Forum Romanum


Subject:	[novaroma] Terry Lynn Meaker Oct 6 2000
From:	smunchkin@--------
Date:	Mon, 09 Oct 2000 02:34:34 -0000

The adoption of Terry occured today, almost without incident. The Ad
Litem for Terry agreed with the adoption, and asked me several
questions that brought out the contrast between my education and work
history (I have one) and government security clearance compared the
biofather's job hopping and criminal record.

For those who are interested, the religious aspect was not a player,
in part I am sure due to the great description provided by the social
worker in her report.

Minor note, 6 months after signing away his rights, the biofather
wrote a letter requesting his relinquishment be deleted. He claimed
he was under duress. To counter this, my attorney cited the law,
cited case history, both when relinquishment was valid and when it
was not valid, and provided the legislative intent, as shown by the
debates on the law. Law says he has 11 days to counterfile against
his signed relinquishment. 180 days is way out of bed. Duress is like
having a gun to your head, light in your eyes, electrodes attached,
or having someone cutting off important parts of one's body. Feeling
sad later is not a sign of duress.

The biofather was present at the beginning. He argued that he had
travelled miles, and the miles that he traveled were interpreted by
the court as insulating him from any duress that Crystal and I could
have exerted. The Biofather threatened to appeal, as soon as his
disability case was favorably ruled on. I am sure the judge was
concerned.

At last, Terry is safe from that bum. Such a sweet girl should not be
put at risk for the ego of that lump of flesh.

The adoption party starts tomorrow! Miss Meaker will be accepting
guests tomorrow.

Don Meaker
Husband to Crystal, Priestess of Juno
Father to Miss Terry Lynn Meaker

http://www.crosswinds.net/meakerfam/family
http://www.crosswinds.net/~smunchkin
IPN=312-264-4010 ext. 168


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: [ReligioRomana] ATTN (Religio Romana): ante diem III Nonas Octobres (October 5th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:37:19 +0100

Salvete Erici et al

Maybe I should explain better the 'religiones' of the Mundus patet. Of
course this is my opinion.

- It is forbidden to engage in combat.
To violate this prescription risks defeat on the battlefield.

- It is forbidden to raise troops.
The levied troops would be probably doomed.

- It is forbidden to make troops march.
... Unless one wants to be ambushed, or to risk any other hazard.

- It is forbidden to raise anchor.
... Unless you want to sink.

- It is forbidden to marry or procreate.
The children would be cursed. Of course to have sex without procreating has
incurs no penalty.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: [ReligioRomana] ATTN (Religio Romana): ante diem III Nonas Octobres (October 5th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 9 Oct 2000 12:46:00 +0100

Salvete Vado et al

>> - It is forbidden to marry or procreate.
>While I would have to agree generally that sexual abstinence is required of
>those participating in religious rituals (usually from the night before the
>festival, but up to a week before solemn festivals such as the Cerealia),
>would not Flora and Venus be dishonoured by a refusal to celebrate that
>sacred and joyous communion, over which they preside?
>I have just been reading Tibullus' "Pervigilium Veneris" ("The Vigil of
>Venus"), where the refrain is:
>"Cras amet qui numquam amavit, quique amavit cras amet!"
>(May he love tomorrow who has never loved, and may he who has, tomorrow,
>love!).
Vado, the religiones I listed only apply on the opening of the Mundus only.
As I've said, "Several
"religiones" ("religio" means "religious duty". Note: the word "religio" had
not the same meaning which it has today. The Romans considered that there
were different cults - i.e. different ways of worshiping the Gods - and not
different Religions in modern sense) apply TODAY".

I was not saying that those religiones apply generally in roman rituals. Of
course, other days are favourable to procreation, but the opening of the
Mundus should be held with its special observance.

Valete
Antonius Gryllus Graecus


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Rogators and Common Sense
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 9 Oct 2000 08:01:13 -0500 (CDT)

> Oops....I was going to comment on what the Lex Iunia states in
> regards for under age
> citizens can do to get a exemption. But the NR site is down. :)

A very large power transformer exploded yesterday, removing power from
all of downtown Chicago. The entire "loop" area was dark and was blocked
off by police while repair crews rebuilt the transformer. It looks like
it lasted about six hours.

