Digest

C. Aemilius Crassus A. Tulliae Scholasticae spd,

Please read my reply in line with your text below:

I, Helena Galeria Aureliana, as a Lictrix of Nova Roma, hereby witness the appointments of Marcus Cornelius Gualterus
Graecus, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, Marcus Pompeius Caninus, Quintus Vipsanius Agrippa and Lucius Vitellius Triarius as pontifices.
As a member of the Comitia Curiata I wish them good fortune in their work on behalf of the Religio Romana.

Helena Galeria Aureliana

Lictrix

In a message dated 3/28/2014 9:46:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, c.aemilius.crassus@... writes:

Caninus Fabi spd.

Agreed, Senator. The group exists under a charter approved by the Senate. If she and others decide to pack up their toys and go home, a new group can be formed and chartered easily enough.

Fac valeas!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus

Scholastica,

You started out saying: "Your tone and vocabulary here are inappropriate and will result in sanctions if continued. Moreover, this is not the place to discuss NR, but it is only fair for the non-NR sodales to be made aware of issues which may affect their future."

How grossly disingenuous! Your post was all about Nova Roma and had an extremely negative tone in regard to both Nova Roma and the Senate! You brought this up... Nova Roma and all. This opening statement in response to my post is clear evidence that facts and truth are victims of a political agenda in your hands.

You stated: "I have seen what can result from the misuse of power. Too many have an undue affection for it. I lack such interests." Magistra, you do protest too much. Indeed, you do have such interests. You are still holding a grudge because your name was not included on the ballot for the office of Consul when you attempted to run a couple of years ago. You are a very political creature with a desire for the Consulship and power.

You also stated: "Anyway, copyrights are not a big issue in Latinitas". If that is true then why did you bring it up?It seems to be an important point in your original message calling for a vote.

Then you stated: "Perhaps you should read some of those reports more carefully." What reports? I was in the Senate and fully participated in the discussions. I am not sure what you are referring to as far as reports or as far as appropriating copyrights since no such thing was done. There was one individual who is no longer a member of Nova Roma who objected to the inclusion of items he freely posted on Nova Roma's Wiki being included in a publication. However, there is a copyright statement on the Wiki http://www.novaroma.org/nr/NovaRoma:General_disclaimer. Common sense would certainly dictate that it is very odd that anyone who posts something on a wiki, where contributions can be edited by anyone, would complain about his or her rights being violated. Pages and other content in wikis are typically open to the public domain or are offered under one or more liberal licenses. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights and the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) that applies to Wikipedia contributions. Wikipedia also warns contributors that their contributions can be deleted, changed or copied without their knowledge or consent. A wiki is not the place for an author to publish material over which he or she expects to maintain full rights. Any such expectation is just plain silly.

Finally, you stated: "Too many of your faction are nosy". I have no faction. And I certainly have no interest in monitoring, observing or reading reports on the internal workings and discussions of any group. If you mistakenly believe I am in some political alliance with Caesar or Sulla then you are very mistaken. I am, both by nature and by practice in US politics, a liberal and very much different from those whom you habitually lump into the faction that opposes your interests. I am, however, very capable of working with virtually anyone who has the best interests of Nova Roma in their heart. I do believe that many of the people who you consider the 'Boni' do have a love of Nova Roma and they sincerely believe they are acting in the best interests of Nova Roma. I have had disagreements on what constitutes the best interests of Nova Roma but there is almost always common ground that can be found between individuals who sincerely care about Nova Roma.

You know, I have been a member of this group since I joined Nova Roma. I have not heard of anyone being turned away or being denied membership before. Yet, here we have a moderator making a decision to turn someone away. The reason is clearly political despite any protests to the contrary. An assumption was made, a very big and quite brazen assumption. Very much like many, many assumptions made by a certain magistra over the course of Nova Roma history. That assumption before any independent confirmation, the denial of membership and the talk of spies all demonstrate very clearly that your actions are politically motivated. Your actions have nothing to do with the interests of any non-citizens. Your actions have nothing to do with the best interests of the Sodalitas Latinitas. Your actions are simply a reflection of your own politics and paranoia.

Fac valeas!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia M. Pompejo Canino Omnibusque S.P.D.

The only logical thing that Scholastica has done was to ask Non- Nova Roma members of the Sodalitas if they wanted to disassociate themselves.

Yes the Non Nova Roma members of the Sodalitas Latinitas may leave the Sodales and their form their own list. If they do not wish to comply with the upcoming reforms. Scholastica may not by ANY means take the Sodalitas with her it belongs to Nova Roma. I know she is fully aware of that. I'm honestly surprised that Avitus has not requested the Magistra to well have a separate list for the Schola since he himself seems to be genuinely dislike Nova Roma or at that is what the hearsay is (provided by Mother Ursa herself). I think its more than apparent we are now seeing a "Conflict of Interest" developing.

I also wonder if those who are on the Latinitas list who are not NR cives are they aware that this Sodalitas was not made specifically for them. My burning question is what have these people been told? The Sodalitas Latintatis was established years before Scholastica's time here in Nova Roma. What has happened is she has morphed this into her personal of lair of Latin fury. Looks great on the outside quite terrifying on the inside. I am glad that we are going through with doing Sodalitas reform for it is clearly needed.

The fact that she implied that the Consuls have set a spy to run about is rubbish and she knows it. When the first blog entry of the Nova Roma Chronicle was posted her only complaint that it was not in Latin. Now the Chronicler is a spy talk about hypocrisy to the point of paranoia.

