C. Petronius Dexter Vedio Flavio Germanico Patri Patriae salutem plurimam dicit,

> Very well.

CPD: My call was not without effect, you publicly answer to me! Ii is a very great honor, Pater Patriae!

> I first studied the proposal when Gn. Iulius Caesar sent it to me in June of 2009 (I will freely admit I'm working off a version of the plan that is thus 18 months old and may well have changed in the meantime).

CPD: Can you, please, share with all of us what initially were your plan? The heads of the plan may be enough.

> As I told him at the time during lengthy and pleasant telephone
> discussions, I find it needlessly complex (126 pages!) and paradoxically lacking in many areas.

CPD: I agree with you, Cn. Caesar's plan is mostly something which tempt to resolve some administrative concerns, like the links with the macronational world and rules. It is important but, I am not sure that this scope needed to have a double nature of Nova Roma, a sort of dichotomy.

> It seems to want to fix problems that aren't actually problems, while leaving some of the most basic problems of Nova Roma's organization and structure unaddressed. I find many of its particulars would move Nova Roma much more in the direction of a

simulation. I said as much to Gn. Iulius Caesar then, and haven't heard any compelling arguments countering my objections since.

CPD : The word "simulation" is certainly what I felt as the "role playing game" in this plan. I agree with you, in this plan a part of Nova Roma seems both a sort of guarantee and a playground, another the true BoD.

> That is not, however, the same thing as saying it would invalidate the original vision of a fully-functioning Roman nation, as originally envisioned by myself and Marcus Cassius Julianus.

CPD: My apologies. You are right. But I am so emphatic and grandiloquent sometimes. :o) It was rhetorical. We are in election campaign and my blood is hot. Nevertheless this plan may help to make Nova Roma something completely different to your vision, if we do not care.

> Having two corporate entities established under macronational law rather than one doesn't seem to me to compromise that vision, even if it doesn't particularly aid it.

CPD: Yes, we have to be very cautious that the administrative part does not kill the other, the part of the dream.

> Nor does exacerbating the problems caused by the introduction of "century points" (oh! how I wish I could take that back!) back in Nova Roma's beginning doesn't invalidate the vision of what it could be any more than it did back in 1998. There are a variety of specifics with which I disagree.

CPD: I guess that you make some corrections when you were dictator.

> The plan neither invalidates the original vision of Nova Roma nor

particularly helps to realizes it. It merely presents an alternate path. One I happen to think for a variety of reasons will take longer to achieve the dream, but certainly not one that will destroy that dream as the actions of certain individuals last year would have.

CPD: I agree that the plan of Caesar is not such destroying than was the plan of Moravius. But I think that the plan of Caesar is an adaptation to the macronational word. Your vision was Nova Roma be a micronation not an appendix of a macronational company.

> I hope that clarifies my thoughts on the matter.
> (Happy holidays and Io Saturnalia to all!)

CPD: Thank you, pater patriae, thank you for your words.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XII Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

Cn Iulius Caesar Flavio Vedio Germanico sal.

Yes, I recall the conversations. Three I believe, at most. I emailed you asking when would be a good time to call again for the third/fourth call, and you never replied. However since you have appeared I would be glad to deal with your points.

FVG: I will freely admit I'm working off a version of the plan that is thus 18 months old and may well have changed in the meantime
CnIC: No. same plan because we have the same problems, and nothing changed in the meantime except the events of 2009/2010 now being referred to as the second Nova Roman civil war. You missed that.

FVG: I find it needlessly complex (126 pages!)
CnIC: Really? I would have thought that you of all people having co-founded Nova Roma would have been willing to read suggestions even of 1026 pages if it proposed a solution. Sadly reducing it to something someone could digest over their coffee break didn't seem to do justice to the scope of the problems or the solutions.

FVG: paradoxically lacking in many areas
CnIC: Really? How strange you never mentioned any of these areas in our pleasant conversations. I was most attentive and only recall your one comment being that you didn't see the need to incorporate the res publica. I explained that from my perspective the non-profit would have no real means to contract with a disparate group of senators without an incorporated entity. 

FVG: It seems to want to fix problems that aren't actually problems, while leaving some of the most basic problems of Nova Roma's organization and structure unaddressed. 
CnIC: Maybe not to you, but you have hardly been at the forefront of Nova Roman affairs for many years, excepting a few brief appearances since 2004. Before that I think you were only peripherally involved for many years. Your perceptions are dated. They are problems as you can see by dipping into this Forum's archives over the last few years.

FVG: I find many of its particulars would move Nova Roma much more in the direction of a simulation. I said as much to Gn. Iulius Caesar then, and haven't heard any compelling arguments countering my objections since.
CnIC: As to not hearing anything, well since you haven't been on any lists until - yesterday - where you might have engaged me in such a debate, or indicated you would be gracious enough to receive a call (naturally I assumed you had lost interest again after you failed to email back and you had my number since you called me) - well hearing compelling arguments would be a tad difficult under those circumstances. Add to too many pages for you to read (comfortably) a failing in my part in mastering the art of telepathy.

FVG: That is not, however, the same thing as saying it would invalidate the original vision of a fully-functioning Roman nation, as originally envisioned by myself and Marcus Cassius Julianus.
CnIC: Yes a vision is wonderful thing. Many over the years , and the few that are left, have been clutching that to their breasts for years, setting it up on totems as some form of fetish to worship, but sadly you neglected to actually provide an accurate road map of how to get there and the vehicle you designed has had its engine fall out numerous times and its wheels fly off down the road. Ah, but maybe you missed that too? Currently it takes four feet forward a year and rolls back six. The vision appears to be getting further away Vedi, much further. 

FVG: Having two corporate entities established under macronational law rather than one doesn't seem to me to compromise that vision, even if it doesn't particularly aid it.
CnIC: If it enables us to progress from beyond the mud pool we have been in for years, even during those few times since your dictatorship when you were active (so I am assuming it had stalled then? I recall posts from you on those few occasions noting we had stalled), then of course it aids your vision. Unless you specifically designed the vehicle of Nova Roma to run in reverse? That is where we are heading - downhill. The momentum is growing. If you stick around long enough maybe you will be here for the wreck. Then you can conduct the funeral oration on your creation.

FVG:  Nor does exacerbating the problems caused by the introduction of "century points" (oh! how I wish I could take that back!) back in Nova Roma's beginning doesn't invalidate the vision of what it could be any more than it did back in 1998.
CnIC: Century points didn't cause a problem Vedi. A lack of incentive to do anything to earn them on some people's part did which directly links to how we spend our time. simulation? That is what Nova Roma is - a simulation of what could have been, but won't be unless we resolve the problems that I address. 

FVG: There are a variety of specifics with which I disagree.
CnIC: Curious you never mentioned them in our pleasant calls. 

FVG: The plan neither invalidates the original vision of Nova Roma nor particularly helps to realizes it. It merely presents an alternate path. One I happen to think for a variety of reasons will take longer to achieve the dream, but certainly not one that will destroy that dream as the actions of certain individuals last year would have.
CnIC: I have covered that issue of not helping it. The vehicle you designed to get us to the vision, minus a map or any directions and bereft of your guidance during your many and prolonged absences, is about to be towed to the breakers. It has run its course, years ago. We are not getting anywhere and least of all in this structure. As for taking longer to get to the vision, that is absurd. That would require you having a plan and a timetable with a realistic chance of it being accurate. You have neither that can tell us when we will get there, so you are just guessing, or have you had a vision about your vision? Sadly crystal ball gazing won't help us. 

I enjoyed the calls, but suspected you wouldn't stick it out and help us. I'll be as blunt as I am with everyone when required, founder or not. Yes you founded Nova Roma. We have cause to be thankful for that. However you have left us more times formally than many and vanished more than most that bail on us. If you want to be a credible force in Nova Roma, stick around long enough to candidate. Whoever wins this dog and pony show for Consul will have to call an election for the empty Curule Aediles spots if there are willing candidates after this election. How about you offer yourself up for service as Curule Aedile, hold some stunning games, be here for a whole year and then reflect on what the problems are. 

Descending from your Olympian nest infrequently to declaim on a plan that addresses issues you have bothered to be here to endure is hardly much help old chap. How many times are you going to do this Vedi? 

Oh, yes I am really sorry I taxed your attention span with 126 pages.

Optime vale.



________________________________
From: Vedius <vedius@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: My Endorsements for this election


 
Salve,

On 12/20/2011 1:23 PM, petronius_dexter wrote:
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae s.p.d.,
>
> >>> NEVER have a chance to achieve the vision established by Marcus
> Cassius and Flavius Vedius.<<<
>
> I would prefer to hear themselves.
>

Very well.

I first studied the proposal when Gn. Iulius Caesar sent it to me in
June of 2009 (I will freely admit I'm working off a version of the plan
that is thus 18 months old and may well have changed in the meantime).
As I told him at the time during lengthy and pleasant telephone
discussions, I find it needlessly complex (126 pages!) and paradoxically
lacking in many areas. It seems to want to fix problems that aren't
actually problems, while leaving some of the most basic problems of Nova
Roma's organization and structure unaddressed. I find many of its
particulars would move Nova Roma much more in the direction of a
simulation. I said as much to Gn. Iulius Caesar then, and haven't heard
any compelling arguments countering my objections since.

That is not, however, the same thing as saying it would invalidate the
original vision of a fully-functioning Roman nation, as originally
envisioned by myself and Marcus Cassius Julianus.

Having two corporate entities established under macronational law rather
than one doesn't seem to me to compromise that vision, even if it
doesn't particularly aid it. Nor does exacerbating the problems caused
by the introduction of "century points" (oh! how I wish I could take
that back!) back in Nova Roma's beginning doesn't invalidate the vision
of what it could be any more than it did back in 1998. There are a
variety of specifics with which I disagree.

The plan neither invalidates the original vision of Nova Roma nor
particularly helps to realizes it. It merely presents an alternate path.
One I happen to think for a variety of reasons will take longer to
achieve the dream, but certainly not one that will destroy that dream as
the actions of certain individuals last year would have.

I hope that clarifies my thoughts on the matter.

(Happy holidays and Io Saturnalia to all!)

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus
Pater Patriae
Augur




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

C. Petronius Corneliae Aeterniae salutem,

> Allow to me to correct you Dexter and I do hope you do not take my tone as rude for it is truly not my intention.

CPD: In election campaing rudeness is a Roman way. Do not be afraid to be rude, grandiloquent and full of the "furor orandi". You must show to the citizens who you are. You just be avoid calumnia and injury... But, Aeternia, do you know why? Because the lex Salicia poenalis protect you against calumnia and injury.

> I have spent many nights studying the Tabularium,

CPD: I hope that you had good candles with you.

> it is because of so many

of these sleepless nights that I was able to analyze what Lexes Sulla was referring to.

CPD: So, due to your short answer in order to repeal those laws and give this job to the consuls, I think that your spent nights in the Tabularium for sleeping.

>>> Out of the six Leges of the Lex Saliciae, it is the Lex Salicia Poenalis and the Lex Iudicaria, that carry the potential in some cases can bring more harm than good.<<<

CPD: The principle of the laws is not to be good nor bad, it is to be fair.

> My response was basically, I simply put two and two together, believe what you will Dexter, you have the right to express your opinion.

CPD: I did it, in two messages. I hope that you will read them. Repealing those leges, is to quit a civilized frame to the jungle and the "law of the strongest".

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XII Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

D.A. Aquilio Quirites SPD

Avete Omnes,


Thank you, Sulla, you who approved my application to Nova Roma nigh ten years ago, for posting Gnaeus Iulius Caesar's substantial and well thought-out plan for our Respublica.  Though I have only kept a faint eye on Nova Roma during the last few years, one thing that has been obvious without even knowing the details is the amount of trouble that has been brewing of late, and I feel poorly for standing by and not taking a keener interest or even raising my voice in any way.  I have this evening read the preamble and large sections of the aforementioned document and find it stirring and thought-provoking.  First, however, let me give some 'relative outsider' perspective.  I am pleased to see photos and videos of Nova Romans on the website as well as Youtube, doing what Nova Roma is all about.  I was pleased to see the electric shouts of Io Saturnalia and other holiday well wishes to all on the list, and I shared my Saturnalia experience as well (which
went well!).  I often wish there were more Nova Romans and others of Classical inclination where I am (to tell the truth, I have not made more than a cursory search yet), but I do well alone and in soaking my friends with the experiences.  These things make me happy, but at this time of the year, sadly (and importantly) the list is filled more with the concerns for the Respublica than with shouts of joy and celebration.  Certainly we can all agree that Nova Roma is a good thing and want to see it stronger and more stable.  There is so much more I imagine Nova Roma could do, generally speaking, and it's up to us all (especially on account of our small size) to do something about it - and perhaps especially for ones such as myself, that could be more involved and for various reasons are/were not.  On account of my very absence, perhaps I should not parachute in to what I have not been following closely enough, yet I give the perspective of a rather
unremarkable citizen of Nova Roma who nonetheless wishes our organization well and has always wished to be able to do more.  That said, I think Gnaeus Iulius Caesar's plan, or one much like it, could be made to work and should be considered.  Within said plan, it is pointed out that because the liability of our officials is so low and the stakes are so low, people are free to argue with such vitriol and fill their office in a perhaps uninspiring way with impunity.  In a crisis such as this, what better time to have low stakes!  Why not give a plan such as this a fair chance and see what happens?  We are still Romans, we are still as interested as we were 10 years ago, no? Across the world, we've found each other because of shared beliefs and interests in what was the Roman world and greater Greco-Roman phenomenon.  Should a plan fail, will we all quit and go home?  Disband Nova Roma entirely?  To pray alone, build, read and cook the old foods
alone?  With whom shall we share and build our dream with then?  Shall we all, then, like I, be limited to mobbing our friends' brains with things that they at most think are interesting, but not in the same way as I/we (as good, fun and potentially useful as that also is anyway)?  Then let us try something and see what happens - if it fails, we will come together again and do something else.  For we need each other, even if we don't agree on where Nova Roma will go, we believe in the seed of Nova Roma.  There are places in the world I would wish to see (most of them Roman sites), but I am not a great traveler - at least in setting out at first - but I have learned this, travel is easier once you've walked out the door and are on the road.  We would all agree we need to be on a road (a straight Roman road, to borrow Gn. Iulius Caesar's turn of phrase, would be better).  Let us work something out - let plans be submitted, let them go to a citizen
vote, let the Senate decide from among the most popular 3, however we choose, I say we jump in with something considered (but decided) and see what we can do!  

With hope, fondness and respect to the Senate and People of Rome, valete!


   


________________________________
From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:14:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future

Ave!

Fabius asked for the link this evening.  Here it is:

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

The paper is called Nova Roma Reborn uploaded by Equitius Marinus.

Vale,

Sulla

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Vedius <vedius@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Salve,
>
>
> On 12/20/2011 10:54 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar wrote:
> >
> > I think the people should be given the option to review it after, and
> > "if" naturally, the Senate supports it. Then they, the people, can
> > decide whether to accept a firm plan to end these issues. If they
> > don't, then they don't. I will have done my part by offering a firm
> > proposal. What I won't accept though, if elected, are attempts to
> > prevent the people from being given a chance to end
> > this nonsensical situation we have been in for years.
> >
>
> Just in the interests of furthering the discussion, may I ask that you
> repost the location of the latest iteration of your plan, so that
> everyone reading this can engage in an informed discussion of its
> components both general and specific?
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> Pater Patriae
> Augur
>
> 
>


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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia C. Petronio Dextero S.P.D.



If you really feel that way, then I assume that you feel that the warm glow
of our civilization was perfectly acceptable and reasonable to Lucius
Equitius Cincinnatus Augur?



Vale bene,
Statia Cornelia Aeternia


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

C. Petronius Dexter omnibus Quiritibus,

Here my endorsements for praetorship:

First I thanks very much all who endorse my candidacy, and I just want say to the others that they have to think at something very important.

The next year will be important for the future of Nova Roma. Certainly the Ludi Apollinares are important in order to please the god himself and the people. But, Ludi Apollinares are 9 days. The incoming leap year will have 366 days!

The praetura is an important position. As I said in my statement :
So, my fellow citizens, I beg your suffrages on my name because I think that this year will be very constructive as I read on the statements of the candidates for the consulship, so I will help in the frame of the praetor's duties each progress I will agree, for the best of Nova Roma.

In the plan of Caesar I will support what I will agree. And as you read it, I endorse the candidacies for consulship of Cn. Caesar and L. Sulla. I am not an opponent who will make obstructions in order to prevent any occasion to give a future to Nova Roma.

More, my fellow citizens, I will make the oath before you that if elected praetor, I will publish all the questions and arguments on which we will discuss in the Senate about Nova Roma's future, helping the Tribunes in their tasks and duties, because at least the voters of the changes of Nova Roma will be YOU.

You know that the elections are often made in the rush, but this time the question will be the future of Nova Roma. So you will have to know the whole question and make your own opinion.

So, as I was balanced in my endorsement for the praetorship, not able to decide me on who between Aeternia and Crassus I will need as colleague for the best of Nova Roma. I have now more reasons, after a lot of exchanges, public discussions and debates to beg you to vote for me and for C. Aemilius Crassus.

Aeternia certainly is a good person, but I think that the incoming year will be very important. You will need praetors who know the laws and protect you against abuses or able to act in case of trial or justice.

Both Crassus and I, in different way, in different times, managed the elections. Both we were tribunes of the Plebs and both we are the sense of the duty.

As You know my love for the Latin language, I will write in Latin the "tituli" for the "Praeturae petentes" that I sustain.

Imagine those written in red letters on the white house walls of Pompei.

C.AEMILIVM CRASSVM PRAETOREM
D.R.P.OVF.
C.PETRONIUS DEXTER P.M. ROGAT


C.PETRONIVM DEXTRVM PRAETOREM
D.R.P. OVF.

---
D.R.P. = D(ignum) R(ei) P(ublicae)
Deserving of the Republic
OVF. = O(ro)V(os) F(aciatis).
I plead that you vote for.
Rogat = he begs.
---

Optime valete.

--
C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a.d. XII Kal. Ian. P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

A. Liburnio Hadriano Cn. Iulio Caesari sal.
 
 
ALH: First of all, there is no need to incorporate a second Nova Roma, in order to protect our not for profit status. A "sine lucro"corporation  can and usually does own the assets necessary to conduce its operations. There is no real reason to give up control of our server, software and database and our operating funds to maintain our current status. 
CnIC: This proposed plan isn't about protecting our non-profit status. It is about creating a model where two opposite models of governance, non-profit and res publica can co-exist without the intrusion of one into the other. 
ALH This reply is either the result of my lack of clarity or of your intention to obfuscate. So let me be clearer: how can you honestly define non-intrusive the sequent statements:   
 page 17: ...The ultimate penalty would be the termination of the contract and cutting the Senate and magistrates off from access to the software tools necessary to administer the Respublica. The censorial database and tools, all software, lists, Wiki and CP (Century Points - my note) would remain the property of Nova Roma Inc...
page 21 ...Resistance to Nova Roma Inc. would in all likelihood indeed be futile...
ALH: Second we already have a BoD and it is called the Senate. So let's simply dispose of the red herring  that we need a second one.
CnIC: It maybe a red herring to you but for me it is necessary if we develop two entities, which obviously you don't want.
ALH: you are incorrect. What I want is a solution where the members will still  have a voice after any change is made. You deleted, maybe unintentionally,  and left  without anwer my counter proposal  regarding a BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote"  principle. A principle which I think is a legal requirement, not only in Maine, but just about everywhere in the western world.  
ALH: Yes, not quite the Roman Way, but that will not happen until the founders' vision of an independent and sovereign nation is realized. 
CnIC: Correct, your suggestion would not be the Roman way within the confines of one entity.
AHL:You are incorrect. Having an external uncontrolled and  uncontrollable  referee would definitively be anti-Roman particularly in view of the unequal balance of power . Go back and re-read the quotation extracted from your plan and cited earlier. Propose away to mitigate such abuse of power from happening or eliminate its possibility of happening.

ALH: There are probably other viable alternatives, requiring far less changes and with less layers of complexity, while protecting the independence and survival of Nova Roma and avoiding "virtual riots" and associated "virtual destruction " of property, more appropriate to RPG. 
CnIC: As to other options, I am afraid I don't see any. The two governance models are not compatible under one roof.
ALH:  do not see or do not want  to see?
CnIC: We could wait another ten years for more evidence but given the exponential slide downwards in members we may not have that long, in fact I think most people suspect we won't - given the tenor of the comments about needing to act and expectations of the end being near. The evidence to me is clear - the current system of non-profit and res publica under one roof has failed.  As to virtual riots, well we have had explosions in the forum, at one time or another and magistrates that simply ignore any public opinion. People are then left with two choices on matters of principle and importance to them - wait them out for a better set of magistrates or quit. The former is a matter of perspective as to what is better, and the latter is often the preferable way for many. In most cases they don't quit with any fanfare but simply abandon Nova Roma never to return. Any opinion polling that can be linked to negating those actions is a good thing. So to me,
better a "virtual riot" than losing more citizens. As for "virtual destruction " of property, namely CP eradicated from magistrates that don't listen to the complaints of the people and a Senate that fails to act, I can't think of a better way to focus the attention of those that would otherwise think themselves immune from public opinion than losing the means to continue to sit in the Senate and ignore everything. In fact the only people it seems to me that would oppose such a scheme are those that stand to profit by the alternative - ignoring the people. 
ALH: you are wrong again, Magistrates ignore the opinion of people that do not agree with their view. They satisfy their own factional followers. Inflexible factions are the real cancer gnawing at the heart of Nova Roma. That is what force people to eventually leave. with more or less fanfare, depending on their personal style. The same can be said of the Senate which vascillated from one side to the other during the  coup and countercoup of the last period of unrest. Neither side bothered to ask the people's opinion, so the people left a  clear message "A pox on both houses" and voted with their feet.  BTW putting the "squeeze" on the Senate is not the way to get their attention.  A Senate/BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote" principle would punish the senators who ignore the people and reward those who do. I can expand on that if you are interested.
ALH: I am open to explore these other alternatives, but I am not receptive to the possibility of Nova Roma being let stranded up the foul smelling creek without a locomotion toll by an unfriendly external, uncontrolled and uncontrollable entity.
CnIC: While I note your unwillingness to consider my plan, I think the people should be given the option to review it after, and "if" naturally, the Senate supports it. Then they, the people, can decide whether to accept a firm plan to end these issues. If they don't, then they don't. I will have done my part by offering a firm proposal. What I won't accept though, if elected, are attempts to prevent the people from being given a chance to end this nonsensical situation we have been in for years. 
ALH: You are incorrect, again. I have considered your plan, once several months back when you pointed out to me, and once in again in the last few months. I have found some parts acceptable, some boring (mostly the part about financial manipulation, aka CP), some exciting and some troublesome.  I raised some objections, to the underlying philosophy  to which you replied showing unwillingness to consider any changes. I agree that the people should decide finally whether to accept or reject your plan. My objections might  actually make it more understandable and maybe even  more acceptable.  You may want to consider a compromising median road to prevent stronger criticism later. Do not forget that the last time there was a vote about removing the sentence "an independent and sovereign nation" from the constitution, the proposal went down to defeat in the comitia. 
Optime vale.
 


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

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

LCS: Dexter, amice, this has nothing to do with language, but everything to do with NR's viability. You and I, along with Sabinus, Caesar, Paulinus, Palladius, Valerianus, Metellus, Audens and espeically Albucius stood arm and arm together to fight in the last Civil War. THE SECOND MAJOR CIVIL WAR of Nova Roma.<<<

CPD: Yes, I remember the fight we did together. I remember that in the Senate, not senator but tribune, I was alone against what suddenly happenned, after the message of the senator Perusianus calling a dictator and Marinus for the position. For a short moment, the Senate seemed united to make Marinus dictator, but first the Senate session convened by the way that you know was decreed illegal by the consul Albucius and, as alone as I was, I fought against the other 4 Tribunes, and developped my reasons, and bit by bit some Senators as you and Cato reacted against the dictatorship and then Marinus, as the Senators' consensus was in question, beg the advice of a lawyer, and convinced by the macronational illegality of a dictatorship denied this "gift" of Moravius and Quintilianus. The Senate archives certainly are quiverring with those memories.
I remember too that in taking my decision, in acting against the side of Moravius, my side, fighting with you, Cato, Caesar and some others that usually I criticized on the main list, I lose all my friends. For the benefit of the idea I have of Nova Roma.
Certainly if I had done nothing, if I was with the other tribunes, all my friends, the Senate whould have voted the dictatorship and another Nova Roma should been in which I will be with my friends, and in other hand you, Cato expelled, and Caesar too. I did not want that. From all my heart, I refused that "final solution".
I have another idea of Nova Roma that something with owners with in one side the Good and in another side the Bad. I do not like a Nova Roma for buddies of one side.
In my idea of Nova Roma everybody who wants serve Nova Roma may serve her, he/she stands for a position, he/she exposes his/her views, he/she is elected or not. Defeated he/she learns of his/her unsuccess, not in searching a revenge by which he/she would delete all, but in searching how be more usefull to Nova Roma. Winner he/she serves the city, the citizens, he/she learns to be modest in his/her victory and have on heart to be usefull for the best of Nova Roma.

LCS: >>>We have stood together despite our differences because
we believed we held the best interest at heart for Nova Roma and ultimately because we were doing the absolute right thing.<<<

CPD: I believed and I already believe. I keep my opinions, when I agree with you, I support you, when I disagree with you, I fight you.

LCS:>>> Caesar took what he believed the lessons as to the cause of the recent civil discord and addressed them in his paper. You might not like parts of the paper, understood. Others might not like parts of the paper. Fine.<<<

CPD: I think that to survive Nova Roma needs less a plan than citizens of goodwilling. We have to make Nova Roma attractive, to accept her invaded by more students and scholars. More young people with fresh and blood, from everywhere, from Europe too. We must stop those eternal fightings. Except in the elections time as usual and allowed by the mos maiorum. For example, amice Sulla, we fought together, we also sometimes are conflicting in our opinions. You did not endorse my candidacy for praetor. I totally accept that. I do not feel you less honest and active for Nova Roma's future. I already think you as a friend. But I keep my free speech, I think what I want and I say what I think.

LCS: > This is why it will be amply discussed, compromised, argued and debated so that the knowledge of each of us can make a workable form that resolves NR's constant source of hostility!

CPD: Hostility is a human sentiment. The source of hostility are always the same, power, money, jealousy, political and religious discrepancies, and so much other reasons. No plan may prevent hostility. When this hostility becomes constant, that is the problem. The solution of this problem for Moravius was to expulse the "subjects" of "his" hostility, Cato and You. For you and Caesar the solution is to make Nova Roma as your own. I regret, amice, to accept nor one neither the other. But we will have the next year to debate and discuss about this 7 heads of the Hydra and the Nova Roma you want.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Praetor candidatus Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XII Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

Cn. Iulius Caesar A. LiburnioHadrianosal.  

ALH This reply is either the result of my lack of clarity or of your intention to obfuscate. So let me be clearer: how can you honestly define non-intrusive the sequent statements:    
 page 17: ...The ultimate penalty would be the termination of the contract and cutting the Senate and magistrates off from access to the software tools necessary to administer the Respublica. The censorial database and tools, all software, lists, Wiki and CP (Century Points - my note) would remain the property of Nova Roma Inc...
page 21 ...Resistance to Nova Roma Inc. would in all likelihood indeed be futile...  
CnIC: Maybe we both haven't been clear enough for the other to grasp the others points. I can honestly define them as non-intrusive as they are the extremes where a rogue Senate totally ignoring the people has also ignored the loss of CP, and thus the qualification of points necessary to continue legitimately as Senators. The final sanction of removing access to the webpage etc., an asset belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by funds raised from the people, and the cancellation of the contract between Nova Roma and such a rogue Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the will of the majority who had indicated their discontent through an opinion poll. I don't see that as intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur when the people themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly because (and it seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this is my lack of clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova Roma Inc.
would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica. Membership of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be comprised as we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be staffed by citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority will of citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That to me is hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens in the res publica.

ALH: you are incorrect. What I want is a solution where the members will still  have a voice after any change is made. You deleted, maybe unintentionally,  and left  without anwer my counter proposal  regarding a BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote"  principle. A principle which I think is a legal requirement, not only in Maine, but just about everywhere in the western world.
CnIC: I answered your proposal. It isn't Roman and has no place in the res publica. I also don't consider it viable because it still doesn't create the necessary arms length distance between the laws of Maine and the res publica. Maine non-profit laws will continue to apply to us under your suggestion, and continue to impose a higher level of authority over what it sees as by-laws and we see as leges and the Constitution while we only have one entity. We will be no further ahead at having an autonomy of laws and people can still cite Maine non-profit laws as an authority that could contradict a lex. That has happened before and will happen again. The vision of an independent state can hardly progress very far if we don't have an environment where our leges, an expression of the will of the people, constantly have to defer to whether they contradict Maine's non-profit law provisions. Once the res publica is a private entity, that supervision by Maine's
non-profit laws ceases in respect of the res publica, yet Maine's laws can act still to our benefit in the non-profit (Nova Roam Inc.) to ensure our assets and funds are managed appropriately.

