Subject:	reacquitance
From:
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 01:57:56 +0930

Salve

I've been offline and unable to communicate from about the time of the interegum and I've missed everything about Nova Roma. It's good to be back!! It feels like I'm home again :) you don't realise how much you miss Nova Roma until you can't be part of it. I don't suppose that any Australians have become Nova Romans during my absence, if so please feel free to drop me a line.

Vale,

Marcus Arcadius Pius

Subject:	Results of election
From:	Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:09:40 -0400 (EDT)

Salvete Cives!


It is my great pleasure to announce the results of the election in the
Comitia Centuriata. My thanks to the rogatores for their dedication and
work.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla has been eleted to the office of consul unopposed.
My congratulations to him! Soon he will make this official by taking the
Oath of Office in accordance with the recent edict.

The Lex Iunia de Temporum Defintione Consulatuum passed overwhemlemingly.
My thanks to all of you who voted. You have voted on the first law ever
passed by a comitia in Nova Roma. Nova Romans, this is a historic moment
in the life and evolution of your Republic.

Valete,

Decius Iunius Palladius,
Consul of Nova Roma

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I post the results right below the summary:

55 voters have elected Lucius Cornelius Sulla to the office of consul.

The overwhelming majority of voters favored the Lex Iunia de Temporum
Definitione Consulatuum: 47 voted for it to carry 39 centuries. 7 voted
against it to carry 4 centuries.

Tabula I Suffragia Centuriatorum Comitiorum pro Lucio Cornelio Sulla

Centurium Suffragia
IV 2
V 2
VI 1
VII 2
VIII 1
IX 1
X 1
XI 1
XII 1
XIV 1
XV 1
XVII 1
IXX 2
XX 2
XXIII 1
XXIV 1
XXVIII 1
XXXVI 1
XXXVII 1
XXXXVII 1
LIV 1
LXXII 1
XCVII 1
CIV 1
CXV 1
CIXX 1
CXXII 1
CXXXXIII 1
CXXXXV 1
CXXXXVII 1
CL 1
CLI 2
CLIII 1
CLXI 1
CLXXIV 2
CLXXVI 1
CLXXVII 1
CLXXVIII 2
CLXXIX 1
CLXXXI 1
CLXXXII 1
CLXXXIII 1
CLXXXIV 2
CLXXXV 1
CLXXXVIII 1
CXCII 1
CXCIII 1

Summa suffragiorum 55 vel Romano modo LV e numero CCCXVI civium

Tabula II Suffragia pro Lege Iunia de Temporum Definitione Consulatuum

Centurium Suffragia
IV 2
V 2
VI 1
VII 1
VIII 1
IX 1
X 1
XI 1
XV 1
XVII 1
IXX 1
XX 1
XXIII 1
XXIV 1
XXXVI 1
XXXVIII 1
XXXXVII 1
LIV 1
LXXII 1
XCVII 1
CIV 1
CXV 1
CIXX 1
CXXII 1
CXXXXIII 1
CXXXXV 1
CXXXXVII 1
CLI 2
CLXI 1
CLXXIV 2
CLXXVI 1
CLXXVII 1
CLXXVIII 2
CLXXIX 1
CLXXXI 1
CLXXXII 1
CLXXXIII 1
CLXXXIV 1
CLXXXV 1
CLXXXVIII 1
CXCII 1
CXCIII 1

39 vel Romano modo XXXIX centuria pro Lege suffragia tulerunt in eo
numero IV V VI VIII IX X XI XV XVII XX XXIII XXIV XXXVI XXXVIII XLVII
LIV LXXII XCVII CIV CXV CXIX CXXII CXLIII CXLV CXLVII CLI CLXI CLXXIV
CLXXVI CLXXVII CLXXVIII CLXXIX CLXXXI CLXXXII CLXXXIII CLXXXV CLXXXVIII
CXCII CXCIII

4 vel Romano modo IV centuria contra Legem suffragia tulerunt in eo
numero XII XIV CL CLIII

Tabula III Suffragia centuriorum quae contra Legem Iuniam de Temporum
Definitione Consulatuum suffragia tulerunt

Centurium Suffragia
XII 1
XIV 1
CL 1
CLIII 1

Subject:	Test
From:	Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:25:19 -0400 (EDT)

Salvete! I posted the Election announcement quite awhile ago and nothing
yet. I am hoping the list is functioning tonight.

Valete,

Decius Iunius Palladius

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


"Quis ita familiaris est barbaris,
ut aram Victoriae non requirat!"

Quintus Aurelius Symmachus

Subject:	Results of election (fwd)
From:	Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:27:56 -0400 (EDT)

Salvete! I post this again as it did not work before.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 23:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Decius Iunius Palladius <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232219108127031050199203252129208071" >amcgrath@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Subject: Results of election


Salvete Cives!


It is my great pleasure to announce the results of the election in the
Comitia Centuriata. My thanks to the rogatores for their dedication and
work.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla has been eleted to the office of consul unopposed.
My congratulations to him! Soon he will make this official by taking the
Oath of Office in accordance with the recent edict.

The Lex Iunia de Temporum Defintione Consulatuum passed overwhemlemingly.
My thanks to all of you who voted. You have voted on the first law ever
passed by a comitia in Nova Roma. Nova Romans, this is a historic moment
in the life and evolution of your Republic.

Valete,

Decius Iunius Palladius,
Consul of Nova Roma

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I post the results right below the summary:

55 voters have elected Lucius Cornelius Sulla to the office of consul.

The overwhelming majority of voters favored the Lex Iunia de Temporum
Definitione Consulatuum: 47 voted for it to carry 39 centuries. 7 voted
against it to carry 4 centuries.

Tabula I Suffragia Centuriatorum Comitiorum pro Lucio Cornelio Sulla

Centurium Suffragia
IV 2
V 2
VI 1
VII 2
VIII 1
IX 1
X 1
XI 1
XII 1
XIV 1
XV 1
XVII 1
IXX 2
XX 2
XXIII 1
XXIV 1
XXVIII 1
XXXVI 1
XXXVII 1
XXXXVII 1
LIV 1
LXXII 1
XCVII 1
CIV 1
CXV 1
CIXX 1
CXXII 1
CXXXXIII 1
CXXXXV 1
CXXXXVII 1
CL 1
CLI 2
CLIII 1
CLXI 1
CLXXIV 2
CLXXVI 1
CLXXVII 1
CLXXVIII 2
CLXXIX 1
CLXXXI 1
CLXXXII 1
CLXXXIII 1
CLXXXIV 2
CLXXXV 1
CLXXXVIII 1
CXCII 1
CXCIII 1

Summa suffragiorum 55 vel Romano modo LV e numero CCCXVI civium

Tabula II Suffragia pro Lege Iunia de Temporum Definitione Consulatuum

Centurium Suffragia
IV 2
V 2
VI 1
VII 1
VIII 1
IX 1
X 1
XI 1
XV 1
XVII 1
IXX 1
XX 1
XXIII 1
XXIV 1
XXXVI 1
XXXVIII 1
XXXXVII 1
LIV 1
LXXII 1
XCVII 1
CIV 1
CXV 1
CIXX 1
CXXII 1
CXXXXIII 1
CXXXXV 1
CXXXXVII 1
CLI 2
CLXI 1
CLXXIV 2
CLXXVI 1
CLXXVII 1
CLXXVIII 2
CLXXIX 1
CLXXXI 1
CLXXXII 1
CLXXXIII 1
CLXXXIV 1
CLXXXV 1
CLXXXVIII 1
CXCII 1
CXCIII 1

39 vel Romano modo XXXIX centuria pro Lege suffragia tulerunt in eo
numero IV V VI VIII IX X XI XV XVII XX XXIII XXIV XXXVI XXXVIII XLVII
LIV LXXII XCVII CIV CXV CXIX CXXII CXLIII CXLV CXLVII CLI CLXI CLXXIV
CLXXVI CLXXVII CLXXVIII CLXXIX CLXXXI CLXXXII CLXXXIII CLXXXV CLXXXVIII
CXCII CXCIII

4 vel Romano modo IV centuria contra Legem suffragia tulerunt in eo
numero XII XIV CL CLIII

Tabula III Suffragia centuriorum quae contra Legem Iuniam de Temporum
Definitione Consulatuum suffragia tulerunt

Centurium Suffragia
XII 1
XIV 1
CL 1
CLIII 1

Subject:	Election Announcement
From:	Decius Iunius Palladius amcgrath@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 00:29:56 -0400 (EDT)

Salvete!

No sooner is one election over than another must start, this time for
praetor, to vacate the office vacated by Lucius Cornelius Sulla.

Those people wishing to announce your candidacies for the office of
Praetor may *now* publicly announce your intention to run. Candidates will
have until Monday, September 27 at 2200 (10:00 PM) EST to announce. At
that time, *no* more candidacies will be accepted. The ballot will then be
published. Voting will commenece around a week later, on October 4, the
best day according to the auspices. Voting will be completed on October
26.

Potential candidates must keep in mind the brief term. The election will
hardly be over before the full blown Fall elections will start. However,
this timetable is determined by law and cannot be shortened.

Valete,

Decius Iunius Palladius,
Consul
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Quis ita familiaris est barbaris,
ut aram Victoriae non requirat!"

Quintus Aurelius Symmachus

Subject:	Re: Announcement Q. Fabius Maximus stands for Praetor Urbanus.
From:
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 03:46:50 EDT

In a message dated 9/19/99 9:30:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232219108127031050199203252129208071" >amcgrath@--------</a> writes:

<< Those people wishing to announce your candidacies for the office of
Praetor may *now* publicly announce your intention to run. >>
Salvete!
I, Quintus Fabius Maximus, Patrician, Paterfamilias Gens Fabi, hereby declare
my intention to stand for the office of Praetor Urbanus. While I understand
the time of the office is short, I believe I can make a major contribution to
NR in that brief period.