So while the server itself was fine, nobody could get to it - not even
me, as I was on the way to the airport...

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


Subject:	[novaroma] ATTN (Religio Romana): ante diem VII Idus Octobres (October 9th)
From:	"Antonio Grilo" <amg@-------->
Date:	Mon, 9 Oct 2000 21:02:54 +0100

Salvete omnes

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

Today we cellebrate the Genivs Pvblicus, Fausta Felicitas and Venvs Victrix
in Capitolio.
These sacred places on the Capitol are known only from the calendar
entries. The date of their construction in not known; indeed it is uncertain
whether there were three seperate shrines, alters, or temples. Genius
Publicus also had a temple or alter near the temple of Concord, mentioned in
43 BC (Dio Cass. 57.2.3). The temple of Fausta Felicitas might be
identifiable with that of 1 July, while Pompey had built a temple to Venus
Victrix (12 Aug).

The month of October is sacred to Mars.

I'm grateful to Pontifex Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus for providing me the
data on today's festivals.

Pax Deorum vobiscum
Antonius Gryllus Graecus
Pontifex


Subject:	[novaroma] Digest Number 1037
From:	"Lucius" <vergil@-------->
Date:	Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:48:56 -0400

Salvete, Quirites

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:04:05 +0100
From: "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@-------->
Subject: Rogators and Common Sense

Salutem vobis O Quiriti
(Sucks in a deep breath, counts to ten...) Quaerit Sulla:

> Must you ask! I would think it would have been obvious.....

So far. Do try to be more optimistic about the goodwill of our citizens, O
Censor.

> > I agree. But an attitude that assumes people don't want to know is
something we DON'T need in Nova Roma.
>
> Who is assuming that attitude?

You did, when you said: >How can the Senate establish four when we dont have
that many people who are interested in applying?<

L Equitius: I have to agree with Vado's assertion that there was a note of
negativity present.

> There were other issues such as the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate, since
2 of the three applicants were under age....

This is the relevant extract from the stated Lex:
IV. No person shall assume any office of the Vigintisexviri until he or she
has reached the age of 21.

Now I note with interest that the Senate nonetheless regarded itself as
empowered to debate the matter of an under-age applicant, so the Lex is
clearly prescriptive, not proscriptive.

L Equitius: I have to agree that the Senate should feel free to "debate" any
issue; however, speaking for myself, I would not consider any candidate that
did not meet the stipulated qualifications. Also, I think that the
candidate(s)
that did not meet the age requirement was *not* considered for appointment
once
their age was an issue.

This is an issue that has arisen repeatedly in applications to the College
Pontificium: Qualifications of age and even of citizenship. The application
form is available on the website that is open to anyone, regardless of age
and citizenship status. Therefore we have to confirm an applicants status
with the Censores, as if they don't have enough to do. Perhaps we need to
somehow use the 'voters code' to verify applications and a candidate's
status.

> > Now we're in the same fix again... Or risk our democratic
> > processes being disrupted yet again, which I'm sure nobody wants. Nonne,
> > Sulla?
> >
> No one does..but we must be legal. The LEX VEDIA VIGINTISEXVIRI calls for
two. If we want more than we need to change that.

The stated Lex does not stipulate that there shall be no more than two.
There is therefore no need to change the law.

Cincinnatus: True, Maybe we need to have an amendment determining order of
precedence in filling vacant offices. Just a thought, any suggestions?

IV. Rogatores. Two rogatores (voting officials) shall be responsible for the
administration of elections and the recording of votes among the curia...

Alteris verbis, we may have two serving Rogatores, but any number of
prosuffecti Rogatores in reserve. Isn't this simple common sense?

Lucius Equitius: Yep, Sounds like a plan to me.

> > Besides, we have an establishment of many posts in NR which have
remained vacant since Day One...
>
> True and your point?

My point was to make clear to you (since you did not apparently understand),
that supernumerary official posts evinces a positive attitude, as opposed to
the negative one you are clearly displaying. Romulus ploughed a limen rather
bigger than his hut and his turnip-patch. So must we.

Bene valete, Vado.

Cincinnatus: Ita, Roma wasn't built in a day....

