Forum Romanum


Subject:	[novaroma] Derelictions of duty
From:	"pjane@-------- " <pjane@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:10:23 -0000

Patricia Cassia omnibus SPD,

I've thought a bit about this issue of resignations and wandering
away
from duties. Perhaps we need a formal "voluntary exile" status for
Citizens who, for pressing personal reasons, may need a month or two
away from the affairs of Nova Roma?

This would not be invoked for brief periods, such as vacations or bad
days at the office, but perhaps for someone who is caring for a
seriously ill loved one, or on active military duty where e-mail is
unavailable.

I agree that there should be consequences for any magistrate who
cannot
be contacted for a reasonable period. To accommodate the needs of
those
whose access to e-mail is uncertain, this should be a fairly long
period - let's say three months. At that time, a scriba, legate or
other alternate individual should be asked to fill the remainder of
the
term. Someone returning after such a process has been enacted should
have to stand for his/her job in an election or other ordinary
process.

As part of the process of drafting any sort of law with consequences
for dereliction of duty, we need to provide as many ways as possible
for a Magistrate or other public servant to get his/her job done. For
instance, it should be OK to hand your duties off to a willing scriba
or other assistant, or to ask the Senate to fill your job pro tem,
without invoking the consequences I described above.

Those who do not undertake public duties or participate in the day-to-
day affairs of NR, but still feel a bond with our nation, should be
entitled to all status accruing to them regardless of their silence.

All of which has nothing to do with Sulla's proposed edict, which
seems
reasonable.

P. Cassia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967421429/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Derelictions of duty
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 27 Aug 2000 17:24:43 -0700

Ave,

I dont that that citizens have to be concerned with issues as LOA's and
such....the issue with leaves and such only come to bear with magistrates.
For example when I had surgery and I was gone....I informed the People and
Senate of my reason for leaving. I was gone for a month. This Edicta only
addresses people who have proclaimed "I RESIGN MY CITIZENSHIP!" Anything
else...is an entirely different matter.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

----- Original Message -----
From: <pjane@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 5:10 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Derelictions of duty

> Patricia Cassia omnibus SPD,
>
> I've thought a bit about this issue of resignations and wandering
> away
> from duties. Perhaps we need a formal "voluntary exile" status for
> Citizens who, for pressing personal reasons, may need a month or two
> away from the affairs of Nova Roma?
>
> This would not be invoked for brief periods, such as vacations or bad
> days at the office, but perhaps for someone who is caring for a
> seriously ill loved one, or on active military duty where e-mail is
> unavailable.
>
> I agree that there should be consequences for any magistrate who
> cannot
> be contacted for a reasonable period. To accommodate the needs of
> those
> whose access to e-mail is uncertain, this should be a fairly long
> period - let's say three months. At that time, a scriba, legate or
> other alternate individual should be asked to fill the remainder of
> the
> term. Someone returning after such a process has been enacted should
> have to stand for his/her job in an election or other ordinary
> process.
>
> As part of the process of drafting any sort of law with consequences
> for dereliction of duty, we need to provide as many ways as possible
> for a Magistrate or other public servant to get his/her job done. For
> instance, it should be OK to hand your duties off to a willing scriba
> or other assistant, or to ask the Senate to fill your job pro tem,
> without invoking the consequences I described above.
>
> Those who do not undertake public duties or participate in the day-to-
> day affairs of NR, but still feel a bond with our nation, should be
> entitled to all status accruing to them regardless of their silence.
>
> All of which has nothing to do with Sulla's proposed edict, which
> seems
> reasonable.
>
> P. Cassia
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967422286/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Derelictions of duty
From:	Paul R Neacsu <pneacsu@-------->
Date:	Sun, 27 Aug 2000 17:44:20 -0700

This is getting a bit tiresome actually. Shouldn't this sort of thing be
discussed in a committee away from the plebes? I'm a new boy but I thought this
was a forum to discuss things Roman....new and ancient. If not, I will
withdraw.

"L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:

> Ave,
>
> I dont that that citizens have to be concerned with issues as LOA's and
> such....the issue with leaves and such only come to bear with magistrates.
> For example when I had surgery and I was gone....I informed the People and
> Senate of my reason for leaving. I was gone for a month. This Edicta only
> addresses people who have proclaimed "I RESIGN MY CITIZENSHIP!" Anything
> else...is an entirely different matter.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> Censor
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <pjane@-------->
> To: <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 5:10 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] Derelictions of duty
>
> > Patricia Cassia omnibus SPD,
> >
> > I've thought a bit about this issue of resignations and wandering
> > away
> > from duties. Perhaps we need a formal "voluntary exile" status for
> > Citizens who, for pressing personal reasons, may need a month or two
> > away from the affairs of Nova Roma?
> >
> > This would not be invoked for brief periods, such as vacations or bad
> > days at the office, but perhaps for someone who is caring for a
> > seriously ill loved one, or on active military duty where e-mail is
> > unavailable.
> >
> > I agree that there should be consequences for any magistrate who
> > cannot
> > be contacted for a reasonable period. To accommodate the needs of
> > those
> > whose access to e-mail is uncertain, this should be a fairly long
> > period - let's say three months. At that time, a scriba, legate or
> > other alternate individual should be asked to fill the remainder of
> > the
> > term. Someone returning after such a process has been enacted should
> > have to stand for his/her job in an election or other ordinary
> > process.
> >
> > As part of the process of drafting any sort of law with consequences
> > for dereliction of duty, we need to provide as many ways as possible
> > for a Magistrate or other public servant to get his/her job done. For
> > instance, it should be OK to hand your duties off to a willing scriba
> > or other assistant, or to ask the Senate to fill your job pro tem,
> > without invoking the consequences I described above.
> >
> > Those who do not undertake public duties or participate in the day-to-
> > day affairs of NR, but still feel a bond with our nation, should be
> > entitled to all status accruing to them regardless of their silence.
> >
> > All of which has nothing to do with Sulla's proposed edict, which
> > seems
> > reasonable.
> >
> > P. Cassia
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967423194/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Notable Romans
From:	JSA <varromurena@-------->
Date:	Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:04:08 -0700 (PDT)

> Emperor Claudius=
> who was a historian, and a Republican despite it
> all.

According to Robert Graves he was a Republican, but
Graves was not an historian, nor a contemporary. It
makes for a great story to imagine Claudius the way
Graves depicted him, but the historical record is far
muddier. As to his histories, well, since none of the
works have survived, it is difficult to judge them.
Certainly we know that both Caesar and Augustus wrote
philosophy, but as to the quality of the work, that's
anybody's guess (though I think one can make a good
case of Caesar being a truer philosopher-king than
Marcus Aurelius).

>
> Galen=
> physician to gladiators and then to Marcus Aerlius,
> Commodus, and Septimius
> Severus. He wrote the definative works on medicine
> that were used by Muslims
> and Christians alike until the Renniasance.

I believe Galen was a Greek from Alexandria--hardly a
"Roman" by the terms we're using for this question.

>
> Flavius Josephus=
> risked his life to fight against the Romans but
> realized the might of Rome
> was too great and became Roman. He wrote of the
> plight of the Jews from both
> sides of the war and urged peace and religious
> tolerance.

Josephus was a Jew, and hardly rates as "Roman" in our
sense.

>
> Cladius Ptolemaeus=
> astronomer and mathematician as well as a leading
> mapmaker of his day.

Another Greek.

>
> Now a note on "amoral" Romans.
> I would like it be known that though unfortunate,
> Machiviallian methods were
> used by Caesar and others because that was the only
> option avaible to them
> at that period in history.

Clearly, given the actions of others who lived at that
time, even Cicero (amoral in his own way), other
methods *did* exist to reshape the Roman state; but
megalomaniacs such as Caesar obviously--based on their
actions and surviving utterances--felt they were too
good or to valuable to the state to be bound by such
petty ideas as law and mos maiorum.

Moses lead his people to
> Israel by slaughtering
> the Cannanites.

Actually, this would have been Joshua, but whether
Joshua, much less Moses, actually lived, and whether
their actions were such as described in the OT, is
another question entirely.

History is never one-sided. In
> Alexander the Great's
> campaign one city-state Tyre stood its ground
> against his forces, and as an
> example he crusified every man, woman, and child
> left after the siege.

For which he was vilified by many of his
contemporaries, and later historians, who also
vilified him for his destruction of Persepolis, and
the killings of his own commanders Parmenion and
Cleitus. Contemporaries clearly knew this was wrong
behavior.

Yes,
> Sulla, Marius, and Caesar as generals butchered but
> force was the only
> option these men had.

Not true. Other options existed, and contemporaries
knew it, and condemned them for their actions.

These men also changed Rome
> for the greater good and
> paid for it with their lives. To judge these men by
> their actions you must
> take into account the sum total of action as well as
> the times they lived in
> and to judge them by the standards and morals of
> their day.

As I say, beginning civil wars, slaughtering
fellow-Romans, engaging in assassination of life and
moral character, were clearly wrong, and against Roman
law and Roman custom, and contemporaries knew it, and
opposed them for these clear violations of the mos
maiorum--many with their lives. Clearly one can use
similar justifications for the actions of contemporary
megalomaniacs--Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Franco,
etc. etc. etc.--and one can say that the actions of
these more modern dictators were, eventually, for the
"greater good" of their countries, but at what cost?
Judging Caesar, Marius, Sulla, Antony, etc. by their
own contemporary standards, they were clearly traitors
to Rome, and to the mos maiorum, and ultimately, by
turning Rome into a military dictatorship, ensured its
collapse within a few centuries.

> Caesar decimated the Gauls, but the Gauls destoryed
> the Roman armies and
> parts of the city before Caesar ever step foot in
> France. The Romans were
> retaliating. It was a matter of ROman pride that the
> Gauls had to be put to
> the sword and be subjects of Rome, their leaders
> brought in chains.

Oh, please! The Gauls--those who lived in Gallia
Cisalpina--took Rome in 387 B.C., over 300 years
before Caesar marched into Gallia Transalpina. This
was NOT a matter of retaliation.

But the
> Romans did not destory the Gauls, they were
> assimiled as many others had
> before and would later on. What anyone failed to
> mention that Caesar did
> that was anti-Roman was to march his troops into the
> city, and that was a
> major reason he was assinated.

By doing so he turned Rome into a military
dictatorship, thereby making himself a king, and this
at least a small group of Romans could not stand.
Sulla, at least, resigned after a year--Caesar looked
like he might be in charge for years to come.

It is also
> hypocritical to look down upon
> this man's faults while praising Scipio Africanus.
> Scipio disobeyed orders
> to fight Hannibal at Zama. He also razed Carthage to
> the ground and sowed
> the streets with salt slaughtering and capturing
> slaves, yet these facts or
> overlooked. Today a general in his right mind would
> not even think of taking
> such action,

Oh, you mean like Franco's invasion of Spain? or De
Gaulle's toppling of the Fourth Republic? Not to
mention all sorts of military men who take over in
"Third-World" nations?

L. Licinius Varro Murena

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967424722/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"Razenna " <razenna@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:36:33 -0000

An edict can be an ephemeral thing. It can be overturned by another
edict, for one quick example. This "rule" (the quotes since it is
not a "law") seems to be important to a number of citizens, so...
Why don't you work it up as an amendment to the constitution? The
discussion you have called for could be a form of input for the
actual item that would be put to a vote of the People of Nova Roma.
It also would not run into any stickyness from the role of "Censor On
Duty" being handed back and forth as the months progress. I only
mention this last on the off chance that it would be a factor and
that I understand Censor Marius Merullus takes the duty in September.
(Yes. I see his name attached to the edict too.) Just some thoughts,

Citizens. What are your thoughts, Citizens?