After being off line for 6 days, I was very surprised by the amount of e-mail
to do with NR I had to wade through. Simply amazing the amount of
information that we NR citizens exchange in a weeks time. This is one of the
most prolific lists I have subscribed to. I'm a member of 16 lists, and the
amount of mail outnumbers the others by 4-1. Still awed.
I'll be issuing a Social War Statement on the Social War list.
Finally I had a very expensive lesson taught to me last Tuesday evening which
I would like to pass on to you all.
Like most computer mavens I have a high joule surge protector protecting my
line voltage output that enters the computer from high voltage and current
spikes. The protector which also acts a power distributor took an estimated
600 joule spike at 11:30 PDT, which my protector should have handled. The
protector did not. It seems as these things age, they become less tolerant
of spikes in the nanosecond range. My protector filtered maybe a third. It
was enough to take out the motherboard, the IDE controllers, and damage the
power supply. In one moment I went from the information age, to the dark
ages What was even worse, I had my script notes for a Thursday pitch
disappear and I couldn't remember the fine details.
Finally all the Social War moves also were gone in a blinding flash. So here
is my warning to you all. If you have a surge protector that is 3 or more
years old, replace it. Always, always back up the data, a printer port zip
drive is ideal for this purpose. If I had done these two things, it would
have saved me a lot of grief.
Valete.
Q. Fabius.

Subject:	Re: Digest Number 559
From:	andy.pearson@--------)
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:08:44 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
To: <a href="mailto:novaroma@--------" >novaroma@--------</a>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 1999 8:10 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Digest Number 559


> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 04:22:24 PDT
> From: "Nicolaus Moravius" <a --------="/post/novaroma?protectID=091089014007127031215056228219114187071048139" >n_moravius@--------</a>
> Subject: Re: Citizenship & Military Service
>
> Salvete iterum!
>
> Murena asked, at some point in his debate with Iustus (which I'm unable to
> trace), whther auxiliary soldiers ever received citizenship (and their
> dependants, by extension) BEFORE completing their military service.

Salvete!

I haven't been following this thread in any detail, so this comment may
have already been made:

As far as I am aware, entire cohorts could be granted citizen status on the
basis of performance, the letters CR in the cohort's title indicating that
the cohort had, at some past date, been granted citizenship en masse.

Valete

Vindex

Subject:	55 votes?
From:	"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 08:04:56 -0500

Salvete,

Why was the voter turnout so low. I know *I* got my voter codes,
but my husband never did (probably with good reason, I do not
doubt). I also know that I did not vote at all, and for good reason.

Out of 300 Nova Romans only 55 voted? Isn't that sort of pathetic?
I'm no mathematician. What is the percentage?

Crys

Subject:	Re: 55 votes?
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:28:24 +0100

Salvete omnes

>Out of 300 Nova Romans only 55 voted? Isn't that sort of pathetic?
> I'm no mathematician. What is the percentage?
In fact I believe that a big part of our citizens does not look at politics
at all, and just want to be 'part' of Nova Roma with no active role. Other
citizens just applied for fun with no strong reasons and so are not active
anymore, and their interest gone.
Maybe the Censores should email each citizen in order to know whether that
person still wants to be counted among NR citizens. Also, maybe we should
start thinking about taxes.

Valete

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Senator et magistratus

Subject:	Re: 55 votes?
From:	Cassius622@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:26:46 EDT

In a message ----------------20/99 5:58:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>
writes:

Crystallina:
<< Why was the voter turnout so low. I know *I* got my voter codes,
but my husband never did (probably with good reason, I do not
doubt). I also know that I did not vote at all, and for good reason.

Cassius:
Don not getting his voter code was assuredly a system problem rather than
Germanicus or anyone else trying to deny him a vote, if that's what's being
said here. (And it may NOT be, I have only been catching bits and pieces of
all this since I've been having computer troubles! My sincere apologies if
I've interpreted your statement the wrong way.)

The voter codes were sent out by an automatic "mass sending". Not all
addresses made it through. I didn't get MY voter codes in fact! Turns out I
had two addresses in the system and they conflicted somehow... so nothing got
sent. Germanicus was well aware of the problem and posted info on this at
least twice - anyone who didn't get a voter code automatically was asked to
contact the Censors so that a voter code could be issued "by hand". I had to
write to Palladius and Germanicus to get my voter code manually since the
system failed to send it properly. It was really no big deal and they
responded next day.

Crys:
>Out of 300 Nova Romans only 55 voted? Isn't that sort of pathetic?
I'm no mathematician. What is the percentage?

Cassius:
I'm no mathematician either, but I don't think the turnout was as low as it
might seem on first glance. Firstly, we may very well not have 300 Citizens
at this point... we've surely got some folks that left during the Social Wars
that are "still on the books". Hopefully the Censors will have opportunity in
the next month or two to start checking the rolls to see who is actually
around.

Also, this was an "interim election" which was filling a short-term vacancy,
rather than a really close race between two or more candidates. Not the sort
of thing that brings voters to the polls even in major world nations. Add to
this the fact that many folks are still in the process of starting college
classes right now... and you end up with only the "most involved" people
having the time or interest to cast votes. I'm betting that the 55 people who
voted were almost all people who are active on this Internet list - the folks
that show up and participate all the time anyway.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator

Subject:	Re: 55 votes?
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla alexious@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 06:22:50 -0700

Don and Crys Meaker wrote:

> From: "Don an--------ys Meaker" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>
>
> Salvete,
>
> Why was the voter turnout so low. I know *I* got my voter codes,
> but my husband never did (probably with good reason, I do not
> doubt). I also know that I did not vote at all, and for good reason.
>

Sulla: Well I continuely hounded our Censors about the voting code for C.
Cornelius Mamertines. So I have no idea why it wasnt issued to them, I
have at least 3 e-mails in my archives for that.!

>
> Out of 300 Nova Romans only 55 voted? Isn't that sort of pathetic?
> I'm no mathematician. What is the percentage?
>

Well according to US votes for Interim elections, this is pretty standard.
In the interim elections for the Registrar of voters we are talking turnouts
in 5-7% but I believe this is more around 18.3 %. So its higher than the US
Average. Now the turnout for the December Election....that will be the key
example.

L. Cornelius Sulla
Consul

Subject:	Re: 55 votes?
From:	"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:04:14 -0500

On 20 Sep 99, at 6:22, Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:

> Sulla: Well I continuely hounded our Censors about the voting code for
> C. Cornelius Mamertines. So I have no idea why it wasnt issued to them,
> I have at least 3 e-mails in my archives for that.!

First of all. C. Cornelius Mamertines has never existed! My
husband, who's name WAS G (pronounced "gee") Cornelius
MamertinUs (stress the "U" and not any "E").

And Second -- THAT was before the gods liberated him.

Amethystia Iunia Crystallina

Subject:	Re: Re: 55 votes?
From:	"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:06:38 -0500

On 20 Sep 99, --------:26, <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=137166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >C--------us622@--------</--------; wrote:

> Cassius:
> Don not getting his voter code was assuredly a system problem rather than
> Germanicus or anyone else trying to deny him a vote, if that's what's
> being said here. (And it may NOT be, I have only been catching bits and
> pieces of all this since I've been having computer troubles! My sincere
> apologies if I've interpreted your statement the wrong way.)

LOL, you got it and you didn't. I know the system needs
overhauling. Perhaps, if it is not too much trouble the voter codes
for our entire family (myself and my husband) could be sent to this
email a--------ss (<a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>). If not, my husban--------mail
--------ess is <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=132233234213056031213038109248147208071048" >Donme--------@--------</--------;. One of us checks th--------m--------
address several times daily.

Crys

Subject:	Re: 55 votes?
From:	"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:11:51 -0500

On 20 Sep 99, at 14:28, Antonio Grilo wrote:

> In fact I believe that a big part of our citizens does not look at
> politics at all, and just want to be 'part' of Nova Roma with no active
> role. Other citizens just applied for fun with no strong reasons and so
> are not active anymore, and their interest gone.


This has been a problem since the beginning. Many of the civies of
NR think of it as a big "game", although I think MOST do not.
Others just fill out applications every time they stumble across
one, which may account for the many gens that we have.


Maybe the Censores should
> email each citizen in order to know whether that person still wants to be
> counted among NR citizens. Also, maybe we should start thinking about
> taxes.
>

Once upon a time I strongly objected to taxation. Looking at
things now, however, I must agree that it may be a good answer. I
would, however, like to see them based on income or something. I
dare say there are still civies who would like to be a part, but would
be driven out of NR if forced to pay taxes higher than they can
afford. Also, would there be a penalty for not paying taxes?

> Valete
>
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Senator et magistratus
>

Pax,

Amethystia Iunia Crystallina

Subject:	Re: 55 votes?
From:	SDmtwi@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:32:20 EDT

Salve Crys.

> Out of 300 Nova Romans only 55 voted? Isn't that sort of pathetic?
> I'm no mathematician. What is the percentage?

55 out of 317 is 17.3%, which is a little over one-sixth of the voting population. For an election which was mostly a foregone conclusion, and which was primarily for interim magistrates, the turnout was close to three times the average US turnout. That's actually pretty good, all things considered.

I think Sulla is correct when he says that the true litmus test will be the December elections. Larger and more important elections should draw a commensurately larger percentage of the voting population.