Bene omnibus nobis
Valete, L Equitius


Subject:	[novaroma] Digest Number 1037
From:	"Lucius" <vergil@-------->
Date:	Mon, 9 Oct 2000 17:49:02 -0400


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Digest Number 1037
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 9 Oct 2000 15:48:15 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lucius" <vergil@-------->
To: "Nova Roma" <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 2:48 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Digest Number 1037

> Salvete, Quirites
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:04:05 +0100
> From: "Nick Ford" <gens_moravia@-------->
> Subject: Rogators and Common Sense
>
> Salutem vobis O Quiriti
> (Sucks in a deep breath, counts to ten...) Quaerit Sulla:
>
> > Must you ask! I would think it would have been obvious.....
>
> So far. Do try to be more optimistic about the goodwill of our citizens, O
> Censor.

Ave,

I do try. I just voiced my opinion at the time when we had two applicants
for the position, I am very pleased to know that we know have 4 applicants!
I truly hope that more citizens take an interest in serving Nova Roma in the
political landscape, specifically in the December Election.

> > > I agree. But an attitude that assumes people don't want to know is
> something we DON'T need in Nova Roma.
> >
> > Who is assuming that attitude?
>
> You did, when you said: >How can the Senate establish four when we dont
have
> that many people who are interested in applying?<

No, I dont believe I was, I was voicing my response given the fact that at
the time we only had two applicants at the time. :)

> L Equitius: I have to agree with Vado's assertion that there was a note of
> negativity present.

I apologize for the preception of negativity. It was not intended. What
was intended was a candid explanation of the facts at the time. Which, I am
pleased to say have changed significantly! :)

> > There were other issues such as the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate,
since
> 2 of the three applicants were under age....
>
> This is the relevant extract from the stated Lex:
> IV. No person shall assume any office of the Vigintisexviri until he or
she
> has reached the age of 21.
>
> Now I note with interest that the Senate nonetheless regarded itself as
> empowered to debate the matter of an under-age applicant, so the Lex is
> clearly prescriptive, not proscriptive.

Actually, I think we disagree here. I believe the Senate was almost
negligent about not inquiring about their ages. At least until a few
members actually voiced concern, me being one of them. :) But, this isnt
the first time the Senate has failed to follow through in a couple matters.
:) I believe that the Lex states quite clear about applicants getting
exemptions from the Censors about getting an exemption for citizens who are
under age.

> L Equitius: I have to agree that the Senate should feel free to "debate"
any
> issue; however, speaking for myself, I would not consider any candidate
that
> did not meet the stipulated qualifications. Also, I think that the
> candidate(s)
> that did not meet the age requirement was *not* considered for appointment
> once
> their age was an issue.

I am glad you have stated your opinion on this issue, as for my opinion, I
believe any underaged citizen should petition the Censors before presenting
himself as a candidate, to gain the exemption. In the petition to the
Censors he/she should state the position they are interested in running
prior too announcing it.

> This is an issue that has arisen repeatedly in applications to the College
> Pontificium: Qualifications of age and even of citizenship. The
application
> form is available on the website that is open to anyone, regardless of age
> and citizenship status. Therefore we have to confirm an applicants status
> with the Censores, as if they don't have enough to do. Perhaps we need to
> somehow use the 'voters code' to verify applications and a candidate's
> status.
>
> > > Now we're in the same fix again... Or risk our democratic
> > > processes being disrupted yet again, which I'm sure nobody wants.
Nonne,
> > > Sulla?
> > >
> > No one does..but we must be legal. The LEX VEDIA VIGINTISEXVIRI calls
for
> two. If we want more than we need to change that.
>
> The stated Lex does not stipulate that there shall be no more than two.
> There is therefore no need to change the law.
>
> Cincinnatus: True, Maybe we need to have an amendment determining order of
> precedence in filling vacant offices. Just a thought, any suggestions?
>
> IV. Rogatores. Two rogatores (voting officials) shall be responsible for
the
> administration of elections and the recording of votes among the curia...
>
> Alteris verbis, we may have two serving Rogatores, but any number of
> prosuffecti Rogatores in reserve. Isn't this simple common sense?
>
> Lucius Equitius: Yep, Sounds like a plan to me.