C. Aelius Ericius

--- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...>
wrote:
>
>
> Edictum Censoriale de Civitate Eiuranda
>
> Resignation of citizenship from Nova Roma, as stated in the
constitution of Nova Roma (IIA4), is effected by notification to the
censores, or by declaration before three or more witnesses. Messages
posted on the main Nova Roman e-mail list, and on the Nova Roman
message board, meet the requirement for three witnesses to a
resignation; messages posted to minority lists, regional, belonging
to sodalitates or other such lists or boards, do not meet the
requirement for three witnesses to a resignation.
>
> When a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, the resignation
will not take effect for nine days from the date of submitting the
message, counting inclusively of the date of submitting the message.
If, during this nundina, the citizen desires to withdraw his or her
resignation and remain a citizen, that citizen may freely do so
without penalty, except as defined in the next paragraph. The
citizen
can withdraw the resignation by notifying the censores of his/her
desire to withdraw the resignation, by at least the same channel that
he/she used to submit the resignation. For example, if a citizen
submits a message to the e-mail address of the censores, currently
ce--------s@--------, stati--------hat he/she resig--------the--------e citize--------st
e-mail the censores by the same address to withdraw the resignation.
>
> If a currently serving magistrate submits and withdraws multiple
resignations of citizenship within the same calendar year, the
censores will have grounds, after a closed hearing at which the
magistrate will have opportunity to present reasoning for his/her
actions, to issue an edictum against the magistrate rendering him/her
ineligible to run for elected office for one year. Should the
magistrate believe that he/she has a case for appeal of such an
edictum, he/she can appeal to a Tribunus Plebis, Praetor or Consul
within 30 days of issuance of the edictum as follows-
>
> -- if plebeian, either to a Tribunus Plebis to bring the appeal to
the Comitia Plebis Tributa or to a Praetor or Consul to bring the
appeal to the Comitia Populi Tributa
>
> -- if patrician, to a Praetor or Consul to bring the appeal to the
Comitia Populi Tributa
>
> Note that the decision to convene these comitia, along with the
schedule for doing so, is the purview of the tribuni, consules and
praetores, and is therefore beyond the scope of this edict
>
> When a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, and the
resignation
becomes official after nine days, the ex-citizen is barred from
reapplication and reinstatement for a period of six months, effective
from the date his or her resignation became official.
> (For example, if a citizen resigned on May 1 2000, and his
resignation
> became official on May 9, 2000, he could not be reinstated until
November 9, 2000)
>
> The ex-citizen, in the event that he desires to reacquire
citizenship, must apply in the same fashion as any other person
desirous of citizenship would, with the exception that he/she is
directed to state in his/her application the reasons behind his/her
resignation and decision to reverse the resignation and come back.
His/her Roman name may be resumed if no other citizen of Nova Roma
has
taken it up in his/her absence. No public offices, titles or century
points carry over to the returning citizen, with the exception of any
religious title and corresponding century points that may be
specified
by the Collegium Pontificum. Senatorial status may be resumed at the
discretion of both the Senate and of the censores collegially. Gens
affiliation in all instances remains at the discretion of the pater
or
materfamilias.
>
> If a citizen resigns, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a
second time, that ex-citizen is barred for two years from
reinstatement. Such a citizen is furthermore barred from running for
any elected public office for two years following re-admission, with
no recourse.
>
> If a citizen resigns, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a
second time, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a third time,
that ex-citizen is barred forever from reinstatement. The ex-citizen
has despised his citizenship and shown contempt for the state: he may
never be reinstated thereafter.
>
> The Censors will note the dates of submitted and withdrawn
resignations in the censorial album civium.
>
> IN LATIN:
>
> Eiuratio novoromanae civitatis ut ius publicum dicit II A iv
denuntiatione censoribus fit aut declaratione coram tribus pluribusve
Epistulae in publica fora electronica satis postulationi trium
testarum faciunt at epistulae in alia fora quae ad provincias vel
sodalitates pertinent vel in alia talia illi postulationi non satis
faciunt
>
> Cum civis civitatem novoromanam eiuret eiuratio nundinam nec vim
nec
effectum non habet Si hac nundina civis recipere eiurationem et
civis
manere desideret hic ita facere potest innocenter nisi caput secundum
ad rem pertineat Civis recipere eiurationem scribens censoribus de
sua voluntate eam recipere attamen eodem medio quo civis mittens
eiurationem usus est Exempli gratia si civis epistulam electronicae
i--------iptio--------ursualis ce--------um quae hodie est ce--------s@-------- dice--------
se civitatem eiurare miserit tum civis eadem inscriptione censoribus
mittere epistulam electronicam ad recipiendam eiurationem debebit
>
> Si magistratus in officio uno anno eiurationes multas mittet et
recipiet censores causam habebunt post occlusam interrogationem qua
magistratus argumenta dare pro suis actis poterit edictum constituere
contra hunc magistratum facientem eum non eligendum unum annum Si
magistratus se habere causam ad provocationem credet hic provocare ad
Tribunum Plebis aut Praetorem Consulemve triginta diebus vel moxius
ab
edicto facto potest ut secundum dicit
>
> Si plebeianus aut ad Tribunum Plebis ut ille magistratus pro plebe
ad suffragium rem imponat Comitiis Plebis Tributis aut ad Praetorem
Consulemve ut ille magistratus pro populo ad suffragium rem imponat
Comitiis Populis Tributis
>
> Si patricius ad Praetorem Consulemve ut ille magistratus pro populo
ad suffragium rem imponat Comitiis Populis Tributis
>
> Notandum est conficere Comitia quandoque ita facere proprium
tribunis et consulibus et praetoribus et ergo extra huius edicti
potestatem
>
> Cum civis civitatem novoromanam eiuret et eiruatio post nundinam
vim
effectumque capiat civis prior accipere civitatem sex menses ab
eiuratione effecta non potest
>
> Exempli gratia si cvis civitatem kal mai MMDCCLIII auc eiuravisset
et eiuratio vim effectumque cepisset vii id mai MMDCCLIII is accipere
civitatem ante iv id nov MMDCCLIII non posset
>
> Civis prior volens de novo civitatem accipere petitionem dare ad
civitatem accipendam eodem modo ullius alii civitati volentis debet
cum exceptione ut illi dicere in illius petitione rationes ad illius
eiurationem et sententiam eiurationis invertendae et illius
recipiendi
mandetur Civis nomen romanum recipere potest nisi alius civis
novoromanus in illius absentia eum ceperit Nulla officia publica nec
titula nec puncta centuriata revenienti civi non recipientur praeter
ea Collegio Pontificum designata Ordo senatorius potest recipi
Senatu
et ambobus censoribus consensis De gentilitate semper iudicant
patres
et matresfamiliae
>
> Si civis civitatem eiuraverit et postea acceperit et iterum
eiuraverit talis civis prior accipere civitatem duos annos non
poterit
Talis civis et non erit eligendus in officium duos annos post
civitatem acceptam tertio sine provocatione
>
> Si civis post civitatem acceptam tertio civitatem eiuraverit is
civis prior numquam non poterit civitatem accipere Civis prior
civitatem suam despexerit et contemptum rei publicae monstraverit ac
revenire postea non poterit
>
> Censores dies missarum et receptarum eiurationes civitatis in
censoriali albo civium notabunt
>
> ________________
>
> This Edicta is up for discussion for 7 days, before it takes
effect.
If there are any changes, it will be revised and put up for another
7
days.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix et Gaius Marius Merullus
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967426595/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:41:39 -0700

Thats an excellent suggestion Ericius, I will definately discuss this with
my colleague for putting it up as a Lex at the end of the year.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Razenna " <razenna@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2000 6:36 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum

> An edict can be an ephemeral thing. It can be overturned by another
> edict, for one quick example. This "rule" (the quotes since it is
> not a "law") seems to be important to a number of citizens, so...
> Why don't you work it up as an amendment to the constitution? The
> discussion you have called for could be a form of input for the
> actual item that would be put to a vote of the People of Nova Roma.
> It also would not run into any stickyness from the role of "Censor On
> Duty" being handed back and forth as the months progress. I only
> mention this last on the off chance that it would be a factor and
> that I understand Censor Marius Merullus takes the duty in September.
> (Yes. I see his name attached to the edict too.) Just some thoughts,
>
> Citizens. What are your thoughts, Citizens?
>
> C. Aelius Ericius
>
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Edictum Censoriale de Civitate Eiuranda
> >
> > Resignation of citizenship from Nova Roma, as stated in the
> constitution of Nova Roma (IIA4), is effected by notification to the
> censores, or by declaration before three or more witnesses. Messages
> posted on the main Nova Roman e-mail list, and on the Nova Roman
> message board, meet the requirement for three witnesses to a
> resignation; messages posted to minority lists, regional, belonging
> to sodalitates or other such lists or boards, do not meet the
> requirement for three witnesses to a resignation.
> >
> > When a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, the resignation
> will not take effect for nine days from the date of submitting the
> message, counting inclusively of the date of submitting the message.
> If, during this nundina, the citizen desires to withdraw his or her
> resignation and remain a citizen, that citizen may freely do so
> without penalty, except as defined in the next paragraph. The
> citizen
> can withdraw the resignation by notifying the censores of his/her
> desire to withdraw the resignation, by at least the same channel that
> he/she used to submit the resignation. For example, if a citizen
> submits a message to the e-mail address of the censores, currently

> ce--------s@--------, stati--------hat he/she resig--------the--------e citize--------st > e-mail the censores by the same address to withdraw the resignation.
> >
> > If a currently serving magistrate submits and withdraws multiple
> resignations of citizenship within the same calendar year, the
> censores will have grounds, after a closed hearing at which the
> magistrate will have opportunity to present reasoning for his/her
> actions, to issue an edictum against the magistrate rendering him/her
> ineligible to run for elected office for one year. Should the
> magistrate believe that he/she has a case for appeal of such an
> edictum, he/she can appeal to a Tribunus Plebis, Praetor or Consul
> within 30 days of issuance of the edictum as follows-
> >
> > -- if plebeian, either to a Tribunus Plebis to bring the appeal to
> the Comitia Plebis Tributa or to a Praetor or Consul to bring the
> appeal to the Comitia Populi Tributa
> >
> > -- if patrician, to a Praetor or Consul to bring the appeal to the
> Comitia Populi Tributa
> >
> > Note that the decision to convene these comitia, along with the
> schedule for doing so, is the purview of the tribuni, consules and
> praetores, and is therefore beyond the scope of this edict
> >
> > When a citizen resigns citizenship in Nova Roma, and the
> resignation
> becomes official after nine days, the ex-citizen is barred from
> reapplication and reinstatement for a period of six months, effective
> from the date his or her resignation became official.
> > (For example, if a citizen resigned on May 1 2000, and his
> resignation
> > became official on May 9, 2000, he could not be reinstated until
> November 9, 2000)
> >
> > The ex-citizen, in the event that he desires to reacquire
> citizenship, must apply in the same fashion as any other person
> desirous of citizenship would, with the exception that he/she is
> directed to state in his/her application the reasons behind his/her
> resignation and decision to reverse the resignation and come back.
> His/her Roman name may be resumed if no other citizen of Nova Roma
> has
> taken it up in his/her absence. No public offices, titles or century
> points carry over to the returning citizen, with the exception of any
> religious title and corresponding century points that may be
> specified
> by the Collegium Pontificum. Senatorial status may be resumed at the
> discretion of both the Senate and of the censores collegially. Gens
> affiliation in all instances remains at the discretion of the pater
> or
> materfamilias.
> >
> > If a citizen resigns, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a
> second time, that ex-citizen is barred for two years from
> reinstatement. Such a citizen is furthermore barred from running for
> any elected public office for two years following re-admission, with
> no recourse.
> >
> > If a citizen resigns, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a
> second time, is subsequently reinstated, and resigns a third time,
> that ex-citizen is barred forever from reinstatement. The ex-citizen
> has despised his citizenship and shown contempt for the state: he may
> never be reinstated thereafter.
> >
> > The Censors will note the dates of submitted and withdrawn
> resignations in the censorial album civium.
> >
> > IN LATIN:
> >
> > Eiuratio novoromanae civitatis ut ius publicum dicit II A iv
> denuntiatione censoribus fit aut declaratione coram tribus pluribusve
> Epistulae in publica fora electronica satis postulationi trium
> testarum faciunt at epistulae in alia fora quae ad provincias vel
> sodalitates pertinent vel in alia talia illi postulationi non satis
> faciunt
> >
> > Cum civis civitatem novoromanam eiuret eiuratio nundinam nec vim
> nec
> effectum non habet Si hac nundina civis recipere eiurationem et
> civis
> manere desideret hic ita facere potest innocenter nisi caput secundum
> ad rem pertineat Civis recipere eiurationem scribens censoribus de
> sua voluntate eam recipere attamen eodem medio quo civis mittens
> eiurationem usus est Exempli gratia si civis epistulam electronicae