Vale,
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	Re: 55 votes?
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:36:08 EDT

In a message ----------------20/99 7:58:56 AM EST, <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a> writes:

<< Out of 300 Nova Romans only 55 voted? Isn't that sort of pathetic?
I'm no mathematician. What is the percentage? >>

That's an 18% voter turn-out.

Subject:	Re: 55 votes?
From:	Dexippus@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:38:01 EDT

In a message dated 9/20/99 8:25:48 AM EST, <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> writes:

<< In fact I believe that a big part of our citizens does not look at politics
at all, and just want to be 'part' of Nova Roma with no active role. Other
citizens just applied for fun with no strong reasons and so are not active
anymore, and their interest gone.
Maybe the Censores should email each citizen in order to know whether that
person still wants to be counted among NR citizens. Also, maybe we should
start thinking about taxes. >>

Well before anyone goes off accusing citizens over such and such, let's keep
in mind that when an individual is running unopposed in a position, the idea
of a vote is rather superficial. Vote or no vote, the individual gets the
position.

Perhaps this had an affect on the number of people who voted.

--Dexippus

Subject:	Re: 55 votes?
From:	Cassius622@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:53:39 EDT

In a message dated 9/20/99 6:26:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> writes:

Gryllus:
<< Maybe the Censores should email each citizen in order to know whether that
person still wants to be counted among NR citizens. Also, maybe we should
start thinking about taxes.
>>

The Citizen Rolls have needed to be updated/kept current in this way for
quite some time. While we no doubt at all have quite a few "quiet" Citizens
who don't speak up on the list, etc, we also have some who have left, moved
and become uncontactable, etc. Hopefully there will be some volunteers for
the Censorial Scribe positions that Germanicus posted recently. There IS more
Censorial work than two Censors can possibly handle alone.

As far as taxes, I've wavered on the issue. At first I hoped there would
*never* be a tax in Nova Roma, so that Citizenship would be quick to process
and hassle free to apply for... especially for Citizens coming from outside
the US who often have currency exchange difficulties.

After the Social Wars, however, it seemed to me that Nova Roma might be a
little more solid if Citizens were required to participate financially. So
far the magistrates have been donating nearly all money (with a very few
generous and much appreciated exceptions!) for the website and other
maintenance costs. When the Tribes and Centuries situation came up it seemed
logical that if the rights and powers of Citizens are to be a central issue
in Nova Roma, then some financial responsibility ought to go with them. Right
now *nothing* is required of Citizens and that is unusual for any type of
organization... especially one where the membership is vocal and very
politically involved. Since the Social Wars I've been FOR taxation. Perhaps
$15.00 per year?

However, since we're international, collecting taxes isn't quite so easy as
just telling Citizens that they have to pay some sort of membership fee to
become a Citizen. Here are three of the issues we'd have to solve first:

1. Collecting taxes and maintaining a tax roll would be a large, high
maintenance job. This would mean we'd need new people to do it. It would be
impossible to just put the current Censors and Quaestors in charge of such a
task... it'd increase their workload by about 200% and bring the work to more
than any organization *should* demand of it's volunteer workers. This job
would be similar to maintaining business accounts and sending bills for a
company and will only get more complex as we grow.

2. Different currencies are a BIG problem. Some currencies are difficult, or
even impossible to exchange. Also, non-US Citizens sending money here would
have a long delay in receiving Citizenship. Possibly a month or two! A
proposed solution to this would be for each overseas Provincia to have it's
own bank account and collect it's own taxes... but that would require dealing
with a variety of banks and fees. (We're not nonprofit outside the US - some
bank fees could be as high as $100/mo for a business account, and we might
well be pegged as a business.)

3. We'd also of course run into people who just couldn't pay any kind of tax
at all, would be looking for exemptions, etc. Would we have to evaluate
people's claims to poverty, write up a tax code?

Just some stuff to think about if the subject is going to be raised.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	Re: 55 votes?
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:59:15 +0100

Salvete Amethystia et omnes

>Once upon a time I strongly objected to taxation. Looking at
>things now, however, I must agree that it may be a good answer. I
>would, however, like to see them based on income or something. I
>dare say there are still civies who would like to be a part, but would
>be driven out of NR if forced to pay taxes higher than they can
>afford.
To work for NR can an alternative method of tax payment...

>Also, would there be a penalty for not paying taxes?
Of course. The laws should address that item.

Subject:	ATTN: EDICT - Comitia Plebis Tributa Announcement
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 16:09:32 +0100

Salvete cives

At the same time that another Comitia Centuriata is held, another Comitia
Plebis Tributa shall be held too, this time to approve legislation. The
Comitia Plebis shall again be held simultaneously with the Comitia
Centuriata, i.e. October 4 until October 26. The
proposed lex is called Lex Grylla de Accumulatione Magistraturarum and deals
with the accumulation of magistracies, putting limits to the number of
candidacies of a citizen. Although the Lex Grylla de Accumulatione
Magistraturarum is a plesbicitum, it was discussed with Consul Palladius, a
person who also had clear intention of legislating the issue. The Lex Grylla
de Accumulatione
Magistraturarum reads as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lex Grylla de Accumulatione Magistraturarum is a plebiscitum that limits
the number of eligible magistracies to which a citizen may present a
candidacy. According to this
law, a candidacy to an office may be presented with the following
restrictions:

1) A candidate may not run for more than one office at a time whose terms
coincide.

2) The terms of eligible offices occupied by the candidate at the time of
candidacy must expire before the beginning of the term of office for which
the candidacy is being presented.

Notes:
a) Eligible offices are all those offices subject to election by the
Comitia, even if their terms were the result of appointment by the Senate.
b) This law does not restrict appointments by the Senate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some personal comments on the proposed law:
a) Point 1) prevents a citizens from presenting simultaneous candidacies in
order to win at least one. Besides assuring more commitment towards
candidacies, it prevents highly regarded and experienced citizens from
grabbing offices making the cursus honorum a priviledge of a reduced
'clique'. It thus increases the probability of a citizen to start his/her
cursus honorum.
b) Point 2) prevents 'election-after-election' accumulation of offices whose
terms overlap.
c) Senate appointments are not restricted in any way (e.g. a lack of
candidates may require such appointments to be even if there is accumulation
of offices).
d) Religious offices are not considered in the law, for it is the
responsibility of the competent Collegia to decide in a case-by-case basis
whether a citizen has the conditions to occupy a religious position in
accumulation with a magistracy.

Valete omnes

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Tribunus Plebis

Subject:	Those pesky initials was Re: 55 votes?
From:	"RMerullo" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:28:49 -0400

Salvete Crystallina et Luci Corneli et alii

I'd like to interject a bit of trivial Latin into the discussion.

Since the Roman capital "G" looks like a C, it is customary to use the
letter "C" this way in Latin text. As an example, Gaius Iulius becomes
Caius Iulius. I personally do something even more confusing than that:
when I'm writing in English, I use "G", even in Roman names; when the bulk
of the text is in Latin, I use "C" instead of "G"; when I abbreviate a
Roman or Nova Roman name, I use "C". As an example of the latter, initials
for Antonius Gryllus Graecus would be ACC.

I believe that Lucius Cornelius was using C this way.

It is definitely confusing, but that is the price of using two languages
side-by-side.

Valete

Gaius Marius Merullus



>From: "Don an--------ys Meaker" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>
>
>> Sulla: Well I continuely hounded our Censors about the voting code for
>> C. Cornelius Mamertines. So I have no idea why it wasnt issued to them,
>> I have at least 3 e-mails in my archives for that.!
>
>First of all. C. Cornelius Mamertines has never existed! My
>husband, who's name WAS G (pronounced "gee") Cornelius
>MamertinUs (stress the "U" and not any "E").
>

Subject:	Re: Those pesky initials was Re: 55 votes?
From:	"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 10:42:52 -0500

On 20 Sep 99, at 11:28, RMerullo wrote:

> I believe that Lucius Cornelius was using C this way.

You are probably correct. As he exercised his power as
Paterfamilias of old to restrain my husband in his gens against the
will of my husband. That WOULD be the Roman way, wouldn't it.

When will we be getting slaves? That too was the Roman way,
wasn't it? Then, of course we need to remove all women from this
Forum. No place for them here.

Ahhhh, Roman recreation. Gods love it.

Crys (or is it Grys?)

Subject:	Taxes (was 55 votes?)
From:	BenBorgo@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:42:22 EDT

Salvete omnes.

Taking into consideration all of the problems that would indefinately be
raised by any system of required taxation, we might be better off to
institute a voluntary one. At this point in Nova Roma, we only have so many
dedicated and concerned citizens, so it seems most logical that we do not
require taxes of the entire population. I don't hesitate to say that our
membership would drastically drop if a lex such as this were to be
instituted. Now some of you may think this an advantage, weeding out the dead
weight, but do we really want to do that? Is Nova Roma giving enough back, at
this point in time, to be charging the entire citizen body taxes? My opinion
is no; but I have another suggestion. In Nova Roma, we have a very, very
small, almost nonexistant group called the Ordo Equites. Now, their main
responsibility is to contribute extra funds to NR. So, rather than tax the
entire citizen body, why not offer a voluntary tax of say 25 dollars a month,
which by paying on a regular and consistent basis, a citizen gains acceptance
into the Ordo Equites. I would certainly be willing to donate this amount to
NR under these conditions; tthough I'm not sure how reasonable it sounds to
others. This way, you would not be requiring citizens to pay for citizenship,
but rather for a prestigious title. Seems pretty Roman to me. I have a more
detailed plan worked out (as I mentioned this to a Senator a while ago, but I
don't think he got it), but I'm curious if anyone else thinks this a
plausible idea.