AHL:You are incorrect. Having an external uncontrolled and  uncontrollable  referee would definitively be anti-Roman particularly in view of the unequal balance of power . Go back and re-read the quotation extracted from your plan and cited earlier. Propose away to mitigate such abuse of power from happening or eliminate its possibility of happening.

CnIC: No you are incorrect. All that the BoD would do is enforce the will of the people, and there is no unequal balance of power. Such a decision to act would have to be taken by the BoD of Nova Roma Inc. itself comprised of a wide spectrum of people drawn from all areas of Nova Roman life. The vote could require a certain percentage of support to act, 2/3rds, or it could be an automatic and mandated requirement when enough people had registered discontent and the situation had reached a crisis. In essence that has happened more than once already in Nova Roma. Over the years access to the webpage was cut off, to the Main List, to the censorial tools etc. Under my proposal such actions would be regulated and only occur if enough people in the res publica had voiced discontent AND the Senate and magistrates had failed to act. It isn't an abuse in my mind to only act in response to this.

ALH:  do not see or do not want  to see? 

CnIC: Do not see, since your suggestions don't resolve one core issue with the over reaching intrusion of Maine non-profit law into the res publica. Apart from that I see no others. Bring some to the debate, if I am elected. If I am not - still find some and start a debate. Until then all I see is mine. If a debate starts in the Senate you can petition the presiding magistrate to address the House and make a proposal. Convince the Senate and the people. I am not convinced - far from it, but maybe they will be. Maybe. Who knows until you try Hadriane? My experience has been that Nova Roma is an excellent vehicle for getting nothing done. Election times produce lots of people out of the woodwork who you never hear much from again after the polls close. So try to motivate the people to vote it down if you wish if it comes to a vote in comitia, but at least do them the favour (since we remain stuck going backwards) of having something else that is
comprehensive and not a few sketchy proposals to replace it. 

ALH: you are wrong again, Magistrates ignore the opinion of people that do not agree with their view. They satisfy their own factional followers. Inflexible factions are the real cancer gnawing at the heart of Nova Roma. That is what force people to eventually leave. with more or less fanfare, depending on their personal style. The same can be said of the Senate which vascillated from one side to the other during the  coup and countercoup of the last period of unrest. Neither side bothered to ask the people's opinion, so the people left a  clear message "A pox on both houses" and voted with their feet.  BTW putting the "squeeze" on the Senate is not the way to get their attention.  A Senate/BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote" principle would punish the senators who ignore the people and reward those who do. I can expand on that if you are interested.
CnIC: You see an inflexible faction? In days gone by, and quite recent days, you would have found yourself by now gagged on some spurious charge, moderated up to your nose. So there is no inflexible faction operating now. The Senate did not vacillate during the coup. A sizable proportion took action, so I don't exactly know where you are getting your information from, but I should know as I was one of those senators and present and active throughout. Oh, and as for asking people's opinions, that would have been a tad hard as the only magistrates that could have called the comitia to order were the Consuls, or the tribunes with the plebeians. The former were both vetoing each other and the latter were split. The reason we didn't end up with a dictatorship was eventually due to two factors, one a threat to sue the proposed Dictator in a macronational court if he accepted the office (as the contention was the Senate call that elected him was illegal
because a veto of a consul was disregarded) and the proposed Dictator as a result referring the matter to a non-profit lawyer for legal advice following that ultimatum being advised that a dictatorship was illegal under Maine non-profit law. He quit the field at that point and the attempt folded like a pack of cards. None of this was Roman and could have been avoided far earlier on under my model by letting the people have a voice. An opinion poll, free from the abilities of a consul to restrain it. Yes, I liken it to a riot in the forum saying "whoa stop right there - we have had enough of this". On the other hand it might have resulted in "Give us a dictator!". We will never know because under the current system we had to fall back on Maine laws, which was the only option available where res publica rules had been flouted and broken. As to your suggestion, as I said feel free to develop it. Don't ask Hadriane, just do it. 

ALH: You are incorrect, again. I have considered your plan, once several months back when you pointed out to me, and once in again in the last few months. I have found some parts acceptable, some boring (mostly the part about financial manipulation, aka CP), some exciting and some troublesome.  I raised some objections, to the underlying philosophy  to which you replied showing unwillingness to consider any changes. I agree that the people should decide finally whether to accept or reject your plan. My objections might  actually make it more understandable and maybe even  more acceptable.  You may want to consider a compromising median road to prevent stronger criticism later. Do not forget that the last time there was a vote about removing the sentence "an independent and sovereign nation" from the constitution, the proposal went down to defeat in the comitia. 
CnIC: I am greatly heartened that you found some parts acceptable, and I do understand you got bored. A far more "illustrious" person than either of us had trouble with 126 pages. So the fact that you got bored doesn't come as a surprise to me. Equally I am excited that you were excited, and troubled that you found some aspects troubling. As to your suggestions, well I am sure they would make it more understandable to at least you, and obviously more acceptable to you (naturally) as they would be your ideas. Whether others would find it so we won't know until you flesh it out more and moot it in any debate that might follow this election. As to a median, well let us start at the beginning shall we. If I don't get elected you can have a free run at your idea. If I do, then I would be happy to hear your suggestions anyway, along with every other Senator, and magistrate entitled to sit in the Senate, including your fellow Tribunes  when I introduce this
plan for debate. I don't forget the last time that issue you quote came up, but since as has been said (wasn't it you or was it Dexter?) that we can never truly have an independent and sovereign nation until the dream/vision of the founders is realized, then that is an apples and oranges point to make. Two different beasts. Oh yes, I suspect you will say that somehow this will impede the dream, but I think (as do many others it seems) the dream is going nowhere fast and hasn't been for years. We are no closer to an independent and sovereign nation than we were when that was penned. Thinking positive thoughts doesn't cut it. We don't have any land so that doesn't work. We have no recognition except from inside the res publica that we are that, and therefore that is (as I have said before) as effective as my saying "I am the King of Siam". It doesn't mean I am, will be or that anyone else capabale of making that a reality thinks it. Repeating
statements like that in the macronational world tend to ensure you get ignored or locked up as a lunatic. So waving that threat around that anything that might solve our dilemma might be condemned as Nova Roman "heresy" doesn't bother me. If the people wish to continue the wreck of Nova Roma, far be it from me to cry "whoa".

Oh, I might add it is very nice to see you participating Hadriane and entering into dialog with me. Surprising but nice, since only as recently as June 19th of this year on the unofficial Newroman list you were branding most, if not all, of all the current figures in the "faction" that survived the dictatorship attempt as "golpistas". You said you would never support them (and I suppose that includes myself and others) so your lukewarm/partly hostile response to this proposal comes as no surprise. After all didn't you say all we were interested in was "revenge"? A tad silly and very uninformed, but you were only elected by one tribe weren't you? So you don't exactly carry the entire weight of the plebeians behind you Tribune. Maybe while I remember your implied warning/threat about the sovereignty clause, you should pause to reflect on that fact about your election.

Oh, and as naturally some citizens here may not be familiar with the meaning of that term "golpistas" - refer here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/will_the_real_golpistas_please.html

"The U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras continues to proclaim the legitimate government of Roberto Micheletti as golpistas -- which in Latin society means far more than coup plotters. In fact, in Latin nations with no semblance of the USA's Posse Comitatus laws barring direct military action domestically, golpistas take on the veneer of military dictatorial fascism with a venue of total criminality and lawless, venal anti-democratic behaviors void of rule of law. As it comes to pass, declaring the current Honduras government and its courts as golpistas -- that is, deemed as criminals to be stripped of support, of rights and barred by the United States of America, carries a defacto declaration of illegitimacy."       

I think that your use of this term, and the tenor of your tone here in these exchanges, rather maps the route that you will be treading this year Tribune. If I was such a "golpista" by now I would have found a way to muzzle you. I am Praetor and fully capable of dreaming up some nonsense to that end - much like other Praetors from the other 'faction" were so fond of doing. I not being such a person however, you are free to continue your "activities". I do however take note of your views and judge your actions and proposals against such comments. Naturally I find them idiotic, uninformed and predictable. You, Tribune, are already too wedded to the past and too tainted by your own narrow views to be considered independent.

A pleasure chatting to you, as always - Tribune - regardless of whichever "faction" you owe your allegiance to.

Optime vale 

________________________________
From: Bruno Zani <reenbru@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future



A. LiburnioHadrianoCn. IulioCaesarisal.


ALH: First of all, there is no need to incorporate a second Nova Roma, in order to protect our not for profit status. A "sine lucro"corporation  can and usually does own the assets necessary to conduce its operations. There is no real reason to give up control of our server, software and database and our operating funds to maintain our current status. 
CnIC: This proposed plan isn't about protecting our non-profit status. It is about creating a model where two opposite models of governance, non-profit and res publica can co-exist without the intrusion of one into the other. 

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

V. Valerius Volusus Cn. Iulio Caesari S.P.D.

I have been following this exchange rather closely and I am glad that my
colleague Hadrianus is actively engaged in kicking the tires of your plan
on behalf of Nova Roma's citizens as, indeed, he should as a tribunus
plebis. I am sure that if you are elected Caesar, that we will have many
such discussions ahead of us.

What I would like to ask you is what would the process be to reverse the
reforms that you propose to put in place? I think this might be a more
important consideration at this stage, than many of the details that my
good colleague has raised. If these reforms are adopted, will they
irreversible? If they will be reversible, assuming for some reason that the
reforms prove more disastrous than our current structures, then how would
they be reversed? What are the safeguards that we will not be locking
ourselves into a deal with the devil, so to speak? I believe this hits a
major concern that the electorate has about placing you on the curule seat
and seeing this plan implemented. So far I don't think you have really
addressed this very fundamental anxiety. Any change always brings a certain
degree of anxiety for many people. Do you think that you could address
these anxieties?

I understand that the contio is closed and we voting will begin shortly.
Please keep this request for consideration for after the elections, and
consider it only necessary to answer if you should be elected to office.
Good luck sir.

Vale optime,

Volusus

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Cn. Iulius Caesar A. LiburnioHadrianosal.
>
>
> ALH This reply is either the result of my lack of clarity or of your
> intention to obfuscate. So let me be clearer: how can you honestly define
> non-intrusive the sequent statements:
> page 17: ...The ultimate penalty would be the termination of the contract
> and cutting the Senate and magistrates off from access to the software
> tools necessary to administer the Respublica. The censorial database and
> tools, all software, lists, Wiki and CP (Century Points - my note) would
> remain the property of Nova Roma Inc...
> page 21 ...Resistance to Nova Roma Inc. would in all likelihood indeed be
> futile...
> CnIC: Maybe we both haven't been clear enough for the other to grasp the
> others points. I can honestly define them as non-intrusive as they are the
> extremes where a rogue Senate totally ignoring the people has also ignored
> the loss of CP, and thus the qualification of points necessary to continue
> legitimately as Senators. The final sanction of removing access to the
> webpage etc., an asset belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by funds
> raised from the people, and the cancellation of the contract between Nova
> Roma and such a rogue Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the will of
> the majority who had indicated their discontent through an opinion poll. I
> don't see that as intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur when
> the people themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly
> because (and it seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this is
> my lack of clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova
> Roma Inc.
> would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica. Membership
> of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be comprised as
> we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be staffed by
> citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority will of
> citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That to me is
> hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens in the
> res publica.
>
>
> ALH: you are incorrect. What I want is a solution where the members will
> still have a voice after any change is made. You deleted, maybe
> unintentionally, and left without anwer my counter proposal regarding a
> BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote" principle. A
> principle which I think is a legal requirement, not only in Maine, but just
> about everywhere in the western world.
> CnIC: I answered your proposal. It isn't Roman and has no place in the res
> publica. I also don't consider it viable because it still doesn't create
> the necessary arms length distance between the laws of Maine and the res
> publica. Maine non-profit laws will continue to apply to us under your
> suggestion, and continue to impose a higher level of authority over what it
> sees as by-laws and we see as leges and the Constitution while we only have
> one entity. We will be no further ahead at having an autonomy of laws and
> people can still cite Maine non-profit laws as an authority that could
> contradict a lex. That has happened before and will happen again. The
> vision of an independent state can hardly progress very far if we don't
> have an environment where our leges, an expression of the will of the
> people, constantly have to defer to whether they contradict Maine's
> non-profit law provisions. Once the res publica is a private entity, that
> supervision by Maine's
> non-profit laws ceases in respect of the res publica, yet Maine's laws can
> act still to our benefit in the non-profit (Nova Roam Inc.) to ensure our
> assets and funds are managed appropriately.
>
>
> AHL:You are incorrect. Having an external uncontrolled and
> uncontrollable referee would definitively be anti-Roman particularly in
> view of the unequal balance of power . Go back and re-read the quotation
> extracted from your plan and cited earlier. Propose away to mitigate such
> abuse of power from happening or eliminate its possibility of happening.
>
> CnIC: No you are incorrect. All that the BoD would do is enforce the will
> of the people, and there is no unequal balance of power. Such a decision to
> act would have to be taken by the BoD of Nova Roma Inc. itself comprised of
> a wide spectrum of people drawn from all areas of Nova Roman life. The vote
> could require a certain percentage of support to act, 2/3rds, or it could
> be an automatic and mandated requirement when enough people had registered
> discontent and the situation had reached a crisis. In essence that has
> happened more than once already in Nova Roma. Over the years access to the
> webpage was cut off, to the Main List, to the censorial tools etc. Under my
> proposal such actions would be regulated and only occur if enough people in
> the res publica had voiced discontent AND the Senate and magistrates had
> failed to act. It isn't an abuse in my mind to only act in response to this.
>
>
> ALH: do not see or do not want to see?
>
> CnIC: Do not see, since your suggestions don't resolve one core issue with
> the over reaching intrusion of Maine non-profit law into the res publica.
> Apart from that I see no others. Bring some to the debate, if I am elected.
> If I am not - still find some and start a debate. Until then all I see is
> mine. If a debate starts in the Senate you can petition the presiding
> magistrate to address the House and make a proposal. Convince the Senate
> and the people. I am not convinced - far from it, but maybe they will be.
> Maybe. Who knows until you try Hadriane? My experience has been that Nova
> Roma is an excellent vehicle for getting nothing done. Election times
> produce lots of people out of the woodwork who you never hear much from
> again after the polls close. So try to motivate the people to vote it down
> if you wish if it comes to a vote in comitia, but at least do them the
> favour (since we remain stuck going backwards) of having something else
> that is
> comprehensive and not a few sketchy proposals to replace it.
>
>
> ALH: you are wrong again, Magistrates ignore the opinion of people that do
> not agree with their view. They satisfy their own factional followers.
> Inflexible factions are the real cancer gnawing at the heart of Nova Roma.
> That is what force people to eventually leave. with more or less fanfare,
> depending on their personal style. The same can be said of the Senate which
> vascillated from one side to the other during the coup and countercoup of
> the last period of unrest. Neither side bothered to ask the people's
> opinion, so the people left a clear message "A pox on both houses" and
> voted with their feet. BTW putting the "squeeze" on the Senate is not the
> way to get their attention. A Senate/BoD elected 100% by the membership on
> the "one man, one vote" principle would punish the senators who ignore the
> people and reward those who do. I can expand on that if you are interested.
> CnIC: You see an inflexible faction? In days gone by, and quite recent
> days, you would have found yourself by now gagged on some spurious charge,
> moderated up to your nose. So there is no inflexible faction operating now.
> The Senate did not vacillate during the coup. A sizable proportion took
> action, so I don't exactly know where you are getting your information
> from, but I should know as I was one of those senators and present and
> active throughout. Oh, and as for asking people's opinions, that would have
> been a tad hard as the only magistrates that could have called the comitia
> to order were the Consuls, or the tribunes with the plebeians. The former
> were both vetoing each other and the latter were split. The reason we
> didn't end up with a dictatorship was eventually due to two factors, one a
> threat to sue the proposed Dictator in a macronational court if he accepted
> the office (as the contention was the Senate call that elected him was
> illegal
> because a veto of a consul was disregarded) and the proposed Dictator as a
> result referring the matter to a non-profit lawyer for legal
> advice following that ultimatum being advised that a dictatorship was
> illegal under Maine non-profit law. He quit the field at that point and the
> attempt folded like a pack of cards. None of this was Roman and could have
> been avoided far earlier on under my model by letting the people have a
> voice. An opinion poll, free from the abilities of a consul to restrain it.
> Yes, I liken it to a riot in the forum saying "whoa stop right there - we
> have had enough of this". On the other hand it might have resulted in "Give
> us a dictator!". We will never know because under the current system we had
> to fall back on Maine laws, which was the only option available where res
> publica rules had been flouted and broken. As to your suggestion, as I said
> feel free to develop it. Don't ask Hadriane, just do it.
>
>
> ALH: You are incorrect, again. I have considered your plan, once several
> months back when you pointed out to me, and once in again in the last few
> months. I have found some parts acceptable, some boring (mostly the part
> about financial manipulation, aka CP), some exciting and some
> troublesome. I raised some objections, to the underlying philosophy to
> which you replied showing unwillingness to consider any changes. I agree
> that the people should decide finally whether to accept or reject your
> plan. My objections might actually make it more understandable and maybe
> even more acceptable. You may want to consider a compromising median road
> to prevent stronger criticism later. Do not forget that the last time there
> was a vote about removing the sentence "an independent and
> sovereign nation" from the constitution, the proposal went down to defeat
> in the comitia.
> CnIC: I am greatly heartened that you found some parts acceptable, and I
> do understand you got bored. A far more "illustrious" person than either of
> us had trouble with 126 pages. So the fact that you got bored doesn't come
> as a surprise to me. Equally I am excited that you were excited, and
> troubled that you found some aspects troubling. As to your suggestions,
> well I am sure they would make it more understandable to at least you, and
> obviously more acceptable to you (naturally) as they would be your ideas.
> Whether others would find it so we won't know until you flesh it out more
> and moot it in any debate that might follow this election. As to a median,
> well let us start at the beginning shall we. If I don't get elected you can
> have a free run at your idea. If I do, then I would be happy to hear your
> suggestions anyway, along with every other Senator, and magistrate entitled
> to sit in the Senate, including your fellow Tribunes when I introduce this
> plan for debate. I don't forget the last time that issue you quote came
> up, but since as has been said (wasn't it you or was it Dexter?) that we
> can never truly have an independent and sovereign nation until the
> dream/vision of the founders is realized, then that is an apples and
> oranges point to make. Two different beasts. Oh yes, I suspect you will say
> that somehow this will impede the dream, but I think (as do many others it
> seems) the dream is going nowhere fast and hasn't been for years. We are no
> closer to an independent and sovereign nation than we were when that was
> penned. Thinking positive thoughts doesn't cut it. We don't have any land
> so that doesn't work. We have no recognition except from inside the res
> publica that we are that, and therefore that is (as I have said before) as
> effective as my saying "I am the King of Siam". It doesn't mean I am, will
> be or that anyone else capabale of making that a reality thinks it.
> Repeating
> statements like that in the macronational world tend to ensure you get
> ignored or locked up as a lunatic. So waving that threat around that
> anything that might solve our dilemma might be condemned as Nova Roman
> "heresy" doesn't bother me. If the people wish to continue the wreck of
> Nova Roma, far be it from me to cry "whoa".
>
> Oh, I might add it is very nice to see you participating Hadriane and
> entering into dialog with me. Surprising but nice, since only as recently
> as June 19th of this year on the unofficial Newroman list you were branding
> most, if not all, of all the current figures in the "faction" that survived
> the dictatorship attempt as "golpistas". You said you would never support
> them (and I suppose that includes myself and others) so your
> lukewarm/partly hostile response to this proposal comes as no surprise.
> After all didn't you say all we were interested in was "revenge"? A tad
> silly and very uninformed, but you were only elected by one tribe weren't
> you? So you don't exactly carry the entire weight of the plebeians behind
> you Tribune. Maybe while I remember your implied warning/threat about
> the sovereignty clause, you should pause to reflect on that fact about your
> election.
>
> Oh, and as naturally some citizens here may not be familiar with the
> meaning of that term "golpistas" - refer here:
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/will_the_real_golpistas_please.html
>
> "The U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras continues to proclaim the
> legitimate government of Roberto Micheletti as golpistas -- which in Latin
> society means far more than coup plotters. In fact, in Latin nations with
> no semblance of the USA's Posse Comitatus laws barring direct military
> action domestically, golpistas take on the veneer of military dictatorial
> fascism with a venue of total criminality and lawless, venal
> anti-democratic behaviors void of rule of law. As it comes to pass,
> declaring the current Honduras government and its courts as golpistas --
> that is, deemed as criminals to be stripped of support, of rights and
> barred by the United States of America, carries a defacto declaration of
> illegitimacy."
>
> I think that your use of this term, and the tenor of your tone here in
> these exchanges, rather maps the route that you will be treading this year
> Tribune. If I was such a "golpista" by now I would have found a way to
> muzzle you. I am Praetor and fully capable of dreaming up some nonsense to
> that end - much like other Praetors from the other 'faction" were so fond
> of doing. I not being such a person however, you are free to continue your
> "activities". I do however take note of your views and judge your actions
> and proposals against such comments. Naturally I find them idiotic,
> uninformed and predictable. You, Tribune, are already too wedded to the
> past and too tainted by your own narrow views to be considered independent.
>
> A pleasure chatting to you, as always - Tribune - regardless of whichever
> "faction" you owe your allegiance to.
>
> Optime vale
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Bruno Zani <reenbru@...>
> To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:10 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future
>
> A. LiburnioHadrianoCn. IulioCaesarisal.
>
>
> ALH: First of all, there is no need to incorporate a second Nova Roma, in
> order to protect our not for profit status. A "sine lucro"corporation can
> and usually does own the assets necessary to conduce its operations. There
> is no real reason to give up control of our server, software and
> database and our operating funds to maintain our current status.
> CnIC: This proposed plan isn't about protecting our non-profit status. It
> is about creating a model where two opposite models of governance,
> non-profit and res publica can co-exist without the intrusion of one into
> the other.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

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

Cato Cn. Iulio Caesari Petronio Dextero Omnibusque in foro SPD

I would like first and foremost to emphasize that questioning specifics about your proposal is *not*

"[t]he same tired out old rhetoric, the same elitist clap trap, the same desire to change nothing, do nothing, just bemoan the fact that things aren't working very well..."

As I said, there may be ways to fix some things without simply cutting the Respublica off and letting it go play by itself while the Board of Directors of the new "Nova Roma, Inc." do the grown-ups' business - and can step in and change the Respublica at will.

I want change in many areas - including repeal of the leges Saliciae iudiciara and poenalis - and I constantly offered options to those and suggested many additional changes in our Tabularium. Galerius Paulinus did as well. That we were ignored is the fault of the individuals holding power, *not* the fact that they were holding power at all.

You are aiming your rhetoric at precisely the wrong people - we were there in the trenches fighting too, and you may recall that *my* head was on the chopping block long before yours - so don't act as if we were standing idly by while the legal authority of the Respublica was being ripped at.

Caesar, you wrote:

"As for the higher authority, if you recall your attempts to get the Consuls to call a comitia meeting so it could discuss their impeachment and removal. Well, what a surprise - it didn't work did it? You then tried to cite Maine statute provisions. Guess what? They ignored you. Your reminders are noted, but sadly it doesn't amount to a row of beans in practice."

First: just because I did not get my way - no matter how infuriating or illegal it was that I did not - does not mean that the only alternative is to allow any entity to remove or hinder the authority of the legally-elected government of the Respublica. Yes, it made me grind my teeth and curse viciously, but my attempts to appeal to a higher authority were appeals to defend and uphold *our* internal legal authority within the Respublica - since our incorporation law is part of the Respublica - even if that appeal had to be made to an "outside" guardian of that authority.

Second: here is a key problem identified, and you are absolutely correct in identifying it. However, the answer might be to find a way - and codify it in the leges of the Respublica - to make it *possible* for a citizen to appeal the government in a way that is not capable of being ignored. That is also practical, and pragmatic, and Roman - yet it does not geld the legal government's authority.

Yes, you seem to view questions as ad hominems against a work that you have put a great deal of laudable and dedicated effort into, which is terribly unfortunate and utterly incorrect. You may think I'm too lazy - or simply unable - to comprehend your proposal (both assumptions which would be terribly incorrect), but it is a *proposal*, not a mandate hand-written by the finger of a god, and there is every justification for questioning it. You can revert to attacking the questioners or you can answer directly in its defense. It is certainly not "elitist claptrap" for senators and magistrates to voice concerns that you would seem to want to disembowel the power given them by the People of the Respublica.

There is only one question, really, at the heart of the matter: do you believe that the only way to move the Respublica forward is to allow an higher authority the power to step in and interrupt the actions of the elected government of the Respublica - with or without the direct express will of the People - based on their own collective perspective of any given situation? Follow-up on that is: can your proposal not be molded in a way that would *not* give the "other" Board of Directors this power to ignore the magisterial and senatorial authority of the Respublica?

Valete bene,

Cato

Cato Iulio Caesari Liburnio Hadriano omnibusque in foro SPD

We already have a group dedicated to safeguarding the will of the People, capable of stopping the elected magistrates of the Respublica.

They are called the Tribunes of the People.

They have the power to veto.

They are elected by the People directly.

They govern using Nova Roma's laws, not "opinion polls."

Petronius Dexter himself showed *exactly* how powerful a single, dedicated tribune can change the course of the Respublica.

Valete bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Iulius Caesar A. LiburnioHadrianosal. 
 
[SNIP]

The final sanction of removing access to the webpage etc., an asset belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by funds raised from the people, and the cancellation of the contract between Nova Roma and such a rogue Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the will of the majority who had indicated their discontent through an opinion poll. I don't see that as intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur when the people themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly because (and it seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this is my lack of clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova Roma Inc.
> would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica. Membership of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be comprised as we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be staffed by citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority will of citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That to me is hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens in the res publica.

Cato omnibus in foro SPD

Hodiernus dies est ante diem XII Kalendas Ianuarius; haic dies nefastus publicus est.


"But before I proceed, I desire to show in a few words that it is not
without design and mature premeditation that I have turned to the
early part of Rome's history, but that I have well-considered reasons
to give for my choice, to forestall the censure of those who, fond of
finding fault with everything and not as yet having heard of any of
the matters which I am about to make known, may blame me because, in
spite of the fact that this city, grown so famous in our days, had
very humble and inglorious beginnings, unworthy of historical record,
and that it was but a few generations ago, that is, since her
overthrow of the Macedonian powers and her success in the Punic wars,
that she arrived at distinction and glory, nevertheless, when I was at
liberty to choose one of the famous periods in her history for my
theme, I turned aside to one so barren of distinction as her
antiquarian lore. For to this day almost all the Greeks are ignorant
of the early history of Rome and the great majority of them have been
imposed upon by sundry false opinions grounded upon stories which
chance which chance has brought to their ears and led to believe that,
having come upon various vagabonds without house or home and
barbarians, and even those not free men, as her founders, she in the
course of time arrived at world domination, and this not through
reverence for the gods and justice and every other virtue, but through
some chance and the injustice of Fortune, which inconsiderately
showers her greatest favours upon the most undeserving. And indeed the
more malicious are wont to rail openly at Fortune for freely bestowing
on the basest of us the blessings of the Greeks. And yet why should I
mention men at large, when even some historians have dared to express
such views in the writing they have left, taking this method of
humouring barbarian kings who detested Rome's supremacy,— princes to
whom they were ever servilely devoted and with whom they associated as
flatterers, — by presenting them with "histories" which were neither
just nor true?" - Dionysis of Halicarnassus, "Roman Antiquities" 1.4


"In Phlios and Sikyon the temple of Dia is held in honor; and Dia is
their name for Hebe." - Strabo, Geography 8.6.24

"On the Phliasian citadel [at Phlios, Argos] is a grove of cypress
trees and a sanctuary which from ancient times has been held to be
peculiarly holy. The earliest Phliasians named the goddess to whom the
sanctuary belongs Ganymeda; but later authorites call her Hebe, whom
Homer mentions in the duel between Menelaos and Alexandros, saying
that she was the cup-bearer of the gods; and again he says, in the
descent of Odysseus to Haides, that she was the wife of Herakles.
Olen, in his hymn to Hera, says that Hera was reared by the Horai (the
Seasons), and that her children were Ares and Hebe. Of the honours
that the Phliasians pay to this goddess the greatest is the pardoning
of suppliants. All those who seek sanctuary here receive full
forgiveness, and prisoners, when set free, dedicate their fetters on
the trees in the grove. The Phliasians also celebrate a yearly
festival which they call Kissotomoi (Ivy-cutters). There is no image,
either kept in secret of openly displayed, and the reason for this is
set forth in a sacred legend of theirs though on the left as you go
out is a temple of Hera with an image of Parian marble." - Pausanias,
Guide to Greece 2.13.3

Today is the celebration of the Divalia, in honor of the goddess Dia.
he worship of the Roman goddess Dea Dia was in the hands of a
priesthood of twelve, the "fratres arvales" (Arval brethren), and she
possessed a shrine in a grove outside Rome at the fifth (or sixth,
depending on the period) milestone on the Via Campana. Dea Dia, who
was the owner of the "lucus fratrum arvalium" (the grove of the Arval
brethren) and the main addressee of the cult celebrated by the Arval
brethren, is only known by the proceedings of this brotherhood. The
ritual at her festival employed, among other offerings (a lamb,
meatballs, sweet wine, and pastries), green ears from the current
crop, together with dried ears of grain from the previous year's crop.
The other gods and goddesses mentioned in her lucus are to be
considered her assistants or her guests. Her main festival was held
on three successive days at the end of May, culminating in the Ambarvalia.