> i--------iptio--------ursualis ce--------um quae hodie est ce--------s@-------- dice-------- > se civitatem eiurare miserit tum civis eadem inscriptione censoribus
> mittere epistulam electronicam ad recipiendam eiurationem debebit
> >
> > Si magistratus in officio uno anno eiurationes multas mittet et
> recipiet censores causam habebunt post occlusam interrogationem qua
> magistratus argumenta dare pro suis actis poterit edictum constituere
> contra hunc magistratum facientem eum non eligendum unum annum Si
> magistratus se habere causam ad provocationem credet hic provocare ad
> Tribunum Plebis aut Praetorem Consulemve triginta diebus vel moxius
> ab
> edicto facto potest ut secundum dicit
> >
> > Si plebeianus aut ad Tribunum Plebis ut ille magistratus pro plebe
> ad suffragium rem imponat Comitiis Plebis Tributis aut ad Praetorem
> Consulemve ut ille magistratus pro populo ad suffragium rem imponat
> Comitiis Populis Tributis
> >
> > Si patricius ad Praetorem Consulemve ut ille magistratus pro populo
> ad suffragium rem imponat Comitiis Populis Tributis
> >
> > Notandum est conficere Comitia quandoque ita facere proprium
> tribunis et consulibus et praetoribus et ergo extra huius edicti
> potestatem
> >
> > Cum civis civitatem novoromanam eiuret et eiruatio post nundinam
> vim
> effectumque capiat civis prior accipere civitatem sex menses ab
> eiuratione effecta non potest
> >
> > Exempli gratia si cvis civitatem kal mai MMDCCLIII auc eiuravisset
> et eiuratio vim effectumque cepisset vii id mai MMDCCLIII is accipere
> civitatem ante iv id nov MMDCCLIII non posset
> >
> > Civis prior volens de novo civitatem accipere petitionem dare ad
> civitatem accipendam eodem modo ullius alii civitati volentis debet
> cum exceptione ut illi dicere in illius petitione rationes ad illius
> eiurationem et sententiam eiurationis invertendae et illius
> recipiendi
> mandetur Civis nomen romanum recipere potest nisi alius civis
> novoromanus in illius absentia eum ceperit Nulla officia publica nec
> titula nec puncta centuriata revenienti civi non recipientur praeter
> ea Collegio Pontificum designata Ordo senatorius potest recipi
> Senatu
> et ambobus censoribus consensis De gentilitate semper iudicant
> patres
> et matresfamiliae
> >
> > Si civis civitatem eiuraverit et postea acceperit et iterum
> eiuraverit talis civis prior accipere civitatem duos annos non
> poterit
> Talis civis et non erit eligendus in officium duos annos post
> civitatem acceptam tertio sine provocatione
> >
> > Si civis post civitatem acceptam tertio civitatem eiuraverit is
> civis prior numquam non poterit civitatem accipere Civis prior
> civitatem suam despexerit et contemptum rei publicae monstraverit ac
> revenire postea non poterit
> >
> > Censores dies missarum et receptarum eiurationes civitatis in
> censoriali albo civium notabunt
> >
> > ________________
> >
> > This Edicta is up for discussion for 7 days, before it takes
> effect.
> If there are any changes, it will be revised and put up for another
> 7
> days.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix et Gaius Marius Merullus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967426900/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Citizenship and resignations
From:	"Gaius Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@-------->
Date:	Sun, 27 Aug 2000 21:28:49 -0400

Salvete Gai Metelle et alii

: Personally I wouldn't assume that a resgnation is synonymous
:with a resgnation of any interest in Roma or roman culture, as was
:implied by a comment.

You're absolutely right of course.

My personal interest in Roma existed well
:before I became familiar with Nova Roma, and it will probably still
:be there should I , for any reason, leave the folds of Nova Roma.

I think that that's true for most or possibly all of us.

: It is good to see that this issue is being dealt with, but we
:should always keep in mind that a law should be fair minded and not
:motivated by vindictiveness or retaliation.

True. I myself don't see the edict as vindictive or retaliatory. Rather,
it outlines a set of consequences that would face any one of us, myself and
Sulla included, should we decide to leave and come back. We need this in
order to understand that we're all on the same page and will receive equal
treatment in this eventuality.

: As a fairly recent citizen of Nova Roma, I can speak for myself
:and say that, while I found a good deal of enthusiasm in taking part
:in discussions, I can't say I truly understand the workings of govt.
:and law. Just as a suggestion, as new citizens are admitted, it
:would help if, instead of automatically signing them up to an e-group
:list, one could send them an informative e-mail explaining the voting
:process, WHERE to sign up to appropriate lists (as a suggestion) and
:who to contact with any questions, problems or concerns. I have read
:a few posts of new citizens who seemed as lost as myself when I was
:first admitted.

An excellent suggestion that I shall discuss with my colleague.

: I think this would encourage participation, and perhaps curb some
:loss of citizens.

You may be right, it sounds like it may be worth a try. In the meantime, I
encourage anyone with questions to "stroll" through the tabularium on the
website, and email any of the magistrates with questions. If you feel that
your question is of broad relevance, you can always ask it in this forum as
well.

Valete

C Marius Merullus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967431802/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Notable Romans
From:	"David Wolfman" <dwolfman@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 05:26:18 GMT

I don't know where you are getting your misinformation from.

In reference to Emperor Cladius, Pliny the Elder not only states his
politics but makes mention of his writing stating the he was one of the
foremost learned writers of his day.

"I believe Galen was a Greek from Alexandria--hardly a
>"Roman" by the terms we're using for this question."

Cladius Galenos was a Roman citizen from Pergamum at the Temple of Asclepius
where he recieved his training in medicine. In 162 he went to Rome and lived
there for the rest of his life.

"Josephus was a Jew, and hardly rates as "Roman" in our
>sense."

I am horrified that some one can make that kind of statement. Jews in and
outside Judea lived as Roman citizens, Josephus himself a visitor to Rome on
occasion. Pagan or not the Jews were as Roman as any and where seen as such.
The Empire was comprised of many nations and many ethnic groups. It was the
tolence of Roman culture that helped meld and spread the Empire and a
citizen would be seen as a Roman.

> > Cladius Ptolemaeus=
> > astronomer and mathematician as well as a leading
> > mapmaker of his day.
>
>"Another Greek."

Lest you forget that Alexandria, as was all of Egypt, not to mention Greece
a past of the Empire. Yes he worked at the Library of Alexandria, but that
was a part of Rome. To say a province that was predominantly of one ethnic
group made these people any less Roman is saying Chinatown in New York is
not a part of the United States. A citizen was a Roman, that is the end of
that.

On the last notes, I never said I condoned the actions of Caesar and the
like, I even said that is why their lifes ended so badly. I was stating that
no one person is pure. No pure evil no pure good. For all the slaughter
there came benefits. To use your arguement if at the end of WWII we had not
used former Nazi scientists the space program would not be at the state it
is today. I am neither condemning nor condoning simply seeing things from as
many angles as possible. Yes the contemparies judged these men and their
actions had conseguences but what I am saying is to tell the story from
different points of view. To the Roman the Gauls were an age old enemy, a
threat on a border that would be impossible to defend forever. The Romans as
well as many Empires in the ancient world fought wars as premptive strikes
(the Romans did this even in the days of the Republic) and fought wars of
attrition. To label these men are any man a megolamaniac with such a broad
sweep is careless. Caesar's death created the military dicatorship or
dynasty of Emperors, or kings as you have said , not the man himself. When
the USA fought against the English it was a civil war, was not General
Washington a military dictator before an official congress was established.
As I said before history is never one-sided. Nor is it our place to judge.

>From: JSA <varromurena@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] Notable Romans
>Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> > Emperor Claudius=
> > who was a historian, and a Republican despite it
> > all.
>
>According to Robert Graves he was a Republican, but
>Graves was not an historian, nor a contemporary. It
>makes for a great story to imagine Claudius the way
>Graves depicted him, but the historical record is far
>muddier. As to his histories, well, since none of the
>works have survived, it is difficult to judge them.
>Certainly we know that both Caesar and Augustus wrote
>philosophy, but as to the quality of the work, that's
>anybody's guess (though I think one can make a good
>case of Caesar being a truer philosopher-king than
>Marcus Aurelius).
>
>
> >
> > Galen=
> > physician to gladiators and then to Marcus Aerlius,
> > Commodus, and Septimius
> > Severus. He wrote the definative works on medicine
> > that were used by Muslims
> > and Christians alike until the Renniasance.
>
>I believe Galen was a Greek from Alexandria--hardly a
>"Roman" by the terms we're using for this question.
>
> >
> > Flavius Josephus=
> > risked his life to fight against the Romans but
> > realized the might of Rome
> > was too great and became Roman. He wrote of the
> > plight of the Jews from both
> > sides of the war and urged peace and religious
> > tolerance.
>
>Josephus was a Jew, and hardly rates as "Roman" in our
>sense.
>
> >
> > Cladius Ptolemaeus=
> > astronomer and mathematician as well as a leading
> > mapmaker of his day.
>
>Another Greek.
>
> >
> > Now a note on "amoral" Romans.
> > I would like it be known that though unfortunate,
> > Machiviallian methods were
> > used by Caesar and others because that was the only
> > option avaible to them
> > at that period in history.
>
>Clearly, given the actions of others who lived at that
>time, even Cicero (amoral in his own way), other
>methods *did* exist to reshape the Roman state; but
>megalomaniacs such as Caesar obviously--based on their
>actions and surviving utterances--felt they were too
>good or to valuable to the state to be bound by such
>petty ideas as law and mos maiorum.
>
>
>
> Moses lead his people to
> > Israel by slaughtering
> > the Cannanites.
>
>Actually, this would have been Joshua, but whether
>Joshua, much less Moses, actually lived, and whether
>their actions were such as described in the OT, is
>another question entirely.
>
>
> History is never one-sided. In
> > Alexander the Great's
> > campaign one city-state Tyre stood its ground
> > against his forces, and as an
> > example he crusified every man, woman, and child
> > left after the siege.
>
>For which he was vilified by many of his
>contemporaries, and later historians, who also
>vilified him for his destruction of Persepolis, and
>the killings of his own commanders Parmenion and
>Cleitus. Contemporaries clearly knew this was wrong
>behavior.
>
>
>
>Yes,
> > Sulla, Marius, and Caesar as generals butchered but
> > force was the only
> > option these men had.
>
>Not true. Other options existed, and contemporaries
>knew it, and condemned them for their actions.
>
> These men also changed Rome
> > for the greater good and
> > paid for it with their lives. To judge these men by
> > their actions you must
> > take into account the sum total of action as well as
> > the times they lived in
> > and to judge them by the standards and morals of
> > their day.
>
>As I say, beginning civil wars, slaughtering
>fellow-Romans, engaging in assassination of life and
>moral character, were clearly wrong, and against Roman
>law and Roman custom, and contemporaries knew it, and
>opposed them for these clear violations of the mos
>maiorum--many with their lives. Clearly one can use
>similar justifications for the actions of contemporary
>megalomaniacs--Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Franco,
>etc. etc. etc.--and one can say that the actions of
>these more modern dictators were, eventually, for the
>"greater good" of their countries, but at what cost?
>Judging Caesar, Marius, Sulla, Antony, etc. by their
>own contemporary standards, they were clearly traitors
>to Rome, and to the mos maiorum, and ultimately, by
>turning Rome into a military dictatorship, ensured its
>collapse within a few centuries.
>
>
> > Caesar decimated the Gauls, but the Gauls destoryed
> > the Roman armies and
> > parts of the city before Caesar ever step foot in
> > France. The Romans were
> > retaliating. It was a matter of ROman pride that the
> > Gauls had to be put to
> > the sword and be subjects of Rome, their leaders
> > brought in chains.
>
>Oh, please! The Gauls--those who lived in Gallia
>Cisalpina--took Rome in 387 B.C., over 300 years
>before Caesar marched into Gallia Transalpina. This
>was NOT a matter of retaliation.
>
>
>
>But the
> > Romans did not destory the Gauls, they were
> > assimiled as many others had
> > before and would later on. What anyone failed to
> > mention that Caesar did
> > that was anti-Roman was to march his troops into the
> > city, and that was a
> > major reason he was assinated.
>
>By doing so he turned Rome into a military
>dictatorship, thereby making himself a king, and this
>at least a small group of Romans could not stand.
>Sulla, at least, resigned after a year--Caesar looked
>like he might be in charge for years to come.
>
>
> It is also
> > hypocritical to look down upon
> > this man's faults while praising Scipio Africanus.
> > Scipio disobeyed orders
> > to fight Hannibal at Zama. He also razed Carthage to
> > the ground and sowed
> > the streets with salt slaughtering and capturing
> > slaves, yet these facts or
> > overlooked. Today a general in his right mind would
> > not even think of taking
> > such action,
>
>Oh, you mean like Franco's invasion of Spain? or De
>Gaulle's toppling of the Fourth Republic? Not to
>mention all sorts of military men who take over in
>"Third-World" nations?
>
>L. Licinius Varro Murena
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
>http://mail.yahoo.com/

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967440392/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 07:48:05 +0200

Salvete Censor L. C. Sulla et Quirites!

