's application. That has not happened so far, but all concerned
citizens should be agitating for this, in light of the current controversy.
This is necessary because without his interpretation and intentions being
publicly announced by the Consul there is no demarcation between a legal
interpretation of law and personal ad hoc preferences. The People MUST know
exactly where they stand.


> 2. NR Senator/Religious person - MIGHT be able to be a member of the
> competing organization as long as there is no violation of item 1.
> 3. NR Senator/Religious person - CANNOT be Officers/Religious or
> Magisterial member of a competing organization
>

I suspect that Sulla does not mean to imply ANY 'religious person' here, but
only persons holding a religious office within the State Religious
institutions. Is that correct Senator? It doesn't really matter too much
though, since it's what the Consul thinks that matters and he seems
unwilling to commit himself as to how he might choose to interpret anything.
Édicta will be issued fait accompli under Article 4 of the SCU as they have
been so far.


> The problem is the second issue - Luckily NR has not had to deal with it
> yet
> - since the two people affected by the SCU are both Senators of the
> competing organization.
>
> The purpose of the SCU was simply as I described it to be. One cannot be a
> member of the Board of Directors of both Coca Cola Inc and Pepsi Co Inc at
> the same time. It is a conflict of interest. That does not prevent the
> average stockholder from holding stock in both companies only those who
> make
> strategic and managerial decisions for the company.
>

I would fully endorse legislation that implements clear rules with regard to
"conflict of interest", and I thank you, Senator, for focusing on that
legitimate need of the Respublica. However, it should be regular legislation
voted into law by a Comitia with clearly articulated provisions. We have had
months to work to that effect, but nobody has so far shown the political
will to enact such legislation. Perhaps I am wrong and that some Magistrate
has been quietly at work on this very thing, but I suspect that is nothing
more than wishful-thinking on my part.

With all due respect Senator, I object somewhat to representing this as a
"Coca Cola Inc and Pepsi Co Inc" type situation since that is not the
applicability that you yourself have defended. According to your
interpretation. the SCU does not apply only to legally incorporated
organizations, but may easily be applied to any group of enthusiasts who
might wish to invent their own soda recipe in their garage with the stated
aspirations of going commercial some day. There may be a conflict of
interest for sure, but whether it's a serious and imminent threat that
justifies implementing draconian measures is another thing entirely.


> I hope this adds some clarity and please anyone correct me if I am
> mistaken.
>

As Consul Cato has made clear your opinions and interpretations are, as mine
or those of anyone else, entirely academic at this point. He is the ONLY
person who can actually answer these questions and concerns but he is
showing persistent and consistent unwillingness to do so.

Valéte optimé

Volusus.


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

Ave,

That is quite a leap you have taken in your response. Quite a leap indeed.


Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 12:06 AM, Nyk Cowham <nyk@...> wrote:

>
>
> V. Val�rius Volusus C. Mariae Caecae et L. Cornelio Sullae S.P.D
>
> As both Consul and one of his Junior colleagues have made quite clear, the
> only article of the SCU that is truly effective is article 4, which leaves
> everything entirely at the discretion of the Consul. The good Sen�tor
> Sulla,
> with the best will in the world, is not authorized to interpret when and
> upon whom this SCU might be applied. Therefore, esteemed lady, your
> question
> has not actually been answered. The only person who possibly can answer
> your
> question remains silent. As it stands It can include ANY organization and
> ANY person in NR at the discretion of the Consul.
>
> Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the SCU seem to serve no other purpose than to
> entice
> the Senators into voting it into effect and as a means of manipulating the
> consent of the People. Article 4 is the only substantive provision with any
> legal applicability, since it overrides all the other pseudo-provisions. As
> Consul Cato has demonstrated and Cn. Iulius Caesar has recently asserted
> publicly, that is the "whole point of an SCU". There is no room for
> argument, civil discourse or appeal. It is martial law enacted for the full
> term of office.
>
> If we had a just polity there would be a concerted effort to replace this
> SCU with genuine legislation enacted by and for the People. The current
> regime seems to have no interest in legislation that would establish limits
> and public oversight that might curb their use of this power. None of our
> elected Magistrates, including the Tribuni have stepped forward to propose
> permanent legislation to deal with the legitimate concern with regard to
> "conflict of interest" among our public officials. There is no political
> will to operate Nova Roma under rule of law. This SCU is being treated as a
> "business as usual" legal instrument.
>
> Consul Cato has been asked repeatedly by numerous citizens to provide an
> operating definition of a "competing organization", but he refuses to
> answer
> the question. He has not answered your question with regard to whom it
> might
> apply either: he is the ONLY person who can - Senator Sulla is just another
> interested bystander, just as much as the rest of us, and whatever response
> he might give represents his personal opinion on the matter and nothing
> with
> any legal weight whatsoever.
>
>
> On 10 June 2011 23:33, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> > Ave,
> >
> > Let me just try to summarize this, as I believe it to be, and someone can
> > correct me if I am wrong:
> >
> > 1. NR Citizen can be a member of the competing organization.
> >
>
> There is no provision for this in the text of the SCU. Article 1 allows for
> an interpretation that can cover any member of Nova Roma: "*No member of
>
> Nova Roma Inc. or the Republic of Nova Roma* shall be allowed to use their
> her/his membership either to create, develop or promote such competing
> organizations, or to act negatively towards Nova Roma, its citizenry". If
> I,
> or any other private citizen, were to openly endorse or seem to support RPR
> or some other such organization there is nothing to prevent the Consul from
> invoking Article 4 to remove my citizenship.
>
> That is why citizens such as Livia Plauta, and possibly others who may fear
> to speak openly at all, are justifiably concerned that this SCU hangs over
> them like a "sword of Damocles". While there is any law that exists
> entirely
> in the head of one man who admits to his personal penchant for
> imperiousness
> there is every reason to be worried, despite well-intentioned claims to the
> contrary.
>
> At the very least the People have a right to demand that the Consul
> publicly
> state his interpretation of the SCU under Article 4 in precise terms prior
> to it's application. That has not happened so far, but all concerned
> citizens should be agitating for this, in light of the current controversy.
> This is necessary because without his interpretation and intentions being
> publicly announced by the Consul there is no demarcation between a legal
> interpretation of law and personal ad hoc preferences. The People MUST know
> exactly where they stand.
>
>
> > 2. NR Senator/Religious person - MIGHT be able to be a member of the
> > competing organization as long as there is no violation of item 1.
> > 3. NR Senator/Religious person - CANNOT be Officers/Religious or
> > Magisterial member of a competing organization
> >
>
> I suspect that Sulla does not mean to imply ANY 'religious person' here,
> but
> only persons holding a religious office within the State Religious
> institutions. Is that correct Senator? It doesn't really matter too much
> though, since it's what the Consul thinks that matters and he seems
> unwilling to commit himself as to how he might choose to interpret
> anything.
> �dicta will be issued fait accompli under Article 4 of the SCU as they have
> been so far.
>
>
> > The problem is the second issue - Luckily NR has not had to deal with it
> > yet
> > - since the two people affected by the SCU are both Senators of the
> > competing organization.
> >
> > The purpose of the SCU was simply as I described it to be. One cannot be
> a
> > member of the Board of Directors of both Coca Cola Inc and Pepsi Co Inc
> at
> > the same time. It is a conflict of interest. That does not prevent the
> > average stockholder from holding stock in both companies only those who
> > make
> > strategic and managerial decisions for the company.
> >
>
> I would fully endorse legislation that implements clear rules with regard
> to
> "conflict of interest", and I thank you, Senator, for focusing on that
> legitimate need of the Respublica. However, it should be regular
> legislation
> voted into law by a Comitia with clearly articulated provisions. We have
> had
> months to work to that effect, but nobody has so far shown the political
> will to enact such legislation. Perhaps I am wrong and that some Magistrate
> has been quietly at work on this very thing, but I suspect that is nothing
> more than wishful-thinking on my part.
>
> With all due respect Senator, I object somewhat to representing this as a
> "Coca Cola Inc and Pepsi Co Inc" type situation since that is not the
> applicability that you yourself have defended. According to your
> interpretation. the SCU does not apply only to legally incorporated
> organizations, but may easily be applied to any group of enthusiasts who
> might wish to invent their own soda recipe in their garage with the stated
> aspirations of going commercial some day. There may be a conflict of
> interest for sure, but whether it's a serious and imminent threat that
> justifies implementing draconian measures is another thing entirely.
>
>
> > I hope this adds some clarity and please anyone correct me if I am
> > mistaken.
> >
>
> As Consul Cato has made clear your opinions and interpretations are, as
> mine
> or those of anyone else, entirely academic at this point. He is the ONLY
> person who can actually answer these questions and concerns but he is
> showing persistent and consistent unwillingness to do so.
>
> Val�te optim�
>
> Volusus.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

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

> But, you take what Dexter is stating to its logical conclusion

It was not a logical conclusion, it was a fact. You write on Google "Nova Roma" and you find our organization, you type on Google "Res Publica Romana" and you find a game or many things but no organization.

I discouvered the WebSite of this RPR through a link that you gave in this discussion and it is the evidence for me that it is a shadow of dream. The one active seems be Corvus.

> and I have to ask it. Since the same freaking grounds that removed Piscinus are the same grounds used to remove Agricola.<

They are not. Piscinus clearly claimed that he was an opponent to Nova Roma and wanted to go away and searched to seduce some NR citizens to follow him.

The SCU was about the dual membership.
First: After this experience, I will never vote a SCU like that. Because it is too subject to interpretation.

Second: Before condemned someone to remove his citizenship, the SCU was a weapon to prevent any dual membership between directors of two or more competing organizations. That is a good thing and I voted for that.

But I supposed that before being condemned any individual was asked whether he wanted to maintain his dual membership or if he wanted to remain a NR senator and leave the other competing organization. Why? Because it is the minimum ius gentium. Anybody has the right to explain his purposes. He is not condemned by default. Unless it is my conception of the justice.

BTW:
Now, with the DSK case I understood that in the US you have another justice conception. And Cato, as Sulla and Venator being US for them the cow boy justice is The justice. So, I am a sort of ET, an Alien with my obsession of the defence rights. I am aware of that now.

>>> But now, Dexter claims that we are using the SCU as a toy. So, to me, it is a matter of CONSISTENCY and NO DOUBLE STANDARDS.<<<

One victim of this SCU was not enough to explain its purpose, I presume. So as Piscinus were condemned, Agricola already senator and augur was the next. Others had left Nova Roma by themselves, but Agricola and Complutensis seemed to forget to leave.

>>> So, I have to ask Dexter if he will be wanting Piscinus to come

back since we are talking the same grounds and same issues are involved.<<<

Piscinus has left Nova Roma with his hatred. I see many differences between Piscinus and Agricola.

But perhaps do you need enemies to live. As you said about the Arabs and Israel. I wonder if without enemies your life is not effective.

> I didn't WANT to ask the question, but my G-d someone has to!

I am not afraid by any question and I am able to answer by myself to every question. My position is:
Before condemning Agricola we have to hear his purposes about his dual membership. It is not enough to find on a Facebook profile something to condemn an NR official. Why this rush?

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. III Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

C. Petronius Cn. Caesari praetori et Quiritibus s.p.d.,

> That is the whole point of an SCU.

Yes and we know the propension of Cato and some others to have one SCU by Senate session to gouvern Nova Roma.

Now, I call the senators, my colleagues, to stop with this abuse of SCU. Last year some wanted a dictator, now some want repeated SCU to gouvern Nova Roma.

I say: we must stop it.

We, as an organization, have other things to do to promote Nova Roma than this sort of wargame. Nova Roma is not Rome: Total War. It is something more precious.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. III Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

Valérius Volusus Equitio Catóní Cónsulí S.P.D.

On 11 June 2011 01:13, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> Just a point here, Valerius Volsus: Cornelius Sulla, while expressing his
> opinions on the matter, is an entirely separate entity from myself.
>
Yes, I am well aware of that fact - thank you for establishing it as a
matter of public record that nobody else may speak for you. The
responsibility is entirely yours along with your Consular colleague. You
will both be held accountable to the People equally.

> I have explained why, under the SCU, the edict is legal. If I might draw
> your attention also to the section of the SCU which empowers thre consuls to
> have final and full authority to interpret and apply the terms of the SCU if
> there is a question. My interpretation is that he fulfills the necessary
> requirements under the SCU to be subject to its provisions.
>
Thanks be to Iuppiter! I was starting to think that you would never invoke
Article 4. This is where we come to the core of the matter according to your
own testimony. In fact article 4 of the SCU is the only substantial
provision of law and the other articles are nothing more than smoke-screens
that contribute little in terms of legal limitations on the powers granted.
It took the mathematician Kurt Gödel to detect the logico-legal flaw in the
US Constitution that allows for a tyranny to be constitutionally and legally
imposed, but it takes no more than an educated layperson to find the flaw in
this SCU. Article 4 is not bound by any of the other provisions due to the
inclusion of the 'interpretation' clause - they are nothing more than window
dressing. Do the Senators who voted for this SCU understand what they were
approving? It seems we have some Senators saying they did not expect this
interpretation or use of the law they had approved; and who can blame them
when it presents itself with such window dressing? It is a pity no-one
bothered to read the fine-print of Article 4. Now there is NOTHING the
Senate or anyone can do about it - they have signed away the family farm.

