| Subject: |
[novaroma] Censor Nota Hearing |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:43:00 -0800 |
|
Ave Livia and others!
I am glad you have raised these issues to me privately and to the list. Hopefully I can explain some of the confusion on this.
As, Senator Labienus stated, there is a Nota hearing that is currently going on. Both Censors decided it would be best for this to remain a public matter til the issue is resolved by a non-partial Iudex. Both Censors agreed that there was a need for an Iudex given that both Censors are biased in this case. Both Censors agreed on a listing of potential candidates. Both Censors agreed in the ultimate decision to decide who would be an Iudex. Both Censors have adhered to the Constitution of Nova Roma, specifically Section IV Subsection 1 Part 4 Item F subitem 1. It states,
"To safeguard the public morality and honor through the collegial administering of nota;
1.. A nota against an ordinary individual is sufficient to deprive that individual of the right to vote until such time as it is removed;"
So, to answer your questions Livia, one by one:
1. How and by whom was the conduct of the Nota hearing decided? The answer would be it would be up to the Censors.
2. Who was the judge? Well....that raises an interesting question. A question that my colleague and I knew would be asked. First off, let me state, that there might be times when the Censors would sit in judgement, and there would be times when the Censors would appoint an Iudex. In this specific incident, both Censors felt that a more equitiable hearing if neither of us acted as Iudex. However, given the feelings that have been shown on the list. We, the Censors, felt that it would be best for the identity of the Iudex would remain confidential. Both Censors stand by this decision. If my colleauge would like to add his comments to this issue...I would certainly welcome his comments on this.
3. What witnesses were called? Both sides had an opportunity to call witnesses. Each side emailed C. Marius Merullus who then sent out statements to the perspective parties who then subscribed to the Censor_Nota list for the duration of their testimony. Once their testimony was completed, C. Marius Merullus unsubscribed them from the list. The only members who were allowed to witness the preceeding were: The Censors, Iudex, Plaintiff and Defendant. That is all. The Witnesses, upon receiving their summons could either act on the Summons or ignore it.
4. What, exactly, was the hearing judiciating on? I believe that was answered above. Let me quote again, "To safeguard the public morality and honor through the collegial administering of nota." This means that the Censors have the power to determine if there has been a breach in public morals. However, this can only be initiated upon a request from a citizen. In this case a petition was brought forward by Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus.
According to Roman Law, by Hans Julius Wolff, "The Censors became the watchmen over the moral behavior, in both public and private life, of the citizens; in fact, elaborating upon the activites mentioned, they developed a general jurisdiction in matters of morals, and the nota censoria, although in itself no more than an official censure, became their dreaded weapon. Possessing unlimited discretionary power, they were able to render decisions which could pratically destroy a man politically and socially." (Page 35)
In the discussion about a "trial" Let me state that a Censor Nota hearing is not a trial, but a hearing. A trial would have jurisdiction with the Praetors. They would be in charge conducting the hearing. However this is a hearing to decide if there has been a breach of public morals. This is completely within the jurisdiction of the Censors. So, to answer your other concerns, Livia, the Praetors had no role in this hearing at all. I can only state my opinion as to why this is so. I believe that this is the case because of the nature of the office. In ancient Rome, Censors were highly respected Consulars who have done their service for Rome. Once again, according to Roman Law, "The Censors lacked the imperium, but their office was in some respects considered the highest diginty a Roman Citizen could obtain; consequently, only consulares (men who have only been Consuls) were ordinarily chosen for the office. Censors enjoyed special honors not even given to Consuls."
Now back to the concept of Trial. It seems concieveable to me that there can be a trial held by the Praetors at the same time, even both regarding the same issue. But they are focusing on two separate goals. A trial according to my research, and I hope our legal scholars will help me if I am incorrect....dealt primarily with civil wrongs, like an example would be if someone bought something from the Marcellum and never received their product. I am sure there is much more to it than that...but for simplicity sake. Whereas a Censor hearing is more of a rebuke for acting contrary to the Roman Virtues and to society as a whole.
Now further, let me state that the Nota hearing was brought AFTER Lucia Maria became a citizen, and thus after the Senate of Nova Roma voted on the reprimand. For my own opinion, I hope that the Senate never passes a reprimand again. Instead, I think the proper execution of such action would be a Nota hearing held by the Censors. I believe this is the proper execution of a breech of social responsibility.
As for your paragraph about not pointing you to this or that document. I think that is not a good attitude. Here is why I think that. Our laws and edictas are stepping stones. They are foundations to rebuilding the republic. What you should do is to read more about the subject that you have questions in. For example, I am sure there are many people in Nova Roma more knowledgable in matters of Roman Jurisprudence, so in an effort to lower that difference. This one text that I have, Roman Law an Historical Introduction is a good first step. I have a few more at home, but this is small enough that I can take it to my work and read it. To get back to the point I am trying to make. If you have questions, ask them. I am sure someone will be able to help. Just as our chats on AIM.
I am definately open to comments in this post.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix - Censor and Pater.
From: <gmvick32@-------->
Date: Mon Oct 30, 2000 1:45pm
Subject: [Fwd: Re: One Senator's Opinions]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [novaroma] One Senator's Opinions
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 14:00:18 -0700
From: gmvick32@--------
Reply-To: gmvick32@--------
To: labienus@--------
References: 200010301630.KAA08076@--------
Salvete,
The most pertinent issue of this whole affair has nothing to
do with Mari or Cincinnatus. Rather the important issue to
me is the judicial process decided upon and used. How and
by whom was the conduct of the Nota hearing decided? Who
was the judge? What witnesses were called? What, exactly,
was the hearing judiciating on?
In my opinion and interpretation of the Constitituion and as
Fortunatus and a few others have pointed out, judicial
hearings are in the pervue of the Praetors. Am I to take
from the discussion thus far that the Praetors did not
actually set the rules for the Nota hearing? That it was
done by the Senate or another set of magistrates? I am
rather confused on this particular issue.
It is true that the Romans didn't codify a lot of its laws
into written format. However, the Romans also had a luxury
we don't have. Namely, they were born into the same culture
and had direct, day to day contact with each other. We
don't have that. We have citizens from diverse states of
the US where at least state judicial proceedings will vary,
as well as diverse other countries with their own internal
proceedings, let alone the international differences between
us. We were not born into the same culture, and do not have
a common understanding between us. For this reason, setting
down a certain amount of law and procedure in writing is
unavoidable if we are to make Nova Roma work. The written
law and procedure provides us with common ground, and it
lets us each know where to start the discussion from.
The second piece to that is communicating the laws and
procedures. Do not point me to the Constitituion, it does
not adequately address the issue of judicial hearings (nor
necessarily should it more than it does). Do not point me
blithely to such-and-such edict that was passed some time
ago and tell me its my own fault I don't see how it applies
here.
Simply put, once the nota hearing was asked for, what should
have happened was that the praetors should have posted an
official notice that the nota hearing was taking place, what
the charges were, and where the rules could have been
reviewed. At this time, I'm not asking for debate on the
rules, I'm simply asking to KNOW WHAT THE RULES WERE, and
WHO decided them.
Is that so much to ask? Remember, cives, someday one of you
may be the subject of a third ad hoc hearing unless we
insist the rules be written and communicated in an
acceptable way.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
labienus@-------- wro--------br>
> T Labienus C Flavio Quiritibusque S P D
>
> > CFD: Interesting point. I hope that a discussion will
> start about that
> > topic. In my opinion the Senate is a advisory body,
> issuing consulta about
> > the aforesaid matters. As far as I know, Romans always
> consulted their
> > (public or private) consilium before doing something
> important. The Senate
> > is the consilium of the central magistates.
>
> That is my understanding of the Senate's role as well.
> The function of the
> senatus consultum is to provide a lasting record of the
> Senate's opinion upon
> matters of policy. Nova Roma's constitution goes a little
> further than this by
> stating that the Senate is the supreme policy-making
> authority.
>
> In an effort to continue the saner side of the discussion
> about the reprimand,
> I'll throw out a few more opinions.
>
> First, it has been argued that the issuance of the recent
> reprimand was done
> with the intent of deterring further impersonations of
> public officials and
> other citizens, rather than to punish a citizen who had
> committed that act. It
> seems to me that this purpose would have been served
> better by an unambiguous
> statement to that effect which mentioned no citizen by
> name, or which merely
> alluded to L Marius' impersonation of L Equitius as a case
> in point. After
> participating in the Senate's deliberations over the
> reprimand, it is my belief
> that punishing L Marius was the primary intent.
>
> In fact, (IIRC) all punishments inflicted upon Nova Roman
> citizens to date,
> with the exception of L Equitius' temporary exile, have
> been imposed by the
> Senate. That body has, to date, issued two reprimands,
> fined a citizen, and
> sent another into exile. All of these things ought to
> have been left to the
> praetores, and ought to have been used as an opportunity
> to establish our
> judicial system.