You write, Sulla:
I disagree Formosanus. We have had some citizens leave and come
back...then threaten to leave and come back...I am sure most of us
old timer citizens can name a few of the top of our head. The issue
here is the value of Citizenship and the worth it has.

Many citizens, including myself have resigned once....Our Junior
Consul, our Dictator Flavius Vedius Germanicus, and many many others.
We have had issues that have forced us to leave NR for a period of
time and to rethink our involvement in NR.

That isnt the issue here. It is continual disregard and disrespect
that citizens have for Nova Roma. That is what our edicta answers.

*** Well, not *only*. Even for the first time there is a six-month
waiting period. That is not yet a habit of resigning or "continual
disregard and disrespect". And it is long enough to drive away a
great many people who might want to come back while they were still
thinking about NR. How is driving them away good for NR?

Sulla:
Your rhetoric again is flawed Formosanus and this isnt the first
time. There is no Medieval torture device. And no additional
"suffering" is being committed.

*** Well, *I* consider being deliberately kept from citizenship to
someone who wants it a punishment and a torture. What is our
equivalent of capital punishment? Deprivation of citizenship! Exile!
And that is what you wish to force on people who have only resigned
once - for six months, an eternity in internet time, and it gets
worse from there. Deprivation of voting rights etc. is also punitive
in nature. How can you deny that this all involves suffering?

Sulla:
As a statement that Lucius Equitius told me once on AIM, "Nova Roma
shouldnt have to legislate honor." (I hope I quoted that right,
Lucius Equitius).

*** I do not think that in the case of private citizens that honour
is involved in leaving or coming back. (It might indeed be for a
magistatrate just up and vanishing.) A person who enters takes on
certain responsibilities as a citizen, true, but he gives them up
upon leaving. Honour does not enter into it. He never promised to
stay forever when he came and did not promise never to come back when
he left. A person who leaves is, for all that, most likely a good
person (most of us are), and surely one who wants to come back is
even better (from NR's point of view).

Sulla:
And, I agree we shouldnt have too, but we are compelled to do so
based upon the past actions of some of our citizens. This issue is
no different. As our Edict states, "The ex-citizen has despised his
citizenship and shown contempt for the state."

*** And as I have shown, that is not necessarily true. And what if it
is only a reflection of a contempt of the state for the moral
autonomy and honour of the man or woman?

Ignore the fact that we are a micronation and focus on the fact that
we are a nation. Would ANYONE give up their citizenship in the
United States or whatever country you reside in if you disagree with
something....or for that matter ANYTHING? Why should Nova Roma be
held to different standards?

*** Well, I have in my wanderings around the world come across a good
many people who have dual citizenship or the right to claim it or to
change at request from one citizenship to another. These people do
very freely make these decisions based on their personal benefit and
advantage. Since all of us in NR are dual nationals, it is perfectly
normal that we might give up an additional citizenship much more
easily than our only one, where any choice is very difficult. But
even in that case dissidents will seek asylum in another land, and
even more people will happily move to another land and change
citizenship just because the original one made them poor.

I think that by casting our Respublica in the mould not of a caring
mother but of a being full of bile and vituperation against its
returning cives the value of Nova Roma and therefore Her citizenship
is lowered. Things which do hurt are less loved and cherished, not
more.

I must echo what Artorius Sarmaticus said:

I wander what is the aim of this Edicta, specifically of the
penalties it implies to re-applying ex-citizens?

It is indeed beyond me too why you want to target the *returning*
citizens. It seems to be just because you cannot hurt the ones who
don't want to return. Which is a poor reason. The returning ones
should be *rewarded*!

Festus thinks that we will give more value to our citizenship by
being nasty to people who want to come back. Perhaps that is in
*some* sense so. But will it be a healthy sort of value? I could see
some advantage (if an unpleasant one) is punishing people as they
left if we could. It might discourage some from leaving, although it
would make the bitten very unlikely to come back. But punishing
people who have already decided to come back is really perverse. It
discourages them from returning. And we WANT more citizens. And these
are citizens who love and respect NR enough to want to come back. And
that is a more informed love and respect than a new civis shows when
he first gets in with no enforced wait and no civic disabilities.

Punishment should always be used sparingly if at all. and with a
definite result in mind in the face of an urgent need. In this case
it seems to be just to prove that NR or censors can punish. So they
can. But will that inspire love for our citizenship or encourage more
departed citizens to return? No, it will do neither. But that is what
we should be trying to do.

I urge further thought on the fundamental suppositions behind these
provisions.

Valete!

Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis; Scriba Censorius � � � � � � �
ICQ# 61698049 Firetalk: Apollonius 1588367
AIM: MAFormosanus � � � � � � �MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
________________________________________
Si vis omnia tibi subicere, te subice Rationi. (Seneca)
(Se vi deziras subigi al vi chion, subigu vin al Racio)
________________________________________

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967441708/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Roman Day
From:	"j.mason4" <j.mason4@-------->
Date:	Sun, 27 Aug 2000 18:44:47 +0100

Salve,

Note Brittanicus
BBC 2 is offering a Roman day with classics as Sparticus, I Caesar, and Up
Pompeii.

" I AM SPARTICUS"
Benevolentia
~~S~~
----- Original Message -----
From: <wicachu@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 12:46 AM
Subject: [novaroma] back in the loop

> Whew... leave for a few days and -watch- it pile up. Greetings and
> salutations to all. I just thought I would drop a note to let you all
know
> I havent dropped off the face of the earth completely just yet.
>
> I.S. Britaega
>
>
>
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967441913/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Sun, 27 Aug 2000 22:57:24 -0700

> Sulla:
> Your rhetoric again is flawed Formosanus and this isnt the first
> time. There is no Medieval torture device. And no additional
> "suffering" is being committed.
>
> *** Well, *I* consider being deliberately kept from citizenship to
> someone who wants it a punishment and a torture. What is our
> equivalent of capital punishment? Deprivation of citizenship! >

Ave, I just want to respond to this little bit..becuase the rest of it is
not important to me.

But, No one is prevented from citizenship the first time they apply. So
your whole argument is shot down Formosanus, becuase citizenship is open to
anyone. However, when you start disregarding your citizenship by resigning
it shows a lack of respect and dignitas to the State, and all of us citizens
who togehter make up the state. Also, Formosanus, keep in mind that do date
only one person has been exiled, that was "Marconius." And, he even slipped
back in for a while, a flaw that happened in my watch during my transition
during the time that Flavius Vedius resigned his position. Showing contempt
for one's citizenship in ancient Rome was to my knowledge unheard of.
Again, why should Nova Roma be held to differnet standards both from ancient
Rome and Modern Nations?

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967442260/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	Lykaion1@--------
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:11:36 EDT

In a message dated 8/28/00 1:52:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, bvm3@--------
writes:

<< Well, *I* consider being deliberately kept from citizenship to
someone who wants it a punishment and a torture. >>

This is way too funny.

Stick to your latin lessons.

Gaius Lupinius Festus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967443103/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:07:07 -0600

Salvete Formosanus:

> Well, not *only*. Even for the first time there is a six-month
> waiting period. That is not yet a habit of resigning or "continual
> disregard and disrespect". And it is long enough to drive away a
> great many people who might want to come back while they were still
> thinking about NR. How is driving them away good for NR?
>
> As with other nations, we shouldn't go begging for citizens to join, and
> rejoin, and rejoin. As NR grows, there will be a portion of citizens who
> feel the need to leave our ranks. HOWEVER, we should rightly do everything
> we can to discourage resignations. The best way to do that, is to impose
> known limitations on the conditions of readmittance.

WHY? Because:

1. It forces a person at the time they resign to recognize that NR citizenship
is not a country club application to be torn up and thrown away, then taped
back together later.

2. It forces a person to consider that fundamentally, citizenship in NR....in
any country.....is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. I do not mean that a person under
a brutal regime should feel grateful to be there. I mean that we should put in
our minds the fundamental concept that citizenship in NR is a special thing, a
thing to be safeguarded, and not to be toyed with. That citizenship brings
certain responsibilities:
- To uphold the Constitution, laws, and edicts, to be informed, to vote.
- To serve NR by holding political or religious office if the person is
suited for the responsibility
- To protect the best interests of NR

3. TO GET PEOPLE TO RECOGNIZE THAT RESIGNATION IS A SERIOUS AFFAIR ALWAYS, and
not a tool for a temporary leave of absence. Resignations should only occur
because a person is fundamentally disinterested in the concept and practice of
Nova Roma.

If a person can understand all of these points and still walk away from NR, why
are we supposed to make it easy for them to return?? It is ABSOLUTELY FAIR that
they have a mandatory period away, which hopefully they will use to straighten
out whatever problem they were having with citizenship in the first place.

> Well, I have in my wanderings around the world come across a good
> many people who have dual citizenship or the right to claim it or to
> change at request from one citizenship to another. These people do
> very freely make these decisions based on their personal benefit and
> advantage. Since all of us in NR are dual nationals, it is perfectly
> normal that we might give up an additional citizenship much more
> easily than our only one, where any choice is very difficult. But
> even in that case dissidents will seek asylum in another land, and
> even more people will happily move to another land and change
> citizenship just because the original one made them poor.
>

Actually, I've known nobody who treats their resignation of citizenship in a
macronation lightly. Rather, it's something most people weigh heavily, over
the course of years, before they give citizenship status up. It is a most
serious and weighty decision, in all cases. It's also something that, once
revoked, a macronation isn't quick to reinstate.

In fact, gaining citizenship to a non-native country is always a laborious
process. In the U.S. it takes years of effort, expense, and study to become a
naturalized U.S. citizen. I'm not even aware of how the U.S. would treat an
ex-citizen wanting to be reinstated. The gig is usually pretty much up the
first time you stop the band.

> I think that by casting our Respublica in the mould not of a caring
> mother but of a being full of bile and vituperation against its
> returning cives the value of Nova Roma and therefore Her citizenship
> is lowered. Things which do hurt are less loved and cherished, not
> more. ...
>
> .... But punishing
> people who have already decided to come back is really perverse. It
> discourages them from returning. And we WANT more citizens. And these
> are citizens who love and respect NR enough to want to come back. And
> that is a more informed love and respect than a new civis shows when
> he first gets in with no enforced wait and no civic disabilities.
>

If there was such love for the motherland, why did a person resign in the first
place? If something was serious enough to drive a person to leave, why should
we not require that the person be held to a trial period to make sure that they
do, indeed, value NR and seek to rejoin the fold with an open and pure heart?

I don't buy the image of a country (any country) as a loving bosom into which
its citizens are folded. Rather, I see the state as a rather neutral entity
that exists as a framework of guidance for a collection of individuals to come
together as a common people. The burden isn't on the state (which is, after
all, an abstraction) but on each individual to participate and make the state
thrive.

I personally, would rather have a state with 100 Nova Romans that are dedicated
to building a micronation, than 1,000 Nova Romans who don't take the concept of
Nova Roma seriously. So, I'm all for a little stringency in the laws
surrounding resignation. If a person steps out the door, I feel no obligation
to make it easy for them to return.