"Duodecimo vero feriae sunt divae Angeroniae, cui pontifices in
sacello Volupiae sacrum faciunt: quam Verrius Flaccus Angeroniam dici
ait, quod angores ac sollicitudines animorum propitiata depellat." -
Macrobius 1.10

"It will not perhaps be altogether foreign to the purpose, if I here
make mention of one peculiar institution of our forefathers which
bears especial reference to the inculcation of silence on religious
matters. The goddess Angerona, to whom sacrifice is offered on the
twelfth day before the calends of January, is represented in her
statue as having her mouth bound with a sealed fillet." - Pliny,
Natural History 3.9

Today is also sacred to the goddess Angerona, and is also known as the
Angeronalia. She is an indigenous Italian goddess, about whom little
is known, except that she is the goddess of secrets and silence, and
she was a goddess who relieved men from pain and sorrow, or delivered
the Romans and their flocks from angina. Also she was a protecting
goddess of Rome and the keeper of the sacred name of the city, which
might not be pronounced lest it should be revealed to her enemies. It
was even thought that Angerona itself was this name. She is portrayed
holding a finger to her mouth, which is wrapped shut. Her statue
stood on the altar of Volupia. She is also thought to be the goddess
of the Winter Solstice, which is today.


Today is also the fifth day of the Saturnalia.


Valete bene et IO SATURNALIA!

Cato

Ave consul,

Technically you are correct. However, the key individual who halted the movement in the coup attempt was not a tribune! If you recall correctly it was a censor, censor sabinus who called the meeting in the Senate into the question of validity.

Because remember the plotters had 4 tribunes in their pocket.

Sulla

Sent from my Kindle Fire

_____________________________________________
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
Sent: Wed Dec 21 04:50:40 MST 2011
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future




Cato Iulio Caesari Liburnio Hadriano omnibusque in foro SPD

We already have a group dedicated to safeguarding the will of the People, capable of stopping the elected magistrates of the Respublica.

They are called the Tribunes of the People.

They have the power to veto.

They are elected by the People directly.

They govern using Nova Roma's laws, not "opinion polls."

Petronius Dexter himself showed *exactly* how powerful a single, dedicated tribune can change the course of the Respublica.

Valete bene,

Cato

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

[SNIP]

The final sanction of removing access to the webpage etc., an asset belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by funds raised from the people, and the cancellation of the contract between Nova Roma and such a rogue Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the will of the majority who had indicated their discontent through an opinion poll. I don't see that as intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur when the people themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly because (and it seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this is my lack of clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova Roma Inc.
> would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica. Membership of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be comprised as we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be staffed by citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority will of citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That to me is hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens in the res publica.





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

Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

And a consul, Albucius. So a tribune, a censor, a consul, and a bunch of determined individuals in the Senate. The point, of course, is that the extant government showed itself capable - no matter how barely - of upholding our own law, without being overridden or suspended by an outside, unelected body.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave consul,
>
> Technically you are correct. However, the key individual who halted the movement in the coup attempt was not a tribune! If you recall correctly it was a censor, censor sabinus who called the meeting in the Senate into the question of validity.
>
> Because remember the plotters had 4 tribunes in their pocket.
>
> Sulla
>
> Sent from my Kindle Fire
>
> _____________________________________________
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Sent: Wed Dec 21 04:50:40 MST 2011
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future
>
>
>
>
> Cato Iulio Caesari Liburnio Hadriano omnibusque in foro SPD
>
> We already have a group dedicated to safeguarding the will of the People, capable of stopping the elected magistrates of the Respublica.
>
> They are called the Tribunes of the People.
>
> They have the power to veto.
>
> They are elected by the People directly.
>
> They govern using Nova Roma's laws, not "opinion polls."
>
> Petronius Dexter himself showed *exactly* how powerful a single, dedicated tribune can change the course of the Respublica.
>
> Valete bene,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> >
> > Cn. Iulius Caesar A. LiburnioHadrianosal.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> The final sanction of removing access to the webpage etc., an asset belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by funds raised from the people, and the cancellation of the contract between Nova Roma and such a rogue Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the will of the majority who had indicated their discontent through an opinion poll. I don't see that as intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur when the people themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly because (and it seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this is my lack of clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova Roma Inc.
> > would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica. Membership of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be comprised as we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be staffed by citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority will of citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That to me is hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens in the res publica.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

C. Petronius C. Catoni s.p.d.,

> I want change in many areas - including repeal of the leges Saliciae iudiciara and poenalis -

I do not leave you to touch at the leges iudiciaria et poenalis, unless you propose something for a judicial and criminal system which could have my agreement. I do not want nor "the law of the strongest" neither the jungle, we are not reenactors of Neanderthal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

and I want people having a judicial and criminal shield.

Laws are the Roman touch. If you repeal our judicial and criminal system, if you do not learn Latin, if you do not have any interest in Roman things, what are you doing in a such organization?

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XII Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

Caesar Catoni sal.

Rubbish on three counts.

Firstly what ultimately stopped the dictatorship attempt was Marinus deciding after legal advice (which he sought after being told by two us we would sue him if he accepted the office) that the office of the Dictator was illegal and that he would not assume the office. Secondly, our law - the Constitution - was overriden by Maine law which trumped it. Maine law is decided by the Maine State legislature, an outside body to the res publica. Thirdly, clearly you haven't read anything I have written here (or in the report) or grasped a salient point that my proposed BoD for Nova Roma Inc. would be elected, 50% of it directly by the people from candidates who could declare at will, and the other 50% elected by bodies they would represent such as the Senate and the collegia. Since the people who would serve on it would all be citizens - that is hardly "outside". 

If our system was so capable of functioning on its own the attempt wouldn't have happened because they would have respected the consular veto. Also how would our system have worked if Marinus had accepted it? All the censorial tools (webpage etc) were in the hands of the opposing faction or within their control. They actually still are, aren't they? So the system didn't work. Maine worked prompted by the threat of a law suit. Nova Roma's system failed utterly.

Optime vale



________________________________
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 7:03 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future


 
Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.

And a consul, Albucius. So a tribune, a censor, a consul, and a bunch of determined individuals in the Senate. The point, of course, is that the extant government showed itself capable - no matter how barely - of upholding our own law, without being overridden or suspended by an outside, unelected body.

Vale bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...> wrote:
>
> Ave consul,
>
> Technically you are correct. However, the key individual who halted the movement in the coup attempt was not a tribune! If you recall correctly it was a censor, censor sabinus who called the meeting in the Senate into the question of validity.
>
> Because remember the plotters had 4 tribunes in their pocket.
>
> Sulla
>
> Sent from my Kindle Fire
>
> _____________________________________________
> From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
> Sent: Wed Dec 21 04:50:40 MST 2011
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future
>
>
>
>
> Cato Iulio Caesari Liburnio Hadriano omnibusque in foro SPD
>
> We already have a group dedicated to safeguarding the will of the People, capable of stopping the elected magistrates of the Respublica.
>
> They are called the Tribunes of the People.
>
> They have the power to veto.
>
> They are elected by the People directly.
>
> They govern using Nova Roma's laws, not "opinion polls."
>
> Petronius Dexter himself showed *exactly* how powerful a single, dedicated tribune can change the course of the Respublica.
>
> Valete bene,
>
> Cato
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> >
> > Cn. Iulius Caesar A. LiburnioHadrianosal.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> The final sanction of removing access to the webpage etc., an asset belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by funds raised from the people, and the cancellation of the contract between Nova Roma and such a rogue Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the will of the majority who had indicated their discontent through an opinion poll. I don't see that as intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur when the people themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly because (and it seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this is my lack of clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova Roma Inc.
> > would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica. Membership of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be comprised as we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be staffed by citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority will of citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That to me is hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens in the res publica.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




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

Caesar Catoni sal.

That office failed in the Dictatorship attempt. The majority of the Tribunes supported it. Were you away too during that part? 

Optime vale


________________________________
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:50 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future


 
Cato Iulio Caesari Liburnio Hadriano omnibusque in foro SPD

We already have a group dedicated to safeguarding the will of the People, capable of stopping the elected magistrates of the Respublica.

They are called the Tribunes of the People.

They have the power to veto.

They are elected by the People directly.

They govern using Nova Roma's laws, not "opinion polls."

Petronius Dexter himself showed *exactly* how powerful a single, dedicated tribune can change the course of the Respublica.

Valete bene,

Cato

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> Cn. Iulius Caesar A. LiburnioHadrianosal. 
 
[SNIP]

The final sanction of removing access to the webpage etc., an asset belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by funds raised from the people, and the cancellation of the contract between Nova Roma and such a rogue Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the will of the majority who had indicated their discontent through an opinion poll. I don't see that as intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur when the people themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly because (and it seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this is my lack of clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova Roma Inc.
> would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica. Membership of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be comprised as we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be staffed by citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority will of citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That to me is hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens in the res publica.




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

Ave Consul,

In that I can totally agree. One person, even a Tribune, is not enough.
It took a team we all worked together.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Cato <catoinnyc@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Cato Cornelio Sullae sal.
>
> And a consul, Albucius. So a tribune, a censor, a consul, and a bunch of
> determined individuals in the Senate. The point, of course, is that the
> extant government showed itself capable - no matter how barely - of
> upholding our own law, without being overridden or suspended by an outside,
> unelected body.
>
> Vale bene,
>
> Cato
>
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ave consul,
> >
> > Technically you are correct. However, the key individual who halted the
> movement in the coup attempt was not a tribune! If you recall correctly it
> was a censor, censor sabinus who called the meeting in the Senate into the
> question of validity.
> >
> > Because remember the plotters had 4 tribunes in their pocket.
> >
> > Sulla
> >
> > Sent from my Kindle Fire
> >
> > _____________________________________________
> > From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
>
> > Sent: Wed Dec 21 04:50:40 MST 2011
> > To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cato Iulio Caesari Liburnio Hadriano omnibusque in foro SPD
> >
> > We already have a group dedicated to safeguarding the will of the
> People, capable of stopping the elected magistrates of the Respublica.
> >
> > They are called the Tribunes of the People.
> >
> > They have the power to veto.
> >
> > They are elected by the People directly.
> >
> > They govern using Nova Roma's laws, not "opinion polls."
> >
> > Petronius Dexter himself showed *exactly* how powerful a single,
> dedicated tribune can change the course of the Respublica.
> >
> > Valete bene,
> >
> > Cato
> >
> > --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar
> <gn_iulius_caesar@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cn. Iulius Caesar A. LiburnioHadrianosal.
> >
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > The final sanction of removing access to the webpage etc., an asset
> belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by funds raised from the people,
> and the cancellation of the contract between Nova Roma and such a rogue
> Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the will of the majority who had
> indicated their discontent through an opinion poll. I don't see that as
> intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur when the people
> themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly because (and it
> seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this is my lack of
> clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova Roma Inc.
> > > would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica.
> Membership of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be
> comprised as we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be
> staffed by citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority
> will of citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That
> to me is hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens
> in the res publica.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


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

Caesar Catoni sal.

You actually trump Vedius. You have been in possession of emailed copies of the report since I wrote it. That was two years ago Cato. You didn't even have to find it. Not a peep out of you before about it or any issues you had with it, other than to make references to the fact that I had a plan. Have you even really read it?

Your statement about the stepping in at will shows me that it was a wasted effort to send it to you, since clearly you haven't read it. The BoD of Nova Roma Inc. would not step in at will, but in direct response to the usual thread of magistrates and/or Senate running amok.As I demonstrated to you in another post just now, your claims that our system worked are utterly false. Maine stepped in to save us. 

What you want to change is irrelevant. You had your shot at making significant improvements and the first part was wasted in you and Albucius tussling and fighting and preening like two peacocks in heat, and the second half went south because of your personal issues. You blew your chance. Well actually you blew the res publica's chance. It stood to gain from real change had you made any, which you didn't, while you stood gain the glory. 

No you weren't standing by during the Dictatorship, you were posting. We all were. Ultimately it was an impotent action because the only thing that stopped the attempt was Maine law, an outside body. 

As for your attempts to get the Consuls to call a comitia meeting being within constrained within the res publica, rubbish. You looked into, almost immediately, whether the State of Maine could intervene and force their hand. Last time I checked, that's an outside body isn't it?

What I almost despair of Cato is that you saved your critical comment for two years after this plan was published, in your usual grandstanding manner of pontificating at half-cock about events which in body you were there for but seemingly mentally missed the key points about (Maine and the Dictatorship clause). As to what I believe, I believe fully in this plan and yes I take exception to you of all people who helped exacerbate the gridlock that developed between you and Albucius earlier this year (he carries his share of the blame) swanning into a Forum that has hardly seen its consul for the last six months in any meaningful way (yes I know - you had issues) at five to midnight for your considered opinion two years late on this plan.

It all smacks of the same thread. You muddle around, get things twisted around your neck, preen yourself in a public display, and your comments evidence the fact that if you have read the plan, it clearly didn't sink in. 

I should be grateful for what exactly this year? That you finally became active at this juncture and in this manner? Sorry, it doesn't work that way Cato. Your friends have been pulling their hair out for all twelve months over either your pig headed approach to conflict or your empty curule chair, and you have the absolute audacity and cheek to try to lecture me on compromise? You had plenty of opportunities to do that in the first six months and it was like dragging a very fat elephant by one finger to get you even to the same discussion table with Albucius. Mostly it was done through third parties (including and often largely me!!). 

Words fail me, because you failed us and Nova Roma by another wasted year, when we needed action most desperately. You get added to the list of people who did nothing to prevent the downward slide of Nova Roma, or what you did you did with the assistance of your friends (including and often me) in smoothing over the wreckage you helped create between yourself and Albucius.   

So yes, it is the same tired out old rhetoric, the same elitist clap trap, the same desire to change nothing, do nothing, just bemoan the fact that things aren't working very well 

I dub thee St. Cato, patron saint of muddle, missed opportunities and wasted time.   

Optime vale



________________________________
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 4:34 AM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Question for the Praetor Candidates



Cato Cn. Iulio Caesari Petronio Dextero Omnibusque in foro SPD

I would like first and foremost to emphasize that questioning specifics about your proposal is *not*

"[t]he same tired out old rhetoric, the same elitist clap trap, the same desire to change nothing, do nothing, just bemoan the fact that things aren't working very well..."

As I said, there may be ways to fix some things without simply cutting the Respublica off and letting it go play by itself while the Board of Directors of the new "Nova Roma, Inc." do the grown-ups' business - and can step in and change the Respublica at will.

I want change in many areas - including repeal of the leges Saliciae iudiciara and poenalis - and I constantly offered options to those and suggested many additional changes in our Tabularium.  Galerius Paulinus did as well.  That we were ignored is the fault of the individuals holding power, *not* the fact that they were holding power at all.

You are aiming your rhetoric at precisely the wrong people - we were there in the trenches fighting too, and you may recall that *my* head was on the chopping block long before yours -  so don't act as if we were standing idly by while the legal authority of the Respublica was being ripped at.

Caesar, you wrote:

"As for the higher authority, if you recall your attempts to get the Consuls to call a comitia meeting so it could discuss their impeachment and removal. Well, what a surprise - it didn't work did it? You then tried to cite Maine statute provisions. Guess what? They ignored you. Your reminders are noted, but sadly it doesn't amount to a row of beans in practice."

First: just because I did not get my way - no matter how infuriating or illegal it was that I did not - does not mean that the only alternative is to allow any entity to remove or hinder the authority of the legally-elected government of the Respublica.  Yes, it made me grind my teeth and curse viciously, but my attempts to appeal to a higher authority were appeals to defend and uphold *our* internal legal authority within the Respublica - since our incorporation law is part of the Respublica - even if that appeal had to be made to an "outside" guardian of that authority.

Second: here is a key problem identified, and you are absolutely correct in identifying it.  However, the answer might be to find a way - and codify it in the leges of the Respublica - to make it *possible* for a citizen to appeal the government in a way that is not capable of being ignored.  That is also practical, and pragmatic, and Roman - yet it does not geld the legal government's authority.

Yes, you seem to view questions as ad hominems against a work that you have put a great deal of laudable and dedicated effort into, which is terribly unfortunate and utterly incorrect.  You may think I'm too lazy - or simply unable - to comprehend your proposal (both assumptions which would be terribly incorrect), but it is a *proposal*, not a mandate hand-written by the finger of a god, and there is every justification for questioning it.  You can revert to attacking the questioners or you can answer directly in its defense.  It is certainly not "elitist claptrap" for senators and magistrates to voice concerns that you would seem to want to disembowel the power given them by the People of the Respublica.

There is only one question, really, at the heart of the matter: do you believe that the only way to move the Respublica forward is to allow an higher authority the power to step in and interrupt the actions of the elected government of the Respublica - with or without the direct express will of the People - based on their own collective perspective of any given situation?  Follow-up on that is: can your proposal not be molded in a way that would *not* give the "other" Board of Directors this power to ignore the magisterial and senatorial authority of the Respublica?

Valete bene,

Cato


 

C. Petronius Cn. Caesari s.p.d.,

> Firstly what ultimately stopped the dictatorship attempt was Marinus deciding after legal advice (which he sought after being told by two us we would sue him if he accepted the office) that the office of the Dictator was illegal and that he would not assume the office.

CPD: Marinus' request of legal advice came from the lack of consensus in the Senate. In the first plan Marinus was not the candidate for the dictatorship. In fact the true candidate did not dare even he convened the Senate with the tribunes. And as Marinus was a possible and more consensual candidate for dictatorship, he was proposed and almost created. But the combined action of Albucius, Sabinus, some senators and myself prevented Marinus to accept the dictatorship and, at this moment, he asked a legal advice. That was not at all provided by those who wanted the dictatorship.
Although the Maine Laws were used by Moravius, for example when he publicly threatened Albucius and me. (I remember the macronational name of Albucius and mine put on his judicial public message). They forgot that the Maine Laws may be important within Nova Roma. And you know the continuation...

This is the problem of Nova Roma she is both a sovereign nation and a non-profit organization of the Maine. From that cause your plan.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XII Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

Ave,

Marinus choose to consult an attorney because both Caesar and I told him,
in the Senate, that if he choose to accept the dictatorship and to touch a
single penny of Nova Roma money...we would make sure that he would be held
PERSONALLY liable for every penny. The very fact that he would be held
personally liable (thus affecting his job) gave him pause to check with the
attorney. Thus he had the consult with the attorney who then told him
that the office of dictatorship is incompatible with Maine Law.

Vale,

Sulla

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:33 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius Cn. Caesari s.p.d.,
>
>
> > Firstly what ultimately stopped the dictatorship attempt was Marinus
> deciding after legal advice (which he sought after being told by two us we
> would sue him if he accepted the office) that the office of the Dictator
> was illegal and that he would not assume the office.
>
> CPD: Marinus' request of legal advice came from the lack of consensus in
> the Senate. In the first plan Marinus was not the candidate for the
> dictatorship. In fact the true candidate did not dare even he convened the
> Senate with the tribunes. And as Marinus was a possible and more consensual
> candidate for dictatorship, he was proposed and almost created. But the
> combined action of Albucius, Sabinus, some senators and myself prevented
> Marinus to accept the dictatorship and, at this moment, he asked a legal
> advice. That was not at all provided by those who wanted the dictatorship.
> Although the Maine Laws were used by Moravius, for example when he
> publicly threatened Albucius and me. (I remember the macronational name of
> Albucius and mine put on his judicial public message). They forgot that the
> Maine Laws may be important within Nova Roma. And you know the
> continuation...
>
> This is the problem of Nova Roma she is both a sovereign nation and a
> non-profit organization of the Maine. From that cause your plan.
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XII Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.
>
>
>


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

Salvete I am looking for a software designer for some Nova Roma and non Nova Roman projects. If anybody has the skills please drop me a note to spqr753@... Valete Ti. Galerius Paulinus

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

Ave Dexter,

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:09 AM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius L. Sullae s.p.d.,
>
> LCS: Dexter, amice, this has nothing to do with language, but everything
> to do with NR's viability. You and I, along with Sabinus, Caesar, Paulinus,
> Palladius, Valerianus, Metellus, Audens and espeically Albucius stood arm
> and arm together to fight in the last Civil War. THE SECOND MAJOR CIVIL WAR
> of Nova Roma.<<<
>
> CPD: Yes, I remember the fight we did together. I remember that in the
> Senate, not senator but tribune, I was alone against what suddenly
> happenned, after the message of the senator Perusianus calling a dictator
> and Marinus for the position. For a short moment, the Senate seemed united
> to make Marinus dictator, but first the Senate session convened by the way
> that you know was decreed illegal by the consul Albucius and, as alone as I
> was, I fought against the other 4 Tribunes, and developped my reasons, and
> bit by bit some Senators as you and Cato reacted against the dictatorship
> and then Marinus, as the Senators' consensus was in question, beg the
> advice of a lawyer, and convinced by the macronational illegality of a
> dictatorship denied this "gift" of Moravius and Quintilianus. The Senate
> archives certainly are quiverring with those memories.
>

Yes, you were absolutely alone when it came to you have your colleagues in
the Tribuneate. But you were not alone when the matter was being
well...devolved to open warfare in the Senate. Remember, Dexter, it was I
who exposed the sunlight into the nefarious plot of Piscinus and
Quintilianus on the ML. Just as it was Censor Sabinus who called the
senate session into question of corporate conduct. We all played our role,
Consul Albucius played his role as superbly as he possibly could during, as
you said, the Senate at point point seemed poised to give its own power
willingly to Marinus. Yet we prevailed because we stood fast and stood
together.



> I remember too that in taking my decision, in acting against the side of
> Moravius, my side, fighting with you, Cato, Caesar and some others that
> usually I criticized on the main list, I lose all my friends. For the
> benefit of the idea I have of Nova Roma.
>

Dexter, for you to lose all your friends because you sided with
principle..and sided with what was right...then I tell you here and now,
they were never your friends. In this respect, I can state that someone
like Fabius and I who have always agreed to hold each other to the highest
standard and willing to criticize each other when we feel the other crosses
a line....that is a friend. Someone who demands your complete loyalty for
the blessing of being their friend...I dare say is no friend.


> Certainly if I had done nothing, if I was with the other tribunes, all my
> friends, the Senate whould have voted the dictatorship and another Nova
> Roma should been in which I will be with my friends, and in other hand you,
> Cato expelled, and Caesar too. I did not want that. From all my heart, I
> refused that "final solution".
>

Did you really have to use the word Final Solution? There are times when
rhetorical flourishes should just stay in the mind....amice!



> I have another idea of Nova Roma that something with owners with in one
> side the Good and in another side the Bad. I do not like a Nova Roma for
> buddies of one side.
>

In this we are in agreement.


> In my idea of Nova Roma everybody who wants serve Nova Roma may serve her,
> he/she stands for a position, he/she exposes his/her views, he/she is
> elected or not. Defeated he/she learns of his/her unsuccess, not in
> searching a revenge by which he/she would delete all, but in searching how
> be more usefull to Nova Roma. Winner he/she serves the city, the citizens,
> he/she learns to be modest in his/her victory and have on heart to be
> usefull for the best of Nova Roma.
>

Agreed as well.


>
> LCS: >>>We have stood together despite our differences because
>
> we believed we held the best interest at heart for Nova Roma and
> ultimately because we were doing the absolute right thing.<<<
>
> CPD: I believed and I already believe. I keep my opinions, when I agree
> with you, I support you, when I disagree with you, I fight you.
>

I know you do.


>
> LCS:>>> Caesar took what he believed the lessons as to the cause of the
> recent civil discord and addressed them in his paper. You might not like
> parts of the paper, understood. Others might not like parts of the paper.
> Fine.<<<
>
> CPD: I think that to survive Nova Roma needs less a plan than citizens of
> goodwilling. We have to make Nova Roma attractive, to accept her invaded by
> more students and scholars. More young people with fresh and blood, from
> everywhere, from Europe too. We must stop those eternal fightings. Except
> in the elections time as usual and allowed by the mos maiorum. For example,
> amice Sulla, we fought together, we also sometimes are conflicting in our
> opinions. You did not endorse my candidacy for praetor. I totally accept
> that. I do not feel you less honest and active for Nova Roma's future. I
> already think you as a friend. But I keep my free speech, I think what I
> want and I say what I think.
>

We need BOTH....right now both are lacking. We need a plan and the good
will of citizens. We have a vision but no way of getting there. Not only
do we not have any way of getting there, we have had so much conflict and
discord in the past that some of us will look back at this year of
inactivity as a period of calm when it should have been a period of
consolidation and rebuilding. There is no way to achieve the vision
without a means and a way to get there. There is a saying the ends justify
the means....We have no ends and we have no means to get to that end. If
you have an better idea to develop the means to get to the end....by all
means...state it I want to hear it...I want to find a way to blend it into
the plan .....into the means that Caear took the time and dedication to
develop it. Right now...NR is stagnate, its wounded, and it needs alot of
tender loving care to get it healthy again. This is what I see....and I
draw this based on my own observation and this is the reason why I have
choosen to give up another year of my life to serve Nova Roma in Her hour
of need. Dexter, I am glad we are developing a friendship and I mean
this to you sincerely, no one is threatening to take away your or anyone's
free speech. On the contrary, I want your speech I want you to come up
with some plan that you feel would set NR healthy again, because Nova Roma
is not healthy right now. She needs all of us to mend her wounds, allow
the wounds to scab and heal. You, amice are essential in that progress.
For maybe next year you will be consul!


>
> LCS: > This is why it will be amply discussed, compromised, argued and
> debated so that the knowledge of each of us can make a workable form that
> resolves NR's constant source of hostility!
>
> CPD: Hostility is a human sentiment. The source of hostility are always
> the same, power, money, jealousy, political and religious discrepancies,
> and so much other reasons. No plan may prevent hostility. When this
> hostility becomes constant, that is the problem. The solution of this
> problem for Moravius was to expulse the "subjects" of "his" hostility, Cato
> and You. For you and Caesar the solution is to make Nova Roma as your own.
> I regret, amice, to accept nor one neither the other. But we will have the
> next year to debate and discuss about this 7 heads of the Hydra and the
> Nova Roma you want.
>

Dexter, amice, I dont mind hostility, your talking to Sulla...the running
joke in the BA is everything in NR is my fault....it rains in California
its Sulla's fault. The Tsunami in Japan and Earthquakes its Sulla's
fault. ;) I can take hostility totally, but what I have a hard time
putting my head around is the motivation for hostility. If you genuinely
disagree with Caesar's plan because of the merits of his plan, then I would
respectfully ask you to come up with something alternative that we can
compare and analyize and see if it will fit the needs of addressing NR's
pressing matters. If you are just being hostile for the sake of being
hostile, I will respectfully request, to not address the issue because you
diminish your own dignitas. As a faux Pontifex Maximus one of the
complaints that we had with Piscinus (one of the MANY complaints we had)
was that the role of the Pontifex Maximus was to be a bridge builder, that
is kinda what Pontiff means right? Dexter, you are Pontifex Maximus of
Nova Roma, help us build the bridge so that we can make NR better this
coming year amice. How many times in this post and the last post have I
stated we need you? Like 6 or 7 times....I say it that many because your
participation is essential. Help us build the bridge and then when your
time comes as Consul you will have a more grounded foundation from which
you can achieve your objectives instead of having to revisit the same
problems....again and again with dwindling support and numbers of citizens.

Most Respectfully,

Sulla


>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Praetor candidatus Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XII Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.
>
>
>


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

Caesar Voluso sal.

1. He and anyone else is welcome to kick as much as they like, or not.

2. What I take issue with, though I will still answer any questions they have, is those that had the plan two years ago and did nothing with it and come late to the table with "issues", those who discussed it with me and now either have memory failure or have embelished their memory, and those who come with a preconceived view about the personalities within the Senate (in fact the whole Senate) founded on absurdities, which to my mind compromises any claim of independence they may make. None of those three scenarios however will prevent me dealing with their "issues". It just makes me question a number of things about the persons having the issues.

3. A reversal process is a simplistic matter. Since none of the assets would be transferred out of the legal name of Nova Roma Inc. all we have to provide for is a clause in the Articles of Incorportaion and Constitution of Nova Roma, and, the AoI (and if it has one), the Constitution of the res publica. This clause could activatein a number of ways. For example, a process of a motion being put to the members and voted on in NR Inc. There would need to be a similar vote in the Senate in the res publica. The clause could disolve the res publica corporation for example, and revert right back to the delightful place we are now. You could instead have an automatic reversal that kicks in unless negated. There are many options Voluse. Checks and balances would have to be included of course, but yes very possible.