>
> Second, we need to determine to what degree senatus
> consulta are binding upon
> individual citizens. As I have stated above, the Senate
> has taken it upon
> itself to issue consulta directed at individuals in the
> past, and seems likely
> to continue in the assumption that this is its right. Do
> others concur with me
> that the ancient practice and modern constitution alike
> disagree with this
> opinion, and that the Senate should limit itself (or be
> limited by law) to
> commenting on broad issues of policy?
>
> > CFD: As provincial official, I do the same when I
> correspond with interested
> > non-citizens. Senator, this is the right point, in my
> opinion. But, as I
> > said above, there should be a discussion about that.
>
> I couldn't agree more, Cai Flavi. It is an informed and
> active populace
> engaged in an ongoing dialogue about the important matters
> of state that keeps
> a state healthy. Once the dialogue ends, the organization
> dies.
>
> Valete
>
> -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972956633/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Reply to Cincinnatus |
| From: |
Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:05:07 -0600 (CST) |
|
Salve Marce Apolloni,
> RESPONDEO: I am not presuming to judge with any finality whether you
> really deserved the attentions of the curator.
Perhaps, then, you should withdraw the statement that Lucius Marius
was "obliged" to discipline Lucius Equitius.
> I note that you do not
> consider them fair, which tends to confirm that you indeed are
> motivated by hostile feelings generated by that perception and
> directed towards Marius, and that is the thing important for my
> argument.
But it does indicate that the "systematic harassment" may not have
been unprovoked and unwarranted, that instead it was a battle between
two strong-willed individuals, with as much harassment coming from
Lucius Marius as from Lucius Equitius.
> Might I suggest that if that is really what is bothering you, that
> you convince your Senatorial colleagues to institute a panal of
> inquiry to examine the archives and other records to determine
> whether any injustice was done?
There hasn't been any need for that. Marius has been reprimanded for
his actions of this year. Going further back and seeking out another
reason to demand Marius apologize would only inflame tensions further -
some might even call it harassment.
> RESPONDEO: Yes, it is my opinion, which I stand by. A valid
> application for citizenship was received, with Marius' being forced
> to write a form of his name incorrect as to gender due to Sulla's
> intolerant legislation.
The form of name required on the application is consistent with
Marius' legal identity in the macronation in which he resides. There
is nothing intolerant about requiring that the one correspond to
the other.
> Such a valid application should have simply been processsed normally,
> not carried to the Senate so that someone (you) could settle old scores
No application for readmission of a citizen can be processed "normally".
Each is a special case that should be examined carefully.
Early this year, the traitor Marconius slipped in and regained citizenship
while the sole Censor happened to be extremely busy - his readmission
caused considerable chaos on the list, with one valued citizen resigning
in disgust and another leaving the list for several months. The Censors
should evaluate the potential consequences of any readmission so that
this never happens again.
> 4. When Marius so listed himself and made a perfectly valid
> citizenship application, supposedly satisfying Censor Sulla's
> bigoted notions of sexual propriety,
The accusation of bigotry is unwarranted. It is Marius' past actions -
those same actions that earned the reprimand - that were a barrier to
reentry. Marius reapplied with a female name, conforming with the
edict, and gender was therefore not a reason to deny entry.
> the censor did not process it normally, but on his own initiative
> went to the Senate
As was right and proper, he asked for advice from the Senate. Sulla
recognized the political ramifications of permitting or denying
Marius' re-entry, and, rather than acting alone, negotiated with
the Senate to find a solution, a plan under which Marius could return.
> RESPONDEO: I do not have personal access to senatorial records due to
> the policy of secrecy of the Senate. However, from my sources with
> access I have heard descriptions which testified to the extreme
> emotionality,
Perhaps Lucius Equitius was emotional as a result of his harassment
by Marius. Who wouldn't be, after being impersonated in a "rite of
suicide"?
> I rather think that an apology, such as you received from Marius,
> carries with it the implicit hope of forgiveness.
Did Marius apologize before or after being asked by the Senate to
do so?
> If in fact you did not so orate in the Senate, then why don't you
> publish here or post in some public place the *complete* set of
> speeches you made in the Senate relating to Marius?
He should not be expected to this. We all say things to our friends
or to small groups that we would not have repeated to a larger audience.
> RESPONDEO: Quite right - but I did not express my opinion of you in
> this statement (as a careful reading will show)
I think "moral idiocy" would qualify as an opinion. But, as we all
seem to agree, a negative opinion is not a prosecutable offence.
> Let us remember that President Clinton, to mention just one
> macronational statesman, has had many satirical comedy sketches and
> skits written and performed about him, and no one would think well of
> him if he tried to use the Senate, Army, FBI or even the courts
> against those writing and performing them.
It is a felony to threaten the life of the president, even when
it's obviously a joke. Plays about the murder or suicide of the
president would, at the very least, be investigated by the
secret service.
> NOTE that Marius publically apologised to Cincinnatus right here on
> the main list. (To which Cincinnatus replied most ungraciously that
> he did not want one!)
After the Senate demanded it. If he had apologized when Lucius Equitius
first learned of the incident, it could be considered sincere.
> If we get into the habit of refusing to accept
> apologies and not allowing our one-time enemies to resume more normal
> relations with us, we are doing a disservice not only to our personal
> relationships but to the community in which we live.
I agree with this - but sometimes there cannot ever be a return to
normal relations, when the enmity has lasted for months.
> MAF: I have previously written here about how the charming and
> interesting letters of Marius on the main list (before he was shoved
> aside from normal participation by sexual bigotry and Cincinnatan
> vindictiveness),
Marius was indeed a charming and interesting citizen. It is
unfortunate that he chose to leave due to a perceived "bigotry"
that did not exist.
> (Consider too that Cincinnatus once actually pulled off a coup
> against the Respublica and was allowed back by the Dictator with no
> Reprimand or censorial nota. But he does not want to pass on the
> clemency that he received.)
Clemency? He was deprived of his Consulship and forbidden to hold
elected office. In spite of this, he chose to continue to serve
Nova Roma as Senator, Pontifex and Flamen. Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus
is one of the hardest working and most loyal men in Rome.
Vale, Octavius.
---
M. Octavius Germanicus
Curule Aedile, Nova Roma
Microsoft delenda est!
http://www.graveyards.com/
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972957836/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] I return, to another donneybrook. |
| From: |
amgunn@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 05:25:22 -0000 |
|
Avete Omnes!
P. Ullerius Venator hic:
I see another point of contention has been raised while I have been
absent from the New City.
I shouldn't go on hiatus. Everytime I do, something seems to crop up.
I don't know what the specific actions of L. Marius Fimbris versus L.
Equitius Cincinatus, et vice versa, may or may not have been. I may
be under informed or dense. I like both of them and am sad that there
appears to be bad blood between them, for they are -Both- Roman in my
estimation.
I should like to see comment cut short, and ask my two friends to try
and engage in some private grievance clearing between them.
If the interpersonal differences are such that amicitia between them
proves an unreachable goal, then I ask my two friends to ignore the
existence of each other, and to concentrate on the work of building a
New Rome. I think this is a large enough task that Fimbria and
Cincinatus need never be in contact again, if that is what they wish.
In officium - Venator
Dignitas et Concordia
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/972969923/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Senate called to order |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:11:59 EST |
|
Salvete Quirites
The Senate was called to order by the Consuls today. Initial agenda items
were:
Item the First.
The Censores have requested that the Senate add an additional candidate
for
the Senate ranks, the Provincial Praetor Alexander Iulius Caesar.
Item the Second
The Rogator should be chosen from the list of eligible candidates.
Item the Third.
To form the province of Gallia, and appoint a Praetor to administer it.
Item the Forth.
Combining the governorships of Provincae America
Austroccidentalis and Medioccidentalis Superior
into one province with L. Cornelia Aurelia as Praetor.
If this not acceptable to you, then to move modern Colorado to America
Austroccidentalis.
Item the Fifth
To discuss the legal system here in Rome. There must be some hard and
fast
rules adopted, not the loose system we have in place now.
Item the Sixth
As we drift towards our next election, our electronic election procedure
should be revamped, and the problems of the last election examined.
Item the Seventh
Q. Fabius' Tax proposal for the citizens of Nova Roma.
Item the Eighth
The proposed Edicta Commentary Period of Marcus Iunius Iulianus.
Additional items brought up include should we make Alaska a province or
include it with the Lower 48 or Canada?
Valete,
Lucius Sergius Australicus Obstinatus
Tribunus Plebis
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972976323/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The Reprimand of L. Marius Fimbria. |
| From: |
LSergAust@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:11:57 EST |
|
Salvete Senator et alii
I have not reported these proceedings in any detail at all, for several
reasons:
(1) I was hoping from the outset that the Senate of Nova Roma would not
allow itself to be used this way to prosecute what amounted to personal
rancor between an ex-citizen and a citizen. In this regard, W. C. Fields'
remark about underestimating the American people comes to mind.