These recent events bring forth so many questions and probably end result so little answers..

Reform is going to happen though do not fear :-)

Valete bene,

Aeternia

Salvete omnes!

I, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, as a Lictor of Nova Roma, hereby witness the appointments of Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, Marcus Pompeius Caninus, Quintus Vipsanius Agrippa and Lucius Vitellius Triarius as pontifices.

As a member of the Comitia Curiata I wish them good fortune in their work on behalf of the Religio Romana.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Lictor

I, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, as a Lictor of Nova Roma, hereby witness the appointments of Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus, Gnaeus Iulius Caesar, Marcus Pompeius Caninus, Quintus Vipsanius Agrippa and Lucius Vitellius Triarius as pontifices.

As a member of the Comitia Curiata I wish them good fortune in their work on behalf of the Religio Romana.

Cn. Iulius Caesar

Lictor.

Here is the English language text of what was posted, which seems to clearly indicate she believed she could pack up the entire group and run off with it. This _was_not_ an opinion poll to find out what the non NR members thought. It was a plain and simple up or down vote on secession. Scholastica has been engaging in spin doctoring and some revisionist history since she first posted this message to the group:

As many of you are well aware, this sodalitas is an official Special Interest Group affiliated with Nova Roma, which is a Roman-oriented cultural group which has a government patterned after that of ancient Rome. Such sodalities must have their founding documents approved by the Nova Roman Senate, after which historically they have been free to manage their own affairs without interference. Recently however it seems that the senate and some magistrates of Nova Roma have conceived a desire to intervene in the business of all of the sodalities; the senators voted to appropriate the copyrights of poetry and other works produced in the literary sodalitas (and presumably elsewhere), and 'observers' have been placed in several of the sodalities to report on the letters posted and on the business activities of these groups. If desired we may vote to separate ourselves from Nova Roma and continue otherwise as we always have; I see nothing to prevent this. If we do, we will not have to be under the guardianship of that organization. I have thus prepared that opportunity if it that be the will of the sodalitas. In any case, the powers there seem to be on the point of separating at least some of the sodalities willy-nilly and replacing them with more obedient offspring. Certainly such thoughts on our part would never have come up had not this compulsion for nosiness and supervision arisen, nor would anyone have contemplated such a thing; we have been perfectly happy as we were, albeit more activity would please many of us. Since the situation is as it is, however, perhaps the time has come to sever the umbilical. The majority of the members do not appear to be citizens of Nova Roma, and perhaps do not care whether or not the sodalitas is a part thereof.

Marcus Pompeius Caninus

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia M. Pompejo Canino S.P.D.

This is Epic. Â I am shocked in flabberghasted awe of non-shock. This is no sock-puppet this is Scholastica's handiwork only she would use the phrase "willy-nilly."

1. Scholastica you should apologize to my colleague for you insulted him gravely. Â (Not that you will I mean the Senate has been waiting for 2 plus years for their apology. Â So sadly Crassus will have to get in line, but it really is the right thing to do.)

2. There is no point of you trying to rationalize or justify this. Â So really don't bother just step up and accept that you tried to do a dastardly deed.

3. Apologize to my scriba Cassius Atellus ( Again you most likely will not, so Atelle get in the line that is getting longer)

4. Be prepared for Reform.

Reform is coming.

Valete bene,

AeterniaÂ

Ave,

Ah so Scholastica wants to do the Ides of March but this time with an entire Sodalitas.

The Charter of the Sodalitas is essentially a contract between the Sodalitas and the Senate where both have roles and responsibilities to simply think you can break that contract, Scholastica, and not face any repercussions leads me to one of two conclusions.

First, that again you think you are above the law.

Second, that you have not thought this through.

I dare you, Scholastica, to try to carry on in your attempted Succession. You will surely face the very same consequences that some of those who joined the Sertorian Organization faced after the failed Coup attempt.

Vale,

Sulla

Salve,
Allow me to offer congratulations to Those here appointed, May there term of
office be fruitful and rewarding.
Vale,
C. Pompeius Marcellus

On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 19:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Gnaeus Iulius Caesar <gn_iulius_caesar@...

Avete Omnes,

This is the final week for tax payments before any penalty is assessed. Â Please, if you need more time just contact me to make arrangements so you avoid any penalties.

As always, if anyone has any questions please feel free to contact me either on the list or privately at robert.woolwine@...

One last thing, if you are an office holder, it is required that your tax does get paid or it will have an adverse effect on your office.

Most Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

CFO

Salvete,

In a message dated 3/28/2014 9:46:32 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,Â c.aemilius.crassus@...Â writes:

Consul, with respect,Â this may be a silly question but why do we need Tullia's Sodalitias anyway?

Start your own.Â Let her go her own way, and have Nova Roma's SenateÂ strip official recognition from hers and transfer it to yours.Â I swear we spend too much time worrying about what Tullia isÂ up to.Â

Q. Fabius MaximusÂ

Aeternia: Actually Fabii I disagree just slightly. Â Its clearly obvious now what happens when Tullia is left to her own devices.

This wacky chaos.

Valete bene,

AeterniaÂ

Avete Omnes,

Since I have received a few emails about this today. Â If you notify me a date that you will be able to pay the tax (prior to the close of the tax period) - that is in my mind a promise to pay and there will be no tax penalty assessed. Â

The tax penalty is assessed when a tax arrangement is broken or no notification/arrangement is made.