4. The electorate may or may not have concern about me being consul. However the electorate does not comprise Hadrianus, Cato, Vedius and who ever else has "concerns". Naturally you can understand why I think that mildly amusing that people are "concerned" about the risk of the small candle in the corner setting light to the drapes, when the house is already ablaze, walls collapsing and foundations crumbling. How very Nova Roman. All we need now is one of the concerned to volunteer to fiddle while Nova Roma burns and picture will be complete.

5. I have long suspected that some people's concerns are more about Nova Roma actually being made to function, which would in turn place expectations on them to do something other than be "concerned".

6. The contio maybe over but free speech remains. Everyone should feel free to post if they wish.

Optime vale

--- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Nicholas Cowham <nykcowham@...> wrote:
>
> V. Valerius Volusus Cn. Iulio Caesari S.P.D.
>
> I have been following this exchange rather closely and I am glad that my
> colleague Hadrianus is actively engaged in kicking the tires of your plan
> on behalf of Nova Roma's citizens as, indeed, he should as a tribunus
> plebis. I am sure that if you are elected Caesar, that we will have many
> such discussions ahead of us.
>
> What I would like to ask you is what would the process be to reverse the
> reforms that you propose to put in place? I think this might be a more
> important consideration at this stage, than many of the details that my
> good colleague has raised. If these reforms are adopted, will they
> irreversible? If they will be reversible, assuming for some reason that the
> reforms prove more disastrous than our current structures, then how would
> they be reversed? What are the safeguards that we will not be locking
> ourselves into a deal with the devil, so to speak? I believe this hits a
> major concern that the electorate has about placing you on the curule seat
> and seeing this plan implemented. So far I don't think you have really
> addressed this very fundamental anxiety. Any change always brings a certain
> degree of anxiety for many people. Do you think that you could address
> these anxieties?
>
> I understand that the contio is closed and we voting will begin shortly.
> Please keep this request for consideration for after the elections, and
> consider it only necessary to answer if you should be elected to office.
> Good luck sir.
>
> Vale optime,
>
> Volusus
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Cn. Iulius Caesar A. LiburnioHadrianosal.
> >
> >
> > ALH This reply is either the result of my lack of clarity or of your
> > intention to obfuscate. So let me be clearer: how can you honestly define
> > non-intrusive the sequent statements:
> > page 17: ...The ultimate penalty would be the termination of the contract
> > and cutting the Senate and magistrates off from access to the software
> > tools necessary to administer the Respublica. The censorial database and
> > tools, all software, lists, Wiki and CP (Century Points - my note) would
> > remain the property of Nova Roma Inc...
> > page 21 ...Resistance to Nova Roma Inc. would in all likelihood indeed be
> > futile...
> > CnIC: Maybe we both haven't been clear enough for the other to grasp the
> > others points. I can honestly define them as non-intrusive as they are the
> > extremes where a rogue Senate totally ignoring the people has also ignored
> > the loss of CP, and thus the qualification of points necessary to continue
> > legitimately as Senators. The final sanction of removing access to the
> > webpage etc., an asset belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by funds
> > raised from the people, and the cancellation of the contract between Nova
> > Roma and such a rogue Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the will of
> > the majority who had indicated their discontent through an opinion poll. I
> > don't see that as intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur when
> > the people themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly
> > because (and it seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this is
> > my lack of clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova
> > Roma Inc.
> > would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica. Membership
> > of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be comprised as
> > we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be staffed by
> > citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority will of
> > citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That to me is
> > hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens in the
> > res publica.
> >
> >
> > ALH: you are incorrect. What I want is a solution where the members will
> > still have a voice after any change is made. You deleted, maybe
> > unintentionally, and left without anwer my counter proposal regarding a
> > BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote" principle. A
> > principle which I think is a legal requirement, not only in Maine, but just
> > about everywhere in the western world.
> > CnIC: I answered your proposal. It isn't Roman and has no place in the res
> > publica. I also don't consider it viable because it still doesn't create
> > the necessary arms length distance between the laws of Maine and the res
> > publica. Maine non-profit laws will continue to apply to us under your
> > suggestion, and continue to impose a higher level of authority over what it
> > sees as by-laws and we see as leges and the Constitution while we only have
> > one entity. We will be no further ahead at having an autonomy of laws and
> > people can still cite Maine non-profit laws as an authority that could
> > contradict a lex. That has happened before and will happen again. The
> > vision of an independent state can hardly progress very far if we don't
> > have an environment where our leges, an expression of the will of the
> > people, constantly have to defer to whether they contradict Maine's
> > non-profit law provisions. Once the res publica is a private entity, that
> > supervision by Maine's
> > non-profit laws ceases in respect of the res publica, yet Maine's laws can
> > act still to our benefit in the non-profit (Nova Roam Inc.) to ensure our
> > assets and funds are managed appropriately.
> >
> >
> > AHL:You are incorrect. Having an external uncontrolled and
> > uncontrollable referee would definitively be anti-Roman particularly in
> > view of the unequal balance of power . Go back and re-read the quotation
> > extracted from your plan and cited earlier. Propose away to mitigate such
> > abuse of power from happening or eliminate its possibility of happening.
> >
> > CnIC: No you are incorrect. All that the BoD would do is enforce the will
> > of the people, and there is no unequal balance of power. Such a decision to
> > act would have to be taken by the BoD of Nova Roma Inc. itself comprised of
> > a wide spectrum of people drawn from all areas of Nova Roman life. The vote
> > could require a certain percentage of support to act, 2/3rds, or it could
> > be an automatic and mandated requirement when enough people had registered
> > discontent and the situation had reached a crisis. In essence that has
> > happened more than once already in Nova Roma. Over the years access to the
> > webpage was cut off, to the Main List, to the censorial tools etc. Under my
> > proposal such actions would be regulated and only occur if enough people in
> > the res publica had voiced discontent AND the Senate and magistrates had
> > failed to act. It isn't an abuse in my mind to only act in response to this.
> >
> >
> > ALH: do not see or do not want to see?
> >
> > CnIC: Do not see, since your suggestions don't resolve one core issue with
> > the over reaching intrusion of Maine non-profit law into the res publica.
> > Apart from that I see no others. Bring some to the debate, if I am elected.
> > If I am not - still find some and start a debate. Until then all I see is
> > mine. If a debate starts in the Senate you can petition the presiding
> > magistrate to address the House and make a proposal. Convince the Senate
> > and the people. I am not convinced - far from it, but maybe they will be.
> > Maybe. Who knows until you try Hadriane? My experience has been that Nova
> > Roma is an excellent vehicle for getting nothing done. Election times
> > produce lots of people out of the woodwork who you never hear much from
> > again after the polls close. So try to motivate the people to vote it down
> > if you wish if it comes to a vote in comitia, but at least do them the
> > favour (since we remain stuck going backwards) of having something else
> > that is
> > comprehensive and not a few sketchy proposals to replace it.
> >
> >
> > ALH: you are wrong again, Magistrates ignore the opinion of people that do
> > not agree with their view. They satisfy their own factional followers.
> > Inflexible factions are the real cancer gnawing at the heart of Nova Roma.
> > That is what force people to eventually leave. with more or less fanfare,
> > depending on their personal style. The same can be said of the Senate which
> > vascillated from one side to the other during the coup and countercoup of
> > the last period of unrest. Neither side bothered to ask the people's
> > opinion, so the people left a clear message "A pox on both houses" and
> > voted with their feet. BTW putting the "squeeze" on the Senate is not the
> > way to get their attention. A Senate/BoD elected 100% by the membership on
> > the "one man, one vote" principle would punish the senators who ignore the
> > people and reward those who do. I can expand on that if you are interested.
> > CnIC: You see an inflexible faction? In days gone by, and quite recent
> > days, you would have found yourself by now gagged on some spurious charge,
> > moderated up to your nose. So there is no inflexible faction operating now.
> > The Senate did not vacillate during the coup. A sizable proportion took
> > action, so I don't exactly know where you are getting your information
> > from, but I should know as I was one of those senators and present and
> > active throughout. Oh, and as for asking people's opinions, that would have
> > been a tad hard as the only magistrates that could have called the comitia
> > to order were the Consuls, or the tribunes with the plebeians. The former
> > were both vetoing each other and the latter were split. The reason we
> > didn't end up with a dictatorship was eventually due to two factors, one a
> > threat to sue the proposed Dictator in a macronational court if he accepted
> > the office (as the contention was the Senate call that elected him was
> > illegal
> > because a veto of a consul was disregarded) and the proposed Dictator as a
> > result referring the matter to a non-profit lawyer for legal
> > advice following that ultimatum being advised that a dictatorship was
> > illegal under Maine non-profit law. He quit the field at that point and the
> > attempt folded like a pack of cards. None of this was Roman and could have
> > been avoided far earlier on under my model by letting the people have a
> > voice. An opinion poll, free from the abilities of a consul to restrain it.
> > Yes, I liken it to a riot in the forum saying "whoa stop right there - we
> > have had enough of this". On the other hand it might have resulted in "Give
> > us a dictator!". We will never know because under the current system we had
> > to fall back on Maine laws, which was the only option available where res
> > publica rules had been flouted and broken. As to your suggestion, as I said
> > feel free to develop it. Don't ask Hadriane, just do it.
> >
> >
> > ALH: You are incorrect, again. I have considered your plan, once several
> > months back when you pointed out to me, and once in again in the last few
> > months. I have found some parts acceptable, some boring (mostly the part
> > about financial manipulation, aka CP), some exciting and some
> > troublesome. I raised some objections, to the underlying philosophy to
> > which you replied showing unwillingness to consider any changes. I agree
> > that the people should decide finally whether to accept or reject your
> > plan. My objections might actually make it more understandable and maybe
> > even more acceptable. You may want to consider a compromising median road
> > to prevent stronger criticism later. Do not forget that the last time there
> > was a vote about removing the sentence "an independent and
> > sovereign nation" from the constitution, the proposal went down to defeat
> > in the comitia.
> > CnIC: I am greatly heartened that you found some parts acceptable, and I
> > do understand you got bored. A far more "illustrious" person than either of
> > us had trouble with 126 pages. So the fact that you got bored doesn't come
> > as a surprise to me. Equally I am excited that you were excited, and
> > troubled that you found some aspects troubling. As to your suggestions,
> > well I am sure they would make it more understandable to at least you, and
> > obviously more acceptable to you (naturally) as they would be your ideas.
> > Whether others would find it so we won't know until you flesh it out more
> > and moot it in any debate that might follow this election. As to a median,
> > well let us start at the beginning shall we. If I don't get elected you can
> > have a free run at your idea. If I do, then I would be happy to hear your
> > suggestions anyway, along with every other Senator, and magistrate entitled
> > to sit in the Senate, including your fellow Tribunes when I introduce this
> > plan for debate. I don't forget the last time that issue you quote came
> > up, but since as has been said (wasn't it you or was it Dexter?) that we
> > can never truly have an independent and sovereign nation until the
> > dream/vision of the founders is realized, then that is an apples and
> > oranges point to make. Two different beasts. Oh yes, I suspect you will say
> > that somehow this will impede the dream, but I think (as do many others it
> > seems) the dream is going nowhere fast and hasn't been for years. We are no
> > closer to an independent and sovereign nation than we were when that was
> > penned. Thinking positive thoughts doesn't cut it. We don't have any land
> > so that doesn't work. We have no recognition except from inside the res
> > publica that we are that, and therefore that is (as I have said before) as
> > effective as my saying "I am the King of Siam". It doesn't mean I am, will
> > be or that anyone else capabale of making that a reality thinks it.
> > Repeating
> > statements like that in the macronational world tend to ensure you get
> > ignored or locked up as a lunatic. So waving that threat around that
> > anything that might solve our dilemma might be condemned as Nova Roman
> > "heresy" doesn't bother me. If the people wish to continue the wreck of
> > Nova Roma, far be it from me to cry "whoa".
> >
> > Oh, I might add it is very nice to see you participating Hadriane and
> > entering into dialog with me. Surprising but nice, since only as recently
> > as June 19th of this year on the unofficial Newroman list you were branding
> > most, if not all, of all the current figures in the "faction" that survived
> > the dictatorship attempt as "golpistas". You said you would never support
> > them (and I suppose that includes myself and others) so your
> > lukewarm/partly hostile response to this proposal comes as no surprise.
> > After all didn't you say all we were interested in was "revenge"? A tad
> > silly and very uninformed, but you were only elected by one tribe weren't
> > you? So you don't exactly carry the entire weight of the plebeians behind
> > you Tribune. Maybe while I remember your implied warning/threat about
> > the sovereignty clause, you should pause to reflect on that fact about your
> > election.
> >
> > Oh, and as naturally some citizens here may not be familiar with the
> > meaning of that term "golpistas" - refer here:
> >
> > http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/will_the_real_golpistas_please.html
> >
> > "The U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras continues to proclaim the
> > legitimate government of Roberto Micheletti as golpistas -- which in Latin
> > society means far more than coup plotters. In fact, in Latin nations with
> > no semblance of the USA's Posse Comitatus laws barring direct military
> > action domestically, golpistas take on the veneer of military dictatorial
> > fascism with a venue of total criminality and lawless, venal
> > anti-democratic behaviors void of rule of law. As it comes to pass,
> > declaring the current Honduras government and its courts as golpistas --
> > that is, deemed as criminals to be stripped of support, of rights and
> > barred by the United States of America, carries a defacto declaration of
> > illegitimacy."
> >
> > I think that your use of this term, and the tenor of your tone here in
> > these exchanges, rather maps the route that you will be treading this year
> > Tribune. If I was such a "golpista" by now I would have found a way to
> > muzzle you. I am Praetor and fully capable of dreaming up some nonsense to
> > that end - much like other Praetors from the other 'faction" were so fond
> > of doing. I not being such a person however, you are free to continue your
> > "activities". I do however take note of your views and judge your actions
> > and proposals against such comments. Naturally I find them idiotic,
> > uninformed and predictable. You, Tribune, are already too wedded to the
> > past and too tainted by your own narrow views to be considered independent.
> >
> > A pleasure chatting to you, as always - Tribune - regardless of whichever
> > "faction" you owe your allegiance to.
> >
> > Optime vale
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: Bruno Zani <reenbru@...>
> > To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:10 AM
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future
> >
> > A. LiburnioHadrianoCn. IulioCaesarisal.
> >
> >
> > ALH: First of all, there is no need to incorporate a second Nova Roma, in
> > order to protect our not for profit status. A "sine lucro"corporation can
> > and usually does own the assets necessary to conduce its operations. There
> > is no real reason to give up control of our server, software and
> > database and our operating funds to maintain our current status.
> > CnIC: This proposed plan isn't about protecting our non-profit status. It
> > is about creating a model where two opposite models of governance,
> > non-profit and res publica can co-exist without the intrusion of one into
> > the other.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Ave!!!

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Decimus Antoninius Aquilius <
romalist2@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> D.A. Aquilio Quirites SPD
>
> Avete Omnes,
>
> Thank you, Sulla, you who approved my application to Nova Roma nigh ten
> years ago, for posting Gnaeus Iulius Caesar's substantial and well
> thought-out plan for our Respublica.
>

You are very welcome for that, and it's always wonderful to see someone
still around for such a long period of time! I am glad you are here! :)

> Though I have only kept a faint eye on Nova Roma during the last few
> years, one thing that has been obvious without even knowing the details is
> the amount of trouble that has been brewing of late, and I feel poorly for
> standing by and not taking a keener interest or even raising my voice in
> any way.
>

Don't feel poorly, there is always the present. Nova Roma always needs
individuals willing to speak up!

> I have this evening read the preamble and large sections of the
> aforementioned document and find it stirring and thought-provoking.
>

Great and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

> First, however, let me give some 'relative outsider' perspective. I am
> pleased to see photos and videos of Nova Romans on the website as well as
> Youtube, doing what Nova Roma is all about. I was pleased to see the
> electric shouts of Io Saturnalia and other holiday well wishes to all on
> the list, and I shared my Saturnalia experience as well (which
> went well!).
>

Yes, the photos, videos and other media are wonderful means of showing,
kinda like the way the reenactors!

> I often wish there were more Nova Romans and others of Classical
> inclination where I am (to tell the truth, I have not made more than a
> cursory search yet), but I do well alone and in soaking my friends with the
> experiences.
>

Where approximately are you located? Perhaps there might be more available
than you currently have access to. And, even at that there is still us
here.....the various lists including here, the Forum, and the Back
Alley...all of these lists might give you some knowledge and a healthy dose
of entertainment.

> These things make me happy, but at this time of the year, sadly (and
> importantly) the list is filled more with the concerns for the Respublica
> than with shouts of joy and celebration.
>

Well it is election time. This has been a value added feature to the Res
Publica since, well, it was founded! ;)

> Certainly we can all agree that Nova Roma is a good thing and want to see
> it stronger and more stable. There is so much more I imagine Nova Roma
> could do, generally speaking, and it's up to us all (especially on account
> of our small size) to do something about it - and perhaps especially for
> ones such as myself, that could be more involved and for various reasons
> are/were not.
>

I agree with you completely. For NR to achieve its unlimited potential it
will require the work of each citizen. All we can do as magistrates is to
lead by example and pave the way....and hopefully other citizens will see,
be motivated and act from that.

> On account of my very absence, perhaps I should not parachute in to what I
> have not been following closely enough, yet I give the perspective of a
> rather
> unremarkable citizen of Nova Roma who nonetheless wishes our organization
> well and has always wished to be able to do more.
>

Your opinion is just as valid, just as important as any other citizen.
Hearing the words from both brand new citizens and citizens who have
returned from periods of inactivity give us all new perspectives to review
from and grow upon. Please continue speaking what is in your mind.

> That said, I think Gnaeus Iulius Caesar's plan, or one much like it, could
> be made to work and should be considered. Within said plan, it is pointed
> out that because the liability of our officials is so low and the stakes
> are so low, people are free to argue with such vitriol and fill their
> office in a perhaps uninspiring way with impunity. In a crisis such as
> this, what better time to have low stakes! Why not give a plan such as
> this a fair chance and see what happens? We are still Romans, we are still
> as interested as we were 10 years ago, no? Across the world, we've found
> each other because of shared beliefs and interests in what was the Roman
> world and greater Greco-Roman phenomenon.
>

Thank you for speaking your opinion. I want to ask you, since you have
read part of it, is there any part of the plan that was confusing, that you
disagreed with, that you feel might not translate well into the NR
structure? Are there any changes you would like to make to have the plan
to be more to your own personal preference?

> Should a plan fail, will we all quit and go home? Disband Nova Roma
> entirely?
>

No, but I do think that Nova Roma is at a crossroads. In 14 years Nova
Roma has had 2 major civil disturbances that have essentially shaken the
organization to the core. In relation to ancient Rome this is kinda how I
see things, rightly or wrongly. We are at a period of time where in the
late Republic we suffered through the destruction of the Caesar and Pompian
Civil War...and we just ended the Octavian and Antony Civil war.....NR is
exhausted...and as the Tacitus saying..they made a desert and call it
peace...that is where we are right now. NR needs to find a way to learn
from its past so it does not repeat it. We need reform and from that
reform we can then evolve into bigger and better Nova Roma!

> To pray alone, build, read and cook the old foods
> alone? With whom shall we share and build our dream with then? Shall we
> all, then, like I, be limited to mobbing our friends' brains with things
> that they at most think are interesting, but not in the same way as I/we
> (as good, fun and potentially useful as that also is anyway)? Then let us
> try something and see what happens - if it fails, we will come together
> again and do something else. For we need each other, even if we don't
> agree on where Nova Roma will go, we believe in the seed of Nova Roma.
> There are places in the world I would wish to see (most of them Roman
> sites), but I am not a great traveler - at least in setting out at first -
> but I have learned this, travel is easier once you've walked out the door
> and are on the road. We would all agree we need to be on a road (a
> straight Roman road, to borrow Gn. Iulius Caesar's turn of phrase, would be
> better). Let us work something out - let plans be submitted, let them go
> to a citizen
> vote, let the Senate decide from among the most popular 3, however we
> choose, I say we jump in with something considered (but decided) and see
> what we can do!
>

Thank you for your post and your thoughts and your opinion, it is very
appreciated.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

>
> With hope, fondness and respect to the Senate and People of Rome, valete!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@...>
> To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 11:14:01 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future
>
> Ave!
>
> Fabius asked for the link this evening. Here it is:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nova-Roma/files/
>
> The paper is called Nova Roma Reborn uploaded by Equitius Marinus.
>
> Vale,
>
> Sulla
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Vedius <vedius@...> wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> >
> > On 12/20/2011 10:54 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the people should be given the option to review it after, and
> > > "if" naturally, the Senate supports it. Then they, the people, can
> > > decide whether to accept a firm plan to end these issues. If they
> > > don't, then they don't. I will have done my part by offering a firm
> > > proposal. What I won't accept though, if elected, are attempts to
> > > prevent the people from being given a chance to end
> > > this nonsensical situation we have been in for years.
> > >
> >
> > Just in the interests of furthering the discussion, may I ask that you
> > repost the location of the latest iteration of your plan, so that
> > everyone reading this can engage in an informed discussion of its
> > components both general and specific?
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > Flavius Vedius Germanicus
> > Pater Patriae
> > Augur
> >
> >
> >
>
> [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. Aemilius Crassus omnibus SPD,



I'm a little late but these last days have been extremely busy, my
apologies.



First of all I would to remember you all that the elections on the Comitia
Populi are running and ask all citizens to vote. We have few candidates,
much too few, but the ones we have deserve support from all citizens by
voting. We have Spurius Porcius Gemma standing for Quaestor, Lucia Decia
Flora for Rogatrix and our dear Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus for Rogator. I
have just voted on all of these fine candidates and ask you to do the same.



In the upcoming elections in the Comitia Centuriata I will vote for Censor
on both candidates who have been Consuls before, namely Quintus Fabius
Maximus and Tiberius Galerius Paulinus.



For Consuls I will vote on Gnaeus Iulius Caesar. He has my full support and
I believe if there is anyone able to make Nova Roma start to grow is him.
For the other Consul I give my full support to Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
who dispenses any introduction. If they are elected they both will make a
good job.



For Praetor I will vote on Statia Cornelia Valeriana Iuliana Aeternia. She
has demonstrated for long time to be dedicate to Nova Roma. More she has
demonstrated to be dependable, hardworking and with good organization
skills. I don't understand why she have been under attack lately, more
because the major argument against her is the fact that she did excel in her
office as Aedilis Curulis, for having do it without an college. Strange,
wouldn't you say?



I would like to thank everyone that support my candidature for Praetor, if
elected I promise to not let you down and work hard for Nova Roma.

I also would like to thank everyone that expressed their support for the
other candidates to Praetor. I know you are acting with Nova Roma in mind
and not on personal biases. In the end after the elections, whatever the
results, we all will be work again side by side for the grow of Nova Roma.



Valete optime.



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

Ave Sulla!

Skipped home early today ...and, at this time, I have only one thing to say
to you.

You quote the old adage that the ends justify the means. I respond that
noble ends absolutely require honorable means, or they are destroyed in
their acquisition. I know of at least one Nova roman who has received, more
than once, a somewhat terse lecture on this very idea. If we want
something, then we must achieve it in the right and honorable way, because
if we don't, we tarnish the very thing we want, and warp it, and us, beyond
recognition.

Oh, and to all citizens, please vote!

Vale et valete!
C. Maria Caeca

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

LCS: > We need BOTH....right now both are lacking. We need a plan and the good will of citizens.

CPD: I understand a plan as the framework, and the good will of citizens as the engine. But the plan put on the table by Caesar, for me, is one possibility not the only one. Because this plan is a developpement of a structural analysis made by Cn. Caesar. Each individual focus on what is a problem for him, and gives his solutions.
It is true that Nova Roma is both a sovereign nation in her patterns and a non-profit organization affiliated to the state of the Maine. But I desagree with Caesar on the answers that he gives to this double-nature. As he put the both natures of Nova Roma on the same level he multiplicates solutions and by the way changes things which work, with those that he thinks not working.

LCS: > We have a vision but no way of getting there.

CPD: Nova Roma has many settings. I never thought that Nova Roma had such settings. I think that they only need engines.

LCS: >>> Not only do we not have any way of getting there, we have had so much conflict and discord in the past that some of us will look back at this year of inactivity as a period of calm when it should have been a period of consolidation and rebuilding.

CPD: I agree. It was my first year as senator and I was a little disappointed with the inactivity of the Sacred Body in a such moment when Nova Roma was bloodless. The problems of Nova Roma needed to make committees with the most implicated senators and with scribes to draw at least one framework. Using too the forum to discuss with citizens on the problems.
I know that Caesar has a plan and I regret that it is the one plan we have. Because now the discuss is becoming a sort of blackmail: or you accept the Caesar's plan and Nova Roma goes on, or you refuse the plan and Nova Roma dies. "There is no alternative." as said by Margareth Thatcher.
I do not agree. The discuss must be opened. Ok, because of the inactivity of the Senate, the only plan we have is the plan of Caesar. This plan is not bad at all, it is good in some parts but it is the one that people will have to discuss in a sort of blackmail and vital tension. And moreover the people will have the right to vote on it only if Caesar is elected consul.

LCS:>>>There is no way to achieve the vision without a means and a way to get there. There is a saying the ends justify the means....We have no ends and we have no means to get to that end.<<<

CPD: First we have to decide what is the most important. I know that Caesar points 7 items. Despite he thinks, the achievement of 7 tasks in 1 year is not realistic. Unless those tasks will be slapdash jobs.
The frame of the yearly magistracies is an obstacle for the long term solutions. So, my proposition is to create committees. 1 committee by problem. The authority responsible of those committees will be the Senate, not the magistrates.

Second to define in what occurence the double nature of Nova Roma is a problem. I am sure that the problems are easy to resolve without changing the nature of Nova Roma.

What are the legal requirements that a non-profit organization needs to be affiliated to the Maine?

About the principle: one people one vote, the solution seems to me to create each tribe and each century as one legal entity which will be affiliated to Nova Roma. In each tribe and each century citizens vote with the principle one people one vote. The census made by the censor Sabinus gives us the number of voters. We share citizens between the tribes and the centuries in a fair sort. Each tribe and each century having his president, if necessary by macronational laws. On the details we have to see the laws of the Maine.

In the Senate the principle is yet in force, in the Collegium Pontificum too.

LCS: >>> If you have an better idea to develop the means to get to the end....by all means...state it I want to hear it...I want to find a way to blend it into the plan .....into the means that Caear took the time and dedication to develop it. Right now...NR is stagnate, its wounded, and it needs alot of tender loving care to get it healthy again. This is what I see....and I draw this based on my own observation and this is the reason why I have choosen to give up another year of my life to serve Nova Roma in Her hour of need.

CPD: I gave you above a beginning of ideas. I am not alone, we can developp a kind of brain storming with all citizens which have ideas. But first we have to determine the problems.

LCS:>>> Dexter, I am glad we are developing a friendship and I mean
this to you sincerely, no one is threatening to take away your or anyone's free speech. On the contrary, I want your speech I want you to come up with some plan that you feel would set NR healthy again, because Nova Roma is not healthy right now. She needs all of us to mend her wounds, allow the wounds to scab and heal. You, amice are essential in that progress. For maybe next year you will be consul!

CPD: I will stand next year as consul, if I have been praetor before. :o) I am proud to follow the cursus honorum step by step. And I think that the praetorship is a position that I have to know before standing for consul.

CLS: >>> If you genuinely disagree with Caesar's plan because of the merits of his plan, then I would respectfully ask you to come up with something alternative that we can compare and analyize and see if it will fit the needs of addressing NR's pressing matters.<<<

CPD: First, as I said, I will agree with the articles of the Caesar's plan that I will find correct. And I will debate point after point. In my opinion, as this plan exists - and it certainly was a job to write it - we have to debatte on it. I understand that Caesar looks fondly at his "son", but in my opinion we may resolve the double-nature of Nova Roma with easier way than to change Nova Roma.

LCS :>>> If you are just being hostile for the sake of being hostile, I will respectfully request, to not address the issue because you diminish your own dignitas.<<<

CPD: I know that. I am surprised that you think that I am hostile for the sake being hostile. I only want to prevent a point of no-return. I recall you that I endorse the candidacy of Caesar as consul, but I think too that this plan is something to openly discuss in the Senate.

LCS: >>> As a faux Pontifex Maximus one of the complaints that we had with Piscinus (one of the MANY complaints we had)was that the role of the Pontifex Maximus was to be a bridge builder, that is kinda what Pontiff means right? Dexter, you are Pontifex Maximus of Nova Roma, help us build the bridge so that we can make NR better this
coming year amice. How many times in this post and the last post have I stated we need you? Like 6 or 7 times....I say it that many because your participation is essential. Help us build the bridge and then when your time comes as Consul you will have a more grounded foundation from which you can achieve your objectives instead of having to revisit the same problems....again and again with dwindling support and numbers of citizens.<<<

CPD: As Pontifex Maximus I build the bridge. Yet, I with the CP, we built the bridge for the next year. Nova Roma has her official religious calendar for the next leap year. I am standing for praetor to serve Nova Roma after my year off. I am ready, amice, to be usefull to Nova Roma in both her secular and religious sides.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Praetor candidatus Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XII Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

Ave Caeca,

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:51 PM, C. Maria Caeca <c.mariacaeca@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Ave Sulla!
>
> Skipped home early today ...and, at this time, I have only one thing to
> say
> to you.
>
LUCKY! I am stuck at the office.