Apparently I overestimated our Senate.
(2) I could not properly have reported it until it was completed, at
which point reporting it was a moot point since the action itself
consisted of the praetor making a public announcement.
(3) I still do not see that the details of what is said in the
deliberations of the Senate should be made public except by senators
themselves. My job, as I see it, is to report the *business* of the
Senate and not the conversations that take place there.
(4) For the whole time the matter was under discussion, it was not known
whether Fimbria was, in fact, pursuing readmission to citizenship. If she
was not, then the whole matter amounted to nothing.
I think it important to bear in mind that this "reprimand" has no force.
It merely says to a private citizen that "A majority of our Senate
doesn't like you." I doubt that comes as a surprise to Fimbria. It's
really more of a national embarassment than a national crisis, IMHO.
I can't speak to why the other Tribune hasn't reported on this, other
than that he doesn't seem to be active except when needed to keep me from
vetoing actions of other magistrates'. Hence I'm sure no-one is surprised
that I haven't vetoed this "reprimand" - Caesar would just pop in again
to neutralize my veto. Anyway, there's nothing unconstitutional about the
Senate announcing that they don't like someone. There's no dignity in it,
but it's not illegal.
Let's just move on, shall we? And PLEASE let Cincinnatus and the
Apollonii quit these long public postings of annotated and re-annotated
pedantry that keep growing exponentially longer with each iteration and
threaten our ISP accounts by clogging our mailboxes!
Valete,
L. Sergius Aust. Obst.
Tribunus Plebis
On 10/29/00 2:09 PM Razenna (razenna@--------) wrote:
>When this reprimand was first promulgated I was worried by what seemed
>to ba a lack of response to it. I still wonder at the thinness of the
>negative reaction to this piece of legislative overkill. Some other
>magistrates have voiced their criticism of this reprimand, as have
>some of Fimbria's staunch friends. I have seen little reaction from
>the general citizenry. One citizen has correctly presented the notice
>posted of the vote results of the last session of the Senate. Many of
>the points of legal criticism of the proceedings were brought up in
>the Senate. The reprimand itself was discussed. The praetor reworded
>it several times, then this final version was issued. And
>promulgated. And I am wondering why I, a Senator and "Patrician" am
>relating this rather than the two Tribunes.
>
certe, Toto, sentio nos in Kansate non iam adesse.
(You know, Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.)
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972976330/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Interesting link |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:22:16 -0800 |
|
http://www.discoveringarchaeology.com/0900toc/9randn2-champagne.shtml
I got this link from one of my new Gens members, Iulia Cornelia Gaia. I
hope all of you enjoy this article!
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/_/972988050/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] RE: Question for everyone |
| From: |
Andy Pearson <andy.pearson@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:55:20 -0000 |
|
Ti Claudius Lucentius Vindex Omnibus SPD.
(Stands up in the back row of the forum and nervously clears throat...)
There has been some discussion recently on the subject of senatorial
reprimands, censorial notae, etc. I don't intend to add directly to this
thread, but I do wish to (briefly) address a very timely post by our Censor,
L Cornelius Sulla Felix. I have reproduced much of it below, with
annotations:
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 01:28:47 -0700
From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
Subject:
Ave Quirites!
<AMPUTATIO>
Anyway, here are some questions that I have:
What issues do you think perspective candidates need to focus on?
DICO: given the amount of discussion engendered by the recent reprimand, I
would say that the candidates for Praetor Urbanus need to focus on
legislation.
What issues do you think have been overlooked?
DICO: Again, legislation. I said it before, during this years' earlier
incident over the citizenship (or not) of Marconius. I haven't kept copies
of the postings from then, and I don't propose to go hunting in the
archives, but IIRC, this individual, a citizen at the time (albeit 'by
mistake') was expelled despite having broken no law. It was argued that he
had contravened the constitution, but I was unhappy at the time that a
measure as drastic as expulsion of a citizen had to be handled by what
seemed to me as an emergency procedure. Particularly as, given that
discussions can sometimes get heated, ill-feeling and complaints of
harrassment are not unlikely to arise in the future.
In what areas, specifically, do you think NR needs to improve?
DICO: see above. There have been other speakers in the forum recently who
also seem to think that the time has come for some of the basic rules of
inter-personal conduct, and the process by which such rules are applied, in
this society of ours to be codified. For example,
C Julius, "My own thoughts run someone parallel to ex-Praetor Magister in
that both Reprimands should have never occurred. But, since they have we
must deal with the consequences they bring. Hopefully a magistrate in the
future might try to pass a law prohibiting this type of legislation"
T Labienus Fortunatus, "In fact, (IIRC) all punishments inflicted upon Nova
Roman citizens to date, with the exception of L Equitius' temporary exile,
have been imposed by the
Senate. That body has, to date, issued two reprimands, fined a citizen, and
sent another into exile. All of these things ought to have been left to the
praetores, and ought to have been used as an opportunity to establish our
judicial system"
I won't quote from Livia Cornelia Aurelia's recent post, as I would have to
reproduce the whole thing!
Sulla is absolutely right, this is a question for everyone. I am pleased to
note that legislation is now on the Senate's agenda. I do hope that our
August and Conscript Fathers will bear in mind M Mucius Scaevola Magister's
quote, "judicandum
est legibus, non exemplis".
With particular regard to the forthcoming elections: I believe that it was a
practice in Roma Antiqua for Praetorian candidates to canvass votes along
the lines of "If elected, I shall grant actions under such-and-such a set of
circumstances". Can I appeal to whoever decides to stand for Praetorship to
come before the people armed with a clear statement of what edicta they see
a need for enacting and/or what leges they would put before the comitia?
Enough. I have not been as brief as I had hoped.
Valete!
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/972993192/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] (unknown) |
| From: |
"Alexander Probus" <alexanderprobus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:38:12 CET |
|
Salvete omnes,
I would like to announce that hereby I do appoint Marcus Gryllus Antonius
Victorinus as my Legatus for Pannonia Superioris /Hungary/. During the last
time he have showed great interest and enthusiasm for Nova Roman public
affairs and have assisted me in provincial administration.
I appreciate highly his qualifications and personal qualities and am sure he
will fulfil excellently his duties as Legatus.
Bene vale
Alexander Iulius Caesar Probus Macedonicus
Propraetor Pannonia
_________________________________________________________________________
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 -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/973003095/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: [NovaromaVizantia] (unknown) |
| From: |
"Caius Flavius Diocletianus" <3s@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:38:23 +0100 |
|
Salvete,
my congratulations to Marcus Gryllus Antonius for his Appointment as
Legatus. I wish you a "good hand" for all duties and businesses to handle.
Valete
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Legatus Germaniae
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Probus" <alexanderprobus@-------->
To: <NovaromaVizantia@-------->
Cc: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 4:38 PM
Subject: [NovaromaVizantia] (unknown)
> Salvete omnes,
>
> I would like to announce that hereby I do appoint Marcus Gryllus Antonius
> Victorinus as my Legatus for Pannonia Superioris /Hungary/. During the
last
> time he have showed great interest and enthusiasm for Nova Roman public
> affairs and have assisted me in provincial administration.
> I appreciate highly his qualifications and personal qualities and am sure
he
> will fulfil excellently his duties as Legatus.
>
> Bene vale
>
> Alexander Iulius Caesar Probus Macedonicus
> Propraetor Pannonia
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> 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 -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/973006861/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Censor Nota Hearing |
| From: |
<gmvick32@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:43:22 -0700 |
|
Quirities
I am a practical person. I see administration of the state of Nova Roma and research into the forms of goverment as two complimentary, supporting, but distinctly separate, items.
As a person with limited time, I expect that doing a quantity of original reading and research into ancient roman law shouldn't be a pre-qualification for understanding the Nova Roma institutions. I have many books on Rome I'm trying to find time to read, it's not incumbent on me to wage a scholarly campaign before grasping our government. That should be self-evidenced by the Nova Roma documentation itself.
It's not a matter of lowering the bar for poor, inadequate Livi. It's a matter of documenting and publishing the procedure you used.
Furthermore, it IS incumbent on the magistrates (i.e. Censors) to provide appropriate levels of communication around affairs of state, especially given the mediated environment we operate in. Maybe not in your minds, but certainly in mine, and I DO count by virtue of the fact that you need me, and all the other non-magistrial but active cives, if you want Nova Roma to thrive and exist long after you. Not only was Rome not built in a day, it wasn't built by one or a few good men and women. There are no heroes among us (except maybe Germanicus and Cassius, who started it all).
I maintain the censors didn't communicate adequately enough or early enough. I point that out to help you be better magistrates, not to antagonize you.