L. Cornelia Aurelia

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967445444/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:43:36 +0200

Salvete omnes,

<< Well, *I* consider being deliberately kept from citizenship to
> someone who wants it a punishment and a torture. >>
>
> This is way too funny.
>
> Stick to your latin lessons.
>
> Gaius Lupinius Festus
>

Does the term "unconstructive, blunt insult" ring a bell?

Stick to your fiction.

[see, it's easy to be like you]
--**--

Valete bene,
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae,
Wind Dragon, ICQ# 32924725
--**--
"There is no knowledge that is not power"
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
--**--

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967453676/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:06:52 +0200

Caius Flavius Diocletianus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Many postings are written about the censorial Resignation Edictum, almost critical. I�m not a lawyer but almost an administrative official, but I want to raise my voice upon that topic.

First of all, addressed to those citizens comparing NR law with other territorial countries laws, especially US:
We should not compare apples with cherries. NR is dedicated to the reconstruction of roman culture and traditions. So we should make roman law at least.
All citizens are living in territorial states, so all citizens can take a look onto their homelands laws and the tradtions behind them, may it be british or french tradition. I think that these comparisons are waste of time. We should build our NR laws on roman tradition.

Now to the edictum.

Censor Sulla posted a list of "penalties" for those citizens which are resigning. All modern, as also ancient, laws are setting up a sanction for a specific action mentioned in that law. The action in this edictum is the Resignation of citizenship. If someone resigns his citizenship, he might have some reasons for this, but he can reapply his citizenship. Those which plays the game of resigning and reapplying multiple times, are barred for 6 month, 2 years or forever. Are this harsh sanctions? I don�t think so. Those which resigning multiple times have a problem with their citizenship. They are unable to incorporate themselves into the res publica. When I joined NR I first thought, what I can do for NR, and not what can NR do for me (thanks to J. F. Kennedy for this bonmot!). This is the form of incorporation into the res
publica as I understand it.
Of course, NR needs citizens to grow and become a real nation. But do we need that people? To grow, we need people who wants to engage themselves in the NR res publica. To resign at the smallest problem is not the right way. When someone resigns, he makes something like a final step out of the res publica. Barring them for a time means: Stop, think about your citizenship. Is this really the right nation for you? We give you some time to think about this matter.
This time extends only the self-chosen exile. If someone resigns the third time, he seems in my opinion unsuitable for NR.

We should not discuss about the sanctions, we should discuss about those people finally addressed by the edictum.

Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
serving citizen

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup.
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6348/8/_/61050/_/967460815/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:16:29 +0100

Antonius Gryllus Graecus Caio Flavio Diocletiano Quiritibusque S.P.D.

Well spoken Cai Flavi Diocletiane! I think that we must stop the childish of
some citizens who have no serious objectives to improve NR. Those who resign
citizenship are doing and feeling the opposite of what Romans did. Take
Cicero as an example. He was exiled and his exile from Rome was like a
martyrdom despite the fact that the Roman state was not working as he
wished. Once recalled from exile, he returned Rome to work and improve the
res publica. Citizenship is the most precious thing for a Roman. Those who
resign citizenship cannot be Romans in the complete sense of the word.
Again, we are not role-playing. And I second Diocletianus on saying that all
talk about the laws of the U.S., Europe, etc. are off-topic here.
I applaud the edict of the Censores. Ave Sulla! Ave Merulle!

Valete

-----Original Message-----
From: Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@-------->
To: novaroma@-------- <novaroma@-------->
Date: Segunda-feira, 28 de Agosto de 2000 12:07
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum

Caius Flavius Diocletianus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Many postings are written about the censorial Resignation Edictum, almost
critical. I4m not a lawyer but almost an administrative official, but I want
to raise my voice upon that topic.

First of all, addressed to those citizens comparing NR law with other
territorial countries laws, especially US:
We should not compare apples with cherries. NR is dedicated to the
reconstruction of roman culture and traditions. So we should make roman law
at least.
All citizens are living in territorial states, so all citizens can take a
look onto their homelands laws and the tradtions behind them, may it be
british or french tradition. I think that these comparisons are waste of
time. We should build our NR laws on roman tradition.

Now to the edictum.

Censor Sulla posted a list of "penalties" for those citizens which are
resigning. All modern, as also ancient, laws are setting up a sanction for a
specific action mentioned in that law. The action in this edictum is the
Resignation of citizenship. If someone resigns his citizenship, he might
have some reasons for this, but he can reapply his citizenship. Those which
plays the game of resigning and reapplying multiple times, are barred for 6
month, 2 years or forever. Are this harsh sanctions? I don4t think so. Those
which resigning multiple times have a problem with their citizenship. They
are unable to incorporate themselves into the res publica. When I joined NR
I first thought, what I can do for NR, and not what can NR do for me (thanks
to J. F. Kennedy for this bonmot!). This is the form of incorporation into
the res
publica as I understand it.
Of course, NR needs citizens to grow and become a real nation. But do we
need that people? To grow, we need people who wants to engage themselves in
the NR res publica. To resign at the smallest problem is not the right way.
When someone resigns, he makes something like a final step out of the res
publica. Barring them for a time means: Stop, think about your citizenship.
Is this really the right nation for you? We give you some time to think
about this matter.
This time extends only the self-chosen exile. If someone resigns the third
time, he seems in my opinion unsuitable for NR.

We should not discuss about the sanctions, we should discuss about those
people finally addressed by the edictum.

Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
serving citizen

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
Install today:
http://click.egroups.com/1/6347/8/_/61050/_/967461749/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN [Religio Romana] ante diem V Kalendas Septembres (August 28)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:22:13 +0100

Salvete omnes

This is one of the dies comitiales (C), when committees of citizens can vote
on political or criminal matters.

Today is the Dies Natalis of the temple of Sol and Luna near the Circus
Maximus. Tacitus refers to it as 'vetus aedes Solis ada Circum' , but it
only became important when Games were added to its celebration in the later
Empire.

The month Sextilis was changed to Augustus as an homage to Emperor
Octavius Caesar Augustus. This month is sacred to Ceres.

Pax Deorum vobiscum

Antonius Gryllus Graecus + Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
Pontifices

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup.
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
http://click.egroups.com/1/6348/8/_/61050/_/967462089/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 05:10:08 -0700 (PDT)

Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:07:07 -0600
From: <gmvick32@-------->
Subject: Re: Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation

Salvete!

< L. Cornelia Aurelia sent:

[I have snipped liberally from the original posting.]

< 1. It forces a person at the time they resign to
< recognize that NR citizenship
< is not a country club application to be torn up and
< thrown away, then taped
< back together later.

< I personally, would rather have a state with 100
< Nova Romans that are
< dedicatedto building a micronation, than 1,000 Nova
< Romans who don't take the concept of Nova Roma
< seriously.

Although I realize that you're stating the ideal, and
what you say reflects in the NR Constitution, but I
wonder how much it reflects reality. I'm not looking
for a "show of hands", but I wonder how many of
NovaRomans see this as more of a club than as a
sovereign nation. (I guess on a larger scale, this
brings into question the whole micronation concept,
but that is not my intent here.)

< Resignations should only occur
< because a person is fundamentally disinterested in
< the concept and practice of Nova Roma.

True, but the "practice" vary and a break from NR, or
a new perspective, may change the situation.

< If a person can understand all of these points and
< still walk away from NR, why
< are we supposed to make it easy for them to return??

Because they may have something to contribute. Your
argument is valid only if you feel they are of no
value at all, or to the organization.

I understand why the resignation of an officer is so
repugnant to so many members, having been caught in
the lurch myself in other groups. For that reason, I
propose a two-tier rule, where if one resigns without
notice as an officer, then a six month delay is
appropriate. It seems to me than an officer's
"no-notice" resignation is more damaging to the
organization to us common folk. Unless there are
people coming and going at a rate with which we cannot
keep up, there should not be a problem reinstating
those who held no office at the time of their
departure more quickly.

My feeling is that if someone is willing to join NR,
provide some information on Rome/Romans and not fill
my inbox with the petty bickering I get now, they are
welcome to join, rejoin, or re-rejoin NR as many times
as they can.

L. A. Dalmaticus

=====
LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"In a decent, God-fearing country, I'd be allowed to beat the two of you to death" -- Gen. Dick Panzer (Rip Torn), in "Canadian Bacon"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967464609/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	Lykaion1@--------
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:45:34 EDT

In a message dated 8/28/00 5:08:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
hendrik.meuleman@-------- writes:

<< Does the term "unconstructive, blunt insult" ring a bell?

Stick to your fiction.

[see, it's easy to be like you]
>>

Forgive me Draco, but you have the good sense to see that the comparison of a
waiting period with the iron maiden is farcical at best, especially when made
with such seriousness.

Festus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967466739/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] The Value of Citizenship
From:	wicachu@--------
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:24:21 EDT

Again the cranky old Mamma Brit takes up a pen, and with a thoughtful
look, apologies to the gods and fellow men alike, begins to write.

This morning as I blearily perused my mail, I came across two things
that made my eyes, even without the benefit of caffiene , open rather wide.
The first was a discussion of race as it applied to Rome. My history is
foggy at best, muddy at worst, but I seem to recall race being a non issue in
Rome. Doesn't seem to fit the conciliatory methods the Romans were fond of
using after a region had been subdued. Citizenship was what made one Roman,
or not. Disregarding the ancient Rome and Mamma Brits iffy history and
thinking of Nova Roma.... is race an issue now? If so, whatever for? <
blinks in confusion> If not, then how could a discussion of this nature even
get going?
And then there is the second thing that rattled Mamma Brits sleepy
morning.

"The ex-citizen has despised his
citizenship and shown contempt for the state."

< scratches head and rubs eyes in weary bewilderment>
Now how.... fellow citizens, is this true? Now , on a few occasions, I could
see someone loathing us and all we stand for. But, as far as I have seen
during my brief time here, resignation has been used as a means of protest
against a wrong, imagined or real. If you disagree with something here, you
have two options. Write emails or resign. And then there are the times in
ones life where everything falls apart and nothing matters to you anymore for
a while. You feel like cutting all ties and you do, even if you truly don't
want to. Three months later when you have your head back on straight, you
want to come back, feeling rather sheepish. Goddess knows I have done that at
least once in my life.
I can understand that no one wants a revoloving door on citzenship. I
wouldnt know this myself, but is there a middle ground? Can a citizen
suspend their rights while remaining as citizen? Rather like going " no mail"
?

Mamma Brit is just a bit concerned about this, as is evidenced by my
actually writing to the list. But remember, I'm old and cranky. Take it
with a grain or two or ten of salt please.

Iona S. Britaega

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967469065/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Value of Citizenship
From:	Paul R Neacsu <pneacsu@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 06:39:37 -0700

Well said....

wicachu@-------- wrote:

> Again the cranky old Mamma Brit takes up a pen, and with a thoughtful
> look, apologies to the gods and fellow men alike, begins to write.
>
> This morning as I blearily perused my mail, I came across two things
> that made my eyes, even without the benefit of caffiene , open rather wide.
> The first was a discussion of race as it applied to Rome. My history is
> foggy at best, muddy at worst, but I seem to recall race being a non issue in
> Rome. Doesn't seem to fit the conciliatory methods the Romans were fond of
> using after a region had been subdued. Citizenship was what made one Roman,
> or not. Disregarding the ancient Rome and Mamma Brits iffy history and
> thinking of Nova Roma.... is race an issue now? If so, whatever for? <
> blinks in confusion> If not, then how could a discussion of this nature even
> get going?
> And then there is the second thing that rattled Mamma Brits sleepy
> morning.
>
> "The ex-citizen has despised his
> citizenship and shown contempt for the state."
>
> < scratches head and rubs eyes in weary bewilderment>
> Now how.... fellow citizens, is this true? Now , on a few occasions, I could
> see someone loathing us and all we stand for. But, as far as I have seen
> during my brief time here, resignation has been used as a means of protest
> against a wrong, imagined or real. If you disagree with something here, you
> have two options. Write emails or resign. And then there are the times in
> ones life where everything falls apart and nothing matters to you anymore for
> a while. You feel like cutting all ties and you do, even if you truly don't
> want to. Three months later when you have your head back on straight, you
> want to come back, feeling rather sheepish. Goddess knows I have done that at
> least once in my life.
> I can understand that no one wants a revoloving door on citzenship. I
> wouldnt know this myself, but is there a middle ground? Can a citizen
> suspend their rights while remaining as citizen? Rather like going " no mail"
> ?
>
> Mamma Brit is just a bit concerned about this, as is evidenced by my
> actually writing to the list. But remember, I'm old and cranky. Take it
> with a grain or two or ten of salt please.
>
> Iona S. Britaega
>

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967469710/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Lucilla Cornelia Aureliea
From:	"Aurelius Tiberius" <kminer_rsg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:55:49 EDT

Salve all,

I have been out of the loop for the past few weeks and came home to find a
good friend and citizen has been in a car accident. I don't know the
details just that it happened a few weeks ago and she is going to be coming
home in a couple of days (talked to her brother)

Don't know if you all knew this or not, just wanted to pass the info along.
Lucilla is a fantastic person, and should be in our thoughts and prayers to
the gods or god (which ever you prefer)

and To you lucilla, my friend, by the time you read this you had better be
better!! we have a good season planed for Legio VI this fall and spring.