Valete,
Gnaeus Tarquinius

Subject:	Re: Proposed Magistrate Law
From:	Cassius622@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:59:37 EDT

Salvete Omnes,

This proposed law to limit magistracies is not a new idea to Nova Roma...
it's been considered since the founding. This issue has both pros and cons
and must be both VERY well defined and considered carefully.

I haven't yet gone to the NR archives to verify exactly what positions are
covered: would it be possible to LIST them so that the law is more clear? I
believe that this covers the Consuls, Tribunes of the Plebs, Praetor Urbanii,
(but not Provincial Praetors) and the Aediles. Senators, Quaestors and other
Tribunes would not be covered, correct?

The intent of this law is good - to make sure that people don't get
overloaded with work, and also to ensure that unscrupulous people don't try
to "get over" on the system by running for too many positions in elections,
etc. However, there are certainly possibilities for BAD results as well. To
debate Graecus' points:

Graecus:
Some personal comments on the proposed law:
a) Point 1) prevents a citizens from presenting simultaneous candidacies in
order to win at least one. Besides assuring more commitment towards
candidacies, it prevents highly regarded and experienced citizens from
grabbing offices making the cursus honorum a priviledge of a reduced
'clique'. It thus increases the probability of a citizen to start his/her
cursus honorum.

Cassius:
LOL! Considering that you yourself made your first magistracy by running for
two positions and then accepting the lesser one you were elected to, Graecus,
I find this an odd point. You ran for Tribune. When it looked like you
wouldn't win that race, you ran for Aedile too. The result? We ended up with
a great official being allowed to hold office rather than getting shut out.
NR benefited greatly from your being able to do this. Also, when our Tribune
of the Plebs quit, under the current system you were able to hold *that*
position too, basically doing yet another much needed service for NR. The law
you're hoping to enact would ensure that we couldn't have such a positive
thing happen again except by Senate decree. This would help eliminate a
ruling clique HOW?

b) Point 2) prevents 'election-after-election' accumulation of offices whose
terms overlap.

Since many of our magistracies don't DO much, (or at least don't need to be
done every day) overlapping offices aren't necessarily a crisis. How often
has your Aedile job interfered with your Trib Pleb position, Graecus? I would
suspect not at all... you've run two online games and called two votes now.
Four projects from the December elections up till the present time! Hardly an
onerous burden.

As far as I know the only office that's had problems with time is the
Censorship... and that's because it's a job for a full team and not just two
people. Hence the Censorial Scribes that Germanicus has been advertising for.

Graecus:
c) Senate appointments are not restricted in any way (e.g. a lack of
candidates may require such appointments to be even if there is accumulation
of offices).

Cassius:
A good thing, since there HAS to be some sort of apparatus to make sure that
people who can actually do a job can be placed into it even if this proposed
law might forbid it. The only drawback is that the potential candidate must
"wow" the Senate for appointment rather than win votes among the Citizens if
a position "interferes" with a currently held magistracy.

Graecus:
d) Religious offices are not considered in the law, for it is the
responsibility of the competent Collegia to decide in a case-by-case basis
whether a citizen has the conditions to occupy a religious position in
accumulation with a magistracy.

Cassius:
Another good provision. It will ensure that Citizens won't be forced to
abandon the Religio in order to have official position if they feel something
needs to be done, and they're the person to do it.

I'll end with a basic question... how was this handled in the ancient world?
Did the "unwritten rules" of the Mos Maiorum (Roman tradition) handle it? Or
were the amount of offices one could run for/hold limited by law? This is
certainly a case where we might be guided by ancient Rome. They had a system
that worked well, and this isn't too complicated an aspect to research.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator

************************
In a message dated 9/20/99 8:06:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> writes:

<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lex Grylla de Accumulatione Magistraturarum is a plebiscitum that limits
the number of eligible magistracies to which a citizen may present a
candidacy. According to this
law, a candidacy to an office may be presented with the following
restrictions:

1) A candidate may not run for more than one office at a time whose terms
coincide.

2) The terms of eligible offices occupied by the candidate at the time of
candidacy must expire before the beginning of the term of office for which
the candidacy is being presented.

Notes:
a) Eligible offices are all those offices subject to election by the
Comitia, even if their terms were the result of appointment by the Senate.
b) This law does not restrict appointments by the Senate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some personal comments on the proposed law:
a) Point 1) prevents a citizens from presenting simultaneous candidacies in
order to win at least one. Besides assuring more commitment towards
candidacies, it prevents highly regarded and experienced citizens from
grabbing offices making the cursus honorum a priviledge of a reduced
'clique'. It thus increases the probability of a citizen to start his/her
cursus honorum.
b) Point 2) prevents 'election-after-election' accumulation of offices whose
terms overlap.
c) Senate appointments are not restricted in any way (e.g. a lack of
candidates may require such appointments to be even if there is accumulation
of offices).
d) Religious offices are not considered in the law, for it is the
responsibility of the competent Collegia to decide in a case-by-case basis
whether a citizen has the conditions to occupy a religious position in
accumulation with a magistracy.

Valete omnes

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Tribunus Plebis
>>

Subject:	Re: Those pesky initials
From:	Marius Fimbria legion6@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:22:45 -0500 (CDT)

Salvete omnes...

Look, Crys:
C = the abbreviation for Caius or Gaius.
Cn = the abbreviation for Cnaeus or Gnaeus.
This information may be found in the 'Abbreviations' table of even the
tiniest Latin dictionary, as well as any serious work on Roman
epigraphy. It's been that way on monuments and other inscriptions for
thousands of years. The reasons have more to do with the changes in
the alphabet from Archaic Latin to Classical Latin than anything else.
I'm pretty sure the ancient Romans did not intend the custom as a
Personal Insult...
************************************************************
Lucius Marius Fimbria |>[SPQR]<|
mka Märia Villarroel |\=/|
<a href="/po--------ovaroma?protectID=034056178009193116148218000036129208" >legion6@--------</a> ( ~ 6 )~~~----...,,__
Roman Historical Re-Creationist `\*/, ``}`^~``,,, \ \
and Citizen of Nova Roma ``=.\ (__==\_ /\ }
'Just a-hangin' around the Universe, | | / )\ \| /
bein' a Roman... It's hard work, _|_| / _/_| /`(
but SOMEbody's gotta do it!!' /./..=' /./..'

Subject:	Re: Taxes
From:	Cassius622@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:25:34 EDT

In --------ss--------d-------- 9/20/99 8:42:37 AM P--------ic D--------ght Time, <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=023056234037193209048149203140129208071" >BenBorgo@--------</--------;
writes:

<< So, rather than tax the
entire citizen body, why not offer a voluntary tax of say 25 dollars a
month,
which by paying on a regular and consistent basis, a citizen gains
acceptance
into the Ordo Equites. >>

Gnaeus Tarquinius, I'm afraid this plan just won't work. First of all, there
are only TWO members of the Ordo Equester in Nova Roma - myself and Marcus
Audens. I don't think he and I want to carry 100% of the revenue
responsibility for Nova Roma.

Even if that weren't the case and there were more Equestrians, it would still
be a poor deal. The Ordo was established to try and build a Roman economy...
not to make commerce unprofitable. Not that there IS a great profit! I
believe I've sold three items total to Nova Roma Citizens in the past year,
for a total profit of about $25.00 all told. Out of that I paid 10% of the
TOTAL sales, about $7.00, to Nova Roma. If a law were enacted to charge me
$25.00 per month for the kind of business I've done, I wouldn't be able to
quit the Order fast enough! ;)

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus

Subject:	Re: Re: Proposed Magistrate Law
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:43:11 +0100

Salvete Cassi et omnes

>I haven't yet gone to the NR archives to verify exactly what positions are
>covered: would it be possible to LIST them so that the law is more clear? I
>believe that this covers the Consuls, Tribunes of the Plebs, Praetor
Urbanii,
>(but not Provincial Praetors) and the Aediles. Senators, Quaestors and
other
>Tribunes would not be covered, correct?
This lex covers candidacies to Censor, Consul, Praetor Urbanus, Aedilis
Curulis, Aedilis Plebis, Questor, Tribunus Plebis. These are the eligible
magistracies according to the current Constitution.

>Graecus:
> Some personal comments on the proposed law:
> a) Point 1) prevents a citizens from presenting simultaneous candidacies
in
> order to win at least one. Besides assuring more commitment towards
> candidacies, it prevents highly regarded and experienced citizens from
> grabbing offices making the cursus honorum a priviledge of a reduced
> 'clique'. It thus increases the probability of a citizen to start his/her
> cursus honorum.
>
>Cassius:
>LOL! Considering that you yourself made your first magistracy by running
for
>two positions and then accepting the lesser one you were elected to,
Graecus,
>I find this an odd point. You ran for Tribune. When it looked like you
>wouldn't win that race, you ran for Aedile too. The result? We ended up
with
>a great official being allowed to hold office rather than getting shut out.
>NR benefited greatly from your being able to do this.
That's right, I've done that in the past. It was legal. Nevertheless, I
don't agree that such a behaviour should be avoided.
Imagine that I had been elected Tribunus Plebis and Aedilis Plebis. I would
have prevented a citizen from occupying one of the positions and to
collaborate with his valuable work, maybe better than mine. 2 people would
have occupied 3 magistracies, preventing a third person from doing it.

>Also, when our Tribune
>of the Plebs quit, under the current system you were able to hold *that*
>position too, basically doing yet another much needed service for NR. The
law
>you're hoping to enact would ensure that we couldn't have such a positive
>thing happen again except by Senate decree. This would help eliminate a
>ruling clique HOW?
The Senate appointed me Tribunus because it was needed. My lex keeps this
option. IN CASE OF NEED, offices not filled THROUGH POPULAR ELECTION can be
filled by the Senate.