So, yes, thank you for clarifying it's a Nota hearing on charges of abuse of public morality. Thank you for pointing out (privately, not publicly where all could benefit from your wisdom) the exact clause in the constitution giving censors jurisdiction over nota hearings. [Cives: see constitution from 12/31/99, paragraph IV(A)(1)(f)(1).]
I'm glad you appointed an independent iudex. I just despise the secrecy with which it was done.
I STILL had to figure out on my own the purpose of this hearing. For her abrogation of public morality and honor, a hearing is convened on the issue of depriving Mari the right to vote for an unspecified time. That's directly from the constitution. Right? Wrong? Not my issue.
Since she IS charged with offending PUBLIC morality, the public ought to be kept apprised of how and when it's being dealt with. That's my issue.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
BTW, if you ARE going to expect citizens to read up on Roman law, you'd best post a permanent recommended reading list in the Tabularium to make sure we're all as appropriately read as you.
"L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
> Ave Livia and others!
>
> As for your paragraph about not pointing you to this or that document. I think that is not a good attitude. Here is why I think that. Our laws and edictas are stepping stones. They are foundations to rebuilding the republic. What you should do is to read more about the subject that you have questions in. For example, I am sure there are many people in Nova Roma more knowledgable in matters of Roman Jurisprudence, so in an effort to lower that difference. This one text that I have, Roman Law an Historical Introduction is a good first step. I have a few more at home, but this is small enough that I can take it to my work and read it. To get back to the point I am trying to make. If you have questions, ask them. I am sure someone will be able to help. Just as our chats on AIM.
>
> I am definately open to comments in this post.
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix - Censor and Pater.
>
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/973009359/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] New gathering of Colorado cives |
| From: |
<gmvick32@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:58:59 -0700 |
|
Salve Quirities!
This is to report that the second gathering of cives in
Colorado went well. Over Greek food on Monday, 10/30, a
handful of us met and discussed travels to Roman sites,
ancient paganism, our varied background and interests in the
classics, and more.
A special thanks to Titus Falerius Silvacola for attending,
who was down in the Denver metro area from his home in the
high Colorado mountains.
We discussed planning a major event for this Saturnalia, to
include banquet and ritual. Thalia and I are proceeding
with that.
We are now 8 in Colorado and 6 in the greater metro area.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/973009700/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Formation of NR_Rockies list |
| From: |
<gmvick32@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:49:48 -0700 |
|
Salve, Quirities!
This is to announce the formation of the NR_Rockies list.
This list is intended as a meeting place for Nova Romans in
or surrounding the Rocky Mountain region of the United
States to share interests and build the Nova Roma
face-to-face community in the region.
This especially includes Colorado, surrounding states, and
the provincae Medioccidentalis Superior and America
Austrooccidentalis, although anyone is welcome to join.
Go to http://www.egroups.com/group/NR_Rockies to subscribe.
Livia Cornelia Aurelia
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/973010825/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] "Trick or Treat", Domitian-Style |
| From: |
"Nicolaus Moravius" <n_moravius@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:45:46 GMT |
|
Salvete Quirites
Although I have no wish to detract from the importance of the issues raised
in the debate over Fimbria's reprimand, I think it timely to offer something
which may refresh, amuse and instruct.
(Besides, I've been saving it up for months, for today of all days)...
(From Cassius Dio's "Roman History" Book LXVII, 9.1-5, trans. E. Cary, Loeb
Classical Library, Harvard University Press 1982)
"... he (the emperor Domitian) entertained the foremost men among the
senators and knights in the following fashion. He prepared a room that was
pitch black on every side, ceiling, walls and floor, and had made ready bare
couches of the same colour, resting on the uncovered floor; then he invited
his guests alone at night without their attendants. And first he st bedie
each of them a slab shaped like a gravestone, bearing the guest's name, and
also a small lamp, such as hang in tombs. Next, comely naked boys, likewise
painted black, entered like phantoms, and after encircling the guests in an
awe-inspiring dance took up their stations at their feet. After this, all
the things that are commonly offered at the sacrifices to departed spirits
were likewise set before the guests, all of them black and in dishes of a
similar colour. Consequently, every single one of the guests feared and
trembled, and was kept in constant expectation of having his throat cut the
next moment, the more so as on the part of everbody but Domitian there was
dead silence, as if they were already in the realms of the dead, and the
emperor himself conversed only upon topics relating to death and slaughter.
Finally, he dismissed them; but he had first removed their slaves, who had
stood in the vestibule, and now gave his guests in charge of other slaves,
whom they did not know, to be conveyed either in carriages or litters, and
by this procedure he filled them with far greater fear. And scarcely had
each guest reached his home and was beginning to get his breath again, as
one might say, when word was brought him that a messenger from the Augustus
had come. While they were accordingly expecting to perish this time in any
case, one person brought in the slab, which was of silver, and then others
in turn brought in various articles, including the dishesthat had been set
before them at dinner, which were of very costly material; and last of all
came that particular boy who had been each guest's familiar spirit, now
washed and adorned. Thus, after having passed the entire night in terror,
they received the gifts."
Bene valete,
Vado.
_________________________________________________________________________
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 -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/973014747/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] The Reprimand to Fimbria |
| From: |
BICURRATUS@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:41:28 EST |
|
Ave Gryllus
Up until this point you were going great guns...
<< - What support have you given to this nation when it was required?
- Have you done more for Nova Roma than the current Magistrates and
Senators?
- Are you a Scriba helping this nation to develop?
- Have you ever given money donations to Nova Roma in the same way many
Senators have?
- How many times have you run for office? >>
If your intent was to insult the mass of citizenry of NR then
congratulations. You achieved it.
You have, as most politicians do, elevated yourself above that of the people
you are supposed to represent. Being involved in the government of NR is not
the only reason for becoming a citizen.
I won't say anymore because I may well get very insulting myself.
In support of the 'common folk' of NR.
Publius Claudius Lucentius Severus Bicurratus
Provinciae Britanniae
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/973017744/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] More on the Reprimand and Nota |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:36:37 +0100 |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quiritibus S.P.D.
After responding to Cincinnatus' letter I did some further digging
with respect to the actual deeds of Marius, and I have a few more
facts that I think everyone should be aware of:
1. The assassination playlet in question in fact took place in a
location at BeSeen not part of Nova Roma or any NR organisation. It
was an absolutely private location to which access was available only
by invitation. Like, for example, someone's living room. Cincinnatus
and others only found out about this because the people involved
mentioned it in passing to others (probably with a chuckle).
*I* do not think that we can legislate or should punish for what
happens in a private situation, whether expression of opinion or
"artistic" performance or play. Nova Roma does not have jurisdiction
in such places, even if there are Nova Roman citizens involved.
2. The playlet is ancient history, dating to the consulate of
Cincinnatus. Marius was a citizen at that time and for months
afterwards, but nothing was done while he was better able to defend
himself - rather, he was attacked only when made vulnerable by
reapplying for citizenship, long after.
3. At this approximate period of human history L. Cornelius Sulla is
said to have engaged in somewhat similar assassination enactments,
specifically of Tullius (then Triumphius) Cicero and Aelius Rusticus.
Supposedly more publicly. It is interesting that he now sees this as
so deeply contrary to Roman values and morals that it is a
justification for the almost unheard of issuance of a nota against
Marius! In any case, Marius in light of this seems to have been
picked out for especially unfavourable treatment.
Let me finish by responding to Draco: Marius does not rise to his
own defence, as he would normally be most capable of doing, because
under the :"Conditions" placed upon him during his "Probation" he is
strictly prohibited from saying anything that might seem to be
"causing more disagreement, subversion or creating an environment
that is negative". As any defence would, practically speaking, almost
have to involve statements that could be construed as doing this,
he has been rendered effectively unable to defend himself before the
Nova Roman public. He would not wish to be expelled summarily for
such an "offence".
I submit to you, Quirites, that silencing an accused and attacked
citizen in this way is not what we want Nova Roma to be like. People
have a natural right to self-defence.
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)
________________________________________
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/973017894/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Reprimand, yet again. |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:07:32 -0500 |
|
Salvete,
CINCINNATUS: I suppose that this means you approve of her conduct? ...
DRACO: This is full of wild suggestions in my opinion...
L Equitius: I suppose you have a different suggestion considering Formosanus' defense of her actions?
SENATORES and deleted my responses to inaccuracies made by other Senatores,
while allowing them to continue making statements. She could have just as
easily "obliged" herself to "discipline" each side in that discussion,
nonne?
DRACO: Nowhere have I found proof of this statement in the message archives.
Could you indicate me a date to search on, optime?
L Equitius: That is because my responses were DELETED. RTFQ (read the FULL quote)
CINCINNATUS: Sulla actually worked with the Senate AND his colleague to
produce a workable solution to this problem. IF you disagree with the
result, that is your opinion.