The fact that you consistently refuse to state your interpretation of the
SCU up-front implies that there is some ill-intent that you cannot openly
state; whether because it would be found unacceptable to the People or for
some other undisclosed reason. The only reasonable conclusion is that there
is indeed a sword of Damocles over everyone's head, despite your assurances
to the contrary, since it is instituted in Nova Roma law. The interpretation
and possible uses of these powers are entirely at your own discretion, as
though you wore the purple.

> That Agricola is an official - a senator - in a competing organization is a
> fact, no matter how you like to look at it. The website I provided is not a
> Facebook page. It is not an imaginary entity. RPR has by-laws. That is not
> imaginary. He was instrumental in the creation of their logo. That is not
> imaginary. He spoke of RPR as the sole inheritor of the pax Deorum - that it
> alone has "romanitas". That is not imaginary.
>
None of these justification were included in the édictum and when asked to
provide the evidence you failed to supply it. You did not supply evidence
from Facebook, that was provided by Corneius Sulla. You did not supply the
evidence of membership in the Senate of RPR, that was supplied by Sabinus
Censor. Neither did you provide the evidence that he had provided mock-ups
for their logo: I believe that I myself was the first to mention that in the
public discussion! You have been asked to supply links to the public list
where Agricola declared RPR as being the sole inheritor of the Pax Deorum;
despite being asked repeatedly by several people you have failed to provide
those links. You have failed to clarify exactly to what list the édictum
refers by "Cultus Deorum list". The justifications in the édictum do not
tally with those furnished by other citizens and are now being used by you
post facto. This leaves the impression that the powers granted by this SCU
are being abused by pursuing a "shoot first ask questions later" policy.
That is completely unacceptable.

> Now (and here is the imperiousness - literally - of which I spoke earlier),
> I have decided, within my imperium under our law as consul, that this is so
> - and thus it is so. No-one else has the authority to interpret or apply the
> SCU, so speculation - on the part of those wishing to see Agricola restored
> *or* those who support his removal - is, although interesting and
> educational, *effectively* irrelevant.
>
In making this so clear you testify to the very reason why, in the public
interest, this SCU must be revoked. This simply has nothing to do with
either Agricola or Piscinus - the problem is that the SCU is open to abuse
and though Piscinus was imminently, openly and overtly hostile to Nova Roma,
it has not been proven that Agricola maintained the same stance that would
justify the édictum. The willingness to use the SCU in-place-of regular
publicly approved legislation demonstrates a disregard for the standard
institutions of Roman law. It is offensive to every law abiding Nova Roman
citizen.

> This stance will, no doubt, make me even more unpopular amongst many, but
> it is the law, and I will stand by it and it will *remain* the law unless
> the People decide otherwise by vote in comitia.
>
In Sophocle's Antigone Creon seems to be noble in his strict adherence to
his kingly law despite all the good council he received to respect the
popular customs, but we see how the Gods treat such intransigence. Creon
does not act nobly at all, but simply shows stubborn hubris. I appreciate
you see yourself as a Gaius Popillius Laenas, but who exactly is playing the
role of your Antiochus IV Epiphanes? Who do you have encircled in the sand?
It seems to be that you view the People of Rome as your Seleucid monarch and
if we step over the line we will be considered to be at war with you.
However, you have failed to actually trace that particular circle, since you
refuse to answer questions with regard to your interpretation of the SCU.
You refuse to circumscribe your own power by setting reasonable expectations
for the People, to which you will be bound.

Hoc cónsultum ultimum délenda est.

Volusus.


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

>
> A. Tullia Scholastica C. Petronio Dextro Cn. Cornelio Lentulo S.P.D.
>
>
>
> C. Petronius Cn. Lentulo suo s.p.d.,
>
>> > What an eloquent, intelligent and *Roman* contribution to this discussion.
>> You have said everything I would wanted to say, V. Valeri Voluse, regarding
>> this matter - if I had had the ability to speak so well in English. I agree
>> with every word Volusus wrote below.
>
> Je pense que tu ferais aussi bien, que tu serais aussi éloquent et
> certainement aussi intelligent, si tu utilisais ta langue maternelle. C'est
> notre problème, nous n'avons pas la faconde aisée et naturelle de l'orateur
> anglophone, puisque nous ne parlons pas anglais.
>
> ATS: Meá quidem sententiá, vos ambo bene Anglicé loquuntur, et ambo
> melius quam antea. In conventiculis linguis peregrinis loqui solemus et eas
> participes docere; fortasse aliquando in tali aderis (aderitis). ;-)
> Praeterea, semper Latiné loqui potestis... ;-)
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. IV Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

Optimé valéte.

>
>
>

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

C. Petronius Iuliae Aquilae salutem,

> Naturally the candidates would be qualified Priests, correct?

Of course, to be candidate for pontifex maximus, you have to be already a pontiff.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. III Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem III Idus Iunius; hic dies nefastus est.

"Now you complain, Phrygian Tithonus, abandoned by your bride,
And the vigilant Morning Star leaves the Eastern waters.
Good mothers (since the Matralia is your festival),
Go, offer the Theban goddess the golden cakes she's owed.
Near the bridges and mighty Circus is a famous square,
One that takes its name from the statue of an ox:
There, on this day, they say, Servius with his own
Royal hands, consecrated a temple to Mother Matruta.
Bacchus, whose hair is twined with clustered grapes,
If the goddess' house is also yours, guide the poet's work,
Regarding who the goddess is, and why she excludes
(Since she does) female servants from the threshold
Of her temple, and why she calls for toasted cakes.
Semele was burnt by Jove's compliance: Ino
Received you as a baby, and nursed you with utmost care.
Juno swelled with rage, that Ino should raise a child
Snatched from Jove's lover: but it was her sister's son.
So Athamas was haunted by the Furies, and false visions,
And little Learchus died by his father's hand.
His grieving mother committed his shade to the tomb.
And paid the honours due to the sad pyre.
Then tearing her hair in sorrow, she leapt up
And snatched you from your cradle, Melicertes.
There's a narrow headland between two seas,
A single space attacked by twofold waves:
There Ino came, clutching her son in her frenzied grasp,
And threw herself, with him, from a high cliff into the sea.
Panope and her hundred sisters received them unharmed,
And gliding smoothly carried them through their realm.
They reached the mouth of densely eddying Tiber,
Before they became Leucothea and Palaemon.
There was a grove: known either as Semele's or Stimula's:
Inhabited, they say, by Italian Maenads.
Ino, asking them their nation, learned they were Arcadians,
And that Evander was the king of the place.
Hiding her divinity, Saturn's daughter cleverly
Incited the Latian Bacchae with deceiving words:
`O too-easy-natured ones, caught by every feeling!
This stranger comes, but not as a friend, to our gathering.
She's treacherous, and would learn our sacred rites:
But she has a child on whom we can wreak punishment.'
She'd scarcely ended when the Thyiads, hair streaming
Over their necks, filled the air with their howling,
Laid hands on Ino, and tried to snatch the boy.
She invoked gods with names as yet unknown to her:
`Gods, and men, of this land, help a wretched mother!'
Her cry carried to the neighbouring Aventine.
Oetaean Hercules having driven the Iberian cattle
To the riverbank, heard and hurried towards the voice.
As he arrived, the women who'd been ready for violence,
Shamefully turned their backs in cowardly flight.
`What are you doing here,' said Hercules (recognising her),
`Sister of Bacchus' mother? Does Juno persecute you too?'
She told him part of her tale, suppressing the rest because of her on:
Ashamed to have been goaded to crime by the Furies.
Rumour, so swift, flew on beating wings,
And your name was on many a lip, Ino.
It's said you entered loyal Carmentis' home
As a guest, and assuaged your great hunger:
They say the Tegean priestess quickly made cakes
With her own hands, and baked them on the hearth.
Now cakes delight the goddess at the Matralia:
Country ways pleased her more than art's attentions.
`Now, O prophetess,' she said, `reveal my future fate,
As far as is right. Add this, I beg, to your hospitality.'
A pause ensued. Then the prophetess assumed divine powers,
And her whole breast filled with the presence of the god:
You'd hardly have known her then, so much taller
And holier she'd become than a moment before.
`I sing good news, Ino,' she said, `your trials are over,
Be a blessing to your people for evermore.
You'll be a sea goddess, and your son will inhabit ocean.
Take different names now, among your own waves:
Greeks will call you Leucothea, our people Matuta:
Your son will have complete command of harbours,
We'll call him Portunus, Palaemon in his own tongue.
Go, and both be friends, I beg you, of our country!'
Ino nodded, and gave her promise. Their trials were over,
They changed their names: he's a god and she's a goddess.
You ask why she forbids the approach of female servants?
She hates them: by her leave I'll sing the reason for her hate.
Daughter of Cadmus, one of your maids
Was often embraced by your husband.
Faithless Athamas secretly enjoyed her: he learned
From her that you gave the farmers parched seed.
You yourself denied it, but rumour confirmed it.
That's why you hate the service of a maid.
But let no loving mother pray to her, for her child:
She herself proved an unfortunate parent.
Better command her to help another's child:
She was more use to Bacchus than her own.
They say she asked you, Rutilius, `Where are you rushing?
As consul you'll fall to the Marsian enemy on my day.'
Her words were fulfilled, the Tolenus
Flowed purple, its waters mixed with blood.
The following year, Didius, killed on the same
Day, doubled the enemy's strength.
Fortuna, the same day is yours, your temple
Founded by the same king, in the same place.
And whose is that statue hidden under draped robes?
It's Servius, that's for sure, but different reasons
Are given for the drapes, and I'm in doubt.
When the goddess fearfully confessed to a secret love,
Ashamed, since she's immortal, to mate with a man
(For she burned, seized with intense passion for the king,
And he was the only man she wasn't blind to),
She used to enter his palace at night by a little window:
So that the gate bears the name Fenestella.
She's still ashamed, and hides the beloved features
Under cloth: the king's face being covered by a robe.
Or is it rather that, after his murder, the people
Were bewildered by their gentle leader's death,
Their grief swelling, endlessly, at the sight
Of the statue, until they hid him under robes?
I must sing at greater length of a third reason,
Though I'll still keep my team on a tight rein.
Having secured her marriage by crime, Tullia
Used to incite her husband with words like these:
`What use if we're equally matched, you by my sister's
Murder, I by your brother's, in leading a virtuous life?
Better that my husband and your wife had lived,
Than that we shrink from greater achievement.
I offer my father's life and realm as my dower:
If you're a man, go take the dower I speak of.
Crime is the mark of kingship. Kill your wife's father,
Seize the kingdom, dip our hands in my father's blood.'
Urged on be such words, though a private citizen
He usurped the high throne: the people, stunned, took up arms.
With blood and slaughter the weak old man was defeated:
Tarquin the Proud snatched his father-in-law's sceptre.
Servius himself fell bleeding to the hard earth,
At the foot of the Esquiline, site of his palace.
His daughter, driving to her father's home,
Rode through the streets, erect and haughty.
When her driver saw the king's body, he halted
In tears. She reproved him in these terms:
`Go on, or do you seek the bitter fruits of virtue?
Drive the unwilling wheels, I say, over his face.'
A certain proof of this is Evil Street, named
After her, while eternal infamy marks the deed.
Yet she still dared to visit her father's temple,
His monument: what I tell is strange but true.
There was a statue enthroned, an image of Servius:
They say it put a hand to its eyes,
And a voice was heard: `Hide my face,
Lest it view my own wicked daughter.'
It was veiled by cloth, Fortune refused to let the robe
Be removed, and she herself spoke from her temple:
`The day when Servius' face is next revealed,
Will be a day when shame is cast aside.'
Women, beware of touching the forbidden cloth,
(It's sufficient to utter prayers in solemn tones)
And let him who was the City's seventh king
Keep his head covered, forever, by this veil.
The temple once burned: but the fire spared
The statue: Mulciber himself preserved his son.
For Servius' father was Vulcan, and the lovely
Ocresia of Corniculum his mother.
Once, performing sacred rites with her in the due manner,
Tanaquil ordered her to pour wine on the garlanded hearth:
There was, or seemed to be, the form of a male organ
In the ashes: the shape was really there in fact.
The captive girl sat on the hearth, as commanded:
She conceived Servius, born of divine seed.
His father showed his paternity by touching the child's
Head with fire, and a cap of flames glowed on his hair.
And Livia, this day dedicated a magnificent shrine to you,
Concordia, that she offered to her dear husband.
Learn this, you age to come: where Livia's Colonnade
Now stands, there was once a vast palace.
A site that was like a city: it occupied a space
Larger than that of many a walled town.
It was levelled to the soil, not because of its owner's treason,
But because its excess was considered harmful.
Caesar countenanced the demolition of such a mass,
Destroying its great wealth to which he was heir.
That's the way to censure vice, and set an example,
When the adviser himself does as he advises." - Ovid, Fasti VI

"To Eos, Fumigation from Manna. Hear me, O Goddess, whose emerging ray
leads on the broad refulgence of the day; blushing Eos, whose
celestial light beams on the world with reddening splendours bright.
Messenger of Titan, whom with constant round thy orient beams recall
from night profound: labour of every kind to lead it thine, of mortal
life the minister divine. Mankind in thee eternally delight, and none
presumes to shun thy beauteous sight. Soon as they splendours break
the bands of rest, and eyes unclose, with pleasing sleep oppressed;
men, reptiles, birds, and beasts, with general voice, and all the
nations of the deep rejoice; for all the culture of our life is thine.
Come, blessed power, and to these rites incline: thy holy light
increase, and unconfined diffuse its radiance on the mystics' mind." -
Orphic Hymn 78 to Eos

Today is the celebration of the Matralia, dedicated to Mater
Matuta,the Roman goddess of the dawn, newborn babes, but also of the
sea and harbors. This last connection is an interesting one: it
occurred because Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, after the conquest of
Sardinia in 174 BC, placed a large map in the temple of Matuta
displaying the course of the Sardinian campaign. Her temple was
situated on the Forum Boarium (the cattle market). This festival was
only open to women who were still in their first marriage. She was
associated with Aurora and identified with the Greek Eos.