>b) Point 2) prevents 'election-after-election' accumulation of offices
whose
> terms overlap.
>
>Since many of our magistracies don't DO much, (or at least don't need to be
>done every day) overlapping offices aren't necessarily a crisis. How often
>has your Aedile job interfered with your Trib Pleb position, Graecus? I
would
>suspect not at all... you've run two online games and called two votes now.
>Four projects from the December elections up till the present time! Hardly
an
>onerous burden.
As Aedilis Plebis I have also worked on a Web page for the Ludi, which is
now finished. As Tribunus, I have not seen much action, you are right. But
is it correct to prevent new citizens from starting the cursus honorum? I
think that we need to motivate active people to work. Accumulation of
offices by well known characters like me and you prevent newcomers to use
and show their competent skills.

> As far as I know the only office that's had problems with time is the
>Censorship... and that's because it's a job for a full team and not just
two
>people. Hence the Censorial Scribes that Germanicus has been advertising
for.
Here is an example of something that had to be dealt with, and one of the
main concerns of Palladius.

>Graecus:
> c) Senate appointments are not restricted in any way (e.g. a lack of
> candidates may require such appointments to be even if there is
accumulation
> of offices).
>Cassius:
>A good thing, since there HAS to be some sort of apparatus to make sure
that
>people who can actually do a job can be placed into it even if this
proposed
>law might forbid it. The only drawback is that the potential candidate must
>"wow" the Senate for appointment rather than win votes among the Citizens
if
>a position "interferes" with a currently held magistracy.
Remind that the potential candidate in this case has not presented a formal
candidacy to the Comitia, in which case he would have been elected. So, the
Senate appointment is ONLY for offices not filled through election and that
would have remained empty. Attention: the law does not exclude candidacies
to be presented to additional Comitia sessions held for filling empty
offices.

>I'll end with a basic question... how was this handled in the ancient
world?
>Did the "unwritten rules" of the Mos Maiorum (Roman tradition) handle it?
Or
>were the amount of offices one could run for/hold limited by law? This is
>certainly a case where we might be guided by ancient Rome. They had a
system
>that worked well, and this isn't too complicated an aspect to research.
I would be glad of receiving this information. Unfourtunately, none of my
books specifies how this was ruled. Can anyone help?

Valete

Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Tribunus Plebis

Subject:	Re: Re: Proposed Magistrate Law
From:	"Antonio Grilo" amg@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:53:52 +0100

PS

In my last email change
>That's right, I've done that in the past. It was legal. Nevertheless, I
>don't agree that such a behaviour should be avoided.
for
>That's right, I've done that in the past. It was legal. Nevertheless, I
>think that such a behaviour should be avoided.

=)

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus

Subject:	Re: Re: Those pesky initials
From:	"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 11:56:46 -0500

On 20 Sep 99, at 11:22, Marius Fimbria wrote:

> I'm pretty sure the ancient Romans did not intend the custom as a
> Personal Insult...

The Ancient Romans, no .......

I am still trying to find out just how far this "reconstructionist" thing
is going to go.

Crys

Subject:	Re: Re: Those pesky initials
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla alexious@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 09:45:18 -0700

Salve...just to interject a point of humor..you have been trying to find out
how far this goes since the beginning of Nova Roma...when will you EVER be
satisfied????

L. Cornelius Sulla
Consul
*oops I should spell out my name in entirety* LOL..

Don and Crys Meaker wrote:

> From: "Don an--------ys Meaker" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>
>
> On 20 Sep 99, at 11:22, Marius Fimbria wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty sure the ancient Romans did not intend the custom as a
> > Personal Insult...
>
> The Ancient Romans, no .......
>
> I am still trying to find out just how far this "reconstructionist" thing
> is going to go.
>
> Crys
>
>

Subject:	Re: Re: Those pesky initials
From:	"Don and Crys Meaker" famromo@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:18:45 -0500

On 20 Sep 99, at 9:45, Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote:

>
> Salve...just to interject a point of humor..you have been trying to find
> out how far this goes since the beginning of Nova Roma...when will you
> EVER be satisfied????
>
> L. Cornelius Sulla
> Consul
> *oops I should spell out my name in entirety* LOL..

With you ... never.

Crys

Subject:	Re: Those pesky initials was Re: 55 votes?
From:	"RMerullo" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:10:17 -0400

Salvete Crystallina et alii

Just to clarify, I meant that Sulla was using the letter C, as in ABC, that
way; I was not addressing the issue of his relations with Mamertinus, to
which I have neither knowledge nor responsibility.

I would stick with "Crys" by the way. It doesn't work both ways.

Valete

Gaius Marius Merullus


>From: "Don an--------ys Meaker" <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=230166014180193192112218004036129208" >famromo@--------</a>
>
>On 20 Sep 99, at 11:28, RMerullo wrote:
>
>> I believe that Lucius Cornelius was using C this way.
>
>You are probably correct. As he exercised his power as
>Paterfamilias of old to restrain my husband in his gens against the
>will of my husband. That WOULD be the Roman way, wouldn't it.
>

>Crys (or is it Grys?)
>

Subject:	Re: Taxes (long and almost nasty)
From:	"RMerullo" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:46:19 -0400

Salvete Cnaee Tarquini et alii

In my opinion, taxes would be sensible only to cover real expenses that are
planned, and for which there is insufficient income from the macellum and
ordo equester. Audens' efforts seemed to be yielding a coherent case on
taxes, but the budgetary consultum was rescinded for some reason.

If we need money to pay for the website, the chat room et cetera, by all
means, let's have the Senate show us the revenues, the projected expenses
and levy a tax accordingly. I'll pay then for sure.

The tax to which I object is the tax that someone wants me to pay "to show
that I'm serious". Give me a break. If anyone is that concerned about the
level of seriousness here in Nova Roma, that person can just become more
serious him/herself, develop online rituals, submit articles to the Eagle,
whatever their mighty faculties can accomodate. And if anyone is concerned
about the financial welfare of the state, that person can petition the
Senate to re-do the budget and get to the bottom of it - and donate some of
his/her own money while they're at it.

I had been donating funds until the Impeachment/Interregnum events. I have
no intention of resuming this until the Nova Roma Corporation and Nova Roma
the micronation are finally, officially unified, which I expect to happen in
a matter of a few weeks.

You make some good points about taxation, and oddly enough, Iulianus makes a
good case against taxation, even though he says that he is for it --

Scripsit M Cassius Iulianus
"1. Collecting taxes and maintaining a tax roll would be a large, high
maintenance job. ----
2. Different currencies are a BIG problem. Some currencies are difficult,
or
even impossible to exchange. .
3. We'd also of course run into people who just couldn't pay any kind of tax
at all, would be looking for exemptions, etc. Would we have to evaluate
people's claims to poverty, write up a tax code?

Scribo
The answer to 3. is yes, yes. So the answer to

NR taxes?

is no, no.

One should not try to reinvigorate a bureaucratically challenged
organization by adding a new dimension of bureaucracy to it.



>From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=023056234037193209048149203140129208071" >BenBorgo@--------</--------;
>
>Taking into consideration all of the problems that would indefinately be
>raised by any system of required taxation, we might be better off to
>institute a voluntary one.

Which we had for several months. At least, I and other people wrote checks
and sent them to PCassia, who deposited them in NR's account. What else is
that but voluntary taxation? The best kind of taxation I'm sure.

At this point in Nova Roma, we only have so many
>dedicated and concerned citizens, so it seems most logical that we do not
>require taxes of the entire population.

One could require taxes, but I'll bet you your year of NR taxes that no more
than 60 people will pay. To him/ her who wants to cut off the rest from
citizenship, I ask, what the hell for, and who gains by doing so?

I don't hesitate to say that our
>membership would drastically drop if a lex such as this were to be
>instituted. Now some of you may think this an advantage, weeding out the
dead
>weight, but do we really want to do that?

No. Why would we? How is all the "dead weight" harming us? If anyone is
"harmed", it is the censores and rogatores, since we have to deal with all
the voter codes. To weed out a couple hundred "lurking" citizens would save
us some trouble by eliminating all those voter codes, which would make
issuing, tracking and counting them a snap. Big deal. I would rather wade
through a heap of unused voter codes any day than cut off a bunch of people
(most of whom I'll bet you your year of NR taxes will turn out to be
non-U.S. citizens) and leaving NR weaker.

Is Nova Roma giving enough back, at
>this point in time, to be charging the entire citizen body taxes?

That's a tough question. Thank you for asking it. I'm glad that I'm
against imposed taxes and don't have to answer you. Anyone who is for
taxes, however, better answer you promptly and in full.

My opinion
>is no; but I have another suggestion. In Nova Roma, we have a very, very
>small, almost nonexistant group called the Ordo Equites. Now, their main
>responsibility is to contribute extra funds to NR. So, rather than tax the
>entire citizen body, why not offer a voluntary tax of say 25 dollars a
month,
>which by paying on a regular and consistent basis, a citizen gains
acceptance
>into the Ordo Equites.

That's a good idea. It sounds not unlike an idea that was floated on this
list last year. That proposal called for posting donations to the website,
with awards of honorary titles based on the magnitude of the donations.

I would certainly be willing to donate this amount to
>NR under these conditions; tthough I'm not sure how reasonable it sounds to
>others.

I would have donated that much and more to NR already this year if it were
not for the Impeachment/Interregnum. And a macellum issue too.

This way, you would not be requiring citizens to pay for citizenship,
>but rather for a prestigious title. Seems pretty Roman to me. I have a more
>detailed plan worked out (as I mentioned this to a Senator a while ago, but
I
>don't think he got it), but I'm curious if anyone else thinks this a
>plausible idea.