DRACO: It seems to me he had no other choice than to do as he was told, or
he would never regain Roman citizenship. And if a pompous Senatusconsultum
is the "workable solution", I wonder then what the word "unworkable" means
to you?
L Equitius: Go back and read the last bit over. I'm referring to the Edict Gentilium, "unworkable" may be trying to explain the situation.
DRACO: Isn't an apology asking for forigiviness?
L Equitius: Depends on how it is stated, also if it is part of some condition or coerced then it is meaningless.
DRACO: You seem like someone who wants clear evidence of all statements.
L Equitius: If someone is going on and making all sort of assertions, I think it is reasonable for them to be able to prove, at least, SOME of them.
DRACO: Now then, I ask you what these additional 'things' are. If they aren't mentioned
on the reprimand they must be not very important, estne?
L Equitius: That is a matter of opinion and it was left out that she was in the habit of using various names. Since many of us have cognomen it was felt that we should not complicate the reprimand by adding that clause. However, make no mistake, if I use Cincinatus or Lucius Equitius I'm not being deceitful, but if I use a completely different name then I'm not being honest. She had other names.
DRACO: And as for "proof
of her actions", you are making it sound as though Marius committed some
kind of murder, while in fact it comes down to a tasteless joke and a
personal argument.
L Equitius: Let's clear it up for you. She IMPERSONATED a fellow citizen who is also an official. I have had no argument with her, since I avoid her as I have stated before I ignore her.
Go on now if you think that is ok, Go out and pass yourself off as an officer and see what happens to you. Yes, we are a micro-**nation** and more, we are a society and impersonating our fellow citizens will not be tolerated.
************************
The duly elected Consuls of Nova Roma, having agreed upon this action, now
stand together in Forum to issue the following Reprimand.
This Reprimand is now issued jointly by the Consuls Q. Fabius Maximus, and
Marcus Minucius Audens.
The Senate of Nova Roma firmly condemns the offensive public actions
performed by Citizen Lucia Maria Fimbria.
FORMOSANUS: It is worth considering whether the person in question might
have in someone's opinion merited such disrespect by the character and
manner in which he carried out his duties?
CINCINNATUS: Impersonation, that's the crime.
DRACO: You are ignoring pater Formosanus' question; rather, you give a
counterattack than a decen answer. Question yourself instead of questioning
the question.
L Equitius: I ignored nothing. I only pointed out that it is not critique that is the issue, but rather impersonation.
FORMOSANUS: Apparently true, although I seem also to have heard that it was
murder.
CINCINNATUS: Yes, and there were multiple instances testified to in that
charge. So in the end it seems that there was a 'murder' and a 'suicide', at
least.
DRACO: Murder ànd suicide?
L Equitius: Yep, you may consider it a joke; however, if it is so funny why not do you instead? OR she could do herself.
DRACO: Yes, **private** seems an appropriate term for me to solve this
vendetta!
L Equitius: Yep, she sure should have. I have also seen your rational that because she did this I must have some how deserved it. I consider that argument similar to the rapist who says the woman was asking for it because of her dress. Yes, I deserved it because she didn't like me.
CINCINNATUS: I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but I suppose you never
considered how her actions impacted me. You have decided that she is correct
and that I'm the villain without ever hearing from me. Now who is being
'unjust'?
DRACO: Then prove your "innocence". Then explain me why so many people chose
the side of Marius, or; are against this 'big cannon show'.
L Equitius: Maybe you should explain to me why so many Senatores voted to condemn her actions.
As for proving my innocence, are you making a charge against me? In any case it would be up to you to prove your case against me, not mine to prove innocence.
CINCINNATUS: I would like for you to explain why a CONSUL would 'pull off a
Coup'? OR how?... Maybe you've jumped to conclusions. Perhaps, you ought to ask
F Vedius Germanicus why he did as he did.
DRACO: This is an amusing response, given the fact that you seem to consider
Consul as the highest authority, while it is actually counterbalanced by a
lot of other institutions. And there are *two* Consuls, thus, a coup would
be setting aside the other, and bringing down some important enemies.
L Equitius: Again, read the quote. I pointed out that, "BTW the Consules under the original constitution were
most senior magistrates so what would a 'coup' prove?" CONSULES that's plural, as is magistrates.
DRACO:
However, supposed that you did not try to pull off a coup, what did you do
then? Why were you exiled? It would be easy for you to defend yourself by
saying what you did, while you aren't doing this. In fact, you are throwing
this hot potato at the former Dictator instead of answering yourself.
L Equitius: He is the one who did those things. I, unlike some people, don't pretend to know what others are thinking. So go ask F Vedius Germanicus his reasons (I believe that he is not subscribed to this list, but you can find his email in the Nova Roma website).
CINCINNATUS: The Senate considered the matter and voted during the time that
She was not a citizen. What this means is that she had no 'rights' under
Nova Roma.
DRACO: Hmm, how convenient.
L Equitius: Really, some things are not complicated. She quit, no one forced her to leave and no one knew she would return. The Senate still needs to take action when something such as impersonation of citizens takes place, like the Senate did in protecting the state Religio when that fellow defamed the Gods and their worshippers (he was exiled but returned under a different name but was found out and again sent packing).
CINCINNATUS: The Senate acted to make a statement that her actions were not
condoned and would not be tolerated in the future. For your information
there are other online 'communities' that do take action against members for
just this type of thing.
DRACO: Yes, but Nova Roma pretends to be a micro-**nation**, doesn't it? So
this is of a totally different nature than a reprimand by the chairman of
let's say an online books club. If I imitate someone here where I live, it
would be hardly considered a crime - it would be even amusing.
L Equitius: If you take someone's identity it is a crime. Go test this yourself if you think I'm wrong.
************************************
CINCINNATUS: http://www.ancientsites.com/xi/justice/listCode.rage
Listed below are offenses and penalties in terms of days to be suspended
from AncientSites. People engaged in any combination of these activities
will be suspended from the community for the sum of the penalty days.
Impersonation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 using another member's account and-or password under any circumstances
15 letting another member use your account and-or password under any
circumstances
30 registering a name with the intent to impersonate another citizen
45 attempting to speak for someone else
90 claiming to be staff
She was told of this reprimand in response to her reapplication. Some
'citizens' don't like how things were done. She has not spoken on the
matter. Why not let her justify herself?
DRACO: Although I agree that Marius Fimbria should speak here now as well, I
need to ask why the Senate couldn't wait issueing the Reprimand until he
would be a citizen again and would be offered a fair, private trial.
Valete,
Sextus Apollonius Draco, civis Novae Romae
L Equitius: I agree, but the reprimand was issued only upon her return to citizenship and she was informed so when she reapplied.
BTW the Reprimand was not a "Nota" hearing. "Nota" are a 'tool' of the Censores, not the Praetores.
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution_new2.html
IV. Magistrates. A. The ordinarii,
1. Censor. Two censors shall be elected by the comitia centuriata to serve a term lasting two years, to be elected in alternate years so as to have a one-year overlap of terms. They shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
1.. To safeguard the public morality and honor through the collegial administering of nota;
1.. A nota against an ordinary individual is sufficient to deprive that individual of the right to vote until such time as it is removed;
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/973019077/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Reprimand to Fimbria |
| From: |
"Quintus Iulius Camillus Caesar " <IuliusCamillus@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:04:52 -0000 |
|
Salvete ~
I raise in temerity from the back of the room to express my two cents
on this thread, being a newer citizen and not totally read on the
extensive history. To me there seems to be several distinct issues
facing NR because of this Official reprimand.
The first is the act of impersonation of one cive by another. It
seems to me that this should be resolved between the two cives and an
appropriate apology submitted. (Isn't there a saying that - I
paraphrase - Imitation is the highest form of flattery?) Now where
this becomes tricky is that the offended was a Senator, Pontifex and
augur and Fimbria may have impersonated him in that capacity. Being
a former military man, you may not respect the person but respect
their office/rank. There was sacrifice and hard work by a member to
attain the office and rank. This is where I differ from some people
and believe that you may not respect, like or agree with someone but
if they are in a position of authority or responsibility respect the
office the hold. So in that respect there should have been some non-
judicial ruling made.
The disturbing fact is that a trial was held in secret without set
procedures, from what I can tell. This is troublesome and needs to
be rectified. There should be some sort of edictum that spells out
judicial and non-judicial procedures. This whole reprimand looks
like vendetta, it may not be, but sure looks like and perception is
very powerful.
Well let me take my seat and continue to observe the evolution of NR.
Valete
Q. Iulius Camillus Caesar
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/973019107/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: One Senator's Opinions |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:10:41 -0500 |
|
L Equitius Quiritibus S P D
Just a few comments to set the record.