Ave

ATR

Aurelius Tiberius Ronanus
Praefectus Legionis & Tribuni Militum,
Legio VI of the Northern Army
& Cornicularius,Sodalitas Militarium et Nova Roma

"Nos Sumus Romae milites, parati stamus ad potestatem et gloriam eius. Roma
est Lux."
"we are soldiers of Rome, for her might and glory we stand ready... She is
the Light"

www.geocities.com/legio_vi

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967470950/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: How do I remove myself from this list.
From:	"Steve Perpich" <steve@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:20:42 -0400

I have attempted 3x now to unsubscribe from this list with no luck.

1) send message to "unsubscribe-novaroma@--------" with no content

2) " " " "novaroma-unsubscribe@--------" " " "

3) send message to "unsubscribe-novaroma@--------" with a subject and message saying "unsubscribe"

Can anyone advise please.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967472131/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 08:51:56 -0600

Salve Diocletianus.

I generally agree with your post, except to make one point. Nova Roma currently exists as a New Hampshire corporation. That makes it subject to being in congruence with New Hampshire state law and U.S. law. Therefore it is indeed appropriate to discuss the evolution of our laws in the framework of modern law.

Otherwise, you have an excellent point. How would the Romans have constructed this law?? We should put the primary emphasis here on answering that question (and I believe we do).

L. Cornelia Aurelia

Caius Flavius Diocletianus wrote:

> Caius Flavius Diocletianus Quiritibus S.P.D.
>
> Many postings are written about the censorial Resignation Edictum, almost critical. I�m not a lawyer but almost an administrative official, but I want to raise my voice upon that topic.
>
> First of all, addressed to those citizens comparing NR law with other territorial countries laws, especially US:
> We should not compare apples with cherries. NR is dedicated to the reconstruction of roman culture and traditions. So we should make roman law at least.
> All citizens are living in territorial states, so all citizens can take a look onto their homelands laws and the tradtions behind them, may it be british or french tradition. I think that these comparisons are waste of time. We should build our NR laws on roman tradition.
>
> Now to the edictum.
>
> Censor Sulla posted a list of "penalties" for those citizens which are resigning. All modern, as also ancient, laws are setting up a sanction for a specific action mentioned in that law. The action in this edictum is the Resignation of citizenship. If someone resigns his citizenship, he might have some reasons for this, but he can reapply his citizenship. Those which plays the game of resigning and reapplying multiple times, are barred for 6 month, 2 years or forever. Are this harsh sanctions? I don�t think so. Those which resigning multiple times have a problem with their citizenship. They are unable to incorporate themselves into the res publica. When I joined NR I first thought, what I can do for NR, and not what can NR do for me (thanks to J. F. Kennedy for this bonmot!). This is the form of incorporation into the res
> publica as I understand it.
> Of course, NR needs citizens to grow and become a real nation. But do we need that people? To grow, we need people who wants to engage themselves in the NR res publica. To resign at the smallest problem is not the right way. When someone resigns, he makes something like a final step out of the res publica. Barring them for a time means: Stop, think about your citizenship. Is this really the right nation for you? We give you some time to think about this matter.
> This time extends only the self-chosen exile. If someone resigns the third time, he seems in my opinion unsuitable for NR.
>
> We should not discuss about the sanctions, we should discuss about those people finally addressed by the edictum.
>
> Valete
> Caius Flavius Diocletianus
> serving citizen
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967473179/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Derelictions of duty
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:39:40 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Patricia Cassia,

> I've thought a bit about this issue of resignations and wandering
> away from duties. Perhaps we need a formal "voluntary exile" status for
> Citizens who, for pressing personal reasons, may need a month or two
> away from the affairs of Nova Roma?

I don't think any sort of official change in status is needed for citizens
without any special responsibilities who wish to withdraw for a period of
time. That can be done simply by unsubscribing from the mailing list, and
their absence might not even be noticed unless that citizen is a
frequent contributor.

> I agree that there should be consequences for any magistrate who
> cannot be contacted for a reasonable period. To accommodate the needs of
> those whose access to e-mail is uncertain, this should be a fairly long
> period - let's say three months. At that time, a scriba, legate or
> other alternate individual should be asked to fill the remainder of
> the term.

Perhaps we should require that every magistrate know the phone number
of his or her colleague in the same office and of at least one superior,
and provide notice of any expected absence. If a magistrate
disappears for an extended period of time without giving notice,
or exceeds the three-month period even if notice was given, they could
be removed from office or be penalized in some other manner.

> Those who do not undertake public duties or participate in the day-to-
> day affairs of NR, but still feel a bond with our nation, should be
> entitled to all status accruing to them regardless of their silence.

I agree.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
http://www.graveyards.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967473727/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:25:44 -0600

Salve, Dalmaticus:

Dalmaticus writes:

My feeling is that if someone is willing to join NR,
provide some information on Rome/Romans and not fill
my inbox with the petty bickering I get now, they are
welcome to join, rejoin, or re-rejoin NR as many times
as they can.

I, too, am here to discuss Rome and Romans, and have posted numerous times on such topic. It's up to all of us to keep those threads
going, and constructively, as well as from an informed and moderately researched position. It's also within every person's power on this
list to start a thread....if there's something you want to discuss re Roma....start a discussion!

Otherwise, what a few people have recently called "petty bickering", especially in regard to the Censorial Edicta, I see as a necessary
discussion of the continued evolution of this thing we call Nova Roma. It is these discussions that will form us into the micronation we
say we are. If ALL we talk about here is Rome and Romans, we'll never get there. For me, part of the attraction of Nova Roma is also the
chance to participate in the evolution of the political structure. And, in ancient Rome, one of the primary facets of that society was
participation by its citizens (particularly the patricians) in the political structure.

The magistrates are between a rock and a hard place on this one. If they don't bring a pending Edicta up in this forum, people cry FOUL!
You should consult us!! If they do bring it up here, people cry FOUL! You are cluttering my inbox!!

I for one want the magistrates to post here.....and then would hope each and every one of us regular civies would keep our comments
relevant and constructive about the topic at hand. One thing that brings up the seemingly petty bickering, Dalmaticus, is that some cives
will use any post to lash out at the magistrates. Not you, and not I, but some. Those individuals should learn constraint.

L. Cornelia Aurelia

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967475209/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Value of Citizenship
From:	Lykaion1@--------
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:14:53 EDT

In a message dated 8/28/00 9:24:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, wicachu@--------
writes:

<< My history is
foggy at best, muddy at worst, but I seem to recall race being a non issue
in
Rome. >>

And I do not recall race being an issue here on the list.

Gaius Lupinius Festus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967475699/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Value of Citizenship
From:	<gmvick32@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:38:17 -0600

Salve, Britaega:

I don't recall any discussions about race?? You've confused me on that one.

And it's perfectly possible/acceptable to just step back a little from NR and
stop the email from flowing to your inbasket. You can remove yourself from any
egroups list, or simply click on the option that keeps you on the list, but
doesn't forward them to your inbox. I myself have exercised that option from one
list that was aggravating me overmuch.

L. Cornelia Aurelia

wicachu@-------- wrote:

> Again the cranky old Mamma Brit takes up a pen, and with a thoughtful
> look, apologies to the gods and fellow men alike, begins to write.
>
> This morning as I blearily perused my mail, I came across two things
> that made my eyes, even without the benefit of caffiene , open rather wide.
> The first was a discussion of race as it applied to Rome. My history is
> foggy at best, muddy at worst, but I seem to recall race being a non issue in
> Rome. Doesn't seem to fit the conciliatory methods the Romans were fond of
> using after a region had been subdued. Citizenship was what made one Roman,
> or not. Disregarding the ancient Rome and Mamma Brits iffy history and
> thinking of Nova Roma.... is race an issue now? If so, whatever for? <
> blinks in confusion> If not, then how could a discussion of this nature even
> get going?
> And then there is the second thing that rattled Mamma Brits sleepy
> morning.
>
> "The ex-citizen has despised his
> citizenship and shown contempt for the state."
>
> < scratches head and rubs eyes in weary bewilderment>
> Now how.... fellow citizens, is this true? Now , on a few occasions, I could
> see someone loathing us and all we stand for. But, as far as I have seen
> during my brief time here, resignation has been used as a means of protest
> against a wrong, imagined or real. If you disagree with something here, you
> have two options. Write emails or resign. And then there are the times in
> ones life where everything falls apart and nothing matters to you anymore for
> a while. You feel like cutting all ties and you do, even if you truly don't
> want to. Three months later when you have your head back on straight, you
> want to come back, feeling rather sheepish. Goddess knows I have done that at
> least once in my life.
> I can understand that no one wants a revoloving door on citzenship. I
> wouldnt know this myself, but is there a middle ground? Can a citizen
> suspend their rights while remaining as citizen? Rather like going " no mail"
> ?
>
> Mamma Brit is just a bit concerned about this, as is evidenced by my
> actually writing to the list. But remember, I'm old and cranky. Take it
> with a grain or two or ten of salt please.
>
> Iona S. Britaega
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967475960/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	Iulia66198@--------
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:09:44 EDT

Salvete omnes

In a message dated Mon, 28 Aug 2000 1:52:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> writes:

<<It is indeed beyond me too why you want to target the *returning*
citizens. It seems to be just because you cannot hurt the ones who
don't want to return. Which is a poor reason. The returning ones
should be *rewarded*!>>

I have kept quiet about a number of 'upsets' during my brief time on this list (a little over 8 weeks, I believe), but I really have to say something here.

Oh, puhleeeeeeez...Especially when it comes to that last sentence.

By your comments, it's clear that, rather than give our Censors the benefit of the doubt that they are attempting to do something for the *good* of NR and her citizens as a whole, they are somehow out to 'get' ex-citizens.

As to being rewarded, I have yet to hear of any government on earth that rewards those who give up their citizenship and then ask for it back again. In this instance, the very fact that citizenship would be restored *is* a reward.

Others have mentioned it already, but just let me reiterate that citizenship in ancient Rome was something that was *highly* esteemed, *not* to be taken lightly. Do you honestly think that, were we in Roma Antiqua now (whether you prefer the Republic or the Empire), the one we look back to for the very way we conduct our lives, that it would look favourably upon such a renunciation? If you answer honestly, you know the answer would be a firm 'no.'

For my own part, I would like to commend our Censors, Senators and all those who spend so much of their time and, in some cases, personal assets, to try and provide some kind of functional oversight for NR. Their jobs are not easy, and I think, too often, the hard work they do goes unnoticed and unappreciated.