Please, do keep petitioning the Senate. Your idea is definitely worth their
consideration, and hopefully, action.
>
> Valete,
> Gnaeus
Tarquinius
>
Valete

Gaius Marius Merullus

Subject:	Re: Taxes (shorter and nastier)
From:	"RMerullo" rmerullo@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:06:13 -0400

Salvete Marce Cassi et alii

I'm not trying to flame you here, or spark any enmity, but, since you adduce
your own business experience in proving to Caesar that his idea is not
viable, I must then ask you:

Where are the stamps that I ordered in March?

One can be for taxes, or against taxes. But how can you talk about the need
to levy taxes for NR, when you have not even delivered the goods that you
proferred in her name?

I have asked you several times in private e-mails Marce Cassi, when I would
receive those. Most recently about a month ago. I realize that I said in
that exchange that "a few more weeks wouldn't kill me" -- and you took me
literally. I might have forgotten and let you keep those stamps, except
that you have reminded me by dismissing Caesar's idea on the basis of your
experience in the ordo equester.



>From: <--------ef="/post/nov----------------otectID=137166066112082162090021200165114253071048139" >C--------us622@--------</--------;
>
>Gnaeus Tarquinius, I'm afraid this plan just won't work. First of all,
there
>are only TWO members of the Ordo Equester in Nova Roma - myself and Marcus
>Audens. I don't think he and I want to carry 100% of the revenue
>responsibility for Nova Roma.

If you read his message carefully, you would know that he was offering
membership in ordo equester to anyone who pays the money, not requiring you
two current members only to pay the money. In other words, he is creating a
new ordo equester that will, in his view, generate more money.
>
>Even if that weren't the case and there were more Equestrians, it would
still
>be a poor deal. The Ordo was established to try and build a Roman
economy...
>not to make commerce unprofitable. Not that there IS a great profit! I
>believe I've sold three items total to Nova Roma Citizens in the past year,
>for a total profit of about $25.00 all told. Out of that I paid 10% of the
>TOTAL sales, about $7.00, to Nova Roma. If a law were enacted to charge me
>$25.00 per month for the kind of business I've done, I wouldn't be able to
>quit the Order fast enough! ;)

And if you had sent me my stamps, maybe I would have bought more from you,
and considered giving Audens some business too. But you haven't sent me
anything, and my willingness to send money NR's way has dried up.

Again, this is not a personal attack on you. A founder of Nova Roma is
worth more than my stamp order, that's for sure.
>
>Valete,
>
>Marcus Cassius Julianus
>
Valete

Gaius Marius Merullus
former customer in the Macellum and NR donor, now virulent anti-tax,
anti-equestrian agitant :)

Subject:	Re: The First British Etcetera
From:	"Nicolaus Moravius" n_moravius@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 13:57:46 PDT

Salvete!

Scripsit Vindex:

>I haven't been following this thread in any detail, so this comment may
>have already been made:
>
>As far as I am aware, entire cohorts could be granted citizen status on the
>basis of performance, the letters CR in the cohort's title indicating that
>the cohort had, at some past date, been granted citizenship en masse.

- Gratias ago for that, Vindex. No one mentioned it before, though it had
crossed my mind that the "First British Thousand-Man Ulpian Decorated Loyal
Fortunate Cohort comprised of Roman Citizens" might indeed previously have
been granted citizenship status whilst still serving (an honour which would
put them on the same footing as a 'regular' Legio (who were citizens by
right as soon as they enlisted, whereas auxiliatores were normally not
citizens until their honourable discharge on completion of service). This
early discharge with citizenship rights would therefore be a second
distinction for this unit.

IO, THE FIRST BRITISH THOUSAND-MAN ULPIAN DECORATED LOYAL FORTUNATE COHORT
OF ROMAN CITIZENS! AVE! AVE!! AVE!!!

Valete,

Vado (that must make them senior to the Royal Scots Fusiliers...:-)

Subject:	Re: Re: Proposed Magistrate Law
From:	Mike Macnair MikeMacnair@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:26:13 -0400

Salvete omnes!

For info perhaps rather than for copying directly into NR's rules; Lintott,
144-6, states the rules as

1) under a regulation mentioned by the historian Polybius and possibly
dating to the third century, no-one could stand for any magistracy without
previously completing 10 years military service (a little impractical for
NR).

2) Under the first Lex Annalis, the L. Villia of 180 BCE,
a) candidates for consul must previously have been praetor;
candidates for praetor must previously have been quaestor (the aedileship
is not a compulsory element)
b) there is a compulsory two year interval between holding
magistracies
c) there were minimum ages for standing for consul and praetor

3) Under the dictator Sulla's Lex Annalis of 81 BCE the rules were modified
in ways which were unclear, but according to Cicero the minimum age was 30
for the quaestorship, 39 for the praetorship and 42 for the consulship.

4) the tribuneship was not affected by any of these rules.

I would argue that we should enact the cursus honorum (sequence from junior
to senior magistracies) and the compulsory gap between holding
magistracies, but with a dispensing clause for the first few years of NR's
existence.

The cursus honorum is a safeguard against demagogues.

The compulsory gap guards against the appearance of a permanent officer
clique and is fundamental to republicanism, though in ancient Rome it also
provided an opportunity to prosecute or sue ex-magistrates, because curule
magistrates while in office were immune from prosecution or other legal
action.

Minimum ages, as in Palladius' proposal deferred from the last C.
centuriata, seem to me to be problematic. NR has no means of checking what
people tell us about their ages, right? I think that as in Germanicus'
construction of the Comitia Centuriata, minimum time as a citizen or
minimum "century points" would be the appropriate approach.

A dispensation for NR's first few years is called for because it is
obviously impractical to operate any such rules under present conditions.

For these reasons I would like to see both the proposed leges amended
before they go to the vote

Valete,

M. Mucius Scaevola Magister
Praetor

Subject:	Re: Re: Proposed Magistrate Law
From:	SFP55@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 17:51:02 EDT

In a message dated 9/20/99 2:27:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
<a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=174176211056207031025158175026172165098048139046" >MikeMa--------r@--------</a> writes:

<< I would argue that we should enact the cursus honorum (sequence from junior
to senior magistracies) and the compulsory gap between holding
magistracies, but with a dispensing clause for the first few years of NR's
existence. <<
Salvete!
I would agree with the above assessment. We are going to have a real problem
carrying out our agendas right now if we all have to take a mandatory break
between offices.
4 - 5 years down the road however, I see this as the norm.

<<The cursus honorum is a safeguard against demagogues. >>
True. Plus as the applicant goes along the "path" he or she becomes more
seasoned as a Nova Roman involved in the political process. Therefore by the
time
they reach consul they are ready to carry out what will be expected of them.


>>The compulsory gap guards against the appearance of a permanent officer
clique and is fundamental to republicanism, though in ancient Rome it also
provided an opportunity to prosecute or sue ex-magistrates, because Curule
magistrates while in office were immune from prosecution or other legal
action. >>
Again as we said, down the road there may be such abuses. I would hope not.
But one never knows.
Valete
Q. Fabius

Subject:	Re: Test
From:	jmath669642reng@--------)
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:05:56 -0400 (EDT)

Salve, Consul Palladius;

Sir,I have been gone for a few days, But I received your message of
inquiry about the Test.

Vale, Consul Palladius;
Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Re: Taxes (shorter and nastier)
From:	Cassius622@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:49:42 EDT

In a message dated 9/20/99 2:09:29 PM EST, <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a> writes:

Merullus:
<< I'm not trying to flame you here, or spark any enmity, but, since you
adduce
your own business experience in proving to Caesar that his idea is not
viable, I must then ask you:

Where are the stamps that I ordered in March?

Cassius:
I've given up on the stamps. I had hoped to find a way to produce them
commercially but could only come up with a method of doing them by hand. I
had thought this might work... but my day job has been making ever greater
demands and my available free time continues to shrink. I offered you a
choice of getting your money back about a month ago, but you preferred to
wait in case I could produce. I can't. Now I can only ask you to please
remind me how much you sent in - I'll get a refund check into the mail
immediately (probably by Certified mail since you seem to want to make an
issue) upon hearing from you.

Merullus:
One can be for taxes, or against taxes. But how can you talk about the need
to levy taxes for NR, when you have not even delivered the goods that you
proferred in her name?

Cassius:
Because I'm lowlife scum, I guess. Thanks for letting the world know,
Merullus! And here I thought my secret was safe with you... :P

Merullus:
> I have asked you several times in private e-mails Marce Cassi, when I would
receive those. Most recently about a month ago. I realize that I said in
that exchange that "a few more weeks wouldn't kill me" -- and you took me
literally. I might have forgotten and let you keep those stamps, except
that you have reminded me by dismissing Caesar's idea on the basis of your
experience in the ordo equester.

Cassius:
Well, now the issue is solved. I'll happily provide the refund I offered a
month ago. However, this situation still has little bearing on the Ordo
Equester. We haven't had any amount of Citizens *wanting* to operate a Roman
oriented business... so it's not practical to just assume that nonexistent
commerce can shoulder all taxes so you yourself won't have to pay them.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator

P.S. Say folks, I could use a tag-line. Anyone know how to say "Proud to be
lowlife scum" in Latin? ;)

Subject:	Re: Taxes (long and almost nasty)
From:	Cassius622@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 19:51:39 EDT

In a message dated 9/20/99 1:50:17 PM EST, <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=194232192180194153138149203043129208071" >rmerullo@--------</a> writes:

Merullus:
>In my opinion, taxes would be sensible only to cover real expenses that are
planned, and for which there is insufficient income from the macellum and
ordo equester. Audens' efforts seemed to be yielding a coherent case on
taxes, but the budgetary consultum was rescinded for some reason.