I disagree. If we are to do that I believe we should change the Lex. There
was another post that I dont recall that refuted that position. About
taking that precedent and blowing it out of proportions.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/971131699/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Age Exemptions [was Rogators and Common Sense]
From:	Razenna <razenna@-------->
Date:	Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:32:59 -0700

I've snipped this down to the paragraph that is eliciting this
response.

--- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...>

wrote:
> >
> I am glad you have stated your opinion on this issue, as for my
opinion, I
> believe any underaged citizen should petition the Censors before
presenting
> himself as a candidate, to gain the exemption. In the petition to
the
> Censors he/she should state the position they are interested in
running
> prior too announcing it.

While the Censores might be the ones to grant an exemption for an
under age person becoming a citizen(and I have some reservations which
are not relevent here), it is not the Censores who make the call on
candidates for any office. This would be up to the Senate for
political offices and the Collegium Pontificum for offices of the
Religio.

C. Aelius Ericius.
Senator.
Augur et Pontifex.

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/971134441/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Age Exemptions [was Rogators and Common Sense]
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:38:46 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: "Razenna" <razenna@-------->
To: "Nova Roma" <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 4:32 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Age Exemptions [was Rogators and Common Sense]

> I've snipped this down to the paragraph that is eliciting this
> response.
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...>
>
> wrote:
> > >
> > I am glad you have stated your opinion on this issue, as for my
> opinion, I
> > believe any underaged citizen should petition the Censors before
> presenting
> > himself as a candidate, to gain the exemption. In the petition to
> the
> > Censors he/she should state the position they are interested in
> running
> > prior too announcing it.
>
> While the Censores might be the ones to grant an exemption for an
> under age person becoming a citizen(and I have some reservations which
> are not relevent here), it is not the Censores who make the call on
> candidates for any office. This would be up to the Senate for
> political offices and the Collegium Pontificum for offices of the
> Religio.

Ave, Ericius and others.

But I must disagree, when the person running for office is under the age
limits specified by the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate, the relevant
passage in the Lex Iunia states:

VI. An exemption to this law may be granted to a person by the approval of
both censors and a senatus consultum approved by a two thirds majority vote.

Therefore both the Censors and the Senate must work together. And,
conceivably if either party fails to agree, then that applicant cannot hold
that office.

I dont have any opinion on the Religio since the Lex has no bearing on the
Religip posts.

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/971134729/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Age Exemptions [was Rogators and Common Sense]
From:	Razenna <razenna@-------->
Date:	Mon, 09 Oct 2000 16:55:23 -0700

But, Sulla, you were talking as though it was only the Censors. You
were leaving the
Senate out of your previous piece. Your wording was as though it was
the Censors who decide it-- period.
And the Collegium Pontificum would certainly decide all matters
concerning the Religio Pontificum.

C. Aelius Ericius.
Senator. Augur. Pontifex.

L. Cornelius Sulla wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Razenna" <razenna@-------->
> To: "Nova Roma" <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 4:32 PM
> Subject: [novaroma] Age Exemptions [was Rogators and Common Sense]
>
> > I've snipped this down to the paragraph that is eliciting this
> > response.
> >
> > --- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@e...>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > I am glad you have stated your opinion on this issue, as for my
> > opinion, I
> > > believe any underaged citizen should petition the Censors before

> > presenting
> > > himself as a candidate, to gain the exemption. In the petition
to
> > the
> > > Censors he/she should state the position they are interested in
> > running
> > > prior too announcing it.
> >
> > While the Censores might be the ones to grant an exemption for an
> > under age person becoming a citizen(and I have some reservations
which
> > are not relevent here), it is not the Censores who make the call
on
> > candidates for any office. This would be up to the Senate for
> > political offices and the Collegium Pontificum for offices of the
> > Religio.
>
> Ave, Ericius and others.
>
> But I must disagree, when the person running for office is under the
age
> limits specified by the Lex Iunia de Magistratum Aetate, the
relevant
> passage in the Lex Iunia states:
>
> VI. An exemption to this law may be granted to a person by the
approval of
> both censors and a senatus consultum approved by a two thirds
majority vote.
>
> Therefore both the Censors and the Senate must work together. And,
> conceivably if either party fails to agree, then that applicant
cannot hold
> that office.
>
> I dont have any opinion on the Religio since the Lex has no bearing
on the
> Religip posts.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla
> Censor

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/971135782/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->