>
> You quote the old adage that the ends justify the means. I respond that
> noble ends absolutely require honorable means, or they are destroyed in
> their acquisition.
>
Agreed, but my post was not in regards to that in the least. My point is
that to have an ends there must be a means. Nova Roma lacks the means.
And your point is even more apt given that obvious fact. We have a vision,
but no plan to achieve that vision. I simply choose the saying because it
included two simple word, "Means" and "Ends." I could have used just as
easily a means test except it wouldnt flow as well.

> I know of at least one Nova roman who has received, more
> than once, a somewhat terse lecture on this very idea. If we want
> something, then we must achieve it in the right and honorable way, because
> if we don't, we tarnish the very thing we want, and warp it, and us,
> beyond
> recognition.
>
Agreed, of course first it would require our citizens, in particular those
who are debating and criticizing Caesar's plan to recognize that there must
be a plan first before one can assess whether it be right or honorable. It
would be like putting the cart before the horse. Once we can agree a plan
is needed then comes to work of developing said plan while assessing its
honorableness as well as its effectiveness. This is why I have been
pleading with Dexter to get his involvement in the development of such a
plan.

Most Respectfully,

Sulla



>
> Oh, and to all citizens, please vote!
>
> Vale et valete!
> C. Maria Caeca
>
>
>


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

Ave Sulla!

I'm glad we agree. I was pretty sure that was the case, at least in this
instance, but given the seriousness of what we are discussing, I wanted to
be absolutely certain. I think that open, honest and even heated
discussions of this plan, and any others or modifications of this one that
might arise are, quite possibly the most valuable things we can do. As you
say, we need a plan, and we will need a majority of citizens to "buy into"
that plan in its final form, if it is to be accomplished. Debate,
questioning, differences of opinion, compromise and, in the end, a consensus
that meets our needs, whether we endorse the plan as whole cloth, or alter
it a bit, (or a lot) is the first step in the "buying in" process. That, I
think, is mostly what we are seeing here, and, while it may be annoying, I
find much of what I read healthy.

You are absolutely right, we need an end goal, and we need both a very good
road map and a strategy by which we can reach that goal. What we have been
given is an excellent start to both, and, while I need to do more
examination before I comment (it's been a while since I read it), it may or
may not need a bit of tweaking. It may be that some things will need to be
rephrased or clarified. It may be that we find some things need work. It
might even happen that a citizen will come up with an idea that gives a
whole new perspective, and we may choose to incorporate that idea ...and
that, too, is part of the process. Cn. Iulius Caesar Praetor and candidate
has espoused the desire to see this plan debated first in the Curia and then
in Comitia ...so, at this point, it seems that we are having more or less
informal discussions. I, for one, have absolutely no problem with that,
because it will start the consideration process, and contribute to more
formal discussions at a later date.

Vale et valete!
C. Maria Caeca

Ave Dexter,

On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 12:58 PM, petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> C. Petronius L. Sulla s.p.d.,
>
> LCS: > We need BOTH....right now both are lacking. We need a plan and the
> good will of citizens.
>
> CPD: I understand a plan as the framework, and the good will of citizens
> as the engine. But the plan put on the table by Caesar, for me, is one
> possibility not the only one. Because this plan is a developpement of a
> structural analysis made by Cn. Caesar. Each individual focus on what is a
> problem for him, and gives his solutions.
> It is true that Nova Roma is both a sovereign nation in her patterns and a
> non-profit organization affiliated to the state of the Maine. But I
> desagree with Caesar on the answers that he gives to this double-nature. As
> he put the both natures of Nova Roma on the same level he multiplicates
> solutions and by the way changes things which work, with those that he
> thinks not working.
>

I am so pleased that you understand! You are right, Caesar's plan is not
the only one. Any citizen can come up with a plan! You can come up with a
plan, Dexter. The key difference is right now Caesar's is the only plan
the only plan that addresses the structural concerns of the organization.
Then, with all due seriousness and respect, come up with an alternative
plan that addresses the fundamental flaws the organization has and it will
be brought to the Senate for consideration as well. We will try to marry
both plans to find the best fit that meets all the needs of the
organization. Because, and I say again, just staying the way we are...is
not acceptable. It hasn't worked and we collectively have enough brain
power to find a way to address the current weaknesses of the organization
and repair them and then we can move on to better things in the future. In
the words of Pink Flyod, "If you dont eat your meat, how can you have your
pudding."


>
> LCS: > We have a vision but no way of getting there.
>
> CPD: Nova Roma has many settings. I never thought that Nova Roma had such
> settings. I think that they only need engines.
>
An engine is useless without the necessary equipment to get that engine
going, like a starter, a flywheel, cyllinoid - let alone gas to keep the
engine going.



>
> LCS: >>> Not only do we not have any way of getting there, we have had so
> much conflict and discord in the past that some of us will look back at
> this year of inactivity as a period of calm when it should have been a
> period of consolidation and rebuilding.
>
> CPD: I agree. It was my first year as senator and I was a little
> disappointed with the inactivity of the Sacred Body in a such moment when
> Nova Roma was bloodless.
>
You are not the only one disappointed.


> The problems of Nova Roma needed to make committees with the most
> implicated senators and with scribes to draw at least one framework. Using
> too the forum to discuss with citizens on the problems.
>
Sooner or later it is going to be discussed here, on the ML. Better for it
to be discussed now openly. But, no matter what happens it will also be
discussed, probably in greater detail, in the Senate, even if we need to go
through it section by section. Then we can address each section
independently and make modifications and compromises where need be.


> I know that Caesar has a plan and I regret that it is the one plan we
> have.
>
I don't have that regret. Nothing stopped anyone from developing the
plan. It clearly says something about the author of the plan that he was
astute enough to see what the problems are....address them and find a way
to resolve them. Consider it a starting point. From there everyone has a
chance for input, discussion, criticism and then once there is cohesion it
gets voted on. Unless of course you, or Vedius or the tribune wish to
develop your own plan as well then we can assess all of them
independently....look at each of their strengths and weaknesses and find
common ground.


> Because now the discuss is becoming a sort of blackmail: or you accept the
> Caesar's plan and Nova Roma goes on, or you refuse the plan and Nova Roma
> dies.
>
Dexter, look Cato and I have been subject to blackmail. This is NOT
blackmail. If anything it is a heated discussion between you and Caesar.
You and I, on the other hand are having a very calm, peaceful discussion,
which I might add is unlike me. LOL I am trying to be the diplomat here
because I think it serves the better purpose than to get all upset and
emotional over what are...minor disagreements.


> "There is no alternative." as said by Margareth Thatcher.
>
That in no way means there could be no alternative.

> I do not agree.
>
And neither do I. Anyone can come up with an alternative. The key is that
no one has done the hard work to develop an alternative. It is easy to
criticize....but without someone else other than Caesar to take the time
and develop a detailed alterntative...well.....what you see is what you
get.

> The discuss must be opened. Ok, because of the inactivity of the Senate,
> the only plan we have is the plan of Caesar. This plan is not bad at all,
> it is good in some parts but it is the one that people will have to discuss
> in a sort of blackmail and vital tension. And moreover the people will have
> the right to vote on it only if Caesar is elected consul.
>

Then let me ask you, what are the good parts of the plan. From common
ground we can start making progress!

>
> LCS:>>>There is no way to achieve the vision without a means and a way to
> get there. There is a saying the ends justify the means....We have no ends
> and we have no means to get to that end.<<<
>
> CPD: First we have to decide what is the most important. I know that
> Caesar points 7 items. Despite he thinks, the achievement of 7 tasks in 1
> year is not realistic. Unless those tasks will be slapdash jobs.
> The frame of the yearly magistracies is an obstacle for the long term
> solutions. So, my proposition is to create committees. 1 committee by
> problem. The authority responsible of those committees will be the Senate,
> not the magistrates.
>

First, Dexter, you underestimate Caesar. :)
Second, if I am his colleague you are underestimating me. :)
Third, Caesar as been running for Consul for essentially two years,
developing, planning, getting organized. For when he is elected, the
Senate is going to look at the inactivity during this past year as halcyon
days when it was able to sit at the beach sipping mai tais. Seriously,
Dexter, if Caesar is elected, and I hope he is....The activity will be a
flurry of activity.


>
> Second to define in what occurence the double nature of Nova Roma is a
> problem. I am sure that the problems are easy to resolve without changing
> the nature of Nova Roma.
>
Perhaps, but it is not insurmountable. We already know the basics...Maine
law comes before NR, the question then becomes how do we reconcile them and
retain our Republican Roman Government.

>
> What are the legal requirements that a non-profit organization needs to be
> affiliated to the Maine?
>
Dexter, you should know this already...Do you need the link to Maine
Revised Statutes? Honestly every Senator should have that bookmarked.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/13-B/title13-Bch0sec0.html

>
> About the principle: one people one vote, the solution seems to me to
> create each tribe and each century as one legal entity which will be
> affiliated to Nova Roma. In each tribe and each century citizens vote with
> the principle one people one vote. The census made by the censor Sabinus
> gives us the number of voters. We share citizens between the tribes and the
> centuries in a fair sort. Each tribe and each century having his president,
> if necessary by macronational laws. On the details we have to see the laws
> of the Maine.
>
So, you dont want to have a Roman Model of voting for the Tribes and
Centuries and want to go for a 1 man 1 vote?


>
> In the Senate the principle is yet in force, in the Collegium Pontificum
> too.
>
> LCS: >>> If you have an better idea to develop the means to get to the
> end....by all means...state it I want to hear it...I want to find a way to
> blend it into the plan .....into the means that Caear took the time and
> dedication to develop it. Right now...NR is stagnate, its wounded, and it
> needs alot of tender loving care to get it healthy again. This is what I
> see....and I draw this based on my own observation and this is the reason
> why I have choosen to give up another year of my life to serve Nova Roma in
> Her hour of need.
>
> CPD: I gave you above a beginning of ideas. I am not alone, we can
> developp a kind of brain storming with all citizens which have ideas. But
> first we have to determine the problems.
>
Well, what do you think the problems are? The first step in healing is
recognizing there is a problem....please I would like to know your thoughts
on what the problems are and have been plaguing NR, let's start from that
point of view?


>
> LCS:>>> Dexter, I am glad we are developing a friendship and I mean
>
> this to you sincerely, no one is threatening to take away your or anyone's
> free speech. On the contrary, I want your speech I want you to come up with
> some plan that you feel would set NR healthy again, because Nova Roma is
> not healthy right now. She needs all of us to mend her wounds, allow the
> wounds to scab and heal. You, amice are essential in that progress. For
> maybe next year you will be consul!
>
> CPD: I will stand next year as consul, if I have been praetor before. :o)
> I am proud to follow the cursus honorum step by step. And I think that the
> praetorship is a position that I have to know before standing for consul.
>

IF you are going to stand as Consul next year, aid Caesar


>
> CLS: >>> If you genuinely disagree with Caesar's plan because of the
> merits of his plan, then I would respectfully ask you to come up with
> something alternative that we can compare and analyize and see if it will
> fit the needs of addressing NR's pressing matters.<<<
>
> CPD: First, as I said, I will agree with the articles of the Caesar's plan
> that I will find correct. And I will debate point after point. In my
> opinion, as this plan exists - and it certainly was a job to write it - we
> have to debatte on it. I understand that Caesar looks fondly at his "son",
> but in my opinion we may resolve the double-nature of Nova Roma with easier
> way than to change Nova Roma.
>

That's fine, and that is all I would ever ask of you, Dexter. I would like
to hear the parts that you agree with, I think that is totally lacking
right now while it is on the firing line. What do you like from the
report?


>
> LCS :>>> If you are just being hostile for the sake of being hostile, I
> will respectfully request, to not address the issue because you diminish
> your own dignitas.<<<
>
> CPD: I know that. I am surprised that you think that I am hostile for the
> sake being hostile. I only want to prevent a point of no-return. I recall
> you that I endorse the candidacy of Caesar as consul, but I think too that
> this plan is something to openly discuss in the Senate.
>

Dexter, with all due seriousness, it has seemed that way. I apologize if I
am mistaken, but it was what I thought. I appreciated your endorsement,
and I can assure you that if Caesar and I are given the honor of being
elected the Senate will be able to go over each single page of the document
to discuss, compromise and make improvements. We will measure twice and
cut only once.


>
> LCS: >>> As a faux Pontifex Maximus one of the complaints that we had with
> Piscinus (one of the MANY complaints we had)was that the role of the
> Pontifex Maximus was to be a bridge builder, that is kinda what Pontiff
> means right? Dexter, you are Pontifex Maximus of Nova Roma, help us build
> the bridge so that we can make NR better this
>
> coming year amice. How many times in this post and the last post have I
> stated we need you? Like 6 or 7 times....I say it that many because your
> participation is essential. Help us build the bridge and then when your
> time comes as Consul you will have a more grounded foundation from which
> you can achieve your objectives instead of having to revisit the same
> problems....again and again with dwindling support and numbers of
> citizens.<<<
>
> CPD: As Pontifex Maximus I build the bridge. Yet, I with the CP, we built
> the bridge for the next year. Nova Roma has her official religious calendar
> for the next leap year. I am standing for praetor to serve Nova Roma after
> my year off. I am ready, amice, to be usefull to Nova Roma in both her
> secular and religious sides.
>

Dexter this is the one part I will respectfully disagree with you with
tenacity. You do not wear your PM hat just in the CP, you wear it
everywhere and as such I believe it is your responsibility to carry that
burden even here on the ML and on the Senate as well.

Respectfully,

Sulla


>
>
> Optime vale.
>
> C. Petronius Dexter
> Praetor candidatus Arcoiali scribebat
> a. d. XII Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.
>
>
>


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

A. Liburnius Hadrianus Gn. Iulio Caesari salutem.
 
At this point, I think that the best thing to do is to agree to disagree.  I will, though, respond to the close of your posting, which seem slightly more personal. Obviously you have the right to your opinion about me and my actions, and I will not attempt to change them. Please, have the courtesy to allow me to judge you and your actions with the same liberty.
 
CnIC: Oh, I might add it is very nice to see you participating Hadriane and entering into dialog with me. Surprising but nice, since only as recently as June 19th of this year on the unofficial Newroman list you were branding most, if not all, of all the current figures in the "faction" that survived the dictatorship attempt as "golpistas".
ALH:  You are assuming from a sentence to be able to read my mind. I did not need to specify that I would not support the other faction either because it is gone, having been expelled  or having resigned.
BTW you do not need to go as far back as June 19th to point the finger at me. I have used in my replies to you the terms "Coup and Countercoup". Is the French "Coup" more palatable to you than the Spanish/Portuguese "Golpe"? Should I have used the equivalent Italian  "Colpo" or the Catalan/Provençal "Còp"? 
 
CnIC; If  was such a "golpista" by now I would have found a way to muzzle you. I am Praetor and fully capable of dreaming up some nonsense to that end - much like other Praetors from the other 'faction" were so fond of doing.
ALH: should I consider such words as a threat, Praetor?  Or should I take it simply as an admission of you being able to dream up nonsense? Pick your choice...
 
CnIC:  A tad silly and very uninformed, but you were only elected by one tribe weren't you?
ALH: Yes, surprising don't you think, considering that I was not even running?
 
CnIC: So you don't exactly carry the entire weight of the plebeians behind you Tribune.
ALH: Obviously! But I have accepted to perform a duty I was not searching and therefore I will perform such duty to my best capability. 
BTW: I do not need to point out to you that in a three way competition you may not be able to carry the entire weight of the people behind you either, do I now, Praetor?  There is even the possibility that tou may carry no weight at all.
 
CnIC: Maybe while I remember your implied warning/threat about the sovereignty clause, you should pause to reflect on that fact about your election.
ALH: I do not remember issuing  warning or threats. I commented simply that the last attempt to minimally modify the constitution failed and that a massive plan like yours, may fail also. I was actually pointing to a way to make your proposal more acceptable in the comitia. If you consider this a threat, your skin is a lot more thin than you think. 
 
CnIC: I do however take note of your views and judge your actions and proposals against such comments. Naturally I find them idiotic, uninformed and predictable. You, Tribune, are already too wedded to the past and too tainted by your own narrow views to be considered independent.
ALH:  Thank you for the ringing endorsement, crafted ad hominem. I must congratulate you again on your hability to read my mind, without me even noticing it. Tsk, temper, temper, temper, amice... 
 
 
Optime vale
ALH
 

From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future


 
Cn. Iulius Caesar A. LiburnioHadrianosal.  

ALH This reply is either the result of my lack of clarity or of your intention to obfuscate. So let me be clearer: how can you honestly define non-intrusive the sequent statements:    
 page 17: ...The ultimate penalty would be the termination of the contract and cutting the Senate and magistrates off from access to the software tools necessary to administer the Respublica. The censorial database and tools, all software, lists, Wiki and CP (Century Points - my note) would remain the property of Nova Roma Inc...
page 21 ...Resistance to Nova Roma Inc. would in all likelihood indeed be futile...  
CnIC: Maybe we both haven't been clear enough for the other to grasp the others points. I can honestly define them as non-intrusive as they are the extremes where a rogue Senate totally ignoring the people has also ignored the loss of CP, and thus the qualification of points necessary to continue legitimately as Senators. The final sanction of removing access to the webpage etc., an asset belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by funds raised from the people, and the cancellation of the contract between Nova Roma and such a rogue Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the will of the majority who had indicated their discontent through an opinion poll. I don't see that as intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur when the people themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly because (and it seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this is my lack of clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova Roma Inc.
would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica. Membership of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be comprised as we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be staffed by citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority will of citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That to me is hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens in the res publica.

ALH: you are incorrect. What I want is a solution where the members will still  have a voice after any change is made. You deleted, maybe unintentionally,  and left  without anwer my counter proposal  regarding a BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote"  principle. A principle which I think is a legal requirement, not only in Maine, but just about everywhere in the western world.
CnIC: I answered your proposal. It isn't Roman and has no place in the res publica. I also don't consider it viable because it still doesn't create the necessary arms length distance between the laws of Maine and the res publica. Maine non-profit laws will continue to apply to us under your suggestion, and continue to impose a higher level of authority over what it sees as by-laws and we see as leges and the Constitution while we only have one entity. We will be no further ahead at having an autonomy of laws and people can still cite Maine non-profit laws as an authority that could contradict a lex. That has happened before and will happen again. The vision of an independent state can hardly progress very far if we don't have an environment where our leges, an expression of the will of the people, constantly have to defer to whether they contradict Maine's non-profit law provisions. Once the res publica is a private entity, that supervision by Maine's
non-profit laws ceases in respect of the res publica, yet Maine's laws can act still to our benefit in the non-profit (Nova Roam Inc.) to ensure our assets and funds are managed appropriately.

AHL:You are incorrect. Having an external uncontrolled and  uncontrollable  referee would definitively be anti-Roman particularly in view of the unequal balance of power . Go back and re-read the quotation extracted from your plan and cited earlier. Propose away to mitigate such abuse of power from happening or eliminate its possibility of happening.

CnIC: No you are incorrect. All that the BoD would do is enforce the will of the people, and there is no unequal balance of power. Such a decision to act would have to be taken by the BoD of Nova Roma Inc. itself comprised of a wide spectrum of people drawn from all areas of Nova Roman life. The vote could require a certain percentage of support to act, 2/3rds, or it could be an automatic and mandated requirement when enough people had registered discontent and the situation had reached a crisis. In essence that has happened more than once already in Nova Roma. Over the years access to the webpage was cut off, to the Main List, to the censorial tools etc. Under my proposal such actions would be regulated and only occur if enough people in the res publica had voiced discontent AND the Senate and magistrates had failed to act. It isn't an abuse in my mind to only act in response to this.

ALH:  do not see or do not want  to see? 

CnIC: Do not see, since your suggestions don't resolve one core issue with the over reaching intrusion of Maine non-profit law into the res publica. Apart from that I see no others. Bring some to the debate, if I am elected. If I am not - still find some and start a debate. Until then all I see is mine. If a debate starts in the Senate you can petition the presiding magistrate to address the House and make a proposal. Convince the Senate and the people. I am not convinced - far from it, but maybe they will be. Maybe. Who knows until you try Hadriane? My experience has been that Nova Roma is an excellent vehicle for getting nothing done. Election times produce lots of people out of the woodwork who you never hear much from again after the polls close. So try to motivate the people to vote it down if you wish if it comes to a vote in comitia, but at least do them the favour (since we remain stuck going backwards) of having something else that is
comprehensive and not a few sketchy proposals to replace it. 

ALH: you are wrong again, Magistrates ignore the opinion of people that do not agree with their view. They satisfy their own factional followers. Inflexible factions are the real cancer gnawing at the heart of Nova Roma. That is what force people to eventually leave. with more or less fanfare, depending on their personal style. The same can be said of the Senate which vascillated from one side to the other during the  coup and countercoup of the last period of unrest. Neither side bothered to ask the people's opinion, so the people left a  clear message "A pox on both houses" and voted with their feet.  BTW putting the "squeeze" on the Senate is not the way to get their attention.  A Senate/BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote" principle would punish the senators who ignore the people and reward those who do. I can expand on that if you are interested.
CnIC: You see an inflexible faction? In days gone by, and quite recent days, you would have found yourself by now gagged on some spurious charge, moderated up to your nose. So there is no inflexible faction operating now. The Senate did not vacillate during the coup. A sizable proportion took action, so I don't exactly know where you are getting your information from, but I should know as I was one of those senators and present and active throughout. Oh, and as for asking people's opinions, that would have been a tad hard as the only magistrates that could have called the comitia to order were the Consuls, or the tribunes with the plebeians. The former were both vetoing each other and the latter were split. The reason we didn't end up with a dictatorship was eventually due to two factors, one a threat to sue the proposed Dictator in a macronational court if he accepted the office (as the contention was the Senate call that elected him was illegal
because a veto of a consul was disregarded) and the proposed Dictator as a result referring the matter to a non-profit lawyer for legal advice following that ultimatum being advised that a dictatorship was illegal under Maine non-profit law. He quit the field at that point and the attempt folded like a pack of cards. None of this was Roman and could have been avoided far earlier on under my model by letting the people have a voice. An opinion poll, free from the abilities of a consul to restrain it. Yes, I liken it to a riot in the forum saying "whoa stop right there - we have had enough of this". On the other hand it might have resulted in "Give us a dictator!". We will never know because under the current system we had to fall back on Maine laws, which was the only option available where res publica rules had been flouted and broken. As to your suggestion, as I said feel free to develop it. Don't ask Hadriane, just do it. 

ALH: You are incorrect, again. I have considered your plan, once several months back when you pointed out to me, and once in again in the last few months. I have found some parts acceptable, some boring (mostly the part about financial manipulation, aka CP), some exciting and some troublesome.  I raised some objections, to the underlying philosophy  to which you replied showing unwillingness to consider any changes. I agree that the people should decide finally whether to accept or reject your plan. My objections might  actually make it more understandable and maybe even  more acceptable.  You may want to consider a compromising median road to prevent stronger criticism later. Do not forget that the last time there was a vote about removing the sentence "an independent and sovereign nation" from the constitution, the proposal went down to defeat in the comitia. 
CnIC: I am greatly heartened that you found some parts acceptable, and I do understand you got bored. A far more "illustrious" person than either of us had trouble with 126 pages. So the fact that you got bored doesn't come as a surprise to me. Equally I am excited that you were excited, and troubled that you found some aspects troubling. As to your suggestions, well I am sure they would make it more understandable to at least you, and obviously more acceptable to you (naturally) as they would be your ideas. Whether others would find it so we won't know until you flesh it out more and moot it in any debate that might follow this election. As to a median, well let us start at the beginning shall we. If I don't get elected you can have a free run at your idea. If I do, then I would be happy to hear your suggestions anyway, along with every other Senator, and magistrate entitled to sit in the Senate, including your fellow Tribunes  when I introduce this
plan for debate. I don't forget the last time that issue you quote came up, but since as has been said (wasn't it you or was it Dexter?) that we can never truly have an independent and sovereign nation until the dream/vision of the founders is realized, then that is an apples and oranges point to make. Two different beasts. Oh yes, I suspect you will say that somehow this will impede the dream, but I think (as do many others it seems) the dream is going nowhere fast and hasn't been for years. We are no closer to an independent and sovereign nation than we were when that was penned. Thinking positive thoughts doesn't cut it. We don't have any land so that doesn't work. We have no recognition except from inside the res publica that we are that, and therefore that is (as I have said before) as effective as my saying "I am the King of Siam". It doesn't mean I am, will be or that anyone else capabale of making that a reality thinks it. Repeating
statements like that in the macronational world tend to ensure you get ignored or locked up as a lunatic. So waving that threat around that anything that might solve our dilemma might be condemned as Nova Roman "heresy" doesn't bother me. If the people wish to continue the wreck of Nova Roma, far be it from me to cry "whoa".

Oh, I might add it is very nice to see you participating Hadriane and entering into dialog with me. Surprising but nice, since only as recently as June 19th of this year on the unofficial Newroman list you were branding most, if not all, of all the current figures in the "faction" that survived the dictatorship attempt as "golpistas". You said you would never support them (and I suppose that includes myself and others) so your lukewarm/partly hostile response to this proposal comes as no surprise. After all didn't you say all we were interested in was "revenge"? A tad silly and very uninformed, but you were only elected by one tribe weren't you? So you don't exactly carry the entire weight of the plebeians behind you Tribune. Maybe while I remember your implied warning/threat about the sovereignty clause, you should pause to reflect on that fact about your election.

Oh, and as naturally some citizens here may not be familiar with the meaning of that term "golpistas" - refer here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/will_the_real_golpistas_please.html

"The U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras continues to proclaim the legitimate government of Roberto Micheletti as golpistas -- which in Latin society means far more than coup plotters. In fact, in Latin nations with no semblance of the USA's Posse Comitatus laws barring direct military action domestically, golpistas take on the veneer of military dictatorial fascism with a venue of total criminality and lawless, venal anti-democratic behaviors void of rule of law. As it comes to pass, declaring the current Honduras government and its courts as golpistas -- that is, deemed as criminals to be stripped of support, of rights and barred by the United States of America, carries a defacto declaration of illegitimacy."       

I think that your use of this term, and the tenor of your tone here in these exchanges, rather maps the route that you will be treading this year Tribune. If I was such a "golpista" by now I would have found a way to muzzle you. I am Praetor and fully capable of dreaming up some nonsense to that end - much like other Praetors from the other 'faction" were so fond of doing. I not being such a person however, you are free to continue your "activities". I do however take note of your views and judge your actions and proposals against such comments. Naturally I find them idiotic, uninformed and predictable. You, Tribune, are already too wedded to the past and too tainted by your own narrow views to be considered independent.

A pleasure chatting to you, as always - Tribune - regardless of whichever "faction" you owe your allegiance to.

Optime vale 

________________________________
From: Bruno Zani <reenbru@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future

A. LiburnioHadrianoCn. IulioCaesarisal.

ALH: First of all, there is no need to incorporate a second Nova Roma, in order to protect our not for profit status. A "sine lucro"corporation  can and usually does own the assets necessary to conduce its operations. There is no real reason to give up control of our server, software and database and our operating funds to maintain our current status. 
CnIC: This proposed plan isn't about protecting our non-profit status. It is about creating a model where two opposite models of governance, non-profit and res publica can co-exist without the intrusion of one into the other. 

[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.,

As in France now it is yet 23:25

I have no time more to developp all that I wanted to say. I will be far from the Internet since 22 to 26 December. I will go to my familly.

So I will answer at the points below.

LCS: > Dexter, you should know this already...Do you need the link to Maine Revised Statutes? Honestly every Senator should have that bookmarked.

> http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/13-B/title13-Bch0sec0.html<<<

CPD. I know, I wanted to say what are the legal requirements that a non-profit organization needs to be affiliated to the Maine which make problem with the nature of NR.

CPD: >>> About the principle: one people one vote, the solution seems to me to create each tribe and each century as one legal entity which will be affiliated to Nova Roma. In each tribe and each century citizens vote with the principle one people one vote. The census made by the censor Sabinus gives us the number of voters. We share citizens between the tribes and the centuries in a fair sort. Each tribe and each century having his president, if necessary by macronational laws. On the details we have to see the laws of the Maine.<<<

LCS : > So, you dont want to have a Roman Model of voting for the Tribes and Centuries and want to go for a 1 man 1 vote?

CPD : In the Roman model the votes into the tribe and the century was made 1 man, 1 vote. And after the majority was the voice of the tribe or the century. We respect the Roman model, with a 2 rounds voting process.