Cassius:
The budgetary consultum was *not* rescinded. It was pre-empted by the Social
War before it could be completed, and I believe it is in the works again.
Palladius just posted about the new budget to the Senate, I believe.

That aside, we probably ought to have at least *some* money besides what is
needed for day to day expenses. We have a long term goal of obtaining land
for instance, producing coinage for trade at festivals, etc. That sort of
thing needs to be planned in as well, otherwise NR will be capable of only of
perpetually "running on empty" as far as funds go.

Merullus:
> If we need money to pay for the website, the chat room et cetera, by all
means, let's have the Senate show us the revenues, the projected expenses
and levy a tax accordingly. I'll pay then for sure.

Cassius:
That information should be coming out in the new budget. Right now the only
reason why Nova Roma hasn't run into financial trouble is because various
magistrates have been shouldering nearly all the costs... I myself paid for
the website for something like 15 months, and just donated the costs of
printing the latest issue of "The Eagle". Because of such actions Nova Roma
currently has a bit over $600 in it's bank account. However, as most
international organizations go, that's very little indeed.

Merullus
> The tax to which I object is the tax that someone wants me to pay "to show
that I'm serious". Give me a break. If anyone is that concerned about the
level of seriousness here in Nova Roma, that person can just become more
serious him/herself, develop online rituals, submit articles to the Eagle,
whatever their mighty faculties can accomodate. And if anyone is concerned
about the financial welfare of the state, that person can petition the
Senate to re-do the budget and get to the bottom of it - and donate some of
his/her own money while they're at it.

Cassius:
I'm saying that Citizens ought to shoulder some of the financial
responsibility for Nova Roma. If you believe that is unfair, I'll be happy to
debate the issue. You might start your argument by providing us with a full
list of all the worldwide organizations that don't require yearly dues and/or
regular donations from it's membership. I doubt you'll find many, or even
*any*... even Cub Scouts have financial responsibilities!

Merullus:
>I had been donating funds until the Impeachment/Interregnum events. I have
no intention of resuming this until the Nova Roma Corporation and Nova Roma
the micronation are finally, officially unified, which I expect to happen in
a matter of a few weeks.

Cassius:
Certainly the corporate stuff would have to be solved before any sort of
taxation could be seriously considered. I don't believe the one thing could
be done before the other in any case.

Merullus:
> You make some good points about taxation, and oddly enough, Iulianus makes a
good case against taxation, even though he says that he is for it --

Cassius:
I AM for it, but believe it shouldn't be attempted until the basic logistics
are completely solved.

Scripsit M Cassius Iulianus
> "1. Collecting taxes and maintaining a tax roll would be a large, high
maintenance job. ----

Cassius again:
Yes. Other organizations manage to do this however... we simply need to find
out how they do it successfully.

> 2. Different currencies are a BIG problem. Some currencies are difficult,
or even impossible to exchange. .

Cassius:
Again, we simply need to find out HOW to do this. Other groups manage.

> 3. We'd also of course run into people who just couldn't pay any kind of tax
at all, would be looking for exemptions, etc. Would we have to evaluate
people's claims to poverty, write up a tax code?

Cassius:
And again, other groups manage to do this. All we need to do is research a
few successful examples and pick what works best for us. None of these
problems are insurmountable.

Scribo
> The answer to 3. is yes, yes. So the answer to

NR taxes?

is no, no.

Cassius:
Perhaps, but I'll be one of the folks working to make taxes a viable reality
at some point. All other organizations do it, from Greenpeace to 4H. If they
can, so can we.

Merullus:
> One should not try to reinvigorate a bureaucratically challenged
organization by adding a new dimension of bureaucracy to it.

Cassius:
That's true in some ways! We can't just dump taxation into the current system
since we're still trying to get it to work in the first place.

However, assuming that the folks holding magistracies will continue to do the
work that their offices demand, AND contribute all the money, while much of
the Citizenship remains inactive except for the fifty or so people who
regularly use this internet list, is also a recipie for disaster.

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Senator

Subject:	Re: Election Announcement
From:	Daniel Dreesbach dreesbach@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:16:39 -0700 (PDT)

I wish to run for Praetor

Gaius Iunius Germanus

--- Decius Iunius Palladius <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232219108127031050199203252129208071" >amcgrath@--------</a> wrote:
> From: Decius Iunius Palladius <a href="/post/novaroma?protectID=243232219108127031050199203252129208071" >amcgrath@--------</a>
>
>
>
> Salvete!
>
> No sooner is one election over than another must
> start, this time for
> praetor, to vacate the office vacated by Lucius
> Cornelius Sulla.
>
> Those people wishing to announce your candidacies
> for the office of
> Praetor may *now* publicly announce your intention
> to run. Candidates will
> have until Monday, September 27 at 2200 (10:00 PM)
> EST to announce. At
> that time, *no* more candidacies will be accepted.
> The ballot will then be
> published. Voting will commenece around a week
> later, on October 4, the
> best day according to the auspices. Voting will be
> completed on October
> 26.
>
> Potential candidates must keep in mind the brief
> term. The election will
> hardly be over before the full blown Fall elections
> will start. However,
> this timetable is determined by law and cannot be
> shortened.
>
> Valete,
>
> Decius Iunius Palladius,
> Consul
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Quis ita familiaris est barbaris,
> ut aram Victoriae non requirat!"
>
> Quintus Aurelius Symmachus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> Share your special moments with family and friends-
> send PHOTO Greetings
> at Zing.com! Use your own photos or choose from a
> variety of funny,
> cute, cool and animated cards.
>
> <a href=" <a href="http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/zing7" target="_top" >http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/zing7</a>
> ">Click Here</a>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Subject:	Re: Re: Proposed Magistrate Law
From:	Daniel Dreesbach dreesbach@--------
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 18:21:45 -0700 (PDT)

Perhaps having a law where a person can hold an office at a time.

--- Antonio Grilo <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a> wrote:
> From: "Antonio Grilo" <a href="/post/novaroma?prote--------=243232178003185091033082" >amg@--------</a>
>
> Salvete Cassi et omnes
>
> >I haven't yet gone to the NR archives to verify
> exactly what positions are
> >covered: would it be possible to LIST them so that
> the law is more clear? I
> >believe that this covers the Consuls, Tribunes of
> the Plebs, Praetor
> Urbanii,
> >(but not Provincial Praetors) and the Aediles.
> Senators, Quaestors and
> other
> >Tribunes would not be covered, correct?
> This lex covers candidacies to Censor, Consul,
> Praetor Urbanus, Aedilis
> Curulis, Aedilis Plebis, Questor, Tribunus Plebis.
> These are the eligible
> magistracies according to the current Constitution.
>
> >Graecus:
> > Some personal comments on the proposed law:
> > a) Point 1) prevents a citizens from presenting
> simultaneous candidacies
> in
> > order to win at least one. Besides assuring more
> commitment towards
> > candidacies, it prevents highly regarded and
> experienced citizens from
> > grabbing offices making the cursus honorum a
> priviledge of a reduced
> > 'clique'. It thus increases the probability of a
> citizen to start his/her
> > cursus honorum.
> >
> >Cassius:
> >LOL! Considering that you yourself made your first
> magistracy by running
> for
> >two positions and then accepting the lesser one you
> were elected to,
> Graecus,
> >I find this an odd point. You ran for Tribune. When
> it looked like you
> >wouldn't win that race, you ran for Aedile too.
> The result? We ended up
> with
> >a great official being allowed to hold office
> rather than getting shut out.
> >NR benefited greatly from your being able to do
> this.
> That's right, I've done that in the past. It was
> legal. Nevertheless, I
> don't agree that such a behaviour should be avoided.
> Imagine that I had been elected Tribunus Plebis and
> Aedilis Plebis. I would
> have prevented a citizen from occupying one of the
> positions and to
> collaborate with his valuable work, maybe better
> than mine. 2 people would
> have occupied 3 magistracies, preventing a third
> person from doing it.
>
> >Also, when our Tribune
> >of the Plebs quit, under the current system you
> were able to hold *that*
> >position too, basically doing yet another much
> needed service for NR. The
> law
> >you're hoping to enact would ensure that we
> couldn't have such a positive
> >thing happen again except by Senate decree. This
> would help eliminate a
> >ruling clique HOW?
> The Senate appointed me Tribunus because it was
> needed. My lex keeps this
> option. IN CASE OF NEED, offices not filled THROUGH
> POPULAR ELECTION can be
> filled by the Senate.
>
> >b) Point 2) prevents 'election-after-election'
> accumulation of offices
> whose
> > terms overlap.
> >
> >Since many of our magistracies don't DO much, (or
> at least don't need to be
> >done every day) overlapping offices aren't
> necessarily a crisis. How often
> >has your Aedile job interfered with your Trib Pleb
> position, Graecus? I
> would
> >suspect not at all... you've run two online games
> and called two votes now.
> >Four projects from the December elections up till
> the present time! Hardly
> an
> >onerous burden.
> As Aedilis Plebis I have also worked on a Web page
> for the Ludi, which is
> now finished. As Tribunus, I have not seen much
> action, you are right. But
> is it correct to prevent new citizens from starting
> the cursus honorum? I
> think that we need to motivate active people to
> work. Accumulation of
> offices by well known characters like me and you
> prevent newcomers to use
> and show their competent skills.
>
> > As far as I know the only office that's had
> problems with time is the
> >Censorship... and that's because it's a job for a
> full team and not just
> two
> >people. Hence the Censorial Scribes that Germanicus
> has been advertising
> for.
> Here is an example of something that had to be dealt
> with, and one of the
> main concerns of Palladius.
>
> >Graecus:
> > c) Senate appointments are not restricted in any
> way (e.g. a lack of
> > candidates may require such appointments to be
> even if there is
> accumulation
> > of offices).
> >Cassius:
> >A good thing, since there HAS to be some sort of
> apparatus to make sure
> that
> >people who can actually do a job can be placed into
> it even if this
> proposed
> >law might forbid it. The only drawback is that the
> potential candidate must
> >"wow" the Senate for appointment rather than win
> votes among the Citizens
> if
> >a position "interferes" with a currently held
> magistracy.
> Remind that the potential candidate in this case has
> not presented a formal
> candidacy to the Comitia, in which case he would
> have been elected. So, the
> Senate appointment is ONLY for offices not filled
> through election and that
> would have remained empty. Attention: the law does
> not exclude candidacies
> to be presented to additional Comitia sessions held
> for filling empty
> offices.
>
> >I'll end with a basic question... how was this
> handled in the ancient
> world?
> >Did the "unwritten rules" of the Mos Maiorum (Roman
> tradition) handle it?
> Or
> >were the amount of offices one could run for/hold
> limited by law? This is
> >certainly a case where we might be guided by
> ancient Rome. They had a
> system
> >that worked well, and this isn't too complicated an
> aspect to research.
> I would be glad of receiving this information.
> Unfourtunately, none of my
> books specifies how this was ruled. Can anyone help?
>
> Valete
>
> Antonius Gryllus Graecus
> Tribunus Plebis
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ----------------------------
>
> Share your special moments with family and friends-
> send PHOTO Greetings
> at Zing.com! Use your own photos or choose from a
> variety of funny,
> cute, cool and animated cards.
>
> <a href=" <a href="http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/zing7" target="_top" >http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/zing7</a>
> ">Click Here</a>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Subject:	Announcement: Marcus Minucius Audens stands for Praetor Urbanus.
From:	jmath669642reng@--------)
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:35:16 -0400 (EDT)