Valete bene!

Cato

Caesar Dextro sal.

When the SCU was being formulated in the Senate, the principle that one could not wear two hats was generally accepted, and the focus of the discussion was on RPR. Naturally most also seemed to agree that Piscinus had to go, but the rule was established - no holding office in both organizations.

I have I hope demonstrated that legally in respect of Agricola, the test has been met.

So the issue seems to be the issue over "coordination". Now if the Senate had wanted to try to muzzle the ability of the consuls to issue an edictum under the SCU, then firstly they would have had a problem since legally the Constitution empowers the consuls, but secondly even had that somehow had been overcome the specific wording and indeed the debate said nothing about this. There was no attempt to make the decision of who to add, or not add, to an edictum somehow collegiate with other magistrates. Again legally that would have been exceptionally dubious due to not only the consuls being the only magistrates empowered to execute the terms of an SVU constitutionally, but also due to their ranking above other magistrates.

As to Agricola, I personally don't see why some are investing so much energy in trying to save him. His circumstances met the terms of the SCU. In fact were Agricola to have been exempted from the application of the SCU then the charge could have been that it was being selectively applied. By applying its terms to him it demonstrates that the SCU is being applied impartially. Factually it was correct to apply the SCU to him.

If the complaint against the consuls is that they didn't seek permission or ratification from either the Senate or other lower magistrates, then that is a red herring. Legally they don't have to and indeed in my estimation should not, since I suspect the debate would have hinged on personality. Using personality as a test, Piscinus was an obvious candidate, but Agricola less so because he had retreated into silence in the Senate and obviously was liked by more people than Piscinus was. Personality however as a test would have been an abuse of the system.

If the complaint is that the consuls didn't evidence it, the SCU simply asks for a reason to be posted. one was. people may disagree with it, but posted it was. There is equally no requirement that in subsequent public discussions the consuls have to only reference the intitial justification provided.

The current "debate" has thus three strands. First, to me at least, a perception that Agricola should not have been acted against because he was more palatable than Piscinus, essentially not a bad egg. Secondly, an attempt to try to step through the application and apply one set of strictures to it after another, despite the fact that the consuls are empowered to interpret the SCU and apply it as they wish. Thirdly, that the consuls should have somehow sought prior agreement of other magistrates. The first to me is a bad argument and lends itself to less than an impartial application, the second an irrelevance because the consuls were granted by the Senate the power to interpret and apply and the third legally impractical. Would the third have been better politically? Absolutely, but it is clear to me at any rate, that there isn't much consensus between the consuls and the censors on a number of matters currently. Would this have become a sticking
point to try to enforce some sort of collegiate decision making? Most likely, but that in itself would have been wrong since for me the only question has to be, were the conditions prohibited under the SCU met? In this case they were and that is where, for me, the matters ends.

Naturally I know it won't end there for others.

Optime vale




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

Ave Sullae Senatori:

thank you for satisfying my curiosity. I do have some concerns about the
wording of item 3, but I will raise them when legislation is proposed.

Vale,
C. Maria Caeca

Salve Volusus,

Remember that Einstein cautioned Godel to relent upon his observations in front
of the immigration judge, for otherwise he'd be returned to Germany to face the
Nazis-face American exile; so even though Godel knew the truth, he kept it to
himself.  I think the relevance here is that you go along with Sulla/Cato
dominance of NR or be cast out, so be careful when confronting them...  It won't
be long before you're the subject of endless inflammatory Sulla letters and
you're head will be on the chopping block.

Vale,

TCG




________________________________
From: Nyk Cowham <nyk@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 5:09:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICT CONCERNING MARCUS LUCRETIUS AGRICOLA

 
Valérius Volusus Equitio Catóní Cónsulí S.P.D.

On 11 June 2011 01:13, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> Just a point here, Valerius Volsus: Cornelius Sulla, while expressing his
> opinions on the matter, is an entirely separate entity from myself.
>
Yes, I am well aware of that fact - thank you for establishing it as a
matter of public record that nobody else may speak for you. The
responsibility is entirely yours along with your Consular colleague. You
will both be held accountable to the People equally.

> I have explained why, under the SCU, the edict is legal. If I might draw
> your attention also to the section of the SCU which empowers thre consuls to
> have final and full authority to interpret and apply the terms of the SCU if
> there is a question. My interpretation is that he fulfills the necessary
> requirements under the SCU to be subject to its provisions.
>
Thanks be to Iuppiter! I was starting to think that you would never invoke
Article 4. This is where we come to the core of the matter according to your
own testimony. In fact article 4 of the SCU is the only substantial
provision of law and the other articles are nothing more than smoke-screens
that contribute little in terms of legal limitations on the powers granted.
It took the mathematician Kurt Gödel to detect the logico-legal flaw in the
US Constitution that allows for a tyranny to be constitutionally and legally
imposed, but it takes no more than an educated layperson to find the flaw in
this SCU. Article 4 is not bound by any of the other provisions due to the
inclusion of the 'interpretation' clause - they are nothing more than window
dressing. Do the Senators who voted for this SCU understand what they were
approving? It seems we have some Senators saying they did not expect this
interpretation or use of the law they had approved; and who can blame them
when it presents itself with such window dressing? It is a pity no-one
bothered to read the fine-print of Article 4. Now there is NOTHING the
Senate or anyone can do about it - they have signed away the family farm.

The fact that you consistently refuse to state your interpretation of the
SCU up-front implies that there is some ill-intent that you cannot openly
state; whether because it would be found unacceptable to the People or for
some other undisclosed reason. The only reasonable conclusion is that there
is indeed a sword of Damocles over everyone's head, despite your assurances
to the contrary, since it is instituted in Nova Roma law. The interpretation
and possible uses of these powers are entirely at your own discretion, as
though you wore the purple.

> That Agricola is an official - a senator - in a competing organization is a
> fact, no matter how you like to look at it. The website I provided is not a
> Facebook page. It is not an imaginary entity. RPR has by-laws. That is not
> imaginary. He was instrumental in the creation of their logo. That is not
> imaginary. He spoke of RPR as the sole inheritor of the pax Deorum - that it
> alone has "romanitas". That is not imaginary.
>
None of these justification were included in the édictum and when asked to
provide the evidence you failed to supply it. You did not supply evidence
from Facebook, that was provided by Corneius Sulla. You did not supply the
evidence of membership in the Senate of RPR, that was supplied by Sabinus
Censor. Neither did you provide the evidence that he had provided mock-ups
for their logo: I believe that I myself was the first to mention that in the
public discussion! You have been asked to supply links to the public list
where Agricola declared RPR as being the sole inheritor of the Pax Deorum;
despite being asked repeatedly by several people you have failed to provide
those links. You have failed to clarify exactly to what list the édictum
refers by "Cultus Deorum list". The justifications in the édictum do not
tally with those furnished by other citizens and are now being used by you
post facto. This leaves the impression that the powers granted by this SCU
are being abused by pursuing a "shoot first ask questions later" policy.
That is completely unacceptable.

> Now (and here is the imperiousness - literally - of which I spoke earlier),
> I have decided, within my imperium under our law as consul, that this is so
> - and thus it is so. No-one else has the authority to interpret or apply the
> SCU, so speculation - on the part of those wishing to see Agricola restored
> *or* those who support his removal - is, although interesting and
> educational, *effectively* irrelevant.
>
In making this so clear you testify to the very reason why, in the public
interest, this SCU must be revoked. This simply has nothing to do with
either Agricola or Piscinus - the problem is that the SCU is open to abuse
and though Piscinus was imminently, openly and overtly hostile to Nova Roma,
it has not been proven that Agricola maintained the same stance that would
justify the édictum. The willingness to use the SCU in-place-of regular
publicly approved legislation demonstrates a disregard for the standard
institutions of Roman law. It is offensive to every law abiding Nova Roman
citizen.

> This stance will, no doubt, make me even more unpopular amongst many, but
> it is the law, and I will stand by it and it will *remain* the law unless
> the People decide otherwise by vote in comitia.
>
In Sophocle's Antigone Creon seems to be noble in his strict adherence to
his kingly law despite all the good council he received to respect the
popular customs, but we see how the Gods treat such intransigence. Creon
does not act nobly at all, but simply shows stubborn hubris. I appreciate
you see yourself as a Gaius Popillius Laenas, but who exactly is playing the
role of your Antiochus IV Epiphanes? Who do you have encircled in the sand?
It seems to be that you view the People of Rome as your Seleucid monarch and
if we step over the line we will be considered to be at war with you.
However, you have failed to actually trace that particular circle, since you
refuse to answer questions with regard to your interpretation of the SCU.
You refuse to circumscribe your own power by setting reasonable expectations
for the People, to which you will be bound.

Hoc cónsultum ultimum délenda est.

Volusus.

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




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

Ave!

Lol thanks for the laugh! That was outstanding!

Vale

Sulla

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 11, 2011, at 8:34 AM, Peter Michienzi <forculus217@...> wrote:

> Salve Volusus,
>
> Remember that Einstein cautioned Godel to relent upon his observations in front
> of the immigration judge, for otherwise he'd be returned to Germany to face the
> Nazis-face American exile; so even though Godel knew the truth, he kept it to
> himself. I think the relevance here is that you go along with Sulla/Cato
> dominance of NR or be cast out, so be careful when confronting them... It won't
> be long before you're the subject of endless inflammatory Sulla letters and
> you're head will be on the chopping block.
>
> Vale,
>
> TCG
>
> ________________________________
> From: Nyk Cowham <nyk@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 5:09:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICT CONCERNING MARCUS LUCRETIUS AGRICOLA
>
>
> Valérius Volusus Equitio Catóní Cónsulí S.P.D.
>
> On 11 June 2011 01:13, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:
>
> > Just a point here, Valerius Volsus: Cornelius Sulla, while expressing his
> > opinions on the matter, is an entirely separate entity from myself.
> >
> Yes, I am well aware of that fact - thank you for establishing it as a
> matter of public record that nobody else may speak for you. The
> responsibility is entirely yours along with your Consular colleague. You
> will both be held accountable to the People equally.
>
> > I have explained why, under the SCU, the edict is legal. If I might draw
> > your attention also to the section of the SCU which empowers thre consuls to
> > have final and full authority to interpret and apply the terms of the SCU if
> > there is a question. My interpretation is that he fulfills the necessary
> > requirements under the SCU to be subject to its provisions.
> >
> Thanks be to Iuppiter! I was starting to think that you would never invoke
> Article 4. This is where we come to the core of the matter according to your
> own testimony. In fact article 4 of the SCU is the only substantial
> provision of law and the other articles are nothing more than smoke-screens
> that contribute little in terms of legal limitations on the powers granted.
> It took the mathematician Kurt Gödel to detect the logico-legal flaw in the
> US Constitution that allows for a tyranny to be constitutionally and legally
> imposed, but it takes no more than an educated layperson to find the flaw in
> this SCU. Article 4 is not bound by any of the other provisions due to the
> inclusion of the 'interpretation' clause - they are nothing more than window
> dressing. Do the Senators who voted for this SCU understand what they were
> approving? It seems we have some Senators saying they did not expect this
> interpretation or use of the law they had approved; and who can blame them
> when it presents itself with such window dressing? It is a pity no-one
> bothered to read the fine-print of Article 4. Now there is NOTHING the
> Senate or anyone can do about it - they have signed away the family farm.
>
> The fact that you consistently refuse to state your interpretation of the
> SCU up-front implies that there is some ill-intent that you cannot openly
> state; whether because it would be found unacceptable to the People or for
> some other undisclosed reason. The only reasonable conclusion is that there
> is indeed a sword of Damocles over everyone's head, despite your assurances
> to the contrary, since it is instituted in Nova Roma law. The interpretation
> and possible uses of these powers are entirely at your own discretion, as
> though you wore the purple.
>
> > That Agricola is an official - a senator - in a competing organization is a
> > fact, no matter how you like to look at it. The website I provided is not a
> > Facebook page. It is not an imaginary entity. RPR has by-laws. That is not
> > imaginary. He was instrumental in the creation of their logo. That is not
> > imaginary. He spoke of RPR as the sole inheritor of the pax Deorum - that it
> > alone has "romanitas". That is not imaginary.
> >
> None of these justification were included in the édictum and when asked to
> provide the evidence you failed to supply it. You did not supply evidence
> from Facebook, that was provided by Corneius Sulla. You did not supply the
> evidence of membership in the Senate of RPR, that was supplied by Sabinus
> Censor. Neither did you provide the evidence that he had provided mock-ups
> for their logo: I believe that I myself was the first to mention that in the
> public discussion! You have been asked to supply links to the public list
> where Agricola declared RPR as being the sole inheritor of the Pax Deorum;
> despite being asked repeatedly by several people you have failed to provide
> those links. You have failed to clarify exactly to what list the édictum
> refers by "Cultus Deorum list". The justifications in the édictum do not
> tally with those furnished by other citizens and are now being used by you
> post facto. This leaves the impression that the powers granted by this SCU
> are being abused by pursuing a "shoot first ask questions later" policy.
> That is completely unacceptable.
>
> > Now (and here is the imperiousness - literally - of which I spoke earlier),
> > I have decided, within my imperium under our law as consul, that this is so
> > - and thus it is so. No-one else has the authority to interpret or apply the
> > SCU, so speculation - on the part of those wishing to see Agricola restored
> > *or* those who support his removal - is, although interesting and
> > educational, *effectively* irrelevant.
> >
> In making this so clear you testify to the very reason why, in the public
> interest, this SCU must be revoked. This simply has nothing to do with
> either Agricola or Piscinus - the problem is that the SCU is open to abuse
> and though Piscinus was imminently, openly and overtly hostile to Nova Roma,
> it has not been proven that Agricola maintained the same stance that would
> justify the édictum. The willingness to use the SCU in-place-of regular
> publicly approved legislation demonstrates a disregard for the standard
> institutions of Roman law. It is offensive to every law abiding Nova Roman
> citizen.
>
> > This stance will, no doubt, make me even more unpopular amongst many, but
> > it is the law, and I will stand by it and it will *remain* the law unless
> > the People decide otherwise by vote in comitia.
> >
> In Sophocle's Antigone Creon seems to be noble in his strict adherence to
> his kingly law despite all the good council he received to respect the
> popular customs, but we see how the Gods treat such intransigence. Creon
> does not act nobly at all, but simply shows stubborn hubris. I appreciate
> you see yourself as a Gaius Popillius Laenas, but who exactly is playing the
> role of your Antiochus IV Epiphanes? Who do you have encircled in the sand?
> It seems to be that you view the People of Rome as your Seleucid monarch and
> if we step over the line we will be considered to be at war with you.
> However, you have failed to actually trace that particular circle, since you
> refuse to answer questions with regard to your interpretation of the SCU.
> You refuse to circumscribe your own power by setting reasonable expectations
> for the People, to which you will be bound.
>
> Hoc cónsultum ultimum délenda est.
>
> Volusus.
>
> [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]