It is more important that we have the tax payments and they mean more to me than the penalties.

I hope this clarification is understood. Â Again, if anyone has any questions please let me know and I will do my best to answer any questions or concerns.

Respectfully,

Sulla

Salvete!

In an effort to cut through the rhetoric, misdirection, obfuscation innuendo and accusations I have read concerning this issue, I am going to simply post material from the charter of the Sodalitas Latinitas, approved by the Senate of Nova Roma, which specifies the contract between the Sodalitas and Nova Roma and the Lex Cornelia PoenalisÂ http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Cornelia_poenalis_(Nova_Roma)

From the Regula (charter) of the Sodalitas Latinitas

[The sodalitas Latinitatis was founded on the authority of the senate on prid. Kal. Quint. in the consulate of Q. Fabius Maximus and M. Minucius Audens by M. Apollonius Formosanus, C. Marius Merullus, C. Cordius Symmachus, and A. Arius Draco.]

I. Proposita et Officia

[I. Purpose and functions]

A. Est Sodalitas Latinitatis linguae Latinae studio usuique Novae Romae fovendo quae linguae Latinae usum efficiat ut praecipua Novae Romae lingua sit.

[A. The sodalitas Latinitatis exists to promote the study and use of Latin in Nova Roma, and thus ultimately to bring about the use of Latin as the primary language of Nova Roma.]

From the Lex Cornelia Poenalis:

V. The Code of Conduct shall be applicable and have legal force within:

d. Those communication venues under the care, custody and control of official Nova Roman sodalities, as defined by the Senate.

The following is an example of a breech of the Code of Conduct contained in this lex.

iii. The theft of, or destruction or damage to corporate assets (schedule I) I submit that the archives of a Sodalitas are, in fact, assets of our organization, and therefore come under the protection of the organization.)

To demonstrate the seriousness with which the organization takes this, here is the penalty this breach of the CoC can receive.

iv. The following define Schedule I to Schedule IV penalties:

1. Schedule I (levels a, b and c)

a. Mitigation: Banishment from Nova Roma for 10 years to 19 years. Upon any return of Nova Roman citizenship: loss of the right to stand for any public office for a further 5 years from the date of return.

b. No mitigation and no aggravating circumstances: Banishment from Nova Roma for 20 years to 29 years. Upon any return of Nova Roman citizenship: loss of the right to stand for any public office for a further 7 years from the date of return.

c. No mitigation and aggravating circumstances: Banishment from Nova Roma for 30 years to 99 years. Upon any return of Nova Roman citizenship: perpetual loss of the right to stand for any public office.

Valete bene!

C. Maria Caeca

A. Tullia Scholastica M. Pompejo Canino s.d.

You are wrong. Dead wrong. There is no spin doctoring; I don't indulge in such devious practices. Get over your (pl) tendency to ascribe and project your own wishes and behaviors onto others. I am not interested in 'packing up and running off with the entire group.' Maybe you would do that. I wouldn't. This is an opinion poll. Get over it. Learn to recognize the truth. Throw away those weird glasses through which you, and too many, view the world. They are distorting things.

I haven't read today's offerings other than this, but on another occasion somewhere came across some nonsense about the consulatus. Not sure who wrote it; maybe it was you. That, too, was far, far off the mark; I have done what I wanted to do, and am not concerned about such trivia as moves certain others. I may have been a bit disappointed at the time, but considering what was going on, and what happened afterward, that was actually beneficial. Not all of us share these sick quests for power, money, fame, and all of that nonsense. Those who do chase such things cannot understand those who do not, but they might want to give it a try. Stop projecting.

Did it occur to you that it was inappropriate to post messages from a private sodalitas list elsewhere? Probably not.

Marcus Pompeius Caninus

Vale.

Cn. Lentulus omnibus sodalibus s. p. d.

Dear fellow sodales;

With all my respect to Tullia Scholastica who was the driving force of this sodalitas from almost its creation, who re-activated and rebuilt it after its earlier death in 2004, who made it the most active and most attractive sodalitas of Nova Roma (which today is less active than in the golden days but is still among the active sodalitates); I repeat, with the greatest respect to her immense contributions to the growth of Nova Roma by providing the sodalitas which recruited the most citizens for Nova Roma, and which did it under her busy leadership, I have to clearly state that I oppose the idea of separation from Nova Roma.

The sodalitas was created and built up under the premise that it would provide a Latin society for Nova Roma, and would recruit for Nova Roma (something Scholastica did wonderfully for many years). However, despite the recession of Nova Roma after the many continuous internal problems, and despite the fact that today there is little or no advantage Nova Roma membership can currently give, we must not forget that we aren't here for temporary reasons or for just today. We are here for a long-term dream, for a long term goal and objective: we are here because we believe that the Roman People shall be restored, and because the Roman People speak Latin (or at least make efforts to try to speak, or at least try to learn some bits of it). We are here because the Nova Roman Latin sodalitas is the society of the people of Roman identity, the society of Roman Latinists.

Maybe Nova Roma can not give many things TODAY, but later on, after reforms and reorganization, Nova Roma has huge potentials. We also must not forget that by being affiliated with Nova Roma, the sodalitas is promoted on the popular and quite frequented website of Nova Roma, and advertised on its fora: it is at least an advantage of remaining part of Nova Roma.