T Labienus C Flavio Quiritibusque S P D
CFD: Interesting point. I hope that a discussion will start about that topic. In my opinion the Senate is a advisory body, issuing consulta about the aforesaid matters. As far as I know, Romans always consulted their (public or private) consilium before doing something important. The Senate is the consilium of the central magistates.
T Labienus: That is my understanding of the Senate's role as well. The function of the senatus consultum is to provide a lasting record of the Senate's opinion upon matters of policy. Nova Roma's constitution goes a little further than this by stating that the Senate is the supreme policy-making authority.
In an effort to continue the saner side of the discussion about the reprimand, I'll throw out a few more opinions.
First, it has been argued that the issuance of the recent reprimand was done with the intent of deterring further impersonations of public officials and other citizens, rather than to punish a citizen who had committed that act. It seems to me that this purpose would have been served better by an unambiguous statement to that effect which mentioned no citizen by name, or which merely alluded to L Marius' impersonation of L Equitius as a case in point. After participating in the Senate's deliberations over the reprimand, it is my belief that punishing L Marius was the primary intent.
L Equitius: I did request that my name be left off the document; however, to leave the name of the perpetrator off would serve no purpose. Really, should she have been lauded for her actions? In any case there was ample opportunity to have made such a suggestion before the vote.
T Labienus: In fact, (IIRC) all punishments inflicted upon Nova Roman citizens to date, with the exception of L Equitius' temporary exile, have been imposed by the Senate. That body has, to date, issued two reprimands, fined a citizen, and sent another into exile. All of these things ought to have been left to the praetores, and ought to have been used as an opportunity to establish our judicial system.
L Equitius: At the time of all but one of the above examples the "old" constitution was in effect and the Senate had the power to do those things. The "Fine" however was imposed by a Praetor Urbanus. Also, do you think that Praetores alone should have the power to Exile? (of course they can be Vetoed by a Consul or the Tribunes) In addition, until the time of the dictator there were no COMITIA to hold trials, let alone elections, which precipitated the Dictatoship, if you will recall correctly.
T Labienus: Second, we need to determine to what degree senatus consulta are binding upon individual citizens. As I have stated above, the Senate has taken it upon itself to issue consulta directed at individuals in the past, and seems likely to continue in the assumption that this is its right. Do others concur with me that the ancient practice and modern constitution alike disagree with this opinion, and that the Senate should limit itself (or be limited by law) to commenting on broad issues of policy?
L Equitius: The Constitution has addressed this giving broad discretion to the Senate.
(I know some people are really bothered by my citation of relevant documents, but many find them useful)
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution_new2.html
"V. The Senate. The supreme policy-making authority for Nova Roma shall be embodied in its Senate. The album Senatorium (list of Senators) shall be maintained by the censors according to qualifications set by law. The Senate shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
A. As the repository of experience and wisdom in the affairs of State, the Senate shall have the authority to issue Senatus consulta (advice of the Senate) on those topics upon which it shall see fit to comment."
L Equitius: In this case the Senate issued a reprimand only, no fine or any other sanction. I'm sure there were examples of the Senate in antiquity voting it's displeasure with certian individuals just as they voted Tri
CFD: As provincial official, I do the same when I correspond with interested non-citizens. Senator, this is the right point, in my opinion. But, as I said above, there should be a discussion about that.
T Labienus: I couldn't agree more, Cai Flavi. It is an informed and active populace engaged in an ongoing dialogue about the important matters of state that keeps a state healthy. Once the dialogue ends, the organization dies.
L Equitius: Certainly, let's hear comments and give ideas. I would be glad to hear an alternative to a reprimand for Impersonating a citizen, let alone an official. Other online communities suspend individuls for impersonation, and in the real world, which as dual citizens of Nova Roma we are, such actions are subject to fine and imprisonment.
May MARS protect us!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/973019247/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] My last words on the subject |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:16:23 -0500 |
|
Salvete,
My last words on the subject. I had only been able to bring charges against Lucia Maria when I discovered she was the one doing the impersonation! That is why it Appears to have been so long in coming.
"RESPONDEO:" and marked their ending with "/".
Lucius Equitius: I suppose that this means you approve of her
conduct? ...
RESPONDEO: I clarify my position below. In fact I have some
reservations about some of Marius' specific actions, but it does seem
that the great zeal of your enmity against this person is a greater
evil in itself and to Nova Roma. /
Lucius Equitius: Right, attack the victim for seeking justice.
Lucius Equitius: Actually this is untrue, she took sides in a debate
between SENATORES and deleted my responses to inaccuracies made by
other Senatores, while allowing them to continue making statements.
She could have just as easily "obliged" herself to "discipline" each
side in that discussion, nonne?
RESPONDEO: I am not presuming to judge with any finality whether you really deserved the attentions of the curator...
Lucius Equitius: I never said I wasn't upset at her actions, what of it? I should be pleased? I should do nothing? I did nothing for over a year until I had evidence of her Impersonation that was the last straw thank you very much.
Formosanus: Marius at random for his membership in a sexual minority and then for a mere prank./
Lucius Equitius: Impersonation, not prank, and I didn't post the Edict you so disagree with, so confine your statements to the facts.
Lucius Equitius: Sulla actually worked with the Senate AND his colleague to produce a workable solution to this problem. IF you disagree with the result, that is your opinion.
RESPONDEO: Yes, it is my opinion, which I stand by.
Lucius Equitius: As I stand by mine, that it was a very good compromise.
RESPONDEO: I do not have personal access to senatorial records due to the policy of secrecy of the Senate. However, from my sources with access I have heard descriptions which testified to the extreme emotionality, the length and the obsessiveness of your declamations on the subject. And it is clear also from the results that you have been a principal motor in the drive to denigrate, humilitate, disempower and generally be nasty to Marius.
Lucius Equitius: That is fine. I have always considered those things post to the Senate to be *not* confidential. You have a very easy way with adjectives in describing things to suit your perspective. Have you every considered the fact that many things SHE did were Mean and Nasty? Huh? You haven't been around her that long you know.
If in fact you did not so orate in the Senate, then why don't you
publish here or post in some public place the *complete* set of
speeches you made in the Senate relating to Marius? We can get other
senators to testify that it was complete, and then the whole of the
populus could see whether or not they were fair, balanced, moderate,
and humane in tone, rather than being as I characterised them. Fair
enough?/
Lucius Equitius: So you would have me stand some sort of trial? for what purpose? To prove that I denounced Fimbria. Of course I did and I was the most vocal too since I had no advocate to speak on my behalf as a VICTIM.
RESPONDEO:
Untruth: That Marius engaged in "negative propaganda".
Lucius Equitius: There was proof of her actions, there were witnesses as well. The Senate even received complaints of her Forum conduct.
RESPONDEO: Excuse me my cynicism if I suggest that the things left
off were not omitted by you, but by others?/
Lucius Equitius: Not at all, but I didn't write it Document so I didn't put anything into it. I did make suggestions as all Senatores were able to do.
Lucius Equitius: Impersonation, that's the crime. Not opinionating or
you would be in deep Kimchi my friend. We can disagree but do you
need to resort to personal attacks? That and Impersonation, hardly
the tools of someone who has reasonable arguments.
RESPONDEO: Quite right - ... And I will addthat insofar as I have had a chance to come into contact with your pontifical work I had no cause for complaint.
<SNIP>
If Marius was engaged in an actual instigation or even a literal wish to kill you or have you commit suicide, you would have every reason to treat the matter in deadly earnest and expect others to. But I am fully confident that if he had it in his power to kill you and get away scott free, he would not do so.
Lucius Equitius: I don't share your assessment of the situation or her feelings.
Marius is not malicious, but playful.
Lucius Equitius: I don't share this opinion and I have seen her in action longer than you.
2. It was not an attempt to lower your dignitas among others -...
Lucius Equitius: Really? Then why do it at all? She could have done herself instead.
3. It was not a preplanned plot, but just what emerged out of a certain set of circumstances and people in a recreation area...
Lucius Equitius: Were you there? Had to be, you know So much. Or is Fimbria feeding you info?
I myself would not have felt comfortable in participating in the playlet of Marius and company...
Lucius Equitius: So why do you defend her? She was wrong plain and simple.
RESPONDEO: An apology was made one of the conditions presented to Marius for to regain his citizenship. I hardly feel that this could have been unknown to you. If you did not want it, why was it included?
Lucius Equitius: I have repeatedly stated I didn't want it. I object to the inclusion of that condition in the Senate. Yes, I knew of it, but you will have to ask the Censores why it was a condition despite objections to it's inclusion from myself and others.
Lucius Equitius: I'm so sorry to disappoint you, but I suppose you
never considered how her actions impacted me. You have decided that
she is correct and that I'm the villain without ever hearing from me.
Now who is being 'unjust'?
RESPONDEO: My contact addresses, nicks, codes, etc. are listed at the bottom of most of my communications; it is not impossible to reach me normally (albeit I have had a bit of technical difficulty recently)...