Cn. Iulius Caesar Praetor Valerio Voluso sal

You assert that it has not been proven that Agricola's attitude was openly and overtly hostile. That was never a requirement either in final terms of the SCU, nor in the senatorial debate, in respect of dual office holders. All that was required to be established essentially was that there was dual office holding. The issue of hostile acts applies to members of NR, as distinct those who hold dual offices. The test fo members/citizens of NR was set deliberately higher than for dual office holders, which is essentially a matter of fact.

I applaud the desire for legal precision on your part, since that has been woefuly lacking much of the time I have been a citizen. Could the edictum have been worded better? Yes. Would it have been better to set out the chain of reasoning and evidence clearly, rather than have it dribble out? Yes. Does any of this invalidate the SCU legally? No. Does the presentation of the evidence, somewhat disjointed and somewhat late in arriving, render the decision unjust? No, because aside from the contention Agricola wasn't as bad as Piscinus, not that that bar is set very high, his case falls into a matter of strict liability. He was a dual office holder, so the issue of any mens rea in his reasons for joining RPR, what his objectives were, whether he hated NR or not, are all irrelevant. All that matters is he held dual offices.

As to whether senators read the SCU, yes they did. It was extensively debated in the senate. Now if some thought that it should only apply to a few, or one, then I suppose they must have been asleep or indolent. At the time this was passed there was suffcient belief amonst the senators who voted for it that the situation was fluid and who was involved in RPR, or not, and what other organizations were being cooked up with the express purpose of raiding our membership to feed RPR or other groups would emerge gradually.

What has happened now is that the initial cohesion that prevailed at the time the SCU was passed has eroded due to differences over style and maybe due to the personalities involved naturally clashing with each other. Such is the way in NR. This issue has, it seems to me, only become an issue for some, not because of who the edictum was applied to, but the lack of prior consultation etc etc. Well the bottom line is, as you will discover when you enter the senate (if you choose that route), that trying to "do" anything in Nova Roma at any level is like walking in mud. The SCU empowered the consuls and they made a decision. The mud pit was thus avoided. The core of that decision is both legally correct and to my mind ethically correct since to ignore dual office holding on the basis of silence from Agricola, or the fact he was better than Piscinus, would be to strike at the specific and very clear intent of the senate, namely to prevent such dual office
holding. Agricola's state of mind in respect of NR is irrelevant.

As with most edicts etc. in Nova Roma I fully agree with the implied and actual concerns that this one wasn't immediately crystal clear in the chain of reasoning or evidence. When you start writing them, if you stick around long enough to do so, I have no doubt yours will be a model of perfection, but not everyone comes to NR with a fully honed ability to produce such documents.

Optime vale

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

Salvete et omnes,
As a newbie citizen and a common lurker, I too would like to see details of what he said that is so incriminating AND what makes this other group such a threat at this time? I get it there are members that were here before and they may be trying to create a competing organization, but as of now, its a shell and I don't see how its a threat. Look at the other splinter groups, they are are but shadows or organizations that tried and didn't go to far.
To take away senatorship for someone not voting, I can see that, but citizenship is an another issue entirely.
Vale,
Lucia Decia Flora

C. Maria Caeca V. Valeriano Voluso S. P. D.

Well, you see, the problem is, that, until we have a means of voting (which are in process, as I understand it), there is little we can do effectively, yet. However, given Cato Consul's offer to abide by the will of the people once the means for voting are in place, I formally call upon the tribunes of The Plebs to either prepare, or oversee the preparation of, legislation that would provide NR with full and fair protection against those who would diminish, damage, or destroy her, specifically define what does and does not constitute a threat, and provide the means by which threats can be assessed and documented, as well as the procedures by which citizens accused of violation of this legislation are demonstrated to be so, and the specific penalties to be applied should they be found to be in such violation.

Vale et valete
C. Maria Caeca

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

Ave,

Browse the archives for Piscinus's posts. They are in the archives. I
would suggest any citizen who wants to investigate the matter to take the
time to read up on last years events.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:08 AM, dhcocoa3 <dhcocoa3@...> wrote:

>
>
> Salvete et omnes,
> As a newbie citizen and a common lurker, I too would like to see details of
> what he said that is so incriminating AND what makes this other group such a
> threat at this time? I get it there are members that were here before and
> they may be trying to create a competing organization, but as of now, its a
> shell and I don't see how its a threat. Look at the other splinter groups,
> they are are but shadows or organizations that tried and didn't go to far.
> To take away senatorship for someone not voting, I can see that, but
> citizenship is an another issue entirely.
> Vale,
> Lucia Decia Flora
>
>
>


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

Ave,

That is already assured in the Constitution. It already has those
protections in place.

Remember in ancient Rome they also had the SCU...when Tribune Saturnius
tried to overthrow the state the Senate passed an SCU to effective implement
martial law. This essentially the same type of situation. The senate
debated the SCU, passed the SCU and the Senate empowered the Consul to
enforce the SCU (while coordinating with the Censors).

Remember, the SCU expires on December 31st of this year and the SCU is very
limited in scope. Outside of the scope of the SCU all the protections
guaranteed in the Constitution are in absolute full effect.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:23 AM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Maria Caeca V. Valeriano Voluso S. P. D.
>
> Well, you see, the problem is, that, until we have a means of voting (which
> are in process, as I understand it), there is little we can do effectively,
> yet. However, given Cato Consul's offer to abide by the will of the people
> once the means for voting are in place, I formally call upon the tribunes of
> The Plebs to either prepare, or oversee the preparation of, legislation that
> would provide NR with full and fair protection against those who would
> diminish, damage, or destroy her, specifically define what does and does not
> constitute a threat, and provide the means by which threats can be assessed
> and documented, as well as the procedures by which citizens accused of
> violation of this legislation are demonstrated to be so, and the specific
> penalties to be applied should they be found to be in such violation.
>
> Vale et valete
> C. Maria Caeca
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Ave,

What legislation? The SCU expires at the end of December? It would be
useless to provide some legislation for the SCU when it has a built in
expiration date.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 8:02 AM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> Ave Sullae Senatori:
>
> thank you for satisfying my curiosity. I do have some concerns about the
> wording of item 3, but I will raise them when legislation is proposed.
>
> Vale,
> C. Maria Caeca
>
>
>


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

C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextero Sal!

Amice, yes, justice systems are different in different counties, but, at least in democracies, they have the same goals ...to protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. In our court system, though, if a defendant refuses to appear, in other words to answer charges filed against him/her, they that person is found guilty by failure to appear. Tue, this is not used in felony or capital crimes, because arrests are involved, and the courts have ways of ensuring the defendant's appearance. In Agricola's case, though, he *was* asked, several times, and, though he has been active elsewhere (demonstrating that he has no overriding technical issues to prevent his response), he has not responded. At some point, the Consul has to decide that a failure to respond is a *choice* not to do so, and proceed. In the virtual world, when communication takes minutes, and knowing that there are no computer (or other issues) based on the observation of a person's other activities, 2 months is, I think, ample time.

I would, however, still like to know *where* Agricola made his statements about NR.

Vale quam optime!

C. Maria Caeca

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

Ave,

NR has had a long tradition, established by Piscinus, the former spook,
himself to obtain sources of information on lists that are not available.
No one complained about Piscinus using spies on the BA to twist and taint
the BA into something it isn't. He created the precedent and established
it. Now that it is being used against him and his allies in the same manner
people are going to balk? Sorry, but with all the plethora of other
information about Agricola the matter, as Praetor Caesar and Consul Cato
have stated - is done.

The BA has had to respond by policing it's own, I would suggest that the
Cultus Deorum list would need to take some similar steps.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 9:36 AM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Maria Caeca C. Petronio Dextero Sal!
>
> Amice, yes, justice systems are different in different counties, but, at
> least in democracies, they have the same goals ...to protect the innocent,
> and punish the guilty. In our court system, though, if a defendant refuses
> to appear, in other words to answer charges filed against him/her, they that
> person is found guilty by failure to appear. Tue, this is not used in felony
> or capital crimes, because arrests are involved, and the courts have ways of
> ensuring the defendant's appearance. In Agricola's case, though, he *was*
> asked, several times, and, though he has been active elsewhere
> (demonstrating that he has no overriding technical issues to prevent his
> response), he has not responded. At some point, the Consul has to decide
> that a failure to respond is a *choice* not to do so, and proceed. In the
> virtual world, when communication takes minutes, and knowing that there are
> no computer (or other issues) based on the observation of a person's other
> activities, 2 months is, I think, ample time.
>
> I would, however, still like to know *where* Agricola made his statements
> about NR.
>
> Vale quam optime!
>
> C. Maria Caeca
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

Caesar Dextro sal.

There is no defence required to be presented under the terms of the SCU. If we were going that route then the senate had the option of trials. That was neither feasible nor in the interests of Nova Roma to tie an entire year, or more, up with what would have deacended into farce. NR's record with trials isn't one that commands any degree of universal support, and where there is a choice one should avoid them. Why? Impartial iudices are a myth. The subject matter of the charges would have been debated and cross debated to exhaustion prior to the commencment of the first proceeding, so any pretence at a "fair" trial would have long since flown out the window. It would have been theatre only. Additionally providing a soap box to those openly in a state of revolt would have been absurd. In this case why did no one advocate for Piscinus to be given an opprtunity to defend himself? Clearly because he had already in the minds of the majority of us
condmened himself out of his own mouth, yet If it is good for Agricola to be afforded a defence, it should have been good for Piscinus too.

No, if we remove the personality factor, that Agricola was liked by more than liked Piscinus, and concentrate on the intent of the SCU in respect of dual office holders, then clearly Agricola fell under the terms of it. It was his choice to join RPR, become accensus to its "consul" and to become a senator in RPR, all at the same time as being a senator and augur in NR. That, to me, is where the matter ends. His reasons and any defence are legally not required and irrelevant.

Optime vale



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

SALVE!

--- On Sat, 6/11/11, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:















 









Impartial iudices are a myth. >>>However they exist: I and Albucius during the Hortensia trial.VALE,Sabinus



















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

Ave Censor,

But if you recall, Hortensia, once convicted screamed and hollared that you
were tainted by Consul Albucius's posts during the trial.

While I believe you were impartial, the smaller an organization is, the less
likely one would find someone who could be impartial. Just look at your
Albucius's attempt to put an Iudex in place for Cato vs Piscinus.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:09 AM, iulius sabinus
<iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
> --- On Sat, 6/11/11, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Impartial iudices are a myth. >>>However they exist: I and Albucius during
> the Hortensia trial.VALE,Sabinus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

salve,

ive been away for a while can someone explain whats going on here

vale.
 
"Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
virtue and knowledge.”
 