We are here because it is Nova Roma which started this restoration, and so far, the only one which has the Declaration of purpose to do it. This is why Latinists or friends of Latin with Roman identity shall gather together in Nova Roma, and this is why Latinists or friends of Latin need to remain associated with Nova Roma. Because "extra Novam Romam non est vita". Are there silly things within Nova Roma? A bunch of them. Latin is not welcome in its Main Forum, we can not "open up our mouth" in Latin. Only English communication is currently allowed and Latin may only appear if it is nothing else but a literal translation of our English messages. I know how that feels, and I know that it is repulsive and arrogant to all all people who came to Nova Roma to seek a genuine ROMAN immersion here.

But we have to accept this fact: Nova Roma is still in its preparatory phase of coming to existence, and we have to exercise patience. Great patience. Many NR leaders who are driven by good intentions don't realize that there is need for change in Nova Roma, there is a need to create a genuine Roman spirit and an attractive feel of real Roman immersion. It is a golden rule in any company or for any "brand" which is marketed. If you, for example, sell whisky, and you want real success, you, the producer and seller of the whisky, must ensure that your product does not only meet the basic requirements and demands of the consumers, but you must also ensure that your product does it EXCELLENTLY, that your product is of the highest possible quality, that it satisfies amateurs as well as whisky connoisseurs, so that they write supportive reviews of it, and, in one word, that preferably your whisky is the best whisky for generations to buy. This is true about creating a Roman reconstructionist-revivalist organization. Nova Roma must satisfy both Roman reenactors and cultores deorum Romanorum, both Roman Latinists and simple enthusiasts of Roman fun facts.

Nova Roma made step one. It was founded. We made step two: it was diffused over the globe with provinces in all continents. We made step three: there are, or at least there were, international conventions, meetings, real community gatherings, with real Roman sacrifices, where people could also talk in Latin. We created interest groups and even a place to learn how to be Roman, the Academia Thules (which is now sadly defunct, but Scholastica provided for years free substitution for it in Latin, and some of the courses continue to be free). We reached this level about 10-13 years ago, and ever since there was little development, and after a while stagnation and, in some elements, even recession came. But the consules are determined to reform, and they, too, are aware of the need of restructuring, rethinking the idea how Nova Roma worked in these last years. Nova Roma has some promising citizens who are determined to make Nova Roma thrive once again.

We, friends of our spiritual Roman mother tongue, Latinists, supporters of the revival of Roman identity, of which language is a vital, fundamental part, shall keep together, shall unite our forces here, in Nova Roma, and help this reforming of Nova Roma. I know many of you lost your patience. I know it is hard to believe that, after all those many years of no promising sign, anything would change in the future. But it is a matter of faith, belief, vision. My faith is Roman revival. If your faith is Roman revival: then believe and work for it. Run for offices in Nova Roma, participate in elections, and contribute your opinion in the Main Forum. Step by step, the dream will come true. We have consules who are dedicated to reforms, we have their support and I'm sure they will do what benefits most the Roman cause, the cause of Latin. If we keep together, we can do wonders. It's a question of patience, great, great patience; and work: immense and huge amounts of work.

Valete!

Lentulus Mariae et omnibus s. p. d.

Dear Maria, fellow sodalis; I have just been able to catch up with these forum debates very recently, and I see that the Penal Law is cited here and there, and I know it was not you who brought up it initially, but I answer to this post as it contains the most comprehensive collection of relevant rules, the Penal Law and the Sodalitas Charter.

I don't want to enter the debate about what Scholastica's initial intention was creating the poll. From the beginning, she was confirming to me that it was intended as an opinion poll, and since we have been always in sincere terms, I can only accept it as the truth from her. Maybe she was unclear when she wrote her first public words about the poll, maybe she was hesitating, struggling over a decision what the correct path should be: this might very likely have resulted in a wording which looks like a final definitive official poll. But to me she clearly stated her intention with this poll was to make it an opinion survey. Since that time, she confirmed this in public, too, here and in the sodalitas, as well.

Now to the point.

The question has emerged whether punitive actions can be a legal consequence in Nova Roma INC in case a Yahoo list owner would decide to "walk away" with his or her legally owned Yahoo Sodalitas mailing list.

The senate HAS DECLARED that Yahoo ownership is higher than any NR law. The senate abolished Cincinnatus' verdict (who once walked away with the NR Yahoo Collegium Augurum, and with its archives, which was declared official NR property beforehand). First, Cincinnatus was punished for this, but later on the senate clarified once and forever that macronational law always trumps NR law. This means that Nova Roma can not legally claim ownership over any Yahoo list content of which the owner accepted by Yahoo is not officially the Nova Roma INC corporation, but a private individual. This means that EVEN IF Scholastica intended to poll the sodales about separation (which she has now clarified she doesn't intend), she would have absolute right to do it as the macronational owner of the Yahoo list Sodalitas Latinitas.

But I repeat that it does not matter what Scholastica thought when she created the poll. Which only matters is what she thinks now, what she DOES with the results. And she confirmed that she considers it only an opinion poll. I am willing to believe her that she intended it so from the beginning. But if it wasn't true, it doesn't matter. All what matters is what she thinks now and what she does with the results. If she acted or worded the poll hastily, or inconsiderately, it was understandable: she was under stress, under pressure and under attacks. Most people make ambiguous decisions under pressure and attacks. What matters it's only the actions which follow next.

Valete!

Da: cmc <c.mariacaeca@... nostrÃ³

Salvete!