CPD:>>> As Pontifex Maximus I build the bridge. Yet, I with the CP, we built the bridge for the next year. Nova Roma has her official religious calendar for the next leap year. I am standing for praetor to serve Nova Roma after my year off. I am ready, amice, to be usefull to Nova Roma in both her secular and religious sides.<<<

LCS:>> Dexter this is the one part I will respectfully disagree with you with tenacity. You do not wear your PM hat just in the CP, you wear it everywhere and as such I believe it is your responsibility to carry that burden even here on the ML and on the Senate as well.<<

CPD: Of course I am the P.M. of Nova Roma everywhere. That is not a problem. But the P.M. is not a catholic pope nor a rabbin. Some of them, as Julius Caesar, led armies and conquerred territories without mercy. In Nova Roma we have no legions, and I am merciful. I have my place everywhere as PM.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XII Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

C. Petronius A. Hadriano s.p.d.,

> ALH:  Thank you for the ringing endorsement, crafted ad hominem. I must congratulate you again on your hability to read my mind, without me even noticing it. Tsk, temper, temper, temper, amice... 

CPD: You are protected by your tribunician sacrosanctitas during your tribuneship, and Caesar in his plan did not change that. That said, I am confident that we will have hot debates in the next year, if Caesar is elected consul.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XII Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

Cn. Iulius Caesar A. Liburnio Hadriano sal. 
 
Use whatever term suits you, for coup or any other word.
 
Of course I wasn't threatening you Hadriane. The point was that would have been the case in the past followed up by bogus reasons to moderate you - as happened numerous times while the previous "faction" held the praetura. If anyone were to come close to meeting your definition of golpsita, it would have been praetors of that sort, not I. Evidently though I assume you tagged us all with that label without knowing all the facts, or the personalities. As to your elevation as Tribune, all it takes is one to write a name in, be it themselves or another. So not surprising at all.
 
Of course I may carry no weight. I am a candidate for consul, not consul. I have been happy to have this plan aired fully. had I not and been elected and embarked on debating it, as likely as not someone would be complaining I should have disclosed my intentions during the contio. That is exactly why I opened the door for such a debate and continued in as much detail as anyone wanted. I certainly won't cry in my soup if the people choose not to elect me, but instead will wait agog to see what flashes of inspired brilliance come forth to save us with a different plan. I have stepped up as a candidate and the people will choose who they wish. I am fully aware that the year ahead if elected will consist of a mix of helpful and unhelpful attitudes. I am not doing this for fun or pleasure. I will, as Sulla has also said, be happy to look at all suggestions. What I will not do if consul is allow one firm suggestion to be replaced by a lot of inaction,
dithering and no plan(s), just so we can all preen ourselves that we are "consulting". If you want an alternative, invent it, adapt one, put it to the Senate (whether I am in the consul's seat or not). Come up with a whole range. Then we can go to the people with one, or more than one, or if in keeping with normal practice, we can end up with nothing.
 
I beg to differ on the interpretation of what you meant by referencing the shambles over the rewording of the preamble. I am more aware than you that legislation doesn't always pass, and part of the reason is dropping it on the people with little debate, no warning and minimal information. Now as to temper, that wasn't temper, just my observations on that statement, which until demonstrated otherwise puts you firmly in the old box of factionalism. 
 
As to you judging my actions, that started the moment you tagged the entire remaining senate (with maybe one exception) as golpista, and then followed it up by your edgy little asides and comments thrown into your posts to me. I noted them, but am not bothered by them, and fully expect that I will and should (as every magistrate including tribunes) should be put under the microscope. That tends to be a given for anyone holding office here.  
 
Optime vale
 
 
 

From: Bruno Zani <reenbru@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future


 
A. Liburnius Hadrianus Gn. Iulio Caesari salutem.
 
At this point, I think that the best thing to do is to agree to disagree.  I will, though, respond to the close of your posting, which seem slightly more personal. Obviously you have the right to your opinion about me and my actions, and I will not attempt to change them. Please, have the courtesy to allow me to judge you and your actions with the same liberty.
 
CnIC: Oh, I might add it is very nice to see you participating Hadriane and entering into dialog with me. Surprising but nice, since only as recently as June 19th of this year on the unofficial Newroman list you were branding most, if not all, of all the current figures in the "faction" that survived the dictatorship attempt as "golpistas".
ALH:  You are assuming from a sentence to be able to read my mind. I did not need to specify that I would not support the other faction either because it is gone, having been expelled  or having resigned.
BTW you do not need to go as far back as June 19th to point the finger at me. I have used in my replies to you the terms "Coup and Countercoup". Is the French "Coup" more palatable to you than the Spanish/Portuguese "Golpe"? Should I have used the equivalent Italian  "Colpo" or the Catalan/Provençal "Còp"? 
 
CnIC; If  was such a "golpista" by now I would have found a way to muzzle you. I am Praetor and fully capable of dreaming up some nonsense to that end - much like other Praetors from the other 'faction" were so fond of doing.
ALH: should I consider such words as a threat, Praetor?  Or should I take it simply as an admission of you being able to dream up nonsense? Pick your choice...
 
CnIC:  A tad silly and very uninformed, but you were only elected by one tribe weren't you?
ALH: Yes, surprising don't you think, considering that I was not even running?
 
CnIC: So you don't exactly carry the entire weight of the plebeians behind you Tribune.
ALH: Obviously! But I have accepted to perform a duty I was not searching and therefore I will perform such duty to my best capability. 
BTW: I do not need to point out to you that in a three way competition you may not be able to carry the entire weight of the people behind you either, do I now, Praetor?  There is even the possibility that tou may carry no weight at all.
 
CnIC: Maybe while I remember your implied warning/threat about the sovereignty clause, you should pause to reflect on that fact about your election.
ALH: I do not remember issuing  warning or threats. I commented simply that the last attempt to minimally modify the constitution failed and that a massive plan like yours, may fail also. I was actually pointing to a way to make your proposal more acceptable in the comitia. If you consider this a threat, your skin is a lot more thin than you think. 
 
CnIC: I do however take note of your views and judge your actions and proposals against such comments. Naturally I find them idiotic, uninformed and predictable. You, Tribune, are already too wedded to the past and too tainted by your own narrow views to be considered independent.
ALH:  Thank you for the ringing endorsement, crafted ad hominem. I must congratulate you again on your hability to read my mind, without me even noticing it. Tsk, temper, temper, temper, amice... 
 
 
Optime vale
ALH
 

From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future

 
Cn. Iulius Caesar A. LiburnioHadrianosal.  

ALH This reply is either the result of my lack of clarity or of your intention to obfuscate. So let me be clearer: how can you honestly define non-intrusive the sequent statements:    
 page 17: ...The ultimate penalty would be the termination of the contract and cutting the Senate and magistrates off from access to the software tools necessary to administer the Respublica. The censorial database and tools, all software, lists, Wiki and CP (Century Points - my note) would remain the property of Nova Roma Inc...
page 21 ...Resistance to Nova Roma Inc. would in all likelihood indeed be futile...  
CnIC: Maybe we both haven't been clear enough for the other to grasp the others points. I can honestly define them as non-intrusive as they are the extremes where a rogue Senate totally ignoring the people has also ignored the loss of CP, and thus the qualification of points necessary to continue legitimately as Senators. The final sanction of removing access to the webpage etc., an asset belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by funds raised from the people, and the cancellation of the contract between Nova Roma and such a rogue Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the will of the majority who had indicated their discontent through an opinion poll. I don't see that as intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur when the people themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly because (and it seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this is my lack of clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova Roma Inc.
would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica. Membership of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be comprised as we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be staffed by citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority will of citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That to me is hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens in the res publica.

ALH: you are incorrect. What I want is a solution where the members will still  have a voice after any change is made. You deleted, maybe unintentionally,  and left  without anwer my counter proposal  regarding a BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote"  principle. A principle which I think is a legal requirement, not only in Maine, but just about everywhere in the western world.
CnIC: I answered your proposal. It isn't Roman and has no place in the res publica. I also don't consider it viable because it still doesn't create the necessary arms length distance between the laws of Maine and the res publica. Maine non-profit laws will continue to apply to us under your suggestion, and continue to impose a higher level of authority over what it sees as by-laws and we see as leges and the Constitution while we only have one entity. We will be no further ahead at having an autonomy of laws and people can still cite Maine non-profit laws as an authority that could contradict a lex. That has happened before and will happen again. The vision of an independent state can hardly progress very far if we don't have an environment where our leges, an expression of the will of the people, constantly have to defer to whether they contradict Maine's non-profit law provisions. Once the res publica is a private entity, that supervision by Maine's
non-profit laws ceases in respect of the res publica, yet Maine's laws can act still to our benefit in the non-profit (Nova Roam Inc.) to ensure our assets and funds are managed appropriately.

AHL:You are incorrect. Having an external uncontrolled and  uncontrollable  referee would definitively be anti-Roman particularly in view of the unequal balance of power . Go back and re-read the quotation extracted from your plan and cited earlier. Propose away to mitigate such abuse of power from happening or eliminate its possibility of happening.

CnIC: No you are incorrect. All that the BoD would do is enforce the will of the people, and there is no unequal balance of power. Such a decision to act would have to be taken by the BoD of Nova Roma Inc. itself comprised of a wide spectrum of people drawn from all areas of Nova Roman life. The vote could require a certain percentage of support to act, 2/3rds, or it could be an automatic and mandated requirement when enough people had registered discontent and the situation had reached a crisis. In essence that has happened more than once already in Nova Roma. Over the years access to the webpage was cut off, to the Main List, to the censorial tools etc. Under my proposal such actions would be regulated and only occur if enough people in the res publica had voiced discontent AND the Senate and magistrates had failed to act. It isn't an abuse in my mind to only act in response to this.

ALH:  do not see or do not want  to see? 

CnIC: Do not see, since your suggestions don't resolve one core issue with the over reaching intrusion of Maine non-profit law into the res publica. Apart from that I see no others. Bring some to the debate, if I am elected. If I am not - still find some and start a debate. Until then all I see is mine. If a debate starts in the Senate you can petition the presiding magistrate to address the House and make a proposal. Convince the Senate and the people. I am not convinced - far from it, but maybe they will be. Maybe. Who knows until you try Hadriane? My experience has been that Nova Roma is an excellent vehicle for getting nothing done. Election times produce lots of people out of the woodwork who you never hear much from again after the polls close. So try to motivate the people to vote it down if you wish if it comes to a vote in comitia, but at least do them the favour (since we remain stuck going backwards) of having something else that is
comprehensive and not a few sketchy proposals to replace it. 

ALH: you are wrong again, Magistrates ignore the opinion of people that do not agree with their view. They satisfy their own factional followers. Inflexible factions are the real cancer gnawing at the heart of Nova Roma. That is what force people to eventually leave. with more or less fanfare, depending on their personal style. The same can be said of the Senate which vascillated from one side to the other during the  coup and countercoup of the last period of unrest. Neither side bothered to ask the people's opinion, so the people left a  clear message "A pox on both houses" and voted with their feet.  BTW putting the "squeeze" on the Senate is not the way to get their attention.  A Senate/BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote" principle would punish the senators who ignore the people and reward those who do. I can expand on that if you are interested.
CnIC: You see an inflexible faction? In days gone by, and quite recent days, you would have found yourself by now gagged on some spurious charge, moderated up to your nose. So there is no inflexible faction operating now. The Senate did not vacillate during the coup. A sizable proportion took action, so I don't exactly know where you are getting your information from, but I should know as I was one of those senators and present and active throughout. Oh, and as for asking people's opinions, that would have been a tad hard as the only magistrates that could have called the comitia to order were the Consuls, or the tribunes with the plebeians. The former were both vetoing each other and the latter were split. The reason we didn't end up with a dictatorship was eventually due to two factors, one a threat to sue the proposed Dictator in a macronational court if he accepted the office (as the contention was the Senate call that elected him was illegal
because a veto of a consul was disregarded) and the proposed Dictator as a result referring the matter to a non-profit lawyer for legal advice following that ultimatum being advised that a dictatorship was illegal under Maine non-profit law. He quit the field at that point and the attempt folded like a pack of cards. None of this was Roman and could have been avoided far earlier on under my model by letting the people have a voice. An opinion poll, free from the abilities of a consul to restrain it. Yes, I liken it to a riot in the forum saying "whoa stop right there - we have had enough of this". On the other hand it might have resulted in "Give us a dictator!". We will never know because under the current system we had to fall back on Maine laws, which was the only option available where res publica rules had been flouted and broken. As to your suggestion, as I said feel free to develop it. Don't ask Hadriane, just do it. 

ALH: You are incorrect, again. I have considered your plan, once several months back when you pointed out to me, and once in again in the last few months. I have found some parts acceptable, some boring (mostly the part about financial manipulation, aka CP), some exciting and some troublesome.  I raised some objections, to the underlying philosophy  to which you replied showing unwillingness to consider any changes. I agree that the people should decide finally whether to accept or reject your plan. My objections might  actually make it more understandable and maybe even  more acceptable.  You may want to consider a compromising median road to prevent stronger criticism later. Do not forget that the last time there was a vote about removing the sentence "an independent and sovereign nation" from the constitution, the proposal went down to defeat in the comitia. 
CnIC: I am greatly heartened that you found some parts acceptable, and I do understand you got bored. A far more "illustrious" person than either of us had trouble with 126 pages. So the fact that you got bored doesn't come as a surprise to me. Equally I am excited that you were excited, and troubled that you found some aspects troubling. As to your suggestions, well I am sure they would make it more understandable to at least you, and obviously more acceptable to you (naturally) as they would be your ideas. Whether others would find it so we won't know until you flesh it out more and moot it in any debate that might follow this election. As to a median, well let us start at the beginning shall we. If I don't get elected you can have a free run at your idea. If I do, then I would be happy to hear your suggestions anyway, along with every other Senator, and magistrate entitled to sit in the Senate, including your fellow Tribunes  when I introduce this
plan for debate. I don't forget the last time that issue you quote came up, but since as has been said (wasn't it you or was it Dexter?) that we can never truly have an independent and sovereign nation until the dream/vision of the founders is realized, then that is an apples and oranges point to make. Two different beasts. Oh yes, I suspect you will say that somehow this will impede the dream, but I think (as do many others it seems) the dream is going nowhere fast and hasn't been for years. We are no closer to an independent and sovereign nation than we were when that was penned. Thinking positive thoughts doesn't cut it. We don't have any land so that doesn't work. We have no recognition except from inside the res publica that we are that, and therefore that is (as I have said before) as effective as my saying "I am the King of Siam". It doesn't mean I am, will be or that anyone else capabale of making that a reality thinks it. Repeating
statements like that in the macronational world tend to ensure you get ignored or locked up as a lunatic. So waving that threat around that anything that might solve our dilemma might be condemned as Nova Roman "heresy" doesn't bother me. If the people wish to continue the wreck of Nova Roma, far be it from me to cry "whoa".

Oh, I might add it is very nice to see you participating Hadriane and entering into dialog with me. Surprising but nice, since only as recently as June 19th of this year on the unofficial Newroman list you were branding most, if not all, of all the current figures in the "faction" that survived the dictatorship attempt as "golpistas". You said you would never support them (and I suppose that includes myself and others) so your lukewarm/partly hostile response to this proposal comes as no surprise. After all didn't you say all we were interested in was "revenge"? A tad silly and very uninformed, but you were only elected by one tribe weren't you? So you don't exactly carry the entire weight of the plebeians behind you Tribune. Maybe while I remember your implied warning/threat about the sovereignty clause, you should pause to reflect on that fact about your election.

Oh, and as naturally some citizens here may not be familiar with the meaning of that term "golpistas" - refer here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/will_the_real_golpistas_please.html

"The U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras continues to proclaim the legitimate government of Roberto Micheletti as golpistas -- which in Latin society means far more than coup plotters. In fact, in Latin nations with no semblance of the USA's Posse Comitatus laws barring direct military action domestically, golpistas take on the veneer of military dictatorial fascism with a venue of total criminality and lawless, venal anti-democratic behaviors void of rule of law. As it comes to pass, declaring the current Honduras government and its courts as golpistas -- that is, deemed as criminals to be stripped of support, of rights and barred by the United States of America, carries a defacto declaration of illegitimacy."       

I think that your use of this term, and the tenor of your tone here in these exchanges, rather maps the route that you will be treading this year Tribune. If I was such a "golpista" by now I would have found a way to muzzle you. I am Praetor and fully capable of dreaming up some nonsense to that end - much like other Praetors from the other 'faction" were so fond of doing. I not being such a person however, you are free to continue your "activities". I do however take note of your views and judge your actions and proposals against such comments. Naturally I find them idiotic, uninformed and predictable. You, Tribune, are already too wedded to the past and too tainted by your own narrow views to be considered independent.

A pleasure chatting to you, as always - Tribune - regardless of whichever "faction" you owe your allegiance to.

Optime vale 

________________________________
From: Bruno Zani <reenbru@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future

A. LiburnioHadrianoCn. IulioCaesarisal.

ALH: First of all, there is no need to incorporate a second Nova Roma, in order to protect our not for profit status. A "sine lucro"corporation  can and usually does own the assets necessary to conduce its operations. There is no real reason to give up control of our server, software and database and our operating funds to maintain our current status. 
CnIC: This proposed plan isn't about protecting our non-profit status. It is about creating a model where two opposite models of governance, non-profit and res publica can co-exist without the intrusion of one into the other. 

[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]

Salve, et salvete!

Gentle friends, I believe I speak for many of us when I say:

TRIM YOUR *&^&* POSTS!!!

Thank you.

On to other matters. No single individual was responsible for saving Nova Roma. Claiming to be Horatio at the bridge is going a bit too far, however there's no denying it was a close shave and there were heroic efforts made.

Caesar, I read your manifesto back when you first published it, with a nice glass of chianti. While I don't agree with all of it, parts of it have merit. Rather than thrashing it out here, perhaps a simple side-by-side comparison of the areas where corporate and res publica matters conflict would be more helpful.

Several people have brought up the SCA. Nova Roma is not a reenactor organization, and that's not the direction we want to go. The fact is that the SCA is a well-organized, well-respected group that is able to support itself financially. There are certainly things we can learn from them and I suggest we get at it. Now would be soon enough.

Optime vale,

V Rutilia Enodiaria







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

Q. Fabius Maximus SPD

In a message dated 12/21/2011 6:31:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
gn_iulius_caesar@... writes:

Firstly what ultimately stopped the dictatorship attempt was Marinus
deciding after legal advice (which he sought after being told by two us we would
sue him if he accepted the office) that the office of the Dictator was
illegal and that he would not assume the office.

QFM Yes. He could not beat the deep pockets with his, and none of his
allies offered monetary support other then raiding the treasury.

Secondly, our law - the Constitution - was overriden by Maine law which
trumped it. Maine law is decided by the Maine State legislature, an outside
body to the res publica. Thirdly, clearly you haven't read anything I have
written here (or in the report) or grasped a salient point that my proposed
BoD for Nova Roma Inc. would be elected, 50% of it directly by the people
from candidates who could declare at will, and the other 50% elected by
bodies they would represent such as the Senate and the collegia. Since the
people who would serve on it would all be citizens - that is hardly "outside".


QFM: Maine law trumped the NR Constitution because of the phrase
macronational law takes precedent.

This did not happen in the Religious trials since that current government
ignored that phrase. Even after Senator Tullia and I pointed it out to the
Praetors. Had Equitius wanted fight I had Yahoo Corporate ready to sue NR
INC in favor of Cope since Yahoo TOS forbids corporations controlling a
personal private list which was exactly what Relle and Sir Davy was doing with
NR INC.
Cope was disgusted with the whole thing and walked. After all he had done
for NR to be treated like that I can't say I blamed him.


If our system was so capable of functioning on its own the attempt
wouldn't have happened because they would have respected the consular veto. Also
how would our system have worked if Marinus had accepted it? All the
censorial tools (webpage etc) were in the hands of the opposing faction or within
their control. They actually still are, aren't they? So the system didn't
work. Maine worked prompted by the threat of a law suit. Nova Roma's system
failed utterly.
I won't say utterly. I think they were not expecting the large amount of
opposition. They thought all the Boni ex members would up object but with
our main voice Sulla gone we'd eventually be overwhelmed.
David told me one thing that gave him pause was that Matt Hucke joined the
opposition, Dexter stood firm and Consul Memmius did not go away as he
originally said. And you yourself Caesar showed up after being quiet during
the religious trials. The vote was a near thing, anyway. They were never
going to get 2/3rds so they planned to ignore the vote, install the
dictator, purge the Senate, then vote again. But since they couldn't get a quorum
to give even get a chance of respectability, they would have to go outside
the Constitution Relle depending on his "I know what's best for Nova Roma"
personality to convince the people that this was the best step for NR.
David was not convinced the people would buy it, they were already up in
arms about the purge in the CP, and this was a power grab pure and simple.

I think this would have torn Nova Roma apart, and begot two. Which when
you think about it is pretty much what happened except we hung on to our
treasury while they wanted to loot it.

What I understand based on comments is that the new BoD would be made up
of 50% Senators and 50% Stockholders. In this case to get compromises to
occur.

Vedius system works on a "ask what you can do for the State, not what the
State can do for you." mindset. Which is very Roman.
The problem was so many members had the opposite view.

Any checks and balances system is dependent on those handling the
responsibility to be responsible. NR's problem was we put too many greedy
irresponsible people in power. And we saw the result.

Valete






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

Caesar Maximo sal.

QFM: Maine law trumped the NR Constitution because of the phrase macronational law takes precedent. 

CnIC: No Maxime, Maine trumps the NR Constitution, because it is the state law of our incorporation state. We can scribble what we want in the Constitution, but it won't nullify the power that Maine state law can exert.

QFM: And you yourself Caesar showed up after being quiet during the religious trials.
CnIC: If you are referring to Cincinnatus Maxime I think you and Cato must be comparing notes or have the same researcher. I was not quiet <lol> and in fact Octavius noted that on his "purge page" in the Wiki. Have you read it? Let me quote you what he wrote. 

"Cn. Iulius Caesar also became an outspoken advocate of justice for Lucius Equitius."

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Purge_of_MMDCCLXI_(Nova_Roma) 

I was active in the forum speaking on the "religious trials" as you call them and on Cincinnatus' defence team. I assisted Paulinus in preparing his case. I was on the same list as you - we both still are! Go look <lol> How about you check the archives of this list from that period and match the number of posts you wrote and I did? I think at the time you were keeping your head down in the CP at the time hoping Piscinus wasn't going to boot you out, as clearly you were on their shopping list for the next to be outed. They didn't bother trying you as they were going to proceed for non-performance of your duties - or so of course they claimed that you weren't performing. Do you recall now? Your memory is obviously failing you again, or are you as usual trying to diminish other's roles in such affairs? Besides, I was never quiet on any issue during that period <lol>. If your History of Nova Roma is as poorly researched in other areas (not that you needed
research as you were there - in body) you should publish it as a novel.

QFM: Vedius system works on a "ask what you can do for the State, not what the State can do for you." mindset. Which is very Roman. The problem was so many members had the opposite view.
CnIC: Yes, I rather think you have proved my point about history repeating itself. We can debate whether money was the attraction, as you seem to think or "power" or both. The bottom line is that the system failed miserably because its survival is predicated on the incumbents always doing the right thing, which clearly they don't. Each faction that has ever existed in Nova Roma can claim that its opponents haven't done the "right thing". A good sound structure isn't built in such a manner but with comprehensive checks and balances.


QFM: Any checks and balances system is dependent on those handling the responsibility to be responsible. NR's problem was we put too many greedy irresponsible people in power. And we saw the result.
CnIC: We didn't put anyone anywhere Maxime, the people elected them. It could happen all over again and the system would be just as ill-prepared and there is no reason to assume that just because the Dictatorship attempt didn't work last time it will fail the next time also. We need structural changes to address such issues and Maine vs res publica.

Optime vale.


________________________________
From: "QFabiusMaxmi@..." <QFabiusMaxmi@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future




Q. Fabius Maximus SPD

In a message dated 12/21/2011 6:31:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
gn_iulius_caesar@... writes:

Firstly what ultimately stopped the dictatorship attempt was  Marinus
deciding after legal advice (which he sought after being told by two  us we would
sue him if he accepted the office) that the office of the Dictator  was
illegal and that he would not assume the office.

QFM Yes.  He could not beat the deep pockets with his, and none  of his
allies offered monetary support other then raiding the  treasury.

Secondly, our law - the Constitution - was overriden by Maine law  which
trumped it. Maine law is decided by the Maine State legislature, an  outside
body to the res publica. Thirdly, clearly you haven't read anything I  have
written here (or in the report) or grasped a salient point that my proposed
BoD for Nova Roma Inc. would be elected, 50% of it directly by the people
from  candidates who could declare at will, and the other 50% elected by
bodies they  would represent such as the Senate and the collegia. Since the
people who would  serve on it would all be citizens - that is hardly  "outside".

QFM: Maine law trumped the NR Constitution because of the phrase
macronational law takes precedent.

This did not happen in the Religious trials since that current government
ignored that phrase.  Even after Senator Tullia and I pointed it out to the
Praetors.  Had Equitius wanted fight I had Yahoo Corporate ready to sue NR
INC in favor of Cope since Yahoo TOS forbids corporations controlling a
personal private list which was exactly what Relle and Sir Davy was doing with
NR INC.
Cope was disgusted with the whole thing and walked.  After all he had  done
for NR to be treated like that I can't say I blamed  him.

If  our system was so capable of functioning on its own the attempt
wouldn't have  happened because they would have respected the consular veto. Also
how would  our system have worked if Marinus had accepted it? All the
censorial tools  (webpage etc) were in the hands of the opposing faction or within
their  control. They actually still are, aren't they? So the system didn't
work.  Maine worked prompted by the threat of a law suit. Nova Roma's system
failed  utterly.
I won't say utterly.  I think they were not expecting the large amount  of
opposition.  They thought all the Boni ex members would up object but  with
our main voice Sulla gone we'd eventually be overwhelmed.
David told me one thing that gave him pause was that Matt Hucke joined  the
opposition, Dexter stood firm and Consul Memmius did not go away as he
originally said.  And you yourself Caesar showed up after being quiet  during
the religious trials.  The vote was a near thing, anyway.  They  were never
going to get 2/3rds so they planned to ignore the vote, install the
dictator, purge the Senate, then vote again.  But since they couldn't get a  quorum
to give even get a chance of respectability, they would have to go  outside
the Constitution Relle depending on his "I know what's best for Nova  Roma"
personality to convince the people that this was the best step for  NR.
David was not convinced the people would buy it, they were already up in
arms about the purge in the CP,  and this was a power grab pure and  simple.

I think this would have torn Nova Roma apart, and begot  two.  Which when
you think about it is pretty much what happened  except we hung on to our
treasury while they wanted to loot it.

What I understand based on comments is that the new BoD would be made  up
of 50% Senators and 50% Stockholders.  In this case to get compromises  to
occur.

Vedius system works on a "ask what you can do for the State, not what the
State can do for you." mindset.  Which is very Roman.
The problem was so many members had the opposite view.

Any checks and balances system is dependent on those handling the
responsibility to be responsible.  NR's problem was we put too many greedy
irresponsible people in power.  And we saw the result.

Valete


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


  

A. Hadriano C. Petronio sal.
Merci mon ami! Je connais bien ma protection religieuse.
Je pense que l'été prochain sera tellement chaud que l'été de 1989 à Paris, avec des températures dépassant 40 degrés à l'ombre pendant mai, juin et juillet. Tout dépendra de la volonté de compromis. Je peux tolérer nombreuses parties du plan de César, mais pas le contrôle du Sénat, des magistratures et des réunions populaires d'un organisme externe, où 50% des membres n'est pas élu au suffrage direct.
 
Translation:
Thank you, friend. I am well aware of religious status.
I suspect the coming summer will as hot as the summer of 1989  in Paris, with temperatures over 40 degrees in the shade during May, June and July. All hangs on the willingness to compromise I can put up with many parts of Caesar's plan, but not  with the control over senate, magistracies and Comitia by an external organism where only 50% of the members are elected by universal suffrage.
 
Optime vale
ALH
From: petronius_dexter <jfarnoud94@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 2:42 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future


 
C. Petronius A. Hadriano s.p.d.,

> ALH:  Thank you for the ringing endorsement, crafted ad hominem. I must congratulate you again on your hability to read my mind, without me even noticing it. Tsk, temper, temper, temper, amice... 

CPD: You are protected by your tribunician sacrosanctitas during your tribuneship, and Caesar in his plan did not change that. That said, I am confident that we will have hot debates in the next year, if Caesar is elected consul.

Optime vale.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XII Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.




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

Cato Iulio Caesari sal.

Well. That was a little over-the-top in viciousness, I think. You seem to think that disagreement with (a very specific) part of your proposal is an attack on you personally, which it certainly is not - something I made quite clear.

To set the record straight, Marinus refused to accept the dictatorship long before he sought out legal advice; he recognized that the validity of the Senate session was in question, and he said so publicly and clearly. The fact that a dictatorship is actually illegal under Maine law was news to all of us - including you.