Salvete
Iulia Cassia

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967478995/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Derelictions of duty
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 06:14:26 -0700

Marcus Octavius Germanicus wrote:

> Salve Patricia Cassia,
>
> > I've thought a bit about this issue of resignations and wandering
> > away from duties. Perhaps we need a formal "voluntary exile" status for
> > Citizens who, for pressing personal reasons, may need a month or two
> > away from the affairs of Nova Roma?
>
> I don't think any sort of official change in status is needed for citizens
> without any special responsibilities who wish to withdraw for a period of
> time. That can be done simply by unsubscribing from the mailing list, and
> their absence might not even be noticed unless that citizen is a
> frequent contributor.
>
> > I agree that there should be consequences for any magistrate who
> > cannot be contacted for a reasonable period. To accommodate the needs of
> > those whose access to e-mail is uncertain, this should be a fairly long
> > period - let's say three months. At that time, a scriba, legate or
> > other alternate individual should be asked to fill the remainder of
> > the term.
>
> Perhaps we should require that every magistrate know the phone number
> of his or her colleague in the same office and of at least one superior,
> and provide notice of any expected absence. If a magistrate
> disappears for an extended period of time without giving notice,
> or exceeds the three-month period even if notice was given, they could
> be removed from office or be penalized in some other manner.
>

I like the idea, but it might require a change in the Lex Cornelia de Privatus
Rebus.

Sulla Felix
Censor

>
> > Those who do not undertake public duties or participate in the day-to-
> > day affairs of NR, but still feel a bond with our nation, should be
> > entitled to all status accruing to them regardless of their silence.
>
> I agree.
>
> Vale, Octavius.
>
> --
> M. Octavius Germanicus
> Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
> Microsoft delenda est!
> http://www.graveyards.com/
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967479322/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:17:15 +0200

> From: Lykaion1@--------
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
> Date: maandag 28 augustus 2000 14:45
>
> In a message dated 8/28/00 5:08:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> hendrik.meuleman@-------- writes:
>
> << Does the term "unconstructive, blunt insult" ring a bell?
>
> Stick to your fiction.
>
> [see, it's easy to be like you]
> >>
>
> Forgive me Draco, but you have the good sense to see that the comparison
of a
> waiting period with the iron maiden is farcical at best, especially when
made
> with such seriousness.
>
> Festus

I suppose it could be seen as humorous in some way, and I'm not exactly a
humourless individual, but I didn't really find it funny. A matter of taste
I suppose. In fact, I didn't have any problem with your first remark.
You've got every right to find something funny or not. But I found the
second remark quite distasteful, that's all.

Vale,
S.A. Draco

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967479490/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Short and Sweet
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <trog99@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 16:43:49 GMT

Salvete Omnes:

I am in favour of the Resignation Edictum as it reads.

Bene vale,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967481030/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On the Resignation Edictum
From:	sfp55@--------
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:24:14 EDT

Q. Fabius Maximus to the People of Rome:
Salvete citizens of Rome!
I have read the growing series of posts on the Censores edictum
with puzzlement. While I appreciate the growing concern of not letting
productive
citizens back into Nova Roma, when they resign in protest, boredom, or
uncertainty, I have to say, stop and look at the Nation we are trying to
represent.

Ancient Rome prized their citizens and gave them certain benefits in return
for one thing, service and loyalty to the republic. They felt desertion was
a terrible crime, allies who deserted often had their cities sacked, and
their populace sold into slavery. Citizens that were exiled found it a
terrible condition, yet were still looked upon by locals as superior people,
because of one thing -- their former connection to Rome.

Our Rome is continues to grow, and I expect some people that join their ranks
will discover it was on a whim, their historical preferences have changed,
certain citizens cannot get along with others, et ceta.
So think citizens, what can we do that parallels our spiritual ancestors, yet
allows 21st century sensibility? Answer, the "cooling off" period.
If one is irked at a certain person and thinks "I'm gone!" he or she has time
to reconsider the decision. Ancient Rome had no policy like this, simply the
long process of dissolving ties with Rome acted as the same.
However, once the period is over, and the Censors has stricken the name from
the rolls, it should be very hard almost impossible to get back in. Both
common sense and ancient precepts demand this, and it should be followed.
So, before resigning your citizenship, citizens consider: Would the act be in
such haste if you knew that once you cut your ties with us, you could not
ever again take part in our noble experiment? I think not. And if you become
too busy to participate in Roman activities you can continue to retain your
citizenship. Once time constraints are favorable you can resume activities.
In this way you continue as part of Rome, honoring her in your own way.

Valete!

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967483461/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Notable Romans
From:	JSA <varromurena@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:43:38 -0700 (PDT)

--- David Wolfman <dwolfman@--------> wrote:
> I don't know where you are getting your
> misinformation from.

I am getting my information from the original sources,
and from the secondary works by many contemporary
historians.

>
> In reference to Emperor Cladius, Pliny the Elder not
> only states his
> politics but makes mention of his writing stating
> the he was one of the
> foremost learned writers of his day.

But Seneca and Suetonius thought a bit differently.

>
> "I believe Galen was a Greek from Alexandria--hardly
> a
> >"Roman" by the terms we're using for this
> question."
>
> Cladius Galenos was a Roman citizen from Pergamum at
> the Temple of Asclepius
> where he recieved his training in medicine. In 162
> he went to Rome and lived
> there for the rest of his life.

But was he, like Josephus and others, Roman by culture
or merely by citizenship? St. Paul was a citizen by
birth, but I would hardly term him a "true" Roman in
the sense that the Romans would have understood that
term. There were various levels of citizenship over
the centuries, not to mention Roman "cultures", and
Rome was not entirely like the USA. We might call
Polybius a true Roman, but I don't believe the Romans
would have considered him a "Roman"--he might have
similar personality traits and characteristics that
the Romans admired, but he was still a Greek to them.

>
> On the last notes, I never said I condoned the
> actions of Caesar and the
> like, I even said that is why their lifes ended so
> badly. I was stating that
> no one person is pure. No pure evil no pure good.
> For all the slaughter
> there came benefits. To use your arguement if at the
> end of WWII we had not
> used former Nazi scientists the space program would
> not be at the state it
> is today.

Ok, so we'd be five years behind. Would that have been
so bad? But, then, we also didn't enroll Nazi generals
and death camp commandants in our armies either.

I am neither condemning nor condoning
> simply seeing things from as
> many angles as possible. Yes the contemparies judged
> these men and their
> actions had conseguences but what I am saying is to
> tell the story from
> different points of view. To the Roman the Gauls
> were an age old enemy, a
> threat on a border that would be impossible to
> defend forever. The Romans as
> well as many Empires in the ancient world fought
> wars as premptive strikes
> (the Romans did this even in the days of the
> Republic) and fought wars of
> attrition. To label these men are any man a
> megolamaniac with such a broad
> sweep is careless. Caesar's death created the
> military dicatorship or
> dynasty of Emperors, or kings as you have said , not
> the man himself. When
> the USA fought against the English it was a civil
> war, was not General
> Washington a military dictator before an official
> congress was established.

No, Washington was NOT a military dictator. He was
appointed by the Continental Congress, and only had
the control over the state militias that were given to
him via the Congress by the individual states. He
*may* have been appointed "king" at the end of the
war, but whether he could have enforced any such rule
is questionable.

> As I said before history is never one-sided. Nor is
> it our place to judge.

Of course it is our place to judge! That's how we
decide what actions are acceptable and which are not
for our own society. The entire history of teaching
history is all about judging. We have to be careful to
judge in context, and clearly, in context, neither
Caesar, nor Sulla, nor Marius, etc. were "true Romans"
in the context understood by contemporaries--their
actions were for their own benefit, not for that of
the state (though they all thought it was for the
benefit of the state--a typical view of dictators and
megalomaniacs).

L. Licinius Varro Murena

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967488219/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On the Resignation Edictum
From:	"Doug Barr" <dbarr@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:44:10 -0700

C. Albius Gadelicus Quiritibus Novae Romae SPD.

I haven't contributed much, of late, since my life has been in fairly major turmoil, but I would like to stand with Iulia Cassia, and others, and say that I for one have no problems with the Resignation Edictum as promulgated.

Et Censoribus Sullae et Merullo gratias ago.

C. Albius Gadelicus

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967488577/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:53:45 +0200

Salve, L. Cornelia Aurelia,

> I generally agree with your post, except to make one point. Nova Roma currently exists as a New Hampshire corporation. That makes it subject to being in congruence with New Hampshire state law and U.S. law. Therefore it is indeed appropriate to discuss the evolution of our laws in the framework of modern law.

Ok, I agree that the organization Nova Roma must be congruent with New Hampshire and US laws. If Nova Roma would be a german corporation (I�m of german origin), we must be congruent with german civil law. But we should take this laws not as examples for our own laws and edicts. We have our own tradition in making laws. We should make our mind upon that.

> Otherwise, you have an excellent point. How would the Romans have constructed this law?? We should put the primary emphasis here on answering that question (and I believe we do).
>

That�s an interesting point. It would be a pleasure if a discussion would start upon this topic.

Bene vale
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
proud to be a citizen

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967488876/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation Edictum
From:	"C Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 14:55:37 -0400

Salvete L Cornelia et alii

I can't help it...."me too".

Everything that you say is at the heart of the reasoning behind this
edictum.

Valete

C Marius Merullus

>Salvete Formosanus:
>
>> Well, not *only*. Even for the first time there is a six-month
>> waiting period. That is not yet a habit of resigning or "continual
>> disregard and disrespect". And it is long enough to drive away a
>> great many people who might want to come back while they were still
>> thinking about NR. How is driving them away good for NR?
>>
>> As with other nations, we shouldn't go begging for citizens to join, and
>> rejoin, and rejoin. As NR grows, there will be a portion of citizens who
>> feel the need to leave our ranks. HOWEVER, we should rightly do
everything
>> we can to discourage resignations. The best way to do that, is to impose
>> known limitations on the conditions of readmittance.
>
>WHY? Because:
>
>1. It forces a person at the time they resign to recognize that NR
citizenship
>is not a country club application to be torn up and thrown away, then taped
>back together later.
>
>2. It forces a person to consider that fundamentally, citizenship in
NR....in
>any country.....is a PRIVILEGE, not a right. I do not mean that a person
under
>a brutal regime should feel grateful to be there. I mean that we should
put in
>our minds the fundamental concept that citizenship in NR is a special
thing, a
>thing to be safeguarded, and not to be toyed with. That citizenship brings
>certain responsibilities:
> - To uphold the Constitution, laws, and edicts, to be informed, to
vote.
> - To serve NR by holding political or religious office if the person
is
>suited for the responsibility
> - To protect the best interests of NR
>
>3. TO GET PEOPLE TO RECOGNIZE THAT RESIGNATION IS A SERIOUS AFFAIR ALWAYS,
and
>not a tool for a temporary leave of absence. Resignations should only
occur
>because a person is fundamentally disinterested in the concept and practice
of
>Nova Roma.
>
>If a person can understand all of these points and still walk away from NR,
why
>are we supposed to make it easy for them to return?? It is ABSOLUTELY FAIR
that
>they have a mandatory period away, which hopefully they will use to
straighten
>out whatever problem they were having with citizenship in the first place.
>
>
>> Well, I have in my wanderings around the world come across a good
>> many people who have dual citizenship or the right to claim it or to
>> change at request from one citizenship to another. These people do
>> very freely make these decisions based on their personal benefit and
>> advantage. Since all of us in NR are dual nationals, it is perfectly
>> normal that we might give up an additional citizenship much more
>> easily than our only one, where any choice is very difficult. But
>> even in that case dissidents will seek asylum in another land, and
>> even more people will happily move to another land and change
>> citizenship just because the original one made them poor.
>>
>
>Actually, I've known nobody who treats their resignation of citizenship in
a
>macronation lightly. Rather, it's something most people weigh heavily,
over
>the course of years, before they give citizenship status up. It is a most
>serious and weighty decision, in all cases. It's also something that, once
>revoked, a macronation isn't quick to reinstate.
>
>In fact, gaining citizenship to a non-native country is always a laborious
>process. In the U.S. it takes years of effort, expense, and study to
become a
>naturalized U.S. citizen. I'm not even aware of how the U.S. would treat
an
>ex-citizen wanting to be reinstated. The gig is usually pretty much up the
>first time you stop the band.
>
>> I think that by casting our Respublica in the mould not of a caring
>> mother but of a being full of bile and vituperation against its
>> returning cives the value of Nova Roma and therefore Her citizenship
>> is lowered. Things which do hurt are less loved and cherished, not
>> more. ...
>>
>> .... But punishing
>> people who have already decided to come back is really perverse. It
>> discourages them from returning. And we WANT more citizens. And these
>> are citizens who love and respect NR enough to want to come back. And
>> that is a more informed love and respect than a new civis shows when
>> he first gets in with no enforced wait and no civic disabilities.
>>
>
>If there was such love for the motherland, why did a person resign in the
first
>place? If something was serious enough to drive a person to leave, why
should
>we not require that the person be held to a trial period to make sure that
they
>do, indeed, value NR and seek to rejoin the fold with an open and pure
heart?
>
>I don't buy the image of a country (any country) as a loving bosom into
which
>its citizens are folded. Rather, I see the state as a rather neutral
entity
>that exists as a framework of guidance for a collection of individuals to
come
>together as a common people. The burden isn't on the state (which is,
after
>all, an abstraction) but on each individual to participate and make the
state
>thrive.
>
>I personally, would rather have a state with 100 Nova Romans that are
dedicated
>to building a micronation, than 1,000 Nova Romans who don't take the
concept of
>Nova Roma seriously. So, I'm all for a little stringency in the laws
>surrounding resignation. If a person steps out the door, I feel no
obligation
>to make it easy for them to return.
>
>L. Cornelia Aurelia
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967489099/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Re: Censorial Edict - Resignation
From:	"C Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:01:56 -0400

Salvete LA Dalmatice et alii

Anyone can subscribe to this e-mail at will, and contribute information, or
cease to do so, easily. It all has nothing to do with the censores or our
edicta.