In an effort to cut through the rhetoric, misdirection, obfuscation innuendo and accusations I have read concerning this issue, I am going to simply post material from the charter of the Sodalitas Latinitas, approved by the Senate of Nova Roma, which specifies the contract between the Sodalitas and Nova Roma and the Lex Cornelia Poenalis http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Cornelia_poenalis_(Nova_Roma)

From the Regula (charter) of the Sodalitas Latinitas

From the Lex Cornelia Poenalis:

V. The Code of Conduct shall be applicable and have legal force within:

d. Those communication venues under the care, custody and control of official Nova Roman sodalities, as defined by the Senate.

The following is an example of a breech of the Code of Conduct contained in this lex.

To demonstrate the seriousness with which the organization takes this, here is the penalty this breach of the CoC can receive.

iv. The following define Schedule I to Schedule IV penalties:

1. Schedule I (levels a, b and c)

Valete bene!

C. Maria Caeca

Ave Lentulus,

Here is the problem.

If you are a co-owner of the Sodalitas Latinatis list and you did not take any steps to prevent Scholastica from appropriating the list illegally, in contravention to the Charter agreement between the Senate of Nova Roma and the Sodalitas - you do realize you would be held legally culpable as an accessory given your ability to prevent the illegal action but failing to do your fiduciary duty. You do realize this right?

If you do not, now you are aware. If you were already aware then you have some serious thinking to do giving your already tenuous ethical actions to date.

Vale,

Sulla

Salve Lentule et omnes,

You keep saying the initial intension was not the one clearly stated on the message explaining the poll. More considering the person who wrote it is a English native speaker and well versed in grammar and writing.

I never brought the legal question to here and sincerely would prefer it wasn't brought. But the cases you refer is completly different. The list from Cincinnatus was a private one used among other things to the meetings of the CA at the time. NR had no right to declare it propriety of NR. This list was created for the sole propose of the Sodalitas reconized by the Senate and handed from Magistri to Magistri. The Magistri are the curators of the list and not the owners has in private property.

Vale optime,
Crassus

Ave,

I find it ironic that this same Lentulus voted to condemn Cincinnatus for his private list and to have NR take over it and is now arguing the reverse position. Can we say inconsistency!

Vale,

Sulla

Caesar Lentulo sal.

The Senate in its rescinding of the verdict against Cincinnatus did not address the issue of list ownership. It simply passed an SCU allowing the consuls to squash the verdict:

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Senatus_consultum_ultimum_de_L._Equitio_Cincinnato_augure

This they did by edict:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Nova-Roma/conversations/messages/84623

I don't see any irrevocable statements about list ownership. You may imply that was the case or you may try to infer this from the squashing of the verdict, but you would be wrong. The above are simply statements of fact. The verdict was quashed.

Are you referring to another SCU or SC?

Now as to this case it differs from Cincinnatus. He refused to allow Modianus onto a list he had created and retained control over. His case was that in effect he had loaned it to the CA. In this case Scholastica only inherited the list as magister second hand. You are correct that macronational law always trumps Nova Roman law, and that Yahoo regards the "owner" as the leaseholder in effect. That is why, should this secession occur, the issue will not be one of list ownership but one of a failure as magister to keep the sodalitas within Nova Roma. You will also recall that Cincinnatus made an offer to Piscinus to copy all the contents of the CA list (his list) and provide them to NR. Piscinus ignored this offer, as all he wanted was Cincinnatus' head on a spike. In this case that has not been offered.

So should this poll be translated into secession (if the motion passes) the issue will be one of performance as magister, and loss of material that it will be argued was deeded to the sodalitas, which in turn was an official NR sodalitas. Scholastica has a duty of care custody and control of that information on behalf of Nova Roma. Shoudl she not protect it, and indeed actively assist in it passing from NR's control, then the issue for the senate is an abrogation of duty as magister of an official sodalitas and as a citizen actively facilitating the potential or actual removal of information on an official NR list.

List ownership will not be cited as the basis for action against her.

As far as yourself, you too have a duty to prevent this, and that is done not by simply posting about it (welcome but possibly will be ignored) but more practical steps.

Optime vale

From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus <cn_corn_lent@... 2014 3:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Da: cmc <c.mariacaeca@... nostrÃ³

Salvete!

In an effort to cut through the rhetoric, misdirection, obfuscation innuendo and accusations I have read concerning this issue, I am going to simply post material from the charter of the Sodalitas Latinitas, approved by the Senate of Nova Roma, which specifies the contract between the Sodalitas and Nova Roma and the Lex Cornelia Poenalis http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Lex_Cornelia_poenalis_(Nova_Roma)

From the Regula (charter) of the Sodalitas Latinitas

From the Lex Cornelia Poenalis:

V. The Code of Conduct shall be applicable and have legal force within:

d. Those communication venues under the care, custody and control of official Nova Roman sodalities, as defined by the Senate.

The following is an example of a breech of the Code of Conduct contained in this lex.

To demonstrate the seriousness with which the organization takes this, here is the penalty this breach of the CoC can receive.

iv. The following define Schedule I to Schedule IV penalties:

1. Schedule I (levels a, b and c)

Valete bene!

C. Maria Caeca

Lentulus Crasso et Sullae et Caesari sal.

Before anything would escalate here to an irrealistic level, I inform you that I solved all possible problems and doubts, and I have removed the ownership of Scholastica from the Sodalitas Yahoo list.

I did it not because I would not be 100% convinced of her honest intentions, or as though I would not be sure she would never remove the sodalitas from NR affiliation, but I did it so that the emotions can calm down and in order that everybody can see that the sodalitas mailing list does not even have the chance to be removed.