You wrote:

"The BoD of Nova Roma Inc. would not step in at will, but in direct response to the usual thread of magistrates and/or Senate running amok."

Running "amok" by whose standards?

The crux of the matter - the only one in your plan which truly concerns me - is that you simply don't like the fact that governments can go in directions that are either unpalatable to you or unexpected by you and you are willing to sacrifice the elected government in order to attempt "stability". Governing is not a simple series of acts, controllable and containable in neat packages, and it never will be.

To take the authority given by the People to their elected magistrates and dismiss it based on an "opinion poll" is the ultimate in political pandering.

Again I ask - what guarantee is there that the proposed BoD of "Nova Roma, Inc." will be any better than the legally-elected magistrates of the Respublica? If there is no guarantee - if you cannot absolutely ensure that that BoD will always in every case and at every instance perform in utter and absolute purity of motive and obedience to the will of the People, then you are simply replacing one BoD (the Senate) with another. Why?

Yes, this was a challenging year for me; over the course of those six months I lost a job, I lost a family member, and instead of bitching and moaning in public I decided to hunker down and get through it, as it is my nature to do. Yes, you and Sulla and others poked me when necessary and finally in the last month and a half things settled down for me.

If I had known what the future held, then back in January and February I would gladly have simply given in to every one of Albucius' outrageous (by your own opinion as well) demands and let my personal vision of the dignity of the consular chair slide. It is to my great fault that I did not, apparently, and for this I apologize publicly and openly.

Not once did you turn to my colleague in the consulate and ask him to do anything; he had terrible personal problems and I never once begrudged him that, nor do I now. I was alone and, in your opinion, I failed. So be it. But perhaps you might be a tiny bit more charitable and look at this last year - one without the customary infighting, vitriol, and destruction - as a deep breath, one that will enable you to start the major revitalization of the Respublica. Do not swell your own dignity on the trampling of others'.

Vale bene,

Cato

A. Liburnius Hadrianus Cn. Iulio Caesari sal.
 
I double checked the facts and write-in vote with my name came in from tribe 19. I belong, with C. Egnitius Cato, to tribe 12.
 
You may find the actual results at message 85942
[Write-in] A Liburnius Hadrianus (1):
19

That easily proves that I did not enter my own name.

As for the suggestion that I asked somebody else to do it for me, since I can not prove a negative, well yes, I asked everybody else, except you, just so that I could feign surprise just for your entertainment. My, the convolutions of a conspiratorial mind are far more surprising that I thought.

Vale
ALH

From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future


 
Cn. Iulius Caesar A. Liburnio Hadriano sal. 
 
Use whatever term suits you, for coup or any other word. 
 
Of course I wasn't threatening you Hadriane. The point was that would have been the case in the past followed up by bogus reasons to moderate you - as happened numerous times while the previous "faction" held the praetura. If anyone were to come close to meeting your definition of golpsita, it would have been praetors of that sort, not I. Evidently though I assume you tagged us all with that label without knowing all the facts, or the personalities. As to your elevation as Tribune, all it takes is one to write a name in, be it themselves or another. So not surprising at all.
 
Of course I may carry no weight. I am a candidate for consul, not consul. I have been happy to have this plan aired fully. had I not and been elected and embarked on debating it, as likely as not someone would be complaining I should have disclosed my intentions during the contio. That is exactly why I opened the door for such a debate and continued in as much detail as anyone wanted. I certainly won't cry in my soup if the people choose not to elect me, but instead will wait agog to see what flashes of inspired brilliance come forth to save us with a different plan. I have stepped up as a candidate and the people will choose who they wish. I am fully aware that the year ahead if elected will consist of a mix of helpful and unhelpful attitudes. I am not doing this for fun or pleasure. I will, as Sulla has also said, be happy to look at all suggestions. What I will not do if consul is allow one firm suggestion to be replaced by a lot of inaction,
dithering and no plan(s), just so we can all preen ourselves that we are "consulting". If you want an alternative, invent it, adapt one, put it to the Senate (whether I am in the consul's seat or not). Come up with a whole range. Then we can go to the people with one, or more than one, or if in keeping with normal practice, we can end up with nothing.
 
I beg to differ on the interpretation of what you meant by referencing the shambles over the rewording of the preamble. I am more aware than you that legislation doesn't always pass, and part of the reason is dropping it on the people with little debate, no warning and minimal information. Now as to temper, that wasn't temper, just my observations on that statement, which until demonstrated otherwise puts you firmly in the old box of factionalism. 
 
As to you judging my actions, that started the moment you tagged the entire remaining senate (with maybe one exception) as golpista, and then followed it up by your edgy little asides and comments thrown into your posts to me. I noted them, but am not bothered by them, and fully expect that I will and should (as every magistrate including tribunes) should be put under the microscope. That tends to be a given for anyone holding office here.  
 
Optime vale
 
 
 

From: Bruno Zani <reenbru@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future

 
A. Liburnius Hadrianus Gn. Iulio Caesari salutem.
 
At this point, I think that the best thing to do is to agree to disagree.  I will, though, respond to the close of your posting, which seem slightly more personal. Obviously you have the right to your opinion about me and my actions, and I will not attempt to change them. Please, have the courtesy to allow me to judge you and your actions with the same liberty.
 
CnIC: Oh, I might add it is very nice to see you participating Hadriane and entering into dialog with me. Surprising but nice, since only as recently as June 19th of this year on the unofficial Newroman list you were branding most, if not all, of all the current figures in the "faction" that survived the dictatorship attempt as "golpistas".
ALH:  You are assuming from a sentence to be able to read my mind. I did not need to specify that I would not support the other faction either because it is gone, having been expelled  or having resigned.
BTW you do not need to go as far back as June 19th to point the finger at me. I have used in my replies to you the terms "Coup and Countercoup". Is the French "Coup" more palatable to you than the Spanish/Portuguese "Golpe"? Should I have used the equivalent Italian  "Colpo" or the Catalan/Provençal "Còp"? 
 
CnIC; If  was such a "golpista" by now I would have found a way to muzzle you. I am Praetor and fully capable of dreaming up some nonsense to that end - much like other Praetors from the other 'faction" were so fond of doing.
ALH: should I consider such words as a threat, Praetor?  Or should I take it simply as an admission of you being able to dream up nonsense? Pick your choice...
 
CnIC:  A tad silly and very uninformed, but you were only elected by one tribe weren't you?
ALH: Yes, surprising don't you think, considering that I was not even running?
 
CnIC: So you don't exactly carry the entire weight of the plebeians behind you Tribune.
ALH: Obviously! But I have accepted to perform a duty I was not searching and therefore I will perform such duty to my best capability. 
BTW: I do not need to point out to you that in a three way competition you may not be able to carry the entire weight of the people behind you either, do I now, Praetor?  There is even the possibility that tou may carry no weight at all.
 
CnIC: Maybe while I remember your implied warning/threat about the sovereignty clause, you should pause to reflect on that fact about your election.
ALH: I do not remember issuing  warning or threats. I commented simply that the last attempt to minimally modify the constitution failed and that a massive plan like yours, may fail also. I was actually pointing to a way to make your proposal more acceptable in the comitia. If you consider this a threat, your skin is a lot more thin than you think. 
 
CnIC: I do however take note of your views and judge your actions and proposals against such comments. Naturally I find them idiotic, uninformed and predictable. You, Tribune, are already too wedded to the past and too tainted by your own narrow views to be considered independent.
ALH:  Thank you for the ringing endorsement, crafted ad hominem. I must congratulate you again on your hability to read my mind, without me even noticing it. Tsk, temper, temper, temper, amice... 
 
 
Optime vale
ALH
 

From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future

 
Cn. Iulius Caesar A. LiburnioHadrianosal.  

ALH This reply is either the result of my lack of clarity or of your intention to obfuscate. So let me be clearer: how can you honestly define non-intrusive the sequent statements:    
 page 17: ...The ultimate penalty would be the termination of the contract and cutting the Senate and magistrates off from access to the software tools necessary to administer the Respublica. The censorial database and tools, all software, lists, Wiki and CP (Century Points - my note) would remain the property of Nova Roma Inc...
page 21 ...Resistance to Nova Roma Inc. would in all likelihood indeed be futile...  
CnIC: Maybe we both haven't been clear enough for the other to grasp the others points. I can honestly define them as non-intrusive as they are the extremes where a rogue Senate totally ignoring the people has also ignored the loss of CP, and thus the qualification of points necessary to continue legitimately as Senators. The final sanction of removing access to the webpage etc., an asset belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by funds raised from the people, and the cancellation of the contract between Nova Roma and such a rogue Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the will of the majority who had indicated their discontent through an opinion poll. I don't see that as intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur when the people themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly because (and it seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this is my lack of clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova Roma Inc.
would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica. Membership of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be comprised as we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be staffed by citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority will of citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That to me is hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens in the res publica.

ALH: you are incorrect. What I want is a solution where the members will still  have a voice after any change is made. You deleted, maybe unintentionally,  and left  without anwer my counter proposal  regarding a BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote"  principle. A principle which I think is a legal requirement, not only in Maine, but just about everywhere in the western world.
CnIC: I answered your proposal. It isn't Roman and has no place in the res publica. I also don't consider it viable because it still doesn't create the necessary arms length distance between the laws of Maine and the res publica. Maine non-profit laws will continue to apply to us under your suggestion, and continue to impose a higher level of authority over what it sees as by-laws and we see as leges and the Constitution while we only have one entity. We will be no further ahead at having an autonomy of laws and people can still cite Maine non-profit laws as an authority that could contradict a lex. That has happened before and will happen again. The vision of an independent state can hardly progress very far if we don't have an environment where our leges, an expression of the will of the people, constantly have to defer to whether they contradict Maine's non-profit law provisions. Once the res publica is a private entity, that supervision by Maine's
non-profit laws ceases in respect of the res publica, yet Maine's laws can act still to our benefit in the non-profit (Nova Roam Inc.) to ensure our assets and funds are managed appropriately.

AHL:You are incorrect. Having an external uncontrolled and  uncontrollable  referee would definitively be anti-Roman particularly in view of the unequal balance of power . Go back and re-read the quotation extracted from your plan and cited earlier. Propose away to mitigate such abuse of power from happening or eliminate its possibility of happening.

CnIC: No you are incorrect. All that the BoD would do is enforce the will of the people, and there is no unequal balance of power. Such a decision to act would have to be taken by the BoD of Nova Roma Inc. itself comprised of a wide spectrum of people drawn from all areas of Nova Roman life. The vote could require a certain percentage of support to act, 2/3rds, or it could be an automatic and mandated requirement when enough people had registered discontent and the situation had reached a crisis. In essence that has happened more than once already in Nova Roma. Over the years access to the webpage was cut off, to the Main List, to the censorial tools etc. Under my proposal such actions would be regulated and only occur if enough people in the res publica had voiced discontent AND the Senate and magistrates had failed to act. It isn't an abuse in my mind to only act in response to this.

ALH:  do not see or do not want  to see? 

CnIC: Do not see, since your suggestions don't resolve one core issue with the over reaching intrusion of Maine non-profit law into the res publica. Apart from that I see no others. Bring some to the debate, if I am elected. If I am not - still find some and start a debate. Until then all I see is mine. If a debate starts in the Senate you can petition the presiding magistrate to address the House and make a proposal. Convince the Senate and the people. I am not convinced - far from it, but maybe they will be. Maybe. Who knows until you try Hadriane? My experience has been that Nova Roma is an excellent vehicle for getting nothing done. Election times produce lots of people out of the woodwork who you never hear much from again after the polls close. So try to motivate the people to vote it down if you wish if it comes to a vote in comitia, but at least do them the favour (since we remain stuck going backwards) of having something else that is
comprehensive and not a few sketchy proposals to replace it. 

ALH: you are wrong again, Magistrates ignore the opinion of people that do not agree with their view. They satisfy their own factional followers. Inflexible factions are the real cancer gnawing at the heart of Nova Roma. That is what force people to eventually leave. with more or less fanfare, depending on their personal style. The same can be said of the Senate which vascillated from one side to the other during the  coup and countercoup of the last period of unrest. Neither side bothered to ask the people's opinion, so the people left a  clear message "A pox on both houses" and voted with their feet.  BTW putting the "squeeze" on the Senate is not the way to get their attention.  A Senate/BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote" principle would punish the senators who ignore the people and reward those who do. I can expand on that if you are interested.
CnIC: You see an inflexible faction? In days gone by, and quite recent days, you would have found yourself by now gagged on some spurious charge, moderated up to your nose. So there is no inflexible faction operating now. The Senate did not vacillate during the coup. A sizable proportion took action, so I don't exactly know where you are getting your information from, but I should know as I was one of those senators and present and active throughout. Oh, and as for asking people's opinions, that would have been a tad hard as the only magistrates that could have called the comitia to order were the Consuls, or the tribunes with the plebeians. The former were both vetoing each other and the latter were split. The reason we didn't end up with a dictatorship was eventually due to two factors, one a threat to sue the proposed Dictator in a macronational court if he accepted the office (as the contention was the Senate call that elected him was illegal
because a veto of a consul was disregarded) and the proposed Dictator as a result referring the matter to a non-profit lawyer for legal advice following that ultimatum being advised that a dictatorship was illegal under Maine non-profit law. He quit the field at that point and the attempt folded like a pack of cards. None of this was Roman and could have been avoided far earlier on under my model by letting the people have a voice. An opinion poll, free from the abilities of a consul to restrain it. Yes, I liken it to a riot in the forum saying "whoa stop right there - we have had enough of this". On the other hand it might have resulted in "Give us a dictator!". We will never know because under the current system we had to fall back on Maine laws, which was the only option available where res publica rules had been flouted and broken. As to your suggestion, as I said feel free to develop it. Don't ask Hadriane, just do it. 

ALH: You are incorrect, again. I have considered your plan, once several months back when you pointed out to me, and once in again in the last few months. I have found some parts acceptable, some boring (mostly the part about financial manipulation, aka CP), some exciting and some troublesome.  I raised some objections, to the underlying philosophy  to which you replied showing unwillingness to consider any changes. I agree that the people should decide finally whether to accept or reject your plan. My objections might  actually make it more understandable and maybe even  more acceptable.  You may want to consider a compromising median road to prevent stronger criticism later. Do not forget that the last time there was a vote about removing the sentence "an independent and sovereign nation" from the constitution, the proposal went down to defeat in the comitia. 
CnIC: I am greatly heartened that you found some parts acceptable, and I do understand you got bored. A far more "illustrious" person than either of us had trouble with 126 pages. So the fact that you got bored doesn't come as a surprise to me. Equally I am excited that you were excited, and troubled that you found some aspects troubling. As to your suggestions, well I am sure they would make it more understandable to at least you, and obviously more acceptable to you (naturally) as they would be your ideas. Whether others would find it so we won't know until you flesh it out more and moot it in any debate that might follow this election. As to a median, well let us start at the beginning shall we. If I don't get elected you can have a free run at your idea. If I do, then I would be happy to hear your suggestions anyway, along with every other Senator, and magistrate entitled to sit in the Senate, including your fellow Tribunes  when I introduce this
plan for debate. I don't forget the last time that issue you quote came up, but since as has been said (wasn't it you or was it Dexter?) that we can never truly have an independent and sovereign nation until the dream/vision of the founders is realized, then that is an apples and oranges point to make. Two different beasts. Oh yes, I suspect you will say that somehow this will impede the dream, but I think (as do many others it seems) the dream is going nowhere fast and hasn't been for years. We are no closer to an independent and sovereign nation than we were when that was penned. Thinking positive thoughts doesn't cut it. We don't have any land so that doesn't work. We have no recognition except from inside the res publica that we are that, and therefore that is (as I have said before) as effective as my saying "I am the King of Siam". It doesn't mean I am, will be or that anyone else capabale of making that a reality thinks it. Repeating
statements like that in the macronational world tend to ensure you get ignored or locked up as a lunatic. So waving that threat around that anything that might solve our dilemma might be condemned as Nova Roman "heresy" doesn't bother me. If the people wish to continue the wreck of Nova Roma, far be it from me to cry "whoa".

Oh, I might add it is very nice to see you participating Hadriane and entering into dialog with me. Surprising but nice, since only as recently as June 19th of this year on the unofficial Newroman list you were branding most, if not all, of all the current figures in the "faction" that survived the dictatorship attempt as "golpistas". You said you would never support them (and I suppose that includes myself and others) so your lukewarm/partly hostile response to this proposal comes as no surprise. After all didn't you say all we were interested in was "revenge"? A tad silly and very uninformed, but you were only elected by one tribe weren't you? So you don't exactly carry the entire weight of the plebeians behind you Tribune. Maybe while I remember your implied warning/threat about the sovereignty clause, you should pause to reflect on that fact about your election.

Oh, and as naturally some citizens here may not be familiar with the meaning of that term "golpistas" - refer here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/will_the_real_golpistas_please.html

"The U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras continues to proclaim the legitimate government of Roberto Micheletti as golpistas -- which in Latin society means far more than coup plotters. In fact, in Latin nations with no semblance of the USA's Posse Comitatus laws barring direct military action domestically, golpistas take on the veneer of military dictatorial fascism with a venue of total criminality and lawless, venal anti-democratic behaviors void of rule of law. As it comes to pass, declaring the current Honduras government and its courts as golpistas -- that is, deemed as criminals to be stripped of support, of rights and barred by the United States of America, carries a defacto declaration of illegitimacy."       

I think that your use of this term, and the tenor of your tone here in these exchanges, rather maps the route that you will be treading this year Tribune. If I was such a "golpista" by now I would have found a way to muzzle you. I am Praetor and fully capable of dreaming up some nonsense to that end - much like other Praetors from the other 'faction" were so fond of doing. I not being such a person however, you are free to continue your "activities". I do however take note of your views and judge your actions and proposals against such comments. Naturally I find them idiotic, uninformed and predictable. You, Tribune, are already too wedded to the past and too tainted by your own narrow views to be considered independent.

A pleasure chatting to you, as always - Tribune - regardless of whichever "faction" you owe your allegiance to.

Optime vale 

________________________________
From: Bruno Zani <reenbru@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future

A. LiburnioHadrianoCn. IulioCaesarisal.

ALH: First of all, there is no need to incorporate a second Nova Roma, in order to protect our not for profit status. A "sine lucro"corporation  can and usually does own the assets necessary to conduce its operations. There is no real reason to give up control of our server, software and database and our operating funds to maintain our current status. 
CnIC: This proposed plan isn't about protecting our non-profit status. It is about creating a model where two opposite models of governance, non-profit and res publica can co-exist without the intrusion of one into the other. 

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

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

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




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

Volusus Caesari S.P.D.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Cn. Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
> Caesar Voluso sal.
>
> 1. He and anyone else is welcome to kick as much as they like, or not.
>

Of course. When we buy a new car we kick the tires, inspect the engine and
ask a heap of questions. Right now I expect you to be wearing your salesman
hat :D

It will not make a jot of difference if the plan is awesome and the all the
details are perfect, if at the end there is no buy-in. Since this plan will
ultimately be submitted to comitia. So the sales process starts now. I do
not want to see you spend a year wasting your time, any more than you do.
I'm 100% looking towards success.

> 2. What I take issue with, though I will still answer any questions they
> have, is those that had the plan two years ago and did nothing with it and
> come late to the table with "issues", those who discussed it with me and
> now either have memory failure or have embelished their memory, and those
> who come with a preconceived view about the personalities within the Senate
> (in fact the whole Senate) founded on absurdities, which to my mind
> compromises any claim of independence they may make. None of those three
> scenarios however will prevent me dealing with their "issues". It just
> makes me question a number of things about the persons having the issues.
>

Well, a more healthy approach to think about these unstated issues arising
is to anticipate them. Anticipate that people do not have as thorough an
understanding of all the details that exist right now, particularly those
that exist only in your head and that it is your task to patiently explain
them. As the plan comes closer to actually being implemented human
psychology is such that people discover questions and concerns that they
may not have formulated previously during less detailed discussions. This
is not a sign of hidden agendas or attempts at sabotage, but rather simple
human psychology. A good salesman knows how to allay buyers' anxiety. The
biggest anxiety for buyers is the dreaded "buyers remorse". It is that
which I am raising.

I'm actually not raising an objection or opposing your plan. I am trying to
help you sell what I think, in the outline that we have so far, is
essentially a sound plan if implemented correctly. Please be careful of
finding hostility where none exist.

I have not given any formal endorsements, other than for the Praetura.
However, you do have my support and you will get my vote for consul. I'm
going to do everything in my power to help in the process of restructuring,
as I have already stated to you personally. That includes helping to "sell"
it to those who have doubts, concerns and anxieties, provided the final
form is in the best interests of the citizens of Nova Roma and advances the
aims and objectives of the Respublica.

I will warn you know that it is very probably that I might discover
concerns that I am, as yet, unaware. You have had two years to think
through the details of your plan, many of the rest of us need time to catch
up.

> 3. A reversal process is a simplistic matter. Since none of the assets
> would be transferred out of the legal name of Nova Roma Inc. all we have to
> provide for is a clause in the Articles of Incorportaion and Constitution
> of Nova Roma, and, the AoI (and if it has one), the Constitution of the res
> publica. This clause could activatein a number of ways. For example, a
> process of a motion being put to the members and voted on in NR Inc. There
> would need to be a similar vote in the Senate in the res publica. The
> clause could disolve the res publica corporation for example, and revert
> right back to the delightful place we are now. You could instead have an
> automatic reversal that kicks in unless negated. There are many options
> Voluse. Checks and balances would have to be included of course, but yes
> very possible.
>

I see the plans for the corporate restructuring as being like "training
wheels" or an incubator for the fragile and vulnerable Respublica. We have
to have a macronational legal structure because we have not reached an end
goal of sovereignty. There are some clear problems of having the Respublica
itself being a non-profit corporation, and so Nova Roma Inc. acting as a
Foundation to support the Respublica may be used effectively as a buffer
between the macronational world and the Respublica.

However, it is clear that this structure does not represent the end-game of
Nova Roma. Our goal is not to create a Maine non-profit corporation, but to
establish a sovereign Nova Roman nation. At some point, as we approach the
realization of that goal, the training wheels will need to come off. We
need to have clarity about how Nova Roma Inc. & the Respublica may be
restructured in the future to meet future needs. We do not want to be
painting ourselves into a legal corner. So it is less about "reversability"
or having a back-out option and more about ensuring that we retain
adaptability in the face of future uncertainty. Otherwise, when it comes
down to putting it to the final vote people may find themselves suffering
or anticipating buyers' remorse.

> 4. The electorate may or may not have concern about me being consul.
> However the electorate does not comprise Hadrianus, Cato, Vedius and who
> ever else has "concerns". Naturally you can understand why I think that
> mildly amusing that people are "concerned" about the risk of the small
> candle in the corner setting light to the drapes, when the house is already
> ablaze, walls collapsing and foundations crumbling. How very Nova Roman.
> All we need now is one of the concerned to volunteer to fiddle while Nova
> Roma burns and picture will be complete.
>

I don't find this point very helpful at all. I am not speaking on behalf of
the gentlemen you mention above. I am trying to be helpful in identifying
points of resistance that you are very likely to come across, so that you
may anticipate them and handle objections as they arise. Many different
people have already expressed on various threads, and to me in personal
informal discussions, certain reservations. Those are not expressions of
hostility or opposition, but reservations, anxieties and concerns. If you
are unable to address such concerns and build confidence you may ultimately
fail in comitia. I think that scenario would be a tragedy for us all. We DO
need to seize this opportunity to fix very real structural problems. You
are now in the sales-cycle whether you like it or not.

> 5. I have long suspected that some people's concerns are more about Nova
> Roma actually being made to function, which would in turn place
> expectations on them to do something other than be "concerned".
>

That doesn't even make any sense. You are a bigger man than that Caesar!
That just sounds like self-pity. Get a grip man! :D
Seriously, anyone who is not committed to the success of Nova Roma most
likely left last year; because last year totally sucked. Anyone who managed
to survive 2010 and 2011 probably deserves a seat at the table and their
concerns to be taken seriously.

> 6. The contio maybe over but free speech remains. Everyone should feel
> free to post if they wish.
>

You should take heart, since people are discussing details of your plan as
though your election is fait accompli. Clearly, there is going to be some
robust debate going on this year.