But citizenship is something distinct from mere list subscription.

If one likes to think of Nova Roma as a club, that is that person's option.
Censores cannot base their administration on such notions.

Valete

C Marius Merullus

>Although I realize that you're stating the ideal, and
>what you say reflects in the NR Constitution, but I
>wonder how much it reflects reality. I'm not looking
>for a "show of hands", but I wonder how many of
>NovaRomans see this as more of a club than as a
>sovereign nation. (I guess on a larger scale, this
>brings into question the whole micronation concept,
>but that is not my intent here.)
>
>< Resignations should only occur
>< because a person is fundamentally disinterested in
>< the concept and practice of Nova Roma.
>
>True, but the "practice" vary and a break from NR, or
>a new perspective, may change the situation.
>
>< If a person can understand all of these points and
>< still walk away from NR, why
>< are we supposed to make it easy for them to return??
>
>
>Because they may have something to contribute. Your
>argument is valid only if you feel they are of no
>value at all, or to the organization.
>
>I understand why the resignation of an officer is so
>repugnant to so many members, having been caught in
>the lurch myself in other groups. For that reason, I
>propose a two-tier rule, where if one resigns without
>notice as an officer, then a six month delay is
>appropriate. It seems to me than an officer's
>"no-notice" resignation is more damaging to the
>organization to us common folk. Unless there are
>people coming and going at a rate with which we cannot
>keep up, there should not be a problem reinstating
>those who held no office at the time of their
>departure more quickly.
>
>My feeling is that if someone is willing to join NR,
>provide some information on Rome/Romans and not fill
>my inbox with the petty bickering I get now, they are
>welcome to join, rejoin, or re-rejoin NR as many times
>as they can.
>
>L. A. Dalmaticus
>
>=====
>LTC JEFFREY C. SMITH
>HQ USAREUR/7A
>CMR 420, BOX 2839
>APO AE 09063-2839
>

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967489478/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Value of Citizenship
From:	"C Marius Merullus" <c_marius_m@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:14:06 -0400

Salvete Iona Sententiosa et alii

>thinking of Nova Roma.... is race an issue now? If so, whatever for? <
>blinks in confusion> If not, then how could a discussion of this nature
even
>get going?

By someone's irrelevant mention of it.

> And then there is the second thing that rattled Mamma Brits sleepy
>morning.
>
> "The ex-citizen has despised his
>citizenship and shown contempt for the state."
>
>< scratches head and rubs eyes in weary bewilderment>
>Now how.... fellow citizens, is this true?

It is in my view. A person receives NR citizenship three times, and each
time renounces it. "Contempt for the state" is a fairly mild way to sum
this up.

Now , on a few occasions, I could
>see someone loathing us and all we stand for.

Do you mean that you would understand someone loathing us (a rather amusing
obversation to my mind, if this is what you mean), or that you have
suspected someone of loathing us?

But, as far as I have seen
>during my brief time here, resignation has been used as a means of protest
>against a wrong, imagined or real.

I have seen resignation as protest, resignation as manipulative attempt to
gain attention, and resignation as a logical decision of personal
incompatibility with Nova Roma. They are all resignations and must be dealt
with in a uniform manner, but certainly the motivations range widely behind
them.

If you disagree with something here, you
>have two options. Write emails or resign.

How false that is! You also have the option of ignoring the source of
disagreement, or temporarily unsubscribing from any NR lists. You also have
the option of running for elected office or seeking appointment, putting
yourself on track to join the Senate, et cetera. All up to each of us at
every turn.

And then there are the times in
>ones life where everything falls apart and nothing matters to you anymore
for
>a while. You feel like cutting all ties and you do, even if you truly don't
>want to. Three months later when you have your head back on straight, you
>want to come back, feeling rather sheepish. Goddess knows I have done that
at
>least once in my life.

People who need some air can always unsubscribe and distance themselves. If
one is serving in office and does this, it could be seen as a bit
negligent -- but it still is a separate issue from the one under discussion,
which is resignation of citizenship.

> I can understand that no one wants a revoloving door on citzenship. I
>wouldnt know this myself, but is there a middle ground? Can a citizen
>suspend their rights while remaining as citizen? Rather like going " no
mail"
>?

No, citizenship is not list subscription.
>
> Mamma Brit is just a bit concerned about this, as is evidenced by my
>actually writing to the list. But remember, I'm old and cranky. Take it
>with a grain or two or ten of salt please.

I appreciate your comments. We need to know people's opinions and get their
feedback so that we can do the best possible job for everyone. I hope that
you will not take offense at my disagreeing with you.
>
>Iona S. Britaega
>
Valete

C Marius Merullus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967490208/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Notable Romans
From:	Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:35:07 +0200

Caius Flavius Diocletianus Quiritibus S.P.D.

Here is another Notable Roman. This man is also an example for a real roman
citizen and soldier ;-).

His name was Spurius Ligustinus and he lived around 200 BCE. His curriculum
vitae is recorded by Livius.

Sp. Ligustinus first served in the army around 200 BCE. He was promoted to
Centurio during the war against Philip of Macedonia. After that, he
volunteered to serve in Spain as a private (!!!) soldier, and was promoted
to the rank of Centurio Prior of the 1st maniple of Hastati. In subsequent
campaings, he was appointed Centurio Prior of the 1st maniple of principes,
and then appointed Primus Pilus four times in the space of a few years.
By 171 BCE, over 50 years old by then, he had served 22 years, had been
awarded for bravery 34 times and had received 6 civic crowns.

Bene Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967491359/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] My application for citizenship
From:	Christer Edling <tjalens.h@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:42:05 +0200

Salve Illlustrus Censor et Senator Lucius Cornelius Sulla

I want to humbly ask You and your collegue in the Censorship, the Illustrus
Censor and Senator Gaius Marius Merullus what has happened to my
application for full citizenship as Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, member of
Fabia gens! I don't ask this out of disrespect, but out of a desire to
participate in all discussions and decisions as one of the civii and not
as a perigrini (Please bear with my ungrammatical and flawed latin and
English ;-) ).

until NeXT

Ave et salve

Christer Edling
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
SHAMALI SALUKIS
************************************************
CAMELOT ROLEPLAYING WORKSHOP
Robert Andersson & Christer Edling
************************************************
IF GAMES - If reality was different!
Markus Sundbom & Christer Edling
************************************************
MAIN E-MAIL ADDRESS: tjalens.h@--------
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967495172/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] My application for citizenship
From:	Christer Edling <tjalens.h@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:52:43 +0200

Salve Civii Romani!

I am sorry that I sent the mail about my citizenship to the list! It was
made by mistake. I hope I can be excused, I don't think it is a subject for
the list, Sorry! :-(

Ave et salve

Christer Edling
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
SHAMALI SALUKIS
************************************************
CAMELOT ROLEPLAYING WORKSHOP
Robert Andersson & Christer Edling
************************************************
IF GAMES - If reality was different!
Markus Sundbom & Christer Edling
************************************************
MAIN E-MAIL ADDRESS: tjalens.h@--------
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967495932/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Fesco bath style
From:	"j.mason4" <j.mason4@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:40:37 +0100

Salve,

My wife and I were viewing images of frescos of the Suburban Baths, Pompeii, we found the art work to be inspirational. We hope to be able to simulate them in our own bathroom, my wife is quite innovative.

Aveto
~~S~~

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

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
PC World - Free, Easy Newsletters.
http://click.egroups.com/1/8236/8/_/61050/_/967499498/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] [Fwd: [RomanDaysWest] FAQ pt II]
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:55:16 -0700

More FAQ information for Roman Days West! :)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Proconsul

Sheridan wrote:

> Q. Do I need to bring a fire extinguisher?
> A. Yes, one per tent please.
>
> Q. Can we smoke in the camp?
> A. It is discouraged. Each smoker is required to provide his own
> "sand
> filled "butt can".
>
> Q. Are there bugs?
> A. Of course there are bugs. It's a camping event afterall. Bug
> repellent is always a good idea. I also recommend a fly trap for the
> inside of your tent.
>
> Q: Do I need to bring stuff to eat off of?
> A: Yes. A plate, a bowl and preferred utensils are a good idea if you
> plan on eating with the Cocina. Don't forget a drinking vessel!
>
> A couple of good places to find wood plates or other historic looking
> "feast gear": Cost Plus, Pier One and similar stores. Check your
> local
> thrift shop as well!
>
> Q: What about chairs?
> A: It is highly recommended that you provide something upon which to
> rest your weary end. An historic looking chair or stool is
> recomended.
> If you bring a modern sitting device it is expected that you drape an
> historic looking cloth over it to disguise it.
>
> Many of use use wood "Bali" chairs with canvas backs and seats.
> Director's chairs are an acceptable second shoice.
>
> Q: Does the Cocina provide beverages?
> A: The Cocina provides juice and milk for breakfast, coffee and tea.
> Other beverages such as alcohol and soft crinks are self-provided.
>
> Q: How far away is the nearest grocery store?
> A: There is a General Store on-site at Merchant's Row. They carry
> lots
> of essentials and personal items as well.
>
> Q: Where is the nearest phone?
> A: A pay phone is located about 200 yards from the 9th Legion camp.
>
> Q: I want to teach a class, how do I go about doing that?
> A: Contact me as soon as possible!
>
> Q: Do I really really really have to wear a costume?
> A: Yes.
>
> Q: I have special dietary needs. Can I still eat with the Cocina?
> A: Generally, yes. When the detailed information about the Cocina is
> posted you will need to contact the Mater Cocina at that time.
>
> Q: I love to cook! Can I volunteer to cook my specialty?
> A: Of course! Please!! Contact me asap with the details.
>
> Q: Are children allowed and welcome?
> A: Yes, children of all ages. And there is lots for kids to do,
> special
> programs, crafts etc. The SCA has a children's activities Autocrat.
> Check the web site for GWW IV to get more info.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RomanDaysWest-unsubscribe@--------

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967499901/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Fesco bath style
From:	Lykaion1@--------
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:19:44 EDT

In a message dated 8/28/00 6:17:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
j.mason4@-------- writes:

<< We hope to be able to simulate them in our own bathroom, my wife is quite
innovative. >>

Maybe you can simulate the erotic art froom the Pompeii brothel on the
bedroom walls!

The Lupinii

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates
of 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Ongoing APR* and no annual fee!
Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7872/8/_/61050/_/967501194/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: How do I remove myself from this list.
From:	Megas-Robinson <amgunn@-------->
Date:	Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:23:30 -0500

Greetings Steven,

Venator here:

You can go to the main Nova Roma list page at eGroups and chsnge your status.

http://www.egroups.com/group/novaroma

The unsubscribe button is at the upper right hand side of the page, a little under the advertising banner, topic is
MEMBERSHIP.

Hope this helps.

Vale - Venii

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Get Your Free PC World Newsletter Today!
http://click.egroups.com/1/8237/8/_/61050/_/967505001/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->