                                                                                                                               Dante Alighieri 

 
Ti. Aurelius Trio




________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 1:13:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: UNFAIR EDICT CONCERNING MARCUS LUCRETIUS AGRICOLA

Ave Censor,

But if you recall, Hortensia, once convicted screamed and hollared that you
were tainted by Consul Albucius's posts during the trial.

While I believe you were impartial, the smaller an organization is, the less
likely one would find someone who could be impartial.  Just look at your
Albucius's attempt to put an Iudex in place for Cato vs Piscinus.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:09 AM, iulius sabinus
<iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
> --- On Sat, 6/11/11, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Impartial iudices are a myth. >>>However they exist: I and Albucius during
> the Hortensia trial.VALE,Sabinus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>

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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Salve amice

I agree, but she did not. Others also did not. That is exactly the point. Our community is too small to produce people who have no knowledge of the facts, asserted, claimed, true, false or otherwise. It is too small to find people who have no knolwedge of the defendant or the prosecutor, because to date the only defendants have already become well known public figures and when one combines that with prior discussion ad nauseam of the issue, it is impossible to my mind to produce iudices who everyone agrees are impartial. Our small population thus taints the whole process.

My point is that if we can choose to have trials we should only choose if they can be free from the severe taint of bias. Sometimes we don't legally have the luxury of choice, but the senate had a choice in this matter. SCU or trials, and it chose the path of the SCU.

We also can't yet master the science of cloning you two ;)

Vale bene
Caesar

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

Omnibus in foro S. P. D.

I take the Consul at his word, as publicly stated, in the message below. If the consul is willing to have the people vote, then I think it is our responsibility to prepare at least an outline, or draft, of legislation that would do the things I described earlier.

Valete,
c. Maria Caeca

----- Original Message -----
From: Cato
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 6:43 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: EDICT CONCERNING MARCUS LUCRETIUS AGRICOLA



Cato Valerio Voluso omnibusque in foro SPD

It is one of my favorite passages in all Roman history:

"Haec dicta uolgo creditaque cum indignitate angerent consulis animum, uocato ad concilium populo submissis fascibus in contionem escendit. Gratum multitudini spectaculum fuit, submissa sibi esse imperii insignia confessionemque factam populi quam consulis maiestatem uimque maiorem esse."

"When these things, thus circulated and believed, affected the consul's mind with indignation, having summoned the people to an assembly, he mounts the rostrum, after lowering the fasces. It was a grateful sight to the multitude that the insignia of authority were lowered to them, and that an acknowledgment was made, that the majesty and power of the people were greater than that of the consul." - Livy, History Of Rome II.7

The other is that of Popillius Laenas and his drawing a circle around Antiochus IV Epiphanes :)

I intend to have an answer regarding the voting program by dies Solis, pridie Idus Iunius. Nota bene: the tribunes can call a comitia as well, so it is up to you, citizens, to submit requests for items upon which the People can vote. Once the program timeline is established, I will suggest a set of dates by which citizens should submit requests to the appropriate magistrates.

You can look here:

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Comitia_%28Nova_Roma%29

or in the Constitution (Section III) to consider which magistrate is most appropriate.

Believe me when I tell you I would much rather have the People voting on things than having me driving them all through the Senate; I tend to act...imperiously...in the name of getting things done, which has rubbed several of my colleagues (both pro- and anti-Cato) in odd ways.

Now, on the subject of the SCU. My personal thoughts are that it is necessary for us to have a tool with which to protect ourselves from the very real damage that at least one of our former citizens had planned - and which, by the way, he accomplished to a small degree with the help of his...helpers. Since we had no truly effective and immediate way to bring it to a vote of the People, the Senate needed to step up and take charge - after all, the Senate is empowered to do so, and as the Board of Directors of the corporation as well actually has a *duty* to do so. The Senate did, and the result is the SCU.

If the matter does come to a vote, I will certainly beseech the People to let the SCU and the edicta which the consuls have promulgated under its authority stand as they are.

It is not a Damoclean Sword; it is rather a very thin, precise blade. Agricola's being a practitioner of the religiones Romanae had *nothing* to do with the action of the SCU, and I will repeat that ad nauseum and in direct and utter contradiction to anything *anyone* says to the contrary. He was a member of our Board of Directors and knew exactly what the SCU said and what it meant to him; he knew that RPR was specifically formed to co-opt our claims as a Respublica; he refused to answer repeated requests about his intentions over the course of several months. It was his choice, and his alone.

We have a very capable augur, Tullius Valerianus, who has served our Respublica well and honorably. We have a committed pontifex maximus; we have several new flamens (both men and women) who are working hard to bring the cultus Deorum to life. There is nothing standing in the way of our bringing the religiones Romanae to continued and glorious life. We only need the will to do so.

Vale et valete bene,

Cato





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

Q Caecilius Metellus legatus pro praetore Consulibus Quiritibusque s.d.

I'm just going to put this out there, and let it fall on whatever ears
it may.

As I currently understand it (I have not, to date, looked for any
changes to this in the past handful of years), once the tax deadline is
set, that's the end of it. I mention this in specific connection to new
citizens, who may become citizens (i.e., complete their respective
tirocinia) after the tax due date.

If there is not already provision, might the Senate consider making
provision to allow that these new citizens be given an extension based
on the date they receive the iura publica, wherein they would only pay
the base tax? (Say, for example, the sooner of three months from
acquisition of the iura publica or 31 December.) It seems a bit unjust
to require the late fee on someone who has only just become a citizen.

Ut ualeatis bene, curate optime.

SALVE!

--- On Sat, 6/11/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
<But if you recall, Hortensia, once convicted screamed and hollared that you
were tainted by Consul Albucius's posts during the trial.>>>
I am sure that Hortensia because was convinced, her fans because wants to show the adhesion, her advocate because until then believed is the model of law interpretation in NR, will have objections. Nothing new under the sun.The Albucius' application of NR law during the trial was at high standard. I don't use the term perfect but high. Reading with attention all the laws applicable in trial, I was able to observe his meticulousness when put them in practice. Keeping the procedures in line with NR laws, corroborate with the actor subject of the petitio, resulted in the correct sententia.

<While I believe you were impartial, the smaller an organization is, the less
likely one would find someone who could be impartial.>>>
That is true. 
<Just look at your Albucius's attempt to put an Iudex in place for Cato vs Piscinus.>>>
If recall correct, at that time was difficult to find enough active judices, right? Maybe is the time to re-consider our laws. They were designed for the that time of NR development and optimistic view of the development. It was an error. It is better to think moderate and to move with small but sure steps.
VALE,Sabinus 
Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:09 AM, iulius sabinus
<iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
> --- On Sat, 6/11/11, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Impartial iudices are a myth. >>>However they exist: I and Albucius during
> the Hortensia trial.VALE,Sabinus
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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

Ave!

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:54 AM, iulius sabinus
<iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
>
> --- On Sat, 6/11/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> <But if you recall, Hortensia, once convicted screamed and hollared that
> you
> were tainted by Consul Albucius's posts during the trial.>>>
> I am sure that Hortensia because was convinced, her fans because wants to
> show the adhesion, her advocate because until then believed is the model of
> law interpretation in NR, will have objections. Nothing new under the
> sun.The Albucius' application of NR law during the trial was at high
> standard. I don't use the term perfect but high. Reading with attention all
> the laws applicable in trial, I was able to observe his meticulousness when
> put them in practice. Keeping the procedures in line with NR
> laws, corroborate with the actor subject of the petitio, resulted in the
> correct sententia.
>

True, but then she kept also proclaiming that she would be absolutely found
not guilty. LOL I agree with you completely.

>
>
> <While I believe you were impartial, the smaller an organization is, the
> less
> likely one would find someone who could be impartial.>>>
> That is true.
>
> <Just look at your Albucius's attempt to put an Iudex in place for Cato vs
> Piscinus.>>>
> If recall correct, at that time was difficult to find enough active
> judices, right? Maybe is the time to re-consider our laws. They were
> designed for the that time of NR development and optimistic view of the
> development. It was an error. It is better to think moderate and to move
> with small but sure steps.
>

Absolutely! Before the coup attempt I was absolutely convinced we should
dump the Leges Salicia....and just not even have a system of justice other
than Praetorian list moderation. Now, hindsight being 20/20 I am convinced
we do need something in place that goes beyond list moderation. I agree
with you.

Respectfully,

Sulla

> VALE,Sabinus
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:09 AM, iulius sabinus
> <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > SALVE!
> >
> > --- On Sat, 6/11/11, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Impartial iudices are a myth. >>>However they exist: I and Albucius
> during
> > the Hortensia trial.VALE,Sabinus
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

salve,
how is everyone?

whats new in the NR empire?

vale bene.
 
"Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
virtue and knowledge.”
 
                                                                                                                               Dante Alighieri 

 
Ti. Aurelius Trio

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

SALVE!

--- On Sat, 6/11/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
Absolutely!  Before the coup attempt I was absolutely convinced we should
dump the Leges Salicia....and just not even have a system of justice other
than Praetorian list moderation.  Now, hindsight being 20/20 I am convinced
we do need something in place that goes beyond list moderation.  I agree
with you.>>>
I know that during the time many were against Leges Saliciae. While I support their simplification, I do not support their elimination. The reason is one: as time we proclaim we are a State, well, is necessary to understand the State need tools including the coercive ones. The laws, however are viewed by one or another, represent the State way of function. 
VALE,
Sabinus
Respectfully,

Sulla


> VALE,Sabinus
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:09 AM, iulius sabinus
> <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > SALVE!
> >
> > --- On Sat, 6/11/11, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Impartial iudices are a myth. >>>However they exist: I and Albucius
> during
> > the Hortensia trial.VALE,Sabinus
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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

SALVE!

--- On Sat, 6/11/11, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...> wrote:















 









salve,

how is everyone?
whats new in the NR empire?>>>Republic. NR is Republic.All is ok. In Oppidum Bucurestium, for example, now powerful rain.
VALE,Sabinus



vale bene.

 

"Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow

virtue and knowledge.”

 

                                                                                                                               Dante Alighieri 



 

Ti. Aurelius Trio



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



























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

Ave!

Oh I understand, I just figured and still do believe that 90% of the issues
(probably even more) can be resolved by just the judicious moderation of
public fora by the Praetors. But it is the remaining 10% that raises the
questions. And, the issue is to be both pragmatic and realistic within the
confines of the organization/state and functionality of NR's community and
reach. I mean if something bad enough happened like....someone using a
forum to threaten the head of state of a nation..obviously the macro
authorities are going to get involved. But we need something that addresses
realistic issues that affect NR in a pragmatic way. :) Like you said small
steps.

Respectfully,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:14 AM, iulius sabinus
<iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
> --- On Sat, 6/11/11, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
> Absolutely! Before the coup attempt I was absolutely convinced we should
> dump the Leges Salicia....and just not even have a system of justice other
> than Praetorian list moderation. Now, hindsight being 20/20 I am convinced
> we do need something in place that goes beyond list moderation. I agree
> with you.>>>
> I know that during the time many were against Leges Saliciae. While I
> support their simplification, I do not support their elimination.
> The reason is one: as time we proclaim we are a State, well, is necessary to
> understand the State need tools including the coercive ones. The laws,
> however are viewed by one or another, represent the State way of function.
> VALE,
> Sabinus
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Sulla
>
> > VALE,Sabinus
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:09 AM, iulius sabinus
> > <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > SALVE!
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 6/11/11, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Impartial iudices are a myth. >>>However they exist: I and Albucius
> > during
> > > the Hortensia trial.VALE,Sabinus
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Hehe its about 95 Degrees F in Phoenix :) Not even noon yet....WAY too
hot!!!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:17 AM, iulius sabinus
<iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
>
> --- On Sat, 6/11/11, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> salve,
>
> how is everyone?
> whats new in the NR empire?>>>Republic. NR is Republic.All is ok. In
> Oppidum Bucurestium, for example, now powerful rain.
> VALE,Sabinus
>
>
> vale bene.
>
>
>
> "Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
>
>
> virtue and knowledge.�
>
>
>
>
> Dante Alighieri
>
>
>
> Ti. Aurelius Trio
>
> [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]

C. Petronius C. Mariae Caecae salutem,

>>> In our court system, though, if a defendant refuses to appear, in other words to answer charges filed against him/her, they that person is found guilty by failure to appear.<<<

I think that it was the case of the augur Cincinnatus, but in Nova Roma this court system did not have force, because our SCU's consul proponed another SCU, he governs by SCU, in the last Senate session, in which this "failure to appear" was not a problem and Cincinnatus declared no guilty, by the magical potion named SCU.

So this "failure to appear" looks like right for Agricola and was judged wrong for Cincinnatus... yes it is, as I said, a cow boy justice.

But I do not know why the tribunes did not yet published this other SCU and its magical effect.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. III Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

salve,

ive been goune for a spell, whats happening in nr whats this un fair stuff?

vale
 
"Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
virtue and knowledge.”
 