Salvete, NR Citizens;

I, Marcus Minucius Audens, Patrician, Paterfamilius Gens Minucia,
Tribunius Militum Laticlaviois, Commander of the Sodalitas Militum,
Legatus Civicus of the Area of Connecticut in the NorthEast United
States, former Quaestor and present special assistant to the Consul
Palladius for Budget and Situation Survey and the NR Editor of Eagle
hereby announce and declare my intention to stand for the offce of
Praetor Urbanus. It is my understanding that the period of office is
short for this make-up election, however that fact provides a better
challenge to do somethng specific during my tenure. I salute both of my
fellow candidates and wish them both well, and state without
equivication of any kind that I am most honored to be running with them
for the same office. They are both honorable men, interested in NR as
am I. I do not envy the voters decision betwee the three of us....

It is my belief that every Magistrate that holds office should be able
to complete some poject or portion of a project during his tenure. My
record is that I have completed, the 3rd Strawman Budget prior to the
"Social Wars" and have volunteered to work as an assistant to the Consul
Palladius in gathering information for the next budget step. As a
former Quaestor, I advised the then Consul Cinncinatus on several items
regarding personnel, appointments and the budget. I acted as a reviewer
for the quarterly financial reports prior to the "Social Wars", and I
recieved and reviewed applications for recogniton and appointments,
carried out instructions in correspondence, and administrative details,
made recommendations in regard to filling the blank spaces in the NR,
and assisted the Consul Cinncinatus in much the same way that I am
presently assisting Consul Palladius.

I currently serve as the Editor of Eagle and am responsible for writing
(most of it), editing and publishing the newsletter and in keeping the
financial records of such.

My work as the Legatus Civics for the Area of Connecticut has been
hampered in some degree with the absence of a list of Cives in that
area, I have recieved a list from Cincinatus, just recently which has
been most useful and the Censores are presently working on an updated
listing for the NorthEast Province. I have contacted a few resorts for
rate structures for a get-together on the East Coast when those Citizens
are ready for it. I have also offered my home as a possible summer
get-together / face-to-face for a low cost event when the Civs are
ready. The Sodalitas Militum is compiling a list of Roman References
which should be finished early next year, and there is already a
blackline drawing collection and map collection of a hundred or
illustrations which is now a part of the Sodalitas which is primarily
concerned with Roman Engineering and Cartography. This collection which
is available to anyone in NR for the cost of reproduction is continually
growing, and a catalog is presently being compiled. I maintained a
series of articles on the above subjects in the NR newdletter, prior to
my selection as Editor of the Eagle;

There are some thngs that I wish to do as a Praetor Urbanus and the
first is to keep the NR Citizens appraised of what is going on in the
Goverment and to the degree that the College of Pontiffs will assist my
efforts, that which is going on in the hallowed halls of Roman Religio.
It is now that I should inform you that I am not of the Roman Religio, I
am a Christian. With that said, I honor the Roman Gods for the insight
and the dignius that inspired a race of men who gave the world a basis
of literature, law, medicine, and which led to the later Pax Romana of
the Empire. The second is to complete the Budget with the help of the
Quaestors and present it to the Senate for review. The third goal on my
list of four is to work closely with the elected magistartes and the
Senate to improve the communications within NR.

Now some of you may smile at the last general item an ask." just how
will you do that????"

My answer is that I am not sure, but I have presented in the past, that
I will work continuously and with fervor at any task that I am honored
with. I make that same promise to you. Much of what I am able to
accomplish will be because of your ideas, your efforts and your
suggestions, so I cannot be assured of my exact path, but I can and do
promise to listen to all messages and ideas, suggestions and other
efforts directed to me, give them fair consideration and respond to the
sender regardless of what is decided.

My fourth and last task is to intercede for any Civ on any toic in NR if
you state a question and do not recieve an answer. As a Magistrate, I
promise to contact any elected or appointed official from which
information is being requested, and you will get a copy of the letter of
notification. I cannot guarantee the answer that you want, but I can
guaratee that your queries as in some cases in the past will not go
unanswered..

I will also pledge to study at length the new laws, and seek assistance
from those who in NR and who are cognizant of them. I am not a trained
lawyer, I am not a person who has mastered the Cursus Honorim and has
little remainig to learn. I am not a Roman Expert but rather student
of Roman culture. I am usually polite, but not very acute at times, I
am not a great scholar in Roman History as one of my fellow candidates
is, but I am very interested in NR, and I am not a former high-ranking
civilian or military Officer. I was in the U.S. Navy for twenty years
and rose from Seaman Recruit to Chief Warrant Officer, As a Chief
Warrant Officer I qualified as an Officer Of The Deck Underway and a
Command Duty Officer In Port on a 550 foot-long sea-gong ship. I am a
qualified Range-Master for the firing of both rifle and pistol, Nuclear
Weapons Safety Officer, Nuclear Weapons Transfer Officer, and Bmb Type
Ordnance Storage Officer. I have served for 18 years on the Zoning
Board of Appeals as the Chairman of that Commission in the city where I
live and still hold that Position. I presently serve as a Board Member
and Officer of four re-enactment units spanning the following periods
(F&I--Rev War--Civil War). I have completed 20 years service in
building ships (submarines) in the fields of Quality Assurance and
Planned Stardard Building Techniques. I have been a member of the Boy
Scuts of America for 35 years, and have been unit (Pack, Troop, Post,
District and Council) leader for thirty of those years. I hold the
Silver Beaver Award and the Woodbadge Beads for Leadership and a
Woodbadge Instructor on three occasions.. I am currently a Field
Commissioner for the Council, serving 6 Districts.

The above are my credits. I include them not as a matter of ego, but
rather as a matter of what I have been led to conclude tht the NR
Citizens require. I will not mention such again..

So, in closing, Citizens of Nova Roma you have my background, you have
my four major concerns, and you have my promise to do my best for anyone
who asks for assitance within NR. On the above I rest my "platform" if
you will. I agree to debate any issues, with which I have some feel
for, but must refuse those that I do not have a clue about, since it
would be a waste of your time and effort. I agree to "Stand In Formum"
in regard to any subject to which I am challenged, and I further agree
that when elected I will do my best to further the cause of the
non-English speaking members of NR as I was beginning to do prior to the
"Social Wars"

I thank you most humbly for your kind attention to this rather long
campaign-type speech, and for your patience. Lastly, I ask that you
first of all vote in this election, secondly vote for the candidate that
you believe will do the most for you, and thirdly vote for the good of
NR, and not for individual likes or dislikes..

Valete, NR Citizens;
Very Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!

Subject:	Tax them till it hurts!!!
From:	dean6886@--------)
Date:	Mon, 20 Sep 1999 23:46:29 -0500 (CDT)

LOL. We do need desperately to raise funding and at the same time be
able to tell who really remains with us. It kills two birds with one
stone.

As to the issue of dealing in foreign currencies I think there's a
couple of options. One is keeping funds to be spent in a particular
area-- Britannia comes to mind offhand. There is also barter
possibilities, or a provincial governor could initially collect taxes in
exchange for goods bought online for use by the central N.R. government.

I also wonder if there is any profit in buying uncleaned coins as
seen on auctions like ebay, having a few people clean them up and
reselling to a coin dealer??? It's a question of possible future income
for Nova Roma or for any potential hobbyists. Is that generally
worthwhile ever except for getting the obvious occasional rarer than
rare coin. I know ever so little about this and am really curious. Nova
Roma could use a small portion of its funds to invest in some kinds of
collectables or enterprises in the future.


Gaius Drusus Domitianus