I would have deleted the poll, too, but it is impossible. It has an expiration date, and it can be removed only if it will end.

Problems, for the time being, solved. I wait for further instructions from the consuls.

Valete!

Salve Lentule,

For this action I thank you.

The matter will not be forgotten since it is too serious to be.

But hopefully will at least give more calmer environment to deal with it and the Sodalitas reforms.

Vale et valete,
Crassus

Salve, consul!

Thank you for the confirmation. Is there anything to do at the moment to make the sodalitas comply with the expectations of the Nova Roma government?

Vale!

Lentulus

Da: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...

Salve Lentule,

For this action I thank you.

The matter will not be forgotten since it is too serious to be.

But hopefully will at least give more calmer environment to deal with it and the Sodalitas reforms.

Vale et valete,
Crassus

Sulla, salve!

You can twist and manipulate all you want, but you cannot fool the people into this distorted logic. You change your political slogens from year to year as it fits best your current arguments and power struggles. I didn't say I don't condemn Cincinnatus' action, and I didn't say I would absolve Scholastica if she took away the sodalitas Yahoo group. She would be equally guilty. I just pointed out that the two are the same things, and if you absolve Cincinnatus for his action, you can't condemn Scholastica for the same (if she had wanted to do it, at all, but she didn't want to).

This all talk is hypothetical, and we are talking about "what if"s. Tullia Scholastica has give her word to me (and she has never lied to me) and she confirmed this to everyone else, that despite how her first wording of the poll sounded, she does not and will not remove the sodalitas from under NR authority. My intention with my analysis of the legal situation was simply to point it out that you can't have it both ways. You should be consistent and acknowledge macronational rights, once it was your creed. My stance is the same as it was 6 years ago.

Vale!
Lentulus

Da: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Domenica 30 Marzo 2014 12:32
Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Ave,

I find it ironic that this same Lentulus voted to condemn Cincinnatus for his private list and to have NR take over it and is now arguing the reverse position. Can we say inconsistency!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...

Congratulations to all appointees!
(Caesar Augustus) Tiberius Marcius Quadra (Germanicus)

On Sunday, March 30, 2014 1:41 AM, James V Hooper <warrior44_us@...

Caesar Lentulo sal

Yours is an apples and oranges argument.

Cincinnatus simply refused to let Modianus onto the CA list. He did not announce that he may set up an independent Collegium Augurum. He offered to provide the contents of the list to Piscinus.

The first trial was unconstitutional. No provision existed in the legislation in force at the time to compel Cincinnatus' attendance at the trial, so the praetors invented one by edictum and then imposed a punishment for failing to attend. That was a clear case of an ex post facto offence - and of course prohibited by the Constitution. The second trial was a litany of praetorial abuse. The convictions were squashed not over the issue of list ownership, but because the convictions were unconstitutional in the first instance and unsafe in the second. It had nothing to do with the issue of ownership of the list.

Of course Scholastica can be critiqued for her proposal to sever the sodalitas from Nova Roma and to compare the two situations is an obvious apples and oranges argument.

Optime vale

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

Da: Robert Woolwine <robert.woolwine@... Domenica 30 Marzo 2014 12:32
Oggetto: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Ave,

I find it ironic that this same Lentulus voted to condemn Cincinnatus for his private list and to have NR take over it and is now arguing the reverse position. Can we say inconsistency!

Vale,

Sulla

On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...

Caesar Lentulo sal

I thank you for your actions.

I am constrained however to point out that this entire "crisis" and the usual outpouring of posts, and all the emotions that went with them, could have been prevented had you immediately acted to remove her. Then her ability to carry out any effective action to enforce a vote for secession (by a majority built on non-citizens voting) would have been nil.

Naturally I am left with the thought that your motivation ultimately was not foremost the good of Nova Roma, but due to my statements on Latinas that I would ensure the Senate got to debate expulsions for all who proposed the secession, voted for it, advocated for it or in your case (as you had not acted at the time of my post to that effect) those who failed to act to prevent it when they were in a position to do so.

It was only after my statement regarding expulsions that you acted, when previously you were silent. Since in another of your posts you contend your condemnation of Scholastica's proposal is consistent with your condemnation of Cincinnatus (for what you erroneously contend was a similar circumstance), then your view of her actions did not develop - it should have been evident from the moment she posted her poll and made her initial statements what she was up to. Why did you not immediately act? As I say, I can only conclude that self-preservation finally provided the trigger.

You said "Before anything would escalate here to an irrealistic level". Actions have consequences and there was nothing "irrealistic" about stating that I would advocate in the Senate for expulsion of anyone who was a party to the loss of the assets of the sodalitas, and thus assets of Nova Roma (the submissions etc.) and the severing of the sodalitas from Nova Roma. That would simply be a consequence of this proposal being put into effect. The members of the sodalitas can vote to disassociate, and if that had/is put into effect so too should the Senate have an opportunity to vote to disassociate those involved in the secession from Nova Roma, by means of expulsion. It cuts both ways.

Still as regards your actions, better late than never.

Optime vale

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

Lentulus Crasso et Sullae et Caesari sal.

I would have deleted the poll, too, but it is impossible. It has an expiration date, and it can be removed only if it will end.

Problems, for the time being, solved. I wait for further instructions from the consuls.

Valete!