Vale optime,

Volusus

>
> Optime vale
>
> --- In Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com, Nicholas Cowham <nykcowham@...> wrote:
> >
> > V. Valerius Volusus Cn. Iulio Caesari S.P.D.
> >
> > I have been following this exchange rather closely and I am glad that my
> > colleague Hadrianus is actively engaged in kicking the tires of your plan
> > on behalf of Nova Roma's citizens as, indeed, he should as a tribunus
> > plebis. I am sure that if you are elected Caesar, that we will have many
> > such discussions ahead of us.
> >
> > What I would like to ask you is what would the process be to reverse the
> > reforms that you propose to put in place? I think this might be a more
> > important consideration at this stage, than many of the details that my
> > good colleague has raised. If these reforms are adopted, will they
> > irreversible? If they will be reversible, assuming for some reason that
> the
> > reforms prove more disastrous than our current structures, then how would
> > they be reversed? What are the safeguards that we will not be locking
> > ourselves into a deal with the devil, so to speak? I believe this hits a
> > major concern that the electorate has about placing you on the curule
> seat
> > and seeing this plan implemented. So far I don't think you have really
> > addressed this very fundamental anxiety. Any change always brings a
> certain
> > degree of anxiety for many people. Do you think that you could address
> > these anxieties?
> >
> > I understand that the contio is closed and we voting will begin shortly.
> > Please keep this request for consideration for after the elections, and
> > consider it only necessary to answer if you should be elected to office.
> > Good luck sir.
> >
> > Vale optime,
> >
> > Volusus
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <
> > gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:
> >
> > > **
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Cn. Iulius Caesar A. LiburnioHadrianosal.
> > >
> > >
> > > ALH This reply is either the result of my lack of clarity or of your
> > > intention to obfuscate. So let me be clearer: how can you honestly
> define
> > > non-intrusive the sequent statements:
> > > page 17: ...The ultimate penalty would be the termination of the
> contract
> > > and cutting the Senate and magistrates off from access to the software
> > > tools necessary to administer the Respublica. The censorial database
> and
> > > tools, all software, lists, Wiki and CP (Century Points - my note)
> would
> > > remain the property of Nova Roma Inc...
> > > page 21 ...Resistance to Nova Roma Inc. would in all likelihood indeed
> be
> > > futile...
> > > CnIC: Maybe we both haven't been clear enough for the other to grasp
> the
> > > others points. I can honestly define them as non-intrusive as they are
> the
> > > extremes where a rogue Senate totally ignoring the people has also
> ignored
> > > the loss of CP, and thus the qualification of points necessary to
> continue
> > > legitimately as Senators. The final sanction of removing access to the
> > > webpage etc., an asset belonging to Nova Roma Inc. and paid for by
> funds
> > > raised from the people, and the cancellation of the contract between
> Nova
> > > Roma and such a rogue Senate, would be all in aid of enforcing the
> will of
> > > the majority who had indicated their discontent through an opinion
> poll. I
> > > don't see that as intrusive for two reasons. firstly it would occur
> when
> > > the people themselves had spoken through an opinion poll, and secondly
> > > because (and it seems to me that maybe your failure to understand this
> is
> > > my lack of clarity or your intention to obfuscate) that the BoD of Nova
> > > Roma Inc.
> > > would be wholly drawn from the citizen body of the res publica.
> Membership
> > > of Nova Roma means access to the res publica. The BoD would be
> comprised as
> > > we discussed before. So one BoD - the non-profit - would be staffed by
> > > citizens. Citizens acting to enforce the will of the majority will of
> > > citizen body that registered such discontent through a poll. That to
> me is
> > > hardly intrusive when all such acts are in support of the citizens in
> the
> > > res publica.
> > >
> > >
> > > ALH: you are incorrect. What I want is a solution where the members
> will
> > > still have a voice after any change is made. You deleted, maybe
> > > unintentionally, and left without anwer my counter proposal regarding a
> > > BoD elected 100% by the membership on the "one man, one vote"
> principle. A
> > > principle which I think is a legal requirement, not only in Maine, but
> just
> > > about everywhere in the western world.
> > > CnIC: I answered your proposal. It isn't Roman and has no place in the
> res
> > > publica. I also don't consider it viable because it still doesn't
> create
> > > the necessary arms length distance between the laws of Maine and the
> res
> > > publica. Maine non-profit laws will continue to apply to us under your
> > > suggestion, and continue to impose a higher level of authority over
> what it
> > > sees as by-laws and we see as leges and the Constitution while we only
> have
> > > one entity. We will be no further ahead at having an autonomy of laws
> and
> > > people can still cite Maine non-profit laws as an authority that could
> > > contradict a lex. That has happened before and will happen again. The
> > > vision of an independent state can hardly progress very far if we don't
> > > have an environment where our leges, an expression of the will of the
> > > people, constantly have to defer to whether they contradict Maine's
> > > non-profit law provisions. Once the res publica is a private entity,
> that
> > > supervision by Maine's
> > > non-profit laws ceases in respect of the res publica, yet Maine's laws
> can
> > > act still to our benefit in the non-profit (Nova Roam Inc.) to ensure
> our
> > > assets and funds are managed appropriately.
> > >
> > >
> > > AHL:You are incorrect. Having an external uncontrolled and
> > > uncontrollable referee would definitively be anti-Roman particularly in
> > > view of the unequal balance of power . Go back and re-read the
> quotation
> > > extracted from your plan and cited earlier. Propose away to mitigate
> such
> > > abuse of power from happening or eliminate its possibility of
> happening.
> > >
> > > CnIC: No you are incorrect. All that the BoD would do is enforce the
> will
> > > of the people, and there is no unequal balance of power. Such a
> decision to
> > > act would have to be taken by the BoD of Nova Roma Inc. itself
> comprised of
> > > a wide spectrum of people drawn from all areas of Nova Roman life. The
> vote
> > > could require a certain percentage of support to act, 2/3rds, or it
> could
> > > be an automatic and mandated requirement when enough people had
> registered
> > > discontent and the situation had reached a crisis. In essence that has
> > > happened more than once already in Nova Roma. Over the years access to
> the
> > > webpage was cut off, to the Main List, to the censorial tools etc.
> Under my
> > > proposal such actions would be regulated and only occur if enough
> people in
> > > the res publica had voiced discontent AND the Senate and magistrates
> had
> > > failed to act. It isn't an abuse in my mind to only act in response to
> this.
> > >
> > >
> > > ALH: do not see or do not want to see?
> > >
> > > CnIC: Do not see, since your suggestions don't resolve one core issue
> with
> > > the over reaching intrusion of Maine non-profit law into the res
> publica.
> > > Apart from that I see no others. Bring some to the debate, if I am
> elected.
> > > If I am not - still find some and start a debate. Until then all I see
> is
> > > mine. If a debate starts in the Senate you can petition the presiding
> > > magistrate to address the House and make a proposal. Convince the
> Senate
> > > and the people. I am not convinced - far from it, but maybe they will
> be.
> > > Maybe. Who knows until you try Hadriane? My experience has been that
> Nova
> > > Roma is an excellent vehicle for getting nothing done. Election times
> > > produce lots of people out of the woodwork who you never hear much from
> > > again after the polls close. So try to motivate the people to vote it
> down
> > > if you wish if it comes to a vote in comitia, but at least do them the
> > > favour (since we remain stuck going backwards) of having something else
> > > that is
> > > comprehensive and not a few sketchy proposals to replace it.
> > >
> > >
> > > ALH: you are wrong again, Magistrates ignore the opinion of people
> that do
> > > not agree with their view. They satisfy their own factional followers.
> > > Inflexible factions are the real cancer gnawing at the heart of Nova
> Roma.
> > > That is what force people to eventually leave. with more or less
> fanfare,
> > > depending on their personal style. The same can be said of the Senate
> which
> > > vascillated from one side to the other during the coup and countercoup
> of
> > > the last period of unrest. Neither side bothered to ask the people's
> > > opinion, so the people left a clear message "A pox on both houses" and
> > > voted with their feet. BTW putting the "squeeze" on the Senate is not
> the
> > > way to get their attention. A Senate/BoD elected 100% by the
> membership on
> > > the "one man, one vote" principle would punish the senators who ignore
> the
> > > people and reward those who do. I can expand on that if you are
> interested.
> > > CnIC: You see an inflexible faction? In days gone by, and quite recent
> > > days, you would have found yourself by now gagged on some spurious
> charge,
> > > moderated up to your nose. So there is no inflexible faction operating
> now.
> > > The Senate did not vacillate during the coup. A sizable proportion took
> > > action, so I don't exactly know where you are getting your information
> > > from, but I should know as I was one of those senators and present and
> > > active throughout. Oh, and as for asking people's opinions, that would
> have
> > > been a tad hard as the only magistrates that could have called the
> comitia
> > > to order were the Consuls, or the tribunes with the plebeians. The
> former
> > > were both vetoing each other and the latter were split. The reason we
> > > didn't end up with a dictatorship was eventually due to two factors,
> one a
> > > threat to sue the proposed Dictator in a macronational court if he
> accepted
> > > the office (as the contention was the Senate call that elected him was
> > > illegal
> > > because a veto of a consul was disregarded) and the proposed Dictator
> as a
> > > result referring the matter to a non-profit lawyer for legal
> > > advice following that ultimatum being advised that a dictatorship was
> > > illegal under Maine non-profit law. He quit the field at that point
> and the
> > > attempt folded like a pack of cards. None of this was Roman and could
> have
> > > been avoided far earlier on under my model by letting the people have a
> > > voice. An opinion poll, free from the abilities of a consul to
> restrain it.
> > > Yes, I liken it to a riot in the forum saying "whoa stop right there -
> we
> > > have had enough of this". On the other hand it might have resulted in
> "Give
> > > us a dictator!". We will never know because under the current system
> we had
> > > to fall back on Maine laws, which was the only option available where
> res
> > > publica rules had been flouted and broken. As to your suggestion, as I
> said
> > > feel free to develop it. Don't ask Hadriane, just do it.
> > >
> > >
> > > ALH: You are incorrect, again. I have considered your plan, once
> several
> > > months back when you pointed out to me, and once in again in the last
> few
> > > months. I have found some parts acceptable, some boring (mostly the
> part
> > > about financial manipulation, aka CP), some exciting and some
> > > troublesome. I raised some objections, to the underlying philosophy to
> > > which you replied showing unwillingness to consider any changes. I
> agree
> > > that the people should decide finally whether to accept or reject your
> > > plan. My objections might actually make it more understandable and
> maybe
> > > even more acceptable. You may want to consider a compromising median
> road
> > > to prevent stronger criticism later. Do not forget that the last time
> there
> > > was a vote about removing the sentence "an independent and
> > > sovereign nation" from the constitution, the proposal went down to
> defeat
> > > in the comitia.
> > > CnIC: I am greatly heartened that you found some parts acceptable, and
> I
> > > do understand you got bored. A far more "illustrious" person than
> either of
> > > us had trouble with 126 pages. So the fact that you got bored doesn't
> come
> > > as a surprise to me. Equally I am excited that you were excited, and
> > > troubled that you found some aspects troubling. As to your suggestions,
> > > well I am sure they would make it more understandable to at least you,
> and
> > > obviously more acceptable to you (naturally) as they would be your
> ideas.
> > > Whether others would find it so we won't know until you flesh it out
> more
> > > and moot it in any debate that might follow this election. As to a
> median,
> > > well let us start at the beginning shall we. If I don't get elected
> you can
> > > have a free run at your idea. If I do, then I would be happy to hear
> your
> > > suggestions anyway, along with every other Senator, and magistrate
> entitled
> > > to sit in the Senate, including your fellow Tribunes when I introduce
> this
> > > plan for debate. I don't forget the last time that issue you quote came
> > > up, but since as has been said (wasn't it you or was it Dexter?) that
> we
> > > can never truly have an independent and sovereign nation until the
> > > dream/vision of the founders is realized, then that is an apples and
> > > oranges point to make. Two different beasts. Oh yes, I suspect you
> will say
> > > that somehow this will impede the dream, but I think (as do many
> others it
> > > seems) the dream is going nowhere fast and hasn't been for years. We
> are no
> > > closer to an independent and sovereign nation than we were when that
> was
> > > penned. Thinking positive thoughts doesn't cut it. We don't have any
> land
> > > so that doesn't work. We have no recognition except from inside the res
> > > publica that we are that, and therefore that is (as I have said
> before) as
> > > effective as my saying "I am the King of Siam". It doesn't mean I am,
> will
> > > be or that anyone else capabale of making that a reality thinks it.
> > > Repeating
> > > statements like that in the macronational world tend to ensure you get
> > > ignored or locked up as a lunatic. So waving that threat around that
> > > anything that might solve our dilemma might be condemned as Nova Roman
> > > "heresy" doesn't bother me. If the people wish to continue the wreck of
> > > Nova Roma, far be it from me to cry "whoa".
> > >
> > > Oh, I might add it is very nice to see you participating Hadriane and
> > > entering into dialog with me. Surprising but nice, since only as
> recently
> > > as June 19th of this year on the unofficial Newroman list you were
> branding
> > > most, if not all, of all the current figures in the "faction" that
> survived
> > > the dictatorship attempt as "golpistas". You said you would never
> support
> > > them (and I suppose that includes myself and others) so your
> > > lukewarm/partly hostile response to this proposal comes as no surprise.
> > > After all didn't you say all we were interested in was "revenge"? A tad
> > > silly and very uninformed, but you were only elected by one tribe
> weren't
> > > you? So you don't exactly carry the entire weight of the plebeians
> behind
> > > you Tribune. Maybe while I remember your implied warning/threat about
> > > the sovereignty clause, you should pause to reflect on that fact about
> your
> > > election.
> > >
> > > Oh, and as naturally some citizens here may not be familiar with the
> > > meaning of that term "golpistas" - refer here:
> > >
> > >
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/will_the_real_golpistas_please.html
> > >
> > > "The U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, Honduras continues to proclaim the
> > > legitimate government of Roberto Micheletti as golpistas -- which in
> Latin
> > > society means far more than coup plotters. In fact, in Latin nations
> with
> > > no semblance of the USA's Posse Comitatus laws barring direct military
> > > action domestically, golpistas take on the veneer of military
> dictatorial
> > > fascism with a venue of total criminality and lawless, venal
> > > anti-democratic behaviors void of rule of law. As it comes to pass,
> > > declaring the current Honduras government and its courts as golpistas
> --
> > > that is, deemed as criminals to be stripped of support, of rights and
> > > barred by the United States of America, carries a defacto declaration
> of
> > > illegitimacy."
> > >
> > > I think that your use of this term, and the tenor of your tone here in
> > > these exchanges, rather maps the route that you will be treading this
> year
> > > Tribune. If I was such a "golpista" by now I would have found a way to
> > > muzzle you. I am Praetor and fully capable of dreaming up some
> nonsense to
> > > that end - much like other Praetors from the other 'faction" were so
> fond
> > > of doing. I not being such a person however, you are free to continue
> your
> > > "activities". I do however take note of your views and judge your
> actions
> > > and proposals against such comments. Naturally I find them idiotic,
> > > uninformed and predictable. You, Tribune, are already too wedded to the
> > > past and too tainted by your own narrow views to be considered
> independent.
> > >
> > > A pleasure chatting to you, as always - Tribune - regardless of
> whichever
> > > "faction" you owe your allegiance to.
> > >
> > > Optime vale
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: Bruno Zani <reenbru@...>
>
> > > To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:10 AM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future
> > >
> > > A. LiburnioHadrianoCn. IulioCaesarisal.
> > >
> > >
> > > ALH: First of all, there is no need to incorporate a second Nova Roma,
> in
> > > order to protect our not for profit status. A "sine lucro"corporation
> can
> > > and usually does own the assets necessary to conduce its operations.
> There
> > > is no real reason to give up control of our server, software and
> > > database and our operating funds to maintain our current status.
> > > CnIC: This proposed plan isn't about protecting our non-profit status.
> It
> > > is about creating a model where two opposite models of governance,
> > > non-profit and res publica can co-exist without the intrusion of one
> into
> > > the other.
> > >
> > > [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 A. Hadriano salutem,

> Merci mon ami! Je connais bien ma protection religieuse.

I am going to take my train to join my familly, and I saw before disconnect me from Internet your message. With my luggages on hand!

I cannot leave without sending this post.

I am glad that you know French language so well! That's made me happy to read something in French and so correct in the main list. I take that chance as a great opportunity for the future year.

I encourage citizens to vote, cista is open till the 24 December. Vote, please for our quaestor and rogators!

I will be back to Nova Roma on Monday 26 December.

Di te ament.

C. Petronius Dexter
Arcoiali scribebat
a. d. XI Kalendas Ianuarias P. Vllerio C. Equitio coss.

A. Tullia Scholastica quiritibus tironibus sociis peregrinisque bonae
voluntatis S.P.D.

Now for a change of pace in the direction of academia: One of our former
students (and current Spanish interpreter) sent the message copied below to
me. It might be instructive for Americans at least to see what is expected
of European teenagers in order to qualify for this scholarship. If anyone
is interested, and qualified, I am sure that you would be welcome to apply.

======

Announcement of Competition
Latin, Greek and Humanities at the Academy Vivarium Novum in Rome - Italy

The Academy Vivarium Novum is offering four full tuition scholarships
for high school students of the European Union (16-18 years old) and
five full tuition scholarships for University students (18-24 years
old) of any part of the world. The scholarships will cover all of the
costs of room, board, teaching and didactic materials for courses to
be held from January 10, 2011 until June 16, 2012 on the grounds of
the Academy?s campus at Rome (Via Corrado Barbagallo, 20).
Application letters must be sent to info@... by January
5th in order to receive consideration.
A good knowledge of the fundamental of Latin and Greek is required
(students must have covered at least the contents of the first 20
chapters of Orberg¹s Familia Romana and of the first 7 chapters of
Balme¹s and Lawall¹s Athenaze).

The courses will be as follows:
1. Latin language (fundamental and advanced)
2. Greek language (fundamental and advanced)
3. Latin composition
4. Roman History
5. Ancient Latin literature
6. History of ancient Philosophy
7. Renaissance and Neo-Latin literature
8. Latin and Greek music and poetry
9. Classics reading seminars

The goal is to achieve a perfect command of both Latin and Greek
through a total immersion in the two languages. All the classes will
be conducted in Latin, except for Greek classes which will be
conducted in Greek.

In the letter the prospective student should indicate the following:


1. Full name;

2. Date and location of birth;

3. What school you currently attend;

4. How long you have studied Latin and/or Greek;

5. Which authors and works you have read;

6. Other studies and primary interests outside of school.


In addition, please attach a recent passport/ID photograph.

(For more information about the Academy, you may visit the website
www.vivariumnovum.net.)



Accademia Vivarium novum
Via Corrado Barbagallo 20
00166 Roma
Tel. 06.6689034 - 06.66589833
Fax 06.61007266
info@...
http://www.vivariumnovum.net






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

Cn. Iulius Caesar A. Liburnio Hadriano sal. 

I don't think I said you wrote your own name in. I assume you would just have candidated if you had wanted to stand on your own accord. I pointed out that in a "write-in" all it takes is one person, be it "the candidate" or another, to enter a name. That is why it wasn't surprising. If 100 people had to nominate you, that would have been surprising. Thank you for your research and the clarification though. As to " conspiratorial mind", you assumed I thought there was a something deeper, so maybe you have that affliction ;)? Clearly with your golpistas comment you had already made a rash mental leap. Based on that one might say you are pretty close to developing into a full blown conspiracy theorist :) 

Optime vale 

________________________________
From: Bruno Zani <reenbru@...>
To: "Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com" <Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future



A. Liburnius Hadrianus Cn. Iulio Caesari sal.

I double checked the facts and write-in vote with my name came in from tribe 19. I belong, with C. Egnitius Cato, to tribe 12.

You may find the actual results at message 85942
[Write-in] A Liburnius Hadrianus (1):
19

Q Caecilius Metellus omnibus s.d.

For my part, I've never been much of a celebrant of Saturnalia. The
post-Lupercalia sacra of Februarius, as well as those of Martius and
Aprilis, have always been more to my interest and practise. This year,
however, I had the distinct pleasure of spending Saturnalia with C
Tullius Valerianus and C Valeria Pulchra, as well as a few (hopefully)
soon-to-be-Romans.

Without going into too much detail, as the proud recipient of one such
of the pilei C Tullius mentioned, I can gladly attest to the quality of
both the pilei (which were aptly designed with an eye toward the
personalities of the recipients) and the included gifts (which, at
least in my case, was exceptionally thoughtful, touching, and, in the
spirit of it, eminently useful).

I hope all our Saturnalia celebrants were able to enjoy (and to
continue enjoying) their Saturnalia celebrations, and that our
Chaunnakah celebrants (which I know are not so few among us) equally
enjoy their days, and too that our Christmas, Kwanzaa, and other
celebrants find as much joy in their celebrations this season as I
found in mine.

Semper Romani uincant!

Caesar Catoni sal.

You know me. Late comments on a plan you had in your possession for two years, with not a peep from you were bound to evoke a response. With regard to this year what I said is fact or direct observation. Pure and simple. I don't think you appreciate at all how frustrating it has been for those of your friends who backed you to the hilt over many years, on so many different issues, to watch this year frittered away. Yes, I know what your issues were now, but before we had no communication, yet we knew you were alive, meeting Dexter and posting at odd times. This was meant to be your great moment to institute all those changes you posted now you would like to see done. That boat has sailed Cato, months ago. The legislative calendar is preciously short. So no, I don't accept lectures from you on these matters, and had you paused, before typing, for a spot of introspection for how events over the last twelve months have failed to meet the most basic bar of
expectations, you should (knowing me well) have stilled your typing fingers or been prepared for the response you got. 

The first six months were naturally going to require compromise given the junior Censor's nature, but you were too stubborn and Albucius too much of an autocrat. In many ways it was well that he was given the events of 2009/2010, but that was his nature. Yes you were consul, but to make it more than a title and to ensure things got done required you to make it work. You could have negotiated harder, more directly - one on one for longer and gone back as often as necessary, and with an eye on the greater goal of repairing the res publica. It was going to require a level of compromise and diplomacy to ensure that the business of the state went smoothly. Instead you became obstinate over matters that could easily have been mitigated or mediated. The result was a total loss of opportunity to achieve anything meaningful. I prefer blunt to vicious but choose which adjective you wish. I maybe the only one to tell you this, but I am not the only one who thinks
it. Naturally I suspect I will be one of two who may tell you this. 

Running amok I define as simply by the standard of those citizens bothered to register an opinion in the Forum and those ultimately registering a protest.

CEC: To set the record straight, Marinus refused to accept the dictatorship long before he sought out legal advice; he recognized that the validity of the Senate session was in question, and he said so publicly and clearly. The fact that a dictatorship is actually illegal under Maine law was news to all of us - including you.
CnIC: Utterly incorrect. Message 278 on Senaculum- 9.36am August 7th 2010, where I committed by own money to defending the res publica's funds if he touched them as Dictator and to defend Albucius' position. Same list message 4.34pm 2010, Marinus commits to seeking legal advice on my challenge there was a legal impediment regarding the illegal session call. August 11th 2010 11.46pm on Senaculum Marinus announces he would not accept the dictatorship after legal advice. So Cato, he wouldn't have sought advice unless he had been challenged with a law suit. You won't know of course that as you refused to join that list and as a consequence missed where most of the debates over the Dictatorship went on outside of Senate session. Yes no one knew there is an opinion it is illegal, but Marinus wasn't going to seek advice before that. he did so AFTER my post and in response to it.

CEC: "Governing is not a simple series of acts, controllable and containable in neat packages, and it never will be."  
CnIC: Well since we don't have many examples of well ordered government and result driven activity, you may think this norm. Setting bumbling, fumbling, disorder and laziness on a pedestal of normality though doesn't equate to government for me. What happened to the Cato that used to declaim in the forum about incompetence and mismanagement? Where did he go? Was he swallowed by the void inside the Consular pointy hat, to be replaced by the apologist for inactivity and chaotic disorder? Of course government will never be neat Cato, but firstly there has to be some governance and there also have to be boundaries for incompetence or absolute disregard for the expressed will of those bothered enough to participate. It is like voting. Only a few people vote in Nova Roma out of the declining few capable of it, but from tribunes up those few become the "people".

CEC: To take the authority given by the People to their elected magistrates and dismiss it based on an "opinion poll" is the ultimate in political pandering.
CnIC: You truly have lost touch with your principles. You were once part of the opinion poll we have had for years in Nova Roma. It is this Forum. While other citizens were silent you and I and others were vocal. Did you ever stop and say "well on reflection I am just a fraction of the population, so really don't listen to me because that would be political pandering?" Not on your nelly. In a pigs eye you did. You were hurling verbal brickbats along with everyone else, utterly frustrated at the abuses of the law and Constitution. When it suited you, and in those days, you would have sawed your arm off for an opinion poll that brought the abuses to a halt. You would never have accepted that argument your now offer against such a mechanism. In your view, rightly so, those that didn't protest were simply neutral. they could not be counted as pro or anti the actions you were protesting about. The "people" were those that spoke out - either in support of the
magistrates or against.  That pointy hat on your head has sucked it out of you Cato, all your fire and principles.

CEC: Again I ask - what guarantee is there that the proposed BoD of "Nova Roma, Inc." will be any better than the legally-elected magistrates of the Respublica? If there is no guarantee - if you cannot absolutely ensure that that BoD will always in every case and at every instance perform in utter and absolute purity of motive and obedience to the will of the People, then you are simply replacing one BoD (the Senate) with another. Why?
CnIC: There are no absolute guarantees in life as you full well know, and that is why their actions would be constrained by - for a change - comprehensive well crafted clauses in the Articles of Incorporation, the Constitution for the non-profit and also in the contract. Add to that the diversity of areas to draw the Board from that I propose, as well as term limits, and a prohibition on Senators being able to sit and vote in the Senate at the same time as they sit on the non-profit Board, make it highly unlikely they could act with the impunity of recent years and which could easily rear its head again.  So if you look for a 100% iron clad guarantee, you are intelligent enough to know it can't be given, but that is not the excuse for doing nothing and remaining up to our necks in the mud pool of sloth and inactivity. I am rendering the chaos we saw in the Forum over the years (and yes we were in the middle of it), the only means of registering
discontent, a raucous (in a typed sense) din of protest, into a method that not only allows people to express their views free from magisterial blocking, but if enough people join that protest, then an actual result can be seen. That in turn will empower people who contribute money to finally believe that they have a way of kicking magistrates in the bottom and have a voice. We take disorder and give it an outlet and empower it. The result is that less people may leave in frustration. Those that don't register an opinion but don't agree with the protests equally cannot say they cannot be heard. It is a simple technical solution that takes what we did and others, protesting, and gives it a balanced way of expressing itself, and a way that equally gives magistrates and senators an opportunity to see concrete figures that might condemn their actions and then in turn make a value decision whether to pull back from the brink. That is why.

CEC: Yes, this was a challenging year for me; over the course of those six months I lost a job, I lost a family member, and instead of bitching and moaning in public I decided to hunker down and get through it, as it is my nature to do. Yes, you and Sulla and others poked me when necessary and finally in the last month and a half things settled down for me. 
CnIC: Never easy to deal with a death. Unemployment too.  All it took was a simple post informing the Senate you were taking a sabbatical, without the need to disclose very much, and you could have the time you took anyway and we here could have got on with business.  If we had to we could have had a suffect election (no I wouldn't have stood for half a year) and you would have not had to deal with me reaming you out to get in gear and hold elections. You chose to stay and remain consul in the face of that, so naturally the expectations on our part (especially as we did not know exactly what was going on in your life or when/if you would be back) was for you to act as consul and take the lead in the remaining time available.

CEC: If I had known what the future held, then back in January and February I would gladly have simply given in to every one of Albucius' outrageous (by your own opinion as well) demands and let my personal vision of the dignity of the consular chair slide. It is to my great fault that I did not, apparently, and for this I apologize publicly and openly.
CnIC: A lot of your issues with him were ego based, as well as principle. Equally you forget the amount of time I and others invested in negotiating with him. That is government in action. Dignitas matters but equally so does having somewhere to express it. If Nova Roma collapses then what point sticking to your guns since it will have no effective home? Is your dignitas greater than Nova Roma's future? Besides, had you gritted your teeth and pushed back and haggled maybe you could have achieved something. As it was you dug in your foxhole and threw the barbed wire up and took pot shots at him and he at you. Yes, Albucius could not step back and just be Censor. Yes that was outrageous and provocative, and very him, but it was your job having the big pointy hat to find a way out of that impasse and save both your faces. Equally that is why I didn't press you hard in the last six months (since I had no idea since you had vanished effectively). Would you
have wanted me to replace Albucius as you consistent nanny, when you didn't feel you needed your diapers changed? Is that the job of a Praetor to be the Consul's wet nurse? Not in my book. 

CEC: Not once did you turn to my colleague in the consulate and ask him to do anything; he had terrible personal problems and I never once begrudged him that, nor do I now. I was alone and, in your opinion, I failed. So be it. But perhaps you might be a tiny bit more charitable and look at this last year - one without the customary infighting, vitriol, and destruction - as a deep breath, one that will enable you to start the major revitalization of the Respublica. Do not swell your own dignity on the trampling of others'.
CnIC: Other than a private kick up your podex - and a customary blunt one - I delivered when the cut off point for elections being held was fast approaching without sight nor sound from you, and Sulla having reached an impasse without a Senate call, you had your near six months of solitude. What I won't do - even with someone who I regard as one of my closest friends - is to allow the dissemination of nonsense in respect of past history and the plan I sent you two years ago and which has been in the public domain for as long. Maybe you should have thought of that before now complaining about your dignity. Mine hasn't swelled Cato. I am not here for my dignity - I am here to try to achieve tangible results in fixing these problems. I have no illusions about holding office in Nova Roma. As for your colleague, he posted fairly regular updates to us and it was easy to glean he was out for the count. No point asking there. for things to be done. Had we known
both of you were out for the count, then maybe the Senate could have acted, but we aren't telepathic. 

What I won't tolerate from you of all people is trying to stick a spoke in a plan you nested on for ages, evidently did not read and commented on half-cock. Had you wanted in the first six months we could have discussed opening it up for discussion under your consulship, but you were too busy defending your dignity over Albucius telling you what needed to be done, which seems to have been a consistent theme this year. 

Just the names changed of the people telling you that.

Optime vale

________________________________
From: Cato <catoinnyc@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 9:50 PM
Subject: [Nova-Roma] Re: Question for the Praetor Candidates



Cato Iulio Caesari sal.

Well.  That was a little over-the-top in viciousness, I think.  You seem to think that disagreement with (a very specific) part of your proposal is an attack on you personally, which it certainly is not - something I made quite clear.

Caesar Voluso sal.

V: Right now I expect you to be wearing your salesman hat :D
C: I will, to those who genuinely want to debate it and put suggestions in to improve it. I would also welcome other unique suggestions too if elected. I would ask the Senate to review them all. what I won't do is let this drag on and on and on. There will be closure to debates and decisions made based on votes. Then off to the people for it to start again. All as it should be.

V:Well, a more healthy approach to think about these unstated issues arising is to anticipate them.
C: I have. I will also keep answering questions here if people wish. I knew always that anything that deals with the issue of our nature would raise tingles in some spines. Naturally there are a number of us also that shake our heads that despite being up to our necks in mud, the Nova Roma bus sinking faster, and offered an opportunity to climb out of the mud and escape a certain demise, that some stuck in the mud are worrying about whether the rescue boat should be one or two in number, and questioning wouldn't it be better to stay on the bus and tinker with the engine or see if jump cables would help.- as the mud closes ever faster. 

V: Please be careful of finding hostility where none exist.
C: Someone should have thought of that before making the golpsitas comment. I see what I see and am prepared for all eventualities. 

V: I will warn you know that it is very probably that I might discover concerns that I am, as yet, unaware.
C: By the very act of taking it to the Senate, indicating I would be more than happy to find a way within Senate rules for the tribunes to "live" report as the debates go on to keep people fully informed, by committing to comitia debates and votes, I know full well that the end product may not be what is initially presented. Equally Voluse you may spot something that has been omitted or needs fixing. It will be fixed. Mutual respect and cooperation. What I will not accept are attempts to derail any discussion, or mindless poking of sticks into the spokes with no evidenced and rational grounds. I will do my part in good faith, but I expect others (I know you are at that point so I am not referring to you and also not just to those who have debated with me here - but ALL others) to approach the debates with the seriousness and professionalism that the situation deserves.

V: I don't find this point very helpful at all. I am not speaking on behalf of the gentlemen you mention above.
C: No, I know you aren't speaking on their behalf. I am fully aware, and guessed before, that people would have concerns. Again, I am more than happy to debate constructively and will do my very best to sell the initial plan, and any amended version that I too can support personally.  

V: That doesn't even make any sense. You are a bigger man than that Caesar! That just sounds like self-pity. Get a grip man! :D
C: i think you missed my point. Our current situation is comforting to some. there are no real expectations. One can stand for office and muddle through. One can pursue one's own course devoid of plan or objective. Nova Roma has a charm and quirkiness to it. People have comfort zones and they can become used to situations that are mundane and never changing, even though the Doomsday clock is ticking faster for Nova Roma. Changes to that can be disconcerting and upsetting because some people like the familiar and having to be productive and engaged may not be within their rationale for participating. Managing change is a subject all in itself. 

Optime vale

----- Original Message -----
From: Nicholas Cowham <nykcowham@...>
To: Nova-Roma@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] Re: Issues and the future

Volusus Caesari S.P.D.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Cn. Iulius Caesar <
gn_iulius_caesar@...> wrote:

> **
> Caesar Voluso sal.
>
> 1. He and anyone else is welcome to kick as much as they like, or not.
>
Of course. When we buy a new car we kick the tires, inspect the engine and
ask a heap of questions. Right now I expect you to be wearing your salesman
hat :D