Lucius Equitius: Right, but I have not had cause to contact you, as you have not contacted me. Yet you still assume to know me. You would have me check with you before I take any action? Do you check with me first?
Lucius Equitius: She was told of this reprimand in response to her
reapplication. Some 'citizens' don't like how things were done. She
has not spoken on the matter. Why not let her justify herself?
RESPONDEO: Have you perhaps forgotten that under the "Conditions" on his renewed citizenship he is limited from appearing to attack others for a period of "probation"? Anything he might say in such a hostile environment might be used to show that he was violating this rule and lead to his permanent exile. Are you through this invitation attempting to goad him into taking that course of action?/
Lucius Equitius: I didn't bring up the Subject, did I? It is rather you who keeps instigating this issue.
L Equitius: The Reprimand was a statement from the Senate that IMPERSONATIONS of CITIZENS will not be condoned in Nova Roma.
RESPONDEO: I suppose that I will disappoint you by saying that I completely agree. We need lots of legislation in Nova Roma. Banning impersonation is a reasonable and good idea. In this case Marius played a basically harmless prank. The next time it could be a serious attempt by a less benevolent person to do ill.
Lucius Equitius: I don't think it was harmless. Interesting how what she did was "harmless" but I'm 'nasty, out to denigrate, humiliate, and disempowerment". I believe that those were her goals, what she wished for me and how she acted. I only acted after the fact of her actions.
*However* the way to deal with impersonation is proper legislation - not ex post facto "laws" (or arbitrary and dubiously legal senatorial "trials") against people who were unaware of its being illegal. And not aware because it was *not* illegal at the time it was done. That is not justice. People have a right to know in advance what is illegal.
Lucius Equitius: Please, Impersonation is illegal. She is a veteran of the Air Force, ask her what happens to someone who impersonates an officer. We are subject to the laws of the land we inhabit don't forget.
RESPONDEO: The use of public places and recreational areas for discussing the shortcomings of Nova Roma and its government - among other things - is precisely the proper use of said public facilities. The attempt to brand free speech "negative propaganda" is highly improper, and it will not get far./
Lucius Equitius: She didn't have a problem banning my discussions with another Senator, on this very list. She didn't show any of the 'clemency' you think should be given to her.
RESPONDEO: Again I respond: Natural Justice is binding upon all and applicable to all...
Lucius Equitius: This is your opinion. Do quit posting your opinions as if the only way to view things is from your point of view.
------------------- Mi Luci Equiti, I did not come to Nova Roma your enemy. I simply have
come to see that you are aggressing against a person who does not to my eyes seem to deserve that.
Valete! Marcus Apollonius Formosanus
Lucius Equitius: So you have taken the position that I'm the one who started this whole scene. That because she doesn't like me she is entitled to do whatever she likes, but I'm not to object nor seek justice.
Just wait until she decides you're not on her side... Just ask Sulla, Germanicus or me (yes, I once supported her until I found out what kind of person she is).
May MARS protect us!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/973019590/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: One Senator's Opinions |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:59:12 US/Central |
|
Salvete L Equiti et alii
> Just a few comments to set the record.
Was the record unset? Certainly not by me, with one notable exception below.
> L Equitius: I did request that my name be left off the document; however, to
> leave the name of the perpetrator off would serve no purpose. Really, should
> she have been lauded for her actions? In any case there was ample opportunity
> to have made such a suggestion before the vote.
Did I at any point state that the impersonation was to be lauded? There is
some middle ground between villification and adoration, and I reside firmly
within it. As for making my opinion known; I did so, though not as forcefully
as I might have done. Others, notably M Cassius and M Mucius, had made the
argument before me.
> L Equitius: At the time of all but one of the above examples the "old"
> constitution was in effect and the Senate had the power to do those things.
> The "Fine" however was imposed by a Praetor Urbanus. Also, do you think that
> Praetores alone should have the power to Exile? (of course they can be Vetoed
> by a Consul or the Tribunes) In addition, until the time of the dictator
> there were no COMITIA to hold trials, let alone elections, which precipitated
> the Dictatoship, if you will recall correctly.
Thank you. I stand corrected on the legality of L Cornelius' reprimand,
Fannius' (IIRC) fine, and Marconius' exile. Or, rather, my inadvertant
implication that they were illegal stands corrected. And, I understand that
the comitia did not exist. However, I never commented upon their *legality*.
I stand by my assertion that these things rightly belonged outside of the
Senate, and I still maintain that we should not continue to use the practices
that we have used to date in this regard.
As for exile, our new constitution is fairly explicit on the matter.
Citizenship may only be lost involuntarily through "those means established by
law." (None, at the moment.) And, currently, only the Comitia Centuriata has
the authority to try such cases. My opinion is that no governmental body
should be given the power to exile someone without a public trial before that
comitia.
> L Equitius: The Constitution has addressed this giving broad discretion to
> the Senate.
>
> (I know some people are really bothered by my citation of relevant
> documents, but many find them useful)
> http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/constitution_new2.html</a>
>
> "V. The Senate. The supreme policy-making authority for Nova Roma shall be
> embodied in its Senate. The album Senatorium (list of Senators) shall be
> maintained by the censors according to qualifications set by law. The Senate
> shall have the following honors, powers, and obligations:
> A. As the repository of experience and wisdom in the affairs of State, the
> Senate shall have the authority to issue Senatus consulta (advice of the
> Senate) on those topics upon which it shall see fit to comment."
>
> L Equitius: In this case the Senate issued a reprimand only, no fine or any
> other sanction. I'm sure there were examples of the Senate in antiquity
> voting it's displeasure with certian individuals just as they voted Tri
In no way does the passage you have cited define the degree to which senatus
consulta are binding upon individuals. "Advice" and "comments" are a far cry
from imposing punishments. And, nowhere does the constitution assert that
senatus consulta should be directed at anything but policy, which is general,
as opposed to individual cases, which are not.
> L Equitius: Certainly, let's hear comments and give ideas. I would be glad to
> hear an alternative to a reprimand for Impersonating a citizen, let alone an
> official. Other online communities suspend individuls for impersonation, and
> in the real world, which as dual citizens of Nova Roma we are, such actions
> are subject to fine and imprisonment.
Actually, I'm much more interested in the principle of law than the specific
case, L Equiti. That is, should the Senate, operating on a vague idea of
precedence and without definite rules, be authorized to inflict punishments
upon specific citizens as it sees fit? Or, is it preferable that the Senate
refrain from such action and confine itself to matters of policy?
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/973022353/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Censor Nota Hearing |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:11:47 -0800 |
|
Ave!
I believe we are all somewhat practical. As for your first paragraph you have my complete agreement.
As for your second paragraph, I slighly disagree. Here is why. I am a Censor of Nova Roma. I do not get paid for my services for Nova Roma. But let me tell you, it is the busiest job in Nova Roma. I have spent the entire month of April not sleeping becuase of my duty to Nova Roma. Beyond that, when I am active Censor, it usually means that I will spend an average of 2-3 hours per nite working on citizen applications. Not to mention my side projects that hopefully will increase communication between the citizens in Nova Roma. But, lets not forget the many emails regarding corrections to any of the 3 Albums. On top of this, I have my day job. On top of this I have my family to support. I think we all can make a little sacrafice to do some reading. Anyway, I am sure you all get my
point. :)
Actually I think its both Livia. (As per your 3rd paragraph).
Livia, and others, do you really know how busy the Censorship is? Well, if not let me explain it to you. Here is an Office that must function completely understaffed. Most of the work must be done by the Censors alone. This means dealing with citizens questions, correcting inaccurate information, notifying citizens that information has been changed, or giving citizens their information. On top of that, we are dealing with emails from people who would like information. Beyond that, we are dealing with applicants. Some of them go easy, and are approved immediately, but the vast majority are not, and they require extensive upkeep because without that they would fall through the cracks. This means that we must correct their names, get Pater Approval, switch Gens affiliation, make those
numerous changes on the database. Then approve, if they are still around, the new citizens. On top of that we must enter then in the database, make notes on each new citizen in the database, plus update our webmaster as per the citizen number. Now you might not think that doesnt take alot of time, but let me put you at ease. It takes ALOT of time. I would estimate 45 min PER application approval. Then, if me or my colleague is ill or is somehow not able to complete our task for the week, we then fall behind and must catch up. BEYOND all of this, yearly, or sometimes even more than a year we must reevaluate all the Century points of all citizens, Tribal affiliations of all citizens, and redo all the voter codes for all citizens. On top of that we must set all of our new citizens up
with all of the above. That is our first priority as Censors. When, we move on from that, we try to find methods of making our job easier. 4 hour phone calls with my colleague are not uncommon. THEN, we deal with other issues like our censorship handbook, which due to how busy we have been this entire year, we have never really been able to get it started!!! Becuase we have been busy with the above. However, if by chance we do have some time, we try to fix some issues that seem to be creating a stir. For example, the name change Edicta. We rewrote my original edictum to something that was more workable, that took about 2 months to do. Then we wrote the resignation Edictum, that too took about 2 months. So, we, the Censors really dont have the time to start working on procedures for
various powers the Censorship has til we face that fork in the road. I do hope you understand. And, I do apologize if my email sounds a bit harsh, but, if you dont like the way that the Censorship is organized or running. Please run for the Censorship yourself. I have issued this challenge to a few citizens. I am interested to see what will happen in December.