                                                                                                                               Dante Alighieri 

 
Ti. Aurelius Trio




________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 2:18:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again

Hehe its about 95 Degrees F in Phoenix :)  Not even noon yet....WAY too
hot!!!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:17 AM, iulius sabinus
<iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:

>
>
> SALVE!
>
>
> --- On Sat, 6/11/11, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> salve,
>
> how is everyone?
> whats new in the NR empire?>>>Republic. NR is Republic.All is ok. In
> Oppidum Bucurestium, for example, now powerful rain.
> VALE,Sabinus
>
>
> vale bene.
>
>
>
> "Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
>
>
> virtue and knowledge.”
>
>
>
>
>                                                                               
>                                                Dante Alighieri
>
>
>
> Ti. Aurelius Trio
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>

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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Ave,

In reality its a difference of opinion. Agricola got removed, just like
Piscinus via use of the SCU that was adopted in March. There are some
members who feel the use of the SCU is perfectly valid using the same
grounds to remove Piscinus and there are others who believe it was used
unfairly...or that it shouldn't have been used against a cultor (thus
creating a protected class of citizens).

It is just a difference of opinion. Same as always in NR.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:24 AM, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...> wrote:

>
>
> salve,
>
> ive been goune for a spell, whats happening in nr whats this un fair stuff?
>
> vale
>
>
> "Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
>
> virtue and knowledge.�
>
>
> Dante Alighieri
>
>
> Ti. Aurelius Trio
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 2:18:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again
>
>
> Hehe its about 95 Degrees F in Phoenix :) Not even noon yet....WAY too
> hot!!!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:17 AM, iulius sabinus
> <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > SALVE!
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 6/11/11, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > salve,
> >
> > how is everyone?
> > whats new in the NR empire?>>>Republic. NR is Republic.All is ok. In
> > Oppidum Bucurestium, for example, now powerful rain.
> > VALE,Sabinus
> >
> >
> > vale bene.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to
> follow
> >
> >
> > virtue and knowledge.�
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > Dante Alighieri
> >
> >
> >
> > Ti. Aurelius Trio
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

salve,
well thats not right at all there should not be a "protected class" everyone
should be treated fairly...

thats just my opinion...

vale bene.
 
"Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
virtue and knowledge.”
 
                                                                                                                               Dante Alighieri 

 
Ti. Aurelius Trio




________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 2:27:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again

Ave,

In reality its a difference of opinion.  Agricola got removed, just like
Piscinus via use of the SCU that was adopted in March.  There are some
members who feel the use of the SCU is perfectly valid using the same
grounds to remove Piscinus and there are others who believe it was used
unfairly...or that it shouldn't have been used against a cultor (thus
creating a protected class of citizens).

It is just a difference of opinion.  Same as always in NR.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:24 AM, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...> wrote:

>
>
> salve,
>
> ive been goune for a spell, whats happening in nr whats this un fair stuff?
>
> vale
>
>
> "Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
>
> virtue and knowledge.”
>
>
>                                                                               
>                                                Dante Alighieri
>
>
> Ti. Aurelius Trio
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 2:18:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again
>
>
> Hehe its about 95 Degrees F in Phoenix :)  Not even noon yet....WAY too
> hot!!!
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:17 AM, iulius sabinus
> <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > SALVE!
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 6/11/11, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > salve,
> >
> > how is everyone?
> > whats new in the NR empire?>>>Republic. NR is Republic.All is ok. In
> > Oppidum Bucurestium, for example, now powerful rain.
> > VALE,Sabinus
> >
> >
> > vale bene.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to
> follow
> >
> >
> > virtue and knowledge.”
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> >                                                Dante Alighieri
> >
> >
> >
> > Ti. Aurelius Trio
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Ave!

Agreed! Total agreement!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...> wrote:

>
>
> salve,
> well thats not right at all there should not be a "protected class"
> everyone
> should be treated fairly...
>
> thats just my opinion...
>
>
> vale bene.
>
> "Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
>
> virtue and knowledge.�
>
>
> Dante Alighieri
>
>
> Ti. Aurelius Trio
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 2:27:31 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again
>
> Ave,
>
> In reality its a difference of opinion. Agricola got removed, just like
> Piscinus via use of the SCU that was adopted in March. There are some
> members who feel the use of the SCU is perfectly valid using the same
> grounds to remove Piscinus and there are others who believe it was used
> unfairly...or that it shouldn't have been used against a cultor (thus
> creating a protected class of citizens).
>
> It is just a difference of opinion. Same as always in NR.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:24 AM, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > salve,
> >
> > ive been goune for a spell, whats happening in nr whats this un fair
> stuff?
> >
> > vale
> >
> >
> > "Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to
> follow
> >
> > virtue and knowledge.�
> >
> >
> >
>
> > Dante Alighieri
> >
> >
> > Ti. Aurelius Trio
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 2:18:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again
> >
> >
> > Hehe its about 95 Degrees F in Phoenix :) Not even noon yet....WAY too
> > hot!!!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:17 AM, iulius sabinus
> > <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > SALVE!
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 6/11/11, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > salve,
> > >
> > > how is everyone?
> > > whats new in the NR empire?>>>Republic. NR is Republic.All is ok. In
> > > Oppidum Bucurestium, for example, now powerful rain.
> > > VALE,Sabinus
> > >
> > >
> > > vale bene.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to
> > follow
> > >
> > >
> > > virtue and knowledge.�
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > > Dante Alighieri
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ti. Aurelius Trio
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

salve,
if there were a protected class and one of them were to rise to power they would
essentially become a dictator and NR would thus become a totalitarian state. it
would be the end of NR as we know it, i think anyone who thinks this way
(pro-protected class) should be punished by being expelled from nova roma!
vale bene
 
"Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
virtue and knowledge.”
 
                                                                                                                               Dante Alighieri 

 
Ti. Aurelius Trio




________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 2:31:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again

Ave!

Agreed!  Total agreement!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...> wrote:

>
>
> salve,
> well thats not right at all there should not be a "protected class"
> everyone
> should be treated fairly...
>
> thats just my opinion...
>
>
> vale bene.
>
> "Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
>
> virtue and knowledge.”
>
>
>                                                                               
>                                                Dante Alighieri
>
>
> Ti. Aurelius Trio
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 2:27:31 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again
>
> Ave,
>
> In reality its a difference of opinion.  Agricola got removed, just like
> Piscinus via use of the SCU that was adopted in March.  There are some
> members who feel the use of the SCU is perfectly valid using the same
> grounds to remove Piscinus and there are others who believe it was used
> unfairly...or that it shouldn't have been used against a cultor (thus
> creating a protected class of citizens).
>
> It is just a difference of opinion.  Same as always in NR.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:24 AM, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > salve,
> >
> > ive been goune for a spell, whats happening in nr whats this un fair
> stuff?
> >
> > vale
> >
> >
> > "Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to
> follow
> >
> > virtue and knowledge.”
> >
> >
> >
>
> >                                                Dante Alighieri
> >
> >
> > Ti. Aurelius Trio
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 2:18:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again
> >
> >
> > Hehe its about 95 Degrees F in Phoenix :)  Not even noon yet....WAY too
> > hot!!!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:17 AM, iulius sabinus
> > <iulius_sabinus@...>wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > SALVE!
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 6/11/11, jeffery craft <warbuff_4@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > salve,
> > >
> > > how is everyone?
> > > whats new in the NR empire?>>>Republic. NR is Republic.All is ok. In
> > > Oppidum Bucurestium, for example, now powerful rain.
> > > VALE,Sabinus
> > >
> > >
> > > vale bene.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to
> > follow
> > >
> > >
> > > virtue and knowledge.”
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >                                                Dante Alighieri
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ti. Aurelius Trio
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Salve, Trio!

If you want to make your own determination of what has been going on over the last few days, you might want to go to the group page and read the messages from June 9 on.

Vale Bene!
c. Maria Caeca

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

Ave!

Agreed!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:41 AM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve, Trio!
>
> If you want to make your own determination of what has been going on over
> the last few days, you might want to go to the group page and read the
> messages from June 9 on.
>
> Vale Bene!
> c. Maria Caeca
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

salve

im just going by what ive read so far...

i just dont think that people should think like that

vale
 
"Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
virtue and knowledge.”
 
                                                                                                                               Dante Alighieri 

 
Ti. Aurelius Trio




________________________________
From: C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 2:41:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again

 
Salve, Trio!

If you want to make your own determination of what has been going on over the
last few days, you might want to go to the group page and read the messages from
June 9 on.

Vale Bene!
c. Maria Caeca

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




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

Salve Trio!

I would second Vestal Caeca's recommendation that you check out the facts
for yourself.

The shortest possible explanation is that there is controversy regarding the
implementation of a Senatus Consultum Ultimum as it was applied to former
citizen Agricola. The rest is open to interpretation, it seems.

~ Valerianus

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:41 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve, Trio!
>
> If you want to make your own determination of what has been going on over
> the last few days, you might want to go to the group page and read the
> messages from June 9 on.
>
> Vale Bene!
> c. Maria Caeca
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

salve,

going by the title im guessing that means senate has ultimate descicion, why
would it apply to agricola unless this person was or had influence in the
senate?
vale.
 
"Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
virtue and knowledge.”
 
                                                                                                                               Dante Alighieri 

 
Ti. Aurelius Trio




________________________________
From: Gaius Tullius Valerianus <gaius.tullius.valerianus@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 2:45:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again

Salve Trio!

I would second Vestal Caeca's recommendation that you check out the facts
for yourself.

The shortest possible explanation is that there is controversy regarding the
implementation of a Senatus Consultum Ultimum as it was applied to former
citizen Agricola. The rest is open to interpretation, it seems.

~ Valerianus

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:41 PM, C.Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

>
>
> Salve, Trio!
>
> If you want to make your own determination of what has been going on over
> the last few days, you might want to go to the group page and read the
> messages from June 9 on.
>
> Vale Bene!
> c. Maria Caeca
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Salve Trio

It could be said to be a matter of degree. Piscinus basically had run the well dry of goodwill of those who might have been in a position to try to save him in the senate when the SCU was being debated. It was bone dry months before and of course his posts were honest in the sense it was clear what he was thinking. Whether he honestly actually beleived all the druvel he spouted is another question, but he made no scret of his feelings. So in essence he laid his own head on the chopping block, drew a line over his neck, guided the axe, invited the blow and was still yapping as his head fell off into the basket. His removal was thus easier for some to accept.

The legal principle that was formulated within the SCU was a general principle, even if the first person it applied to was regarded as no loss to Nova Roma. So now the general principle is applied to another, but here the will of some to pursue the application of that general principle within the SCU seems to falter. For some becuase he didn't say things like Piscinus did, for others becuase he was more likeable, and others .. well other reasons possibly. The bottom line for me though is that if the SCU is to have any validity in respect of Piscinus it should be applied when the facts are clear, and those facts are clear. Agricola held dual offices, one in NR and one in this other group RPR. That is prohibited essentially under the terms of the SCU. He didn't it appears respond to any communications. He may have felt that the current magistrates have no validity, censors, consuls praetors et al. His right to feel that if he did, and that may
explain his silence, but equally the right of the consuls to pursue the application of the CU to its logical end in his case. Thus he was removed.

Now some want to give him another chance to "defend" himself, but the SCU requires no expalanation from dual office holders, just that the fact they did hold such offices be established. My view is that he had ample opportunity to mount a case when the SCU was passed and he knew he would be in a conflicted position, and he chose not to do so. As to the fact that he didn't engage in ranting and raving statements as did Piscinus prior to his removal, that too is irrelevant, because the SCU doesn't call for them. Besides he was actively engaged in RPR and supportive of it. RPR represents itself, through statements of its leading lights and supporters, as the true res pulica and we here in Nova Roma as some treasonous rump. lastly silence doesn't equate to a benevolent attitude towards NR, it simply means Agricola was more astute than others in what he said, how he said it and where he said it.

Vale bene
Cn. Iulius Caesar
Praetor

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

Salve Trio

Agricola was an office holder in NR and RPR at the same time. The Senate deemed that forbidden. that is why it applied to him.

Vale bene
Caesar

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

salve,
so what does the SCU do anyways?
vale
 
"Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
virtue and knowledge.”
 
                                                                                                                               Dante Alighieri 

 
Ti. Aurelius Trio




________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 3:11:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again

 
Salve Trio

Agricola was an office holder in NR and RPR at the same time. The Senate deemed
that forbidden. that is why it applied to him.

Vale bene
Caesar

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




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

Salve Trio

To take whatever actions are consider necessary by the consuls to resolve a situation that conflicts with the actions/inactions prohibited under its terms, up to and including loss of citizenship.

Vale bene
Caesar


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

salve,
thanks for clearing that up
vale
 
"Consider your origin, you were not born to live like brutes, but to follow
virtue and knowledge.”
 
                                                                                                                               Dante Alighieri 

 
Ti. Aurelius Trio




________________________________
From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 3:17:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] hello again

 
Salve Trio

To take whatever actions are consider necessary by the consuls to resolve a
situation that conflicts with the actions/inactions prohibited under its terms,
up to and including loss of citizenship.

Vale bene
Caesar

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




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

C. Maria Caeca V. Valerio Voluso omnibusque in foro S. P. D.



Before I address the specific points in your post, Voluse, I would like to say that it is a delight to read a well written, carefully considered discussion. Whether I agree with all of your points, (and you will see that I do take issue with some of them), I thank you for posting your thoughts, taking so much time putting them into words, and conducting yourself with such dignitas and gravitas.





Valérius Volusus Equitio Catóní Cónsulí omnibusque in foró S.P.D.

On 10 June 2011 05:43, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> It is one of my favorite passages in all Roman history:
>
> The other is that of Popillius Laenas and his drawing a circle around
> Antiochus IV Epiphanes :)
>
I LOVE the account of that incidence. I refer to it often as an exemplar of
the power of Roman Dignitas. Roman virtues are not simply "doing the right
thing", but doing the right thing... and winning! To our ancestors virtue
meant power.