Salve Caesar et omnes,

Doing justice to Lentulus he from the start told he would obey any orders from the Senate and the Consuls. I believe his delay in acting this way was due a misplaced trust in the person in question.

For myself I'm very glad the safeguard of the Sodalitas was maintained through action of the Sodalitas officers and not by external intervention. That external intervention would be completely legal but in my opinion not desirable.

I also want to state clearly that before the year ends I will do all within my powers to ensure the Sodalitas are in service of NR and are not an exclusive club owned by some.

The relation is not of sponsorship, it is a hierarchy with NR in the centre and uppermost position. The highly desirable independent action of the Sodalitas has the sole porpoise of allowing the Sodalitas keeping their work without worries of whom is Consul or the day to day government of NR. But if that independence is used to advance hostile agenda against NR it will be handle swiftly.

Hopefully we will now be able to focus on what is not important.

Valete,
Crassus

Salve Crasse

Well if he trusted someone who has a demonstrated track record of irrational behaviour, more fool him. He knows she behaves like a derailed freight train.

Vale bene

Caesar

From: Aemilius Crassus <c.aemilius.crassus@...

Salve Caesar et omnes,

Doing justice to Lentulus he from the start told he would obey any orders from the Senate and the Consuls. I believe his delay in acting this way was due a misplaced trust in the person in question.

I also want to state clearly that before the year ends I will do all within my powers to ensure the Sodalitas are in service of NR and are not an exclusive club owned by some.

Hopefully we will now be able to focus on what is not important.

Valete,
Crassus

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia Cn. Lentulo Omnibusque S.P.D.

Thank you Lentulus.

I won't pick apart too much your decisioning to do the right thing.

I do not agree personally with your reasoning but your method lead to a positive result. Â That is what counts at the end of the day.

I have sent you an e-mail regarding further instruction (my colleague is CC'd on it as well).

We can now transition this to a more private matter..

And yes this a genuine thank you BOTH Consuls give.

Valete bene,

Statia Cornelia AeterniaÂ

Salvete omnes,
Some you fluent Latinists don't like using Google Translate, but I have to tell you that it has a feature that allows for advice. Using English to Latin, it allows choosing a better word with this notice: "Is this translation better than the original? Contribute." Try it! (http://translate.google.com/#en/la/Do%20you%20love%20me%3F) and hover your cursor over the Latin translation; choose another translation; then you'll see said notice.

BTW, I'm all for formal lessons; I just believe that frequent practice, online and live, all helps. Frequency and drills is the call to fluency.

Anyway, one of my top focus is to speak Latin fluently.
Gratias tibi ago,
(Caesar Augustus) Tiberius Marcius Quadra (Germanicus)

On Monday, March 31, 2014 5:45 AM, Belle Morte Statia <syrenslullaby@...

Sta. Cornelia Aeternia Cn. Lentulo Omnibusque S.P.D.

Thank you Lentulus.

I won't pick apart too much your decisioning to do the right thing.

I do not agree personally with your reasoning but your method lead to a positive result. That is what counts at the end of the day.

I have sent you an e-mail regarding further instruction (my colleague is CC'd on it as well).

We can now transition this to a more private matter..

And yes this a genuine thank you BOTH Consuls give.

Valete bene,

Statia Cornelia Aeternia

Salvete, Quirites!

I inform you that I shall travel this early morning to Italia, and I will not have internet connection for the next two days. Given that currently things might need my response, I ask your patience until I'm back, when I will answer any emerging issues.

Valete!

Cn. Lentulus

co-magister of sod. Latinitatis

Salvete Omnes,

*Blinks*

Well safe journey then and some have real homemade biscotti for me.

Safe travels dear Lentulus looking forward to speaking with you in two days hence.

Valete bene,

Aeternia

Caninus Scholasticae sal.

At least half a dozen native speakers of the English language have read what you posted and come to essentially the same opinion as to what your post meant. So, either you are an abysmal writer, not capable of creating clear exposition in a non-academic context, or you are attempting to back out of the original thoughts you expressed. So, are you ignorant or are you a liar?

Bene vale!

Marcus Pompeius Caninus

SALVETE!

The Comitia Curiata was assembled starting a.d VII Kal Apr (26th of March 2014) until pr. Kal Apr (31st of Mar 2014), in order that the Lictores and Lictrices of Nova Roma to witness the appointments of the following pontifices:

- Marcus Cornelius Gualterus Graecus,

- Gnaeus Iulius Caesar,

- Marcus Pompeius Caninus,

- Quintus Vipsanius Agrippa,

- Lucius Vitellius Triarius.

The following Lictrix and Lictores witnessed the appointment:

- Helena Galeria Aureliana,

- Gaius Aemilius Crassus,

- Gaius Marcius Crispus,

- Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix,

- Gnaeus Iulius Caesar.

In the name of the Nova Roman community I wish them good fortune in their work on behalf of the Religio Romana.

VALETE,

Iulius Sabinus

acting Pontifex Maximus.

SALVETE!

The collegium report is at this address:

http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Collegium_Pontificum_voting_results_-_March_MMDCCLXVII_(Nova_Roma)

VALETE,

Iulius Sabinus

acting PM.

SALVETE!

The Collegium Pontificum is called into session starting with 08.00 hr.(Rome time) on a.d III Non Apr 2767 a.U.c (Thursday 03 April 2014) until 20.00 hr.(Rome time) on pr. Kal Mai 2767 a.U.c (Wednesday, 30 April 2014).