I don't disagree with your conclusion here, but I wonder. The very idea, desire, and process of doing the "right thing" or doing what one sincerely believes to be the right thing, (although this attitude can be understood and implemented in some truly horrific ways, as anyone who has read any history, or even keeps marginal track of current events knows) contains its own power. Our Roman forbearers loved to win, of course, and usually did, but even when they lost, the best of them displayed, sometimes gloriously, the roman virtues.

> I intend to have an answer regarding the voting program by dies Solis,
> pridie Idus Iunius. Nota bene: the tribunes can call a comitia as well, so
> it is up to you, citizens, to submit requests for items upon which the
> People can vote. Once the program timeline is established, I will suggest a
> set of dates by which citizens should submit requests to the appropriate
> magistrates.
>
> You can look here:
>
> http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Comitia_%28Nova_Roma%29
>
> or in the Constitution (Section III) to consider which magistrate is most
> appropriate.
>
Thank you so much Consul for taking the responsibility for driving the
implementation of the voting platform and fixing a definite date - it is
greatly to your credit sir. I was thinking last night that either the
Tribunes of the Plebs or some other Magistrate representing the people needs
to be approached to start work on drafting the kind of solid legislation
necessary to replace the SCU. This is an opportunity to put in place clear
policies that will protect the Res Publica not only in this specific situation
but against any future possibly hostile schisms. That I believe would be the
Roman way: build a fortification.



M. Here, I entirely agree. The SCU was, and had to be, a response to an attack, and yes, I believe attack is the correct word, here. But, if we are going to protect ourselves permanently, and, unfortunately we have seen the necessity of doing so, our defenses should be as flawless as possible, and the provisions of any legislation *must* be extremely specific as to what constitutes a threat, the methods by which such a threat is assessed, and the consequences of a finding of culpability. It is impossible to construct laws which can neither be abused nor manipulated, but we can make it extremely difficult to do so, I think.

> Believe me when I tell you I would much rather have the People voting on
> things than having me driving them all through the Senate; I tend to
> act...imperiously...in the name of getting things done, which has rubbed
> several of my colleagues (both pro- and anti-Cato) in odd ways.
>
I do believe you Consul. I also think SCU is quite a burden that the Senate
has placed upon you, and it is unfair to lay that upon your shoulders. I did
say that I couldn't make things easy on you, but perhaps collectively we can
at least move to relieve this most burdensome responsibility.

> Now, on the subject of the SCU. My personal thoughts are that it is
> necessary for us to have a tool with which to protect ourselves from the
> very real damage that at least one of our former citizens had planned - and
> which, by the way, he accomplished to a small degree with the help of
> his...helpers. Since we had no truly effective and immediate way to bring it
> to a vote of the People, the Senate needed to step up and take charge -
> after all, the Senate is empowered to do so, and as the Board of Directors
> of the corporation as well actually has a *duty* to do so. The Senate did,
> and the result is the SCU.
>
The SCU is an emergency measure. It needs to be treated as precisely that: a
scutum to shield us from any attack while we build the proper permanent
fortifications.



CMC. Indeed.

MI. What we should not do is sit on our shields and shirk the
work of securing the encampment; sucking on olives. I propose that everyone
act like Romans and knuckle down to defend our common interest; lay our
differences aside and focus our efforts on fixing the walls and building
bridges.



MII. > If the matter does come to a vote, I will certainly beseech the People to
> let the SCU and the edicta which the consuls have promulgated under its
> authority stand as they are.
>
I would offer this suggestion. We keep the SCU in place with the
understanding that the Consuls will refrain from taking any further actions
other than to respond to a clear and present danger and direct hostile
action: any use of the powers in the SCU will be subject to close public
scrutiny.



CMC. From what I am reading, we are doing this already.

. I and other concerned citizens will lobby our Magistrates to begin
drafting legislation intended as a permanent legal remedy to mitigate any
harm posed from current or future schisms within the Respublica. We will
retain our shield (SCU) that is used with restraint, whilst we build our
fortifications (legislation). A SCU does have a place, and is much preferred
to a Dictatorship, but it must be used judiciously as a pragmatic defense
while permanent solutions are actively sought.

> It is not a Damoclean Sword; it is rather a very thin, precise blade.
> Agricola's being a practitioner of the religiones Romanae had *nothing* to
> do with the action of the SCU, and I will repeat that ad nauseum and in
> direct and utter contradiction to anything *anyone* says to the contrary. He
> was a member of our Board of Directors and knew exactly what the SCU said
> and what it meant to him; he knew that RPR was specifically formed to co-opt
> our claims as a Respublica; he refused to answer repeated requests about his
> intentions over the course of several months. It was his choice, and his
> alone.
>
It took T. Iulius Sabinus Censor to provide the necessary links that
provided evidence of leadership involvement in a hostile schism. This has
given the people the reasonable impression that the edictum itself was not
backed by due diligence and adequate investigation and verification of the
facts.



M. Here, I must object. We are a very wide spread community, encompassing many time zones, and all of us have obligations which must, of necessity, take temporary precedence over any emails or even research we wish to do for NR. Perhaps it would have been better had the links that Sabinus Censor posted been in the original edict, but they were posted, and by an officer of the corporation, and an official of NR with enough auctoritas to give them weight.





. In short an unnecessary controversy has been artificially created. We
have enough controversies in Nova Roma without the need to construct them.
The edictum itself is poorly worded and my questions concerning the scope of
"competing organizations" has yet to be answered. "Precise blades" cut
cleanly - this blade has proven to have a blunt edge that tears the flesh
rather than cutting it cleanly and precisely. That is why we need to replace
the SCU and the edicta with new legislation. The SCU and edicta may stand
until that legislation is in place. The legislation can specify a moratorium
for current NR office holders to fix any conflict of interest by a specified
date. If the officer refuses to resign either their NR offices or that of
the competing organization then NR citizenship may be considered legally
forfeit. That is entirely fair and just.



M. If I remember correctly, (and I don't have the text of the SCU in front of me) a moratorium was provided, and I see no reason to extend it, or provide a new one. I think the Scu can provide those who draft the new legislation with a good, working framework, but more needs to be added, and terms need to be defined.




I think this approach would benefit the Respublica as a whole and also is
fairer to our Consuls, who should not be asked to bear the responsibility
and accountability on their own.

> We have a very capable augur, Tullius Valerianus, who has served our
> Respublica well and honorably. We have a committed pontifex maximus; we have
> several new flamens (both men and women) who are working hard to bring the
> cultus Deorum to life. There is nothing standing in the way of our bringing
> the religiones Romanae to continued and glorious life. We only need the will
> to do so.
>
According to the NR website, we have 6 out of 9 Pontificés (including
Pontifex Maximus), 3 out of 13 Flaminés, a single Vestal, 2 augurs and no
sacerdotés: not to mention that a significant number of cultorés have either
defected or been thrown out of Nova Roma.



CMC. With 2 exceptions, no one has been thrown out of NR. Thos who left, left by their own choice. Yes, we lost a large number of Cultors, and yes, that has temporarily injured us in some ways. However, most of those who left did not do so because they were being treated badly or disrespectfully. Some were dealt with harshly, but usually for political reasons (debates and actions in which they willingly participated) and cried foul only when they received what they sent out, in kind. Some left because they had been convinced that the gods had abandoned NR. Some left under persuasion and intimidation by the former Pontifex Maximus. I have good reason to know about this process, I personally experienced it, though this will be denied to the vaulted heavens. Those cultores who have chosen to remain have had their reputations attacked, their loyalty to the gods questioned, and have, (specifically in my case) been declared unworthy to serve the gods.



I will only say one more thing on this subject. So long as there is 1 Cultor Deorum in NR, the gods will be honored. I *know* this, and should it come to pass that I am that lone Cultor (which I do NOT expect to be), I publicly vow it. And yes, I keep my oaths. We must rebuild, in our religious institutions, and in other ways, and we will do that. Having read your posts, I am sure that you have read the archives and know at least some of what happened over the last year or so. Our numbers were seriously depleted, but that has happened before, and we have recovered. We will again, but this will take time and enormous effort on the part of all of our magistrates and citizens. Rome was sometimes defeated, but the fact that we are even here indicates, at least to me, that she was never vanquished. We owe her no less, I think.



According to the Pontifex Maximus
we only have 2 candidates who have stepped forward for training in the
priesthood. For a 13 year old organization that claims to revive and
represent the Cultus Deorum Romanorum, it would be unreasonable to conclude
that we are doing at all well; regardless of how we might spin the numbers.
If we look at the situation objectively, the Religio Romana in Nova Roma is
on the decline- the ratio of growth/attrition is less than one and if the
current trend is allowed to continue there will be no Religio Romana in Nova
Roma at all: just as there are no Legions, few Latinists, few classicists
and academics who do not feel entirely marginalized, and very little
cultural activity - judging by the low participation in the cultural
certamina of the last two Ludi. Nova Roma in it's current state offers very
little to new or existing members and that spells certain death for any
membership-based organization.



I submit that we have something unique and valuable to offer those who are willing to take a long term view, endure our growing pains and our set backs. We are re-creating a functioning State, based firmly on the ancient Roman Republic, but with the flexibility to work, and work well, now. We aren't there yet. We have problems. We have an enormous amount of work to do. I, however, believe that we have the foundation and institutions that will make it possible to overcome our problems, do that work, and do it successfully, and I am, frankly, willing to wait for success, because this work, in my estimation is worth doing very well, and well done work takes both time and effort.

My academic training was in Applied Social Science and organizational design
and I worked for 10 years for a prominent strategic consultancy in
Washington DC so I have encountered quite a number of dysfunctional
organizations through the years. Nova Roma beats all of those hands down for
displaying all the classical signs of disfunctionality and organizational
incoherence. Our most recent schism and attrition of members is simply
another symptom of the systemic "illness". It certainly takes "will" to fix
the problems, but it takes more than that. The first thing that is necessary
to effect a recovery is for the patient to acknowledge that she has a
problem. What makes no sense at all is to sit composing odes in praise of
Rome while the city itself is in flames.

What we do have, the greatest asset of Nova Roma, are some good people. What
CDR/RR in NR has are people like C. Maria Caeca, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, L.
Iulia Aquila and others who shine as examples of magnanimity, piety, virtue
and dedication. These people represent for me the true beacons of hope in
Nova Roma, but we do precious little to support them. What are we doing to
heal the schisms that have lead to the loss of previously dedicated cultorés
in Nova Roma? Apparently, nothing.



When people do not wish overtures, there is no point in offering them. As I said, those who left, left because they wished to do so. It is my hope that, as we continue to do our work, and we begin to see the results of that work, many will also return, of their own free will. As I see it, many, if not most, of those Cultores left not for religious, but political reasons, and this view has been amply reinforced by their comments elsewhere.

When the ancient Plebs walked out of Rome to occupy the Mons Sacra, forming
their own Plebeian State, did the Senators shout "good riddance" as they
left? Did they not send emissaries and delegations? Did they not negotiate,
make concessions and eventually reabsorb the Plebeian State into the
Respublica to reestablish concordia between the Orders? Why did they do
that? Because, they had everything at stake and understood that Rome without
people was nothing more than a room full of rich grumpy old men, exposed and
unprotected by those upon whom they depended and had treated unfairly. Nova
Roma, to our great shame has done NOTHING to heal the rift between
disaffected cultorés and the Respublica and there is no policy of
rapprochement towards them. Do you perhaps imagine there is an endless
supply of cultorés in the world that you can afford to let them go to build
their own State on a Mons Sacra? Who are going to be our taxpayers? We are
stabbing ourselves in the back and any onlookers must surely be tilting
their heads in astonishment at this bizarre and self-destructive behavior!

The disaffected cultorés who have defected are not disloyal, they are acting
entirely rationally - just as the ancient Plebs were in protecting their own
interests. I realize that I myself am entertaining an entirely irrational
belief that the Senate and People of Nova Roma can be enticed to summon
sufficient practical Romanitas to survive - Virtue is Power! As an
organization Nova Roma has managed to alienate classicists and academics,
military reenactors, Roman polytheists etc. Who is left to waste their time
and effort on an organization with that kind of track record? My
coreligionists think I am crazy to involve myself with Nova Roma at this
time, and sadly they have a good point. If it wasn't for an oath made to the
gods themselves I might easily be persuaded to not invest my efforts at all
- just sit back and morbidly watch the carnage ensue, as a number of
cultorés seem to have already so resigned themselves.

Let us not entertain wishful thinking, but make practical efforts to heal
the injuries and forge a viable new future. That requires the willingness to
change - one of the things the Romans of old were willing to do when
required, and one of the factors contributing to their success in the
ancient world. Know your true enemy; it is yourselves.

. There is a maxim that says that if you build a better mouse trap, people will pay for it. Among the other things we should be doing, I think is making NR the most interesting, most truly Roman (on all levels) place to be. When we do this, those loyal but disaffected former citizens will return, and our numbers will begin to grow again, which will increase our tax base, which will .insert at will. Yes there are urgent matters that must be addressed, but the ancient Romans could multi task, and so, I think, can we.



Vale et valete bene!