The session schedule is:

Contio:

Start with 08.00 hr.(Rome time) on a.d III Non Apr 2767 a.U.c (Thursday 03 April 2014) until 08.00 hr.(Rome time) on a.d VIII Kal Mai 2767 a.U.c (Thursday, 24 April 2014).

Vote:

Start with 08.00 hr.(Rome time) on a.d IV Kal Mai (Monday, 28 April 2014) and ends at 20.00 hr.(Rome time) on pr Kal Mai 2767 a.U.c (Wednesday, 30 April 2014).

QUOD BONUM FAUSTVM FELIX FORTUNATUMQUE SIT POPULO ROMANO QUIRITIBUS

A. Matters to debate:

1. The Collegium Pontificum declaration about the Religio Romana.

2. Creation and implementation of the FAQ section of the Religio Romana.

B.The Collegium Pontificum members can add new matters to debate or items during the contio but not later than 08.00 hr.(Rome time) on a.d. XI Kal Mai 2767a.U.c (Wednesday 21 April, 2014).

C. Any matter or item presented is allowed to vote only in the form of a decree. The decree, which is the final form to vote, shall be presented not later than 08.00 hr (Rome time) on a.d VII Kal Mai 2767 a.U.c (Friday, 25 April 2014).

D. Due to the importance of the item 1 the session can be extended. The extension shall be announced no late than 08.00 hr.(Rome time) on a.d VIII Kal Mai 2767 a.U.c (Thursday, 24 April 2014).

E. Proxy.

A CP member who is unable to vote can give his proxy to another CP member during the contio.

F. The Collegium Pontificum session can be observed by the entire Nova Roman community at this address:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/collegium_pontificum_nr/

VALETE,

T. Iulius Sabinus

acting PM.

Salve Sabinus et Salvete Omnes,

Thank you for posting this. Thank you Lictors. Congratulations to those newly appointed.

Valete bene,

Aeternia

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93524	From: Aemilius Crassus	Date: 2014-03-28
Subject: Re: About Sodalitas Latinitas

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93525	From: Teleri	Date: 2014-03-28
Subject: lictor witness

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93526	From: qfabiusmaximus	Date: 2014-03-28
Subject: Re: About Sodalitas Latinitas

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93527	From: M. Pompeius Caninus	Date: 2014-03-28
Subject: Re: About Sodalitas Latinitas

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93528	From: M. Pompeius Caninus	Date: 2014-03-28
Subject: Re: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93529	From: Belle Morte Statia	Date: 2014-03-28
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93530	From: Robert Woolwine	Date: 2014-03-28
Subject: Re: Witness statement

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93531	From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar	Date: 2014-03-28
Subject: Witness of appointment

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93532	From: M. Pompeius Caninus	Date: 2014-03-29
Subject: Re: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93533	From: Belle Morte Statia	Date: 2014-03-29
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93534	From: Robert Woolwine	Date: 2014-03-29
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93535	From: James V Hooper	Date: 2014-03-29
Subject: Re: Witness of appointment

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93536	From: Robert Woolwine	Date: 2014-03-29
Subject: Taxes - Final Reminder

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93537	From: Belle Morte Statia	Date: 2014-03-29
Subject: Re: About Sodalitas Latinitas

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93538	From: Robert Woolwine	Date: 2014-03-29
Subject: Just a Clarification on taxes

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93539	From: cmc	Date: 2014-03-29
Subject: RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93540	From: A. Tullia Scholastica	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93541	From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: No for separation

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93542	From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93543	From: Robert Woolwine	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93544	From: Aemilius Crassus	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93545	From: Robert Woolwine	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93546	From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93547	From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Problems solved

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93548	From: Aemilius Crassus	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: Problems solved

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93549	From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: Problems solved

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93550	From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93551	From: Robin Marquardt	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: Witness of appointment

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93552	From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: [Nova-Roma] RE: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93553	From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: Problems solved

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93554	From: Aemilius Crassus	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: Problems solved

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93555	From: Gnaeus Iulius Caesar	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: Problems solved

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93556	From: Belle Morte Statia	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: Problems solved

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93557	From: Robin Marquardt	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: Problems solved

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93558	From: Cn. Cornelius Lentulus	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Absence

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93559	From: Belle Morte Statia	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: Absence

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93560	From: M. Pompeius Caninus	Date: 2014-03-30
Subject: Re: [Latinitas] dÃ© futÃºrÃ³ nostrÃ³

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93561	From: Timothy or Stephen Gallagher	Date: 2014-03-31
Subject: FW: [Explorator] explorator 16.50

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93562	From: iulius_sabinus	Date: 2014-03-31
Subject: Comitia Curiata report.

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93563	From: iulius_sabinus	Date: 2014-03-31
Subject: Report of the CP session - March 2767.

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93564	From: iulius_sabinus	Date: 2014-03-31
Subject: The CP is called into session - April 2767.

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93565	From: Belle Morte Statia	Date: 2014-03-31
Subject: Re: [NovaRoma-Announce] Comitia Curiata report.

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93524	From: Aemilius Crassus	Date: 2014-03-28
Subject: Re: About Sodalitas Latinitas

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93525	From: Teleri	Date: 2014-03-28
Subject: lictor witness

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93526	From: qfabiusmaximus	Date: 2014-03-28
Subject: Re: About Sodalitas Latinitas

Group: Nova-Roma	Message: 93527	From: M. Pompeius Caninus	Date: 2014-03-28
Subject: Re: About Sodalitas Latinitas