C. Maria Caeca

Valéte bene,

Volusus.









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

C. Petronius Ti. Trioni sal.,

> thanks for clearing that up

You have this about the SCU in the Constitution of Nova Roma:

"E. The Senate shall have the power to issue the Senatus consultum ultimum (the ultimate decree of the Senate). When in effect, this decree will supersede all other governmental bodies and authorities (with the exception of the dictator) and allow the Senate to invest the consuls with absolute powers to deal with a specific situation, subject only to their collegial veto and review by the Senate. Even under the authority of the Senatus consultum ultimum, the consuls may only temporarily suspend this Constitution; they may not enact any permanent changes hereto."

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. III Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

P Porcius Licinus Q Caecilio Metello s.d.

This concerns me, as I am one of those serving my tirocinia, as it were. (Mine
expires on July 18, 2011.)

When I first applied for citizenship, P Memmius Albucius censor informed me that
I could claim the rights of a full citizen after my probationary period had
expired and I had paid my annual tax. Not wishing to delay the acquisition of
those rights, I used the tool on the Albvm Civivm to pay my taxes. That would
be back in April, long before I was aware that there was any problem with this
tool.

My Albvm Civivm entry now reads:

Citizenship: Provisional Approval since 2011-04-18
You are *not* a Citizen of Nova Roma. Contact the
Censores to correct this.
Census: Registered.
Full Membership: Assiduus: expires 2011-12-31

My question is thus: Have I paid my taxes for this year, or has the Albvm
Civivm deceived me? Moreso, is there any action I need take in the next day to
ensure that I may exercise all the rights of a full citizen come July 18?

Optime vale!

P Porcius Licinus

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Q Caecilius Metellus <q.caecilius.metellus@...> wrote:
>
> Q Caecilius Metellus legatus pro praetore Consulibus Quiritibusque s.d.
>
> I'm just going to put this out there, and let it fall on whatever ears
> it may.
>
> As I currently understand it (I have not, to date, looked for any
> changes to this in the past handful of years), once the tax deadline is
> set, that's the end of it. I mention this in specific connection to new
> citizens, who may become citizens (i.e., complete their respective
> tirocinia) after the tax due date.
>
> If there is not already provision, might the Senate consider making
> provision to allow that these new citizens be given an extension based
> on the date they receive the iura publica, wherein they would only pay
> the base tax? (Say, for example, the sooner of three months from
> acquisition of the iura publica or 31 December.) It seems a bit unjust
> to require the late fee on someone who has only just become a citizen.
>
> Ut ualeatis bene, curate optime.
>

Cato Valerio Volso sal.

Valerius Volsus, I have explained - repeatedly and as clearly as I can - why the edict was issued.

If you do not understand what I have written, that is certainly acceptable and I will repeat it again; do not, however, claim that I "refuse" to do or say anything. It is not true, and to continue to claim it is is starting to border on insulting, which I know is not your intent.

Vale bene,

Cato

Ave,

There are so many things wrong with this statement that it would take a post
the equivalent of a novel to refute just how wrong it is. And, this from
someone who was freaking dead at the trial of Cincinnatus.

You complained about me using the pearl harbor analogy - which perfectly
illustrated the difference between Piscinus and Agrciola! Yet you have no
problem comparing Cincinnatus and Agricola. Wow....just stunned wow.

Vale,

Sulla

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:19 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius C. Mariae Caecae salutem,
>
>
> >>> In our court system, though, if a defendant refuses to appear, in other
> words to answer charges filed against him/her, they that person is found
> guilty by failure to appear.<<<
>
> I think that it was the case of the augur Cincinnatus, but in Nova Roma
> this court system did not have force, because our SCU's consul proponed
> another SCU, he governs by SCU, in the last Senate session, in which this
> "failure to appear" was not a problem and Cincinnatus declared no guilty, by
> the magical potion named SCU.
>
> So this "failure to appear" looks like right for Agricola and was judged
> wrong for Cincinnatus... yes it is, as I said, a cow boy justice.
>
> But I do not know why the tribunes did not yet published this other SCU and
> its magical effect.
>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. III Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.
>
>
>


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

Salvéte omnés in forö,

On 11 June 2011 22:34, Peter Michienzi <forculus217@...> wrote:

> Salve Volusus,
>
> Remember that Einstein cautioned Godel to relent upon his observations in
> front
> of the immigration judge, for otherwise he'd be returned to Germany to face
> the
> Nazis-face American exile; so even though Godel knew the truth, he kept it
> to
> himself. I think the relevance here is that you go along with Sulla/Cato
> dominance of NR or be cast out, so be careful when confronting them... It
> won't
> be long before you're the subject of endless inflammatory Sulla letters and
>
> you're head will be on the chopping block.
>
I really can't let this stand unaddressed, because it is unjust. This is
very unfair to both Cato and Sulla. I am well aware of the "reputation" that
Senator Sulla has in a number of circles. I prefer to take people as I find
them, and do not respond to anyone according to the opinions or reputation
that may be ascribed by others, even by my well-meaning friends. I disagree
on some issues with Sulla and we have had several exchanges already. In all
those exchanges Sulla has conducted himself honorably and with civility. The
same has also been the case with Consul Cato.

The good Senator, for whatever faults he may have, and we ALL have our
faults, is true to his word. He consistently states that when he is treated
well he will treat you well in return. So far he has conducted himself
consistently with this principle. The old cliché that you "get what you
give" is quite true. Neither Cato or Sulla have any reason to consider me an
"enemy", because I do not approach either from the spirit of enmity. These
gentlemen are both long term citizens of NR with many years of public
service - l very much respect that. I reserve the right to disagree with
them as a private citizen and I will do so as fairly and with as much
civility as I can, as I believe they have the same right towards me or any
other cívis.

I have not yet been subjected to "endless inflammatory Sulla letters" and I
do not expect them, because I will agree or disagree with the gentleman in a
cordial manner and I fully expect him to converse with me in exactly the way
he has to this point. I have no reason to believe otherwise. We must be fair
to ALL citizens, whether we agree with them or not and whether like them or
not. I will continue to treat Senator Sulla with the respect due to him and
I fully expect him to acquit himself in like manner: you get what you give.
Of course, it goes both ways; if I am unfairly treated I am not the sort of
person to take injustice lying down.

Valéte bene,

Volusus.


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

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

First, I thank Valerius Volusus for his frankness and clarity.

It is absolutely true that I assume that anyone with whom I am speaking is doing so from a sincere desire either to address an issue that concerns them or to ask for clarification/discussion of something I have said.; I do *not* assume malicious intent simply because they disagree with me.

Some of those with whom I had the most vociferous arguments with in the past (see Gn. Iulius Caesar) have become my closest friends here; others, with whom I most strongly agreed, turned out to have quite a different vision in their heads (see M. Hortensia Maior).

I will say that if you look at the record of what has been done - even, as is quite true, through the use of any number of senatus consulta ultima over the past few months - you might be surprised at what you find.

I have repeatedly searched in the Senate for some way to restore permanently what I firmly believe is the single most important right of the citizens of the Respublica: the vote. We have used stop-gap methods to ensure the continuity of government, yes; but these have been stop-gap measures, and ones which I do not necessarily find useful to resort to repeatedly. That is why the internet voting program that Metellus has brought forward, and the purchase of which the Senate passed, are so important.

(I am still working out details with him and, as I said, will have more information later tomorrow.)

There have been two former citizens onto whom the actions sanctioned by the senatus consultum ultimam regarding dual officerships have fallen, no more. No proscription lists, no hidden agendae, no secret cabals plotting to undermine the foundations of the Respublica. The State cult is honored daily in the calendar; the College of Pontiffs meets; interesting and exciting things are happening in the background, fueled by hard-working magistrates and priests like Sabinus, Aeternia, Iulia, and their cohors. The census is being taken by the censors.

I have acted openly and publicly in every instance. When I have acted impetuously, even my friends slapped me back into reality. I am sure I will act impetuously in the future, and I am just as sure that I will get slapped. That is part of being a human being.

So, let's let the hyperbole and useless antagonisms go. We still have a long haul in front of us.

Valete bene,

Cato

C. Petronius P. Licino s.p.d.,

> This concerns me, as I am one of those serving my tirocinia, as it were. (Mine expires on July 18, 2011.)

As every citizen, you have to complete a 90 days probatory period before being full citizen.

During those 90 days, you are a citizen of Nova Roma but without the right to vote nor to be candidate.

You do not have yet your entry on the Album Civium.
http://www.novaroma.org/civitas/album

After your probatory period, your citizenship will become "Active" and your name, on a sort of profile, will appear on the Album Civium with your NR names.

After those 90 days you will have the choice to be:
1- capite census. If you do not want to pay your tax. You will have the right to vote, but you will be listed into a urban tribe and a century of the last class with all the other capite censi.

2- Assiduus. If you pay your yearly tax. In this case you are civis pleno iure and you may vote, listed on a rural tribe and on a century of higher class. This enrolling is made by a random program. And as assiduus not only you may vote but you may be candidate, if you have the other requirements allowed by the laws.

You have to pay your tax after your 90 days of probatory period.

The yearly deadline is for the update of the tax, that not concerns the new citizens whose the 90 days probatory period has its term after this deadline.

To be shorter, if a capite census, a "nontaxpayer", of a previous year want to pay his yearly tax, he has to respect the current yearly deadline, if an assiduus "taxpayer" of the previous year wants to pay his yearly tax, in order to update his "assiduitas" he has to respect the current yearly deadline.

But a new citizen has to pay his tax after the 90 days of probatory period and before the date written in the announce of the yearly elections, if he wants to be a candidate.

Obviously for the new citizens whose the end of the probatory period 90 days is before the deadline, (it is not your case) they may wait for the deadline, because if they do not they will pay twice. Once with the old amount, the tax of the previous year, and a second time with the current amount, the tax of the current year.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

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

>>> There are so many things wrong with this statement that it would take a post the equivalent of a novel to refute just how wrong it is.<<<

Lol. The truth did never exist, everybody has his truth.

> And, this from someone who was freaking dead at the trial of Cincinnatus.<

I was only speaking about the "failure to appear" pointed out by Maria Caeca and I noticed that in the case of Cincinnatus the senate on its last session had voted an SCU to repeal that failure. So, I just noticed that the "failure to appear" did not has any importance in the NR justice.

The conclusion is: L. Agricola was not condemned by "failure to appear".

The comparison between Cincinnatus and Agricola cases stopped there.

> You complained about me using the pearl harbor analogy - which perfectly illustrated the difference between Piscinus and Agrciola!

Comparison is not reason. I did not make a comparison between Cincinnatus and Agricola, I only noticed that since the senate did not knew by SCU the "failure to appear" in the case of Cincinnatus, then Agricola could not be condemned by "failure to appear".

That is all.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
pridie Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

Ave!

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:18 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

>
>
> C. Petronius Lu. Sullae s.p.d.,
>
>
> >>> There are so many things wrong with this statement that it would take a
> post the equivalent of a novel to refute just how wrong it is.<<<
>
> Lol. The truth did never exist, everybody has his truth.
>

No, I disagree. Everyone has an opinion...but there is only one truth.


>
>
> > And, this from someone who was freaking dead at the trial of
> Cincinnatus.<
>
> I was only speaking about the "failure to appear" pointed out by Maria
> Caeca and I noticed that in the case of Cincinnatus the senate on its last
> session had voted an SCU to repeal that failure. So, I just noticed that the
> "failure to appear" did not has any importance in the NR justice.
>
> The conclusion is: L. Agricola was not condemned by "failure to appear".
>
> The comparison between Cincinnatus and Agricola cases stopped there.
>

And, I can live with that. He had ample time, over 2 months to answer
Consul Cato's inquiries. If I was Consul and it was my decision I would
have removed Piscinus and Agricola at the very same time - lancing the boil
draining the puss and then move on to other things. Cato was very patient
and did everything he could to get Agricola to stay. Agricola made his
decision. His silence WAS his answer.


>
>
> > You complained about me using the pearl harbor analogy - which perfectly
> illustrated the difference between Piscinus and Agrciola!
>
> Comparison is not reason. I did not make a comparison between Cincinnatus
> and Agricola, I only noticed that since the senate did not knew by SCU the
> "failure to appear" in the case of Cincinnatus, then Agricola could not be
> condemned by "failure to appear".
>
> That is all.
>

That does not cease the squeaky wheel of justice. Because as I said, if all
it takes is the defendant to simply not cooperate in his own defense there
would be no trials at all, no dispensation of justice, only vigilantism
based on possible evidence, rumor and conjecture by victim-ed parties. I
know that is not something you would want, given your previous posts about
cowboy justice.

Vale,

Sulla


>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> pridie Idus Iunias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.
>
>
>


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

Salve amice

A couple of extra points to add to the ones you made.

No one is condemned under the SCU, since that smacks of a trial process. Sanctioned, mentioned, deleted, removed maybe .. but not condemned.

The focus on his silence or appearance or non-appearance is irrelevant. The very moment he became accensus in RPR was the moment the points to prove of the SCU were complete. Whether he was silent, as he was, or gabbed incessantly is irrelevant. The two parts to the SCU relate to dual office holding and hostility towards NR by non-office holding citizens. The first is an absolute prohibition that doesn't require explanations or proof beyond the office holding.

Vale bene
Caesar




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