I believe my post yesterday answers your issue about communication. The Censors discussed whether or not we should communicate this case to the People, both Censors agreed it would be a more equitiable case for this hearing to be held in privacy.
As for the list of books, the Tabularium is not the venue for that. That would be in the Marcellum where our citizens can buy them via amazon.com. I have tried to get books added to that. I think other people would be better in trying to go about getting additional books on that. As a matter of fact I had that idea for the Musarum.
Sulla Felix
Censor
gmvick32@-------- wrote:
> Quirities
>
> I am a practical person. I see administration of the state of Nova Roma and research into the forms of goverment as two complimentary, supporting, but distinctly separate, items.
>
> As a person with limited time, I expect that doing a quantity of original reading and research into ancient roman law shouldn't be a pre-qualification for understanding the Nova Roma institutions. I have many books on Rome I'm trying to find time to read, it's not incumbent on me to wage a scholarly campaign before grasping our government. That should be self-evidenced by the Nova Roma documentation itself.
>
> It's not a matter of lowering the bar for poor, inadequate Livi. It's a matter of documenting and publishing the procedure you used.
>
> Furthermore, it IS incumbent on the magistrates (i.e. Censors) to provide appropriate levels of communication around affairs of state, especially given the mediated environment we operate in. Maybe not in your minds, but certainly in mine, and I DO count by virtue of the fact that you need me, and all the other non-magistrial but active cives, if you want Nova Roma to thrive and exist long after you. Not only was Rome not built in a day, it wasn't built by one or a few good men and women. There are no heroes among us (except maybe Germanicus and Cassius, who started it all).
>
> I maintain the censors didn't communicate adequately enough or early enough. I point that out to help you be better magistrates, not to antagonize you.
>
> So, yes, thank you for clarifying it's a Nota hearing on charges of abuse of public morality. Thank you for pointing out (privately, not publicly where all could benefit from your wisdom) the exact clause in the constitution giving censors jurisdiction over nota hearings. [Cives: see constitution from 12/31/99, paragraph IV(A)(1)(f)(1).]
>
> I'm glad you appointed an independent iudex. I just despise the secrecy with which it was done.
>
> I STILL had to figure out on my own the purpose of this hearing. For her abrogation of public morality and honor, a hearing is convened on the issue of depriving Mari the right to vote for an unspecified time. That's directly from the constitution. Right? Wrong? Not my issue.
>
> Since she IS charged with offending PUBLIC morality, the public ought to be kept apprised of how and when it's being dealt with. That's my issue.
>
> Livia Cornelia Aurelia
>
> BTW, if you ARE going to expect citizens to read up on Roman law, you'd best post a permanent recommended reading list in the Tabularium to make sure we're all as appropriately read as you.
>
> "L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
>
> > Ave Livia and others!
> >
> > As for your paragraph about not pointing you to this or that document. I think that is not a good attitude. Here is why I think that. Our laws and edictas are stepping stones. They are foundations to rebuilding the republic. What you should do is to read more about the subject that you have questions in. For example, I am sure there are many people in Nova Roma more knowledgable in matters of Roman Jurisprudence, so in an effort to lower that difference. This one text that I have, Roman Law an Historical Introduction is a good first step. I have a few more at home, but this is small enough that I can take it to my work and read it. To get back to the point I am trying to make. If you have questions, ask them. I am sure someone will be able to help. Just as our chats on AIM.
> >
> > I am definately open to comments in this post.
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix - Censor and Pater.
> >
>
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/973023913/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Reprimand |
| From: |
SyanneRose@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:35:19 EST |
|
Salvete Omnes,
For the last three days or so, I have been recieving e-mails on a reprimand.
The reprimand of L.Marius Fimbria, it may be perhaps rude of me to ask this.
But could we please drop this matter? From what I have read she/he has
apoologized for his/her actions. Could we not just forgive and forget, to
move on and prepare for the elections? That is all I have to say for now.
Valete
Aeternia
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/973024795/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Happy Samhain |
| From: |
SyanneRose@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 15:39:23 EST |
|
Salvete Omnes,
Yes it is I, yet again. I wanted to wish everyone a Happy Hallow's
Eve/Samhain. To all the kidlets out there, don't eat too much candy,
that's what I used to do when I was a wee elf. Eat alot candy so I wouldn't
have to go to school. Okay enough reminiscing, have a happy
holiday.
Valete
Aeternia
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/61050/_/973024896/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Censor Nota Hearing |
| From: |
"Lauriat" <blauriat@--------> |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:31:36 -0500 |
|
Having read this posting, I would just like to offer my commendation and
sincere appreciation to the censors, who put in so much time and effort for
the maintenance and expansion of Nova Roma, and for that matter, to all of
our Nova Roman officials at all levels. Fallible though you all may be,
controversial as you certainly are, nevertheless, I think it's just
incredible that you are all willing to do so much to keep alive and real
something that is, as of yet, fundamentally intangible.
-Lauria Maria Crispa
(Incidentally, I'm still around; I am working with Nova Roma, BU and reading
postings...unfortunately I am also taking mid-terms, filling out grad school
applications and writing papers and have thus, been rather quiet)
----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Cornelius Sulla <alexious@-------->
To: <gmvick32@-------->; NovaRoma <novaroma@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [novaroma] Censor Nota Hearing
> Ave!
>
> I believe we are all somewhat practical. As for your first paragraph you
have my complete agreement.
>
> As for your second paragraph, I slighly disagree. Here is why. I am a
Censor of Nova Roma. I do not get paid for my services for Nova Roma. But
let me tell you, it is the busiest job in Nova Roma. I have spent the
entire month of April not sleeping becuase of my duty to Nova Roma. Beyond
that, when I am active Censor, it usually means that I will spend an average
of 2-3 hours per nite working on citizen applications. Not to mention my
side projects that hopefully will increase communication between the
citizens in Nova Roma. But, lets not forget the many emails regarding
corrections to any of the 3 Albums. On top of this, I have my day job. On
top of this I have my family to support. I think we all can make a little
sacrafice to do some reading. Anyway, I am sure you all get my
> point. :)
>
> Actually I think its both Livia. (As per your 3rd paragraph).
>
> Livia, and others, do you really know how busy the Censorship is? Well,
if not let me explain it to you. Here is an Office that must function
completely understaffed. Most of the work must be done by the Censors
alone. This means dealing with citizens questions, correcting inaccurate
information, notifying citizens that information has been changed, or giving
citizens their information. On top of that, we are dealing with emails from
people who would like information. Beyond that, we are dealing with
applicants. Some of them go easy, and are approved immediately, but the
vast majority are not, and they require extensive upkeep because without
that they would fall through the cracks. This means that we must correct
their names, get Pater Approval, switch Gens affiliation, make those
> numerous changes on the database. Then approve, if they are still around,
the new citizens. On top of that we must enter then in the database, make
notes on each new citizen in the database, plus update our webmaster as per
the citizen number. Now you might not think that doesnt take alot of time,
but let me put you at ease. It takes ALOT of time. I would estimate 45 min
PER application approval. Then, if me or my colleague is ill or is somehow
not able to complete our task for the week, we then fall behind and must
catch up. BEYOND all of this, yearly, or sometimes even more than a year we
must reevaluate all the Century points of all citizens, Tribal affiliations
of all citizens, and redo all the voter codes for all citizens. On top of
that we must set all of our new citizens up
> with all of the above. That is our first priority as Censors. When, we
move on from that, we try to find methods of making our job easier. 4 hour
phone calls with my colleague are not uncommon. THEN, we deal with other
issues like our censorship handbook, which due to how busy we have been this
entire year, we have never really been able to get it started!!! Becuase we
have been busy with the above. However, if by chance we do have some time,
we try to fix some issues that seem to be creating a stir. For example, the
name change Edicta. We rewrote my original edictum to something that was
more workable, that took about 2 months to do. Then we wrote the
resignation Edictum, that too took about 2 months. So, we, the Censors
really dont have the time to start working on procedures for
> various powers the Censorship has til we face that fork in the road. I do
hope you understand. And, I do apologize if my email sounds a bit harsh,
but, if you dont like the way that the Censorship is organized or running.
Please run for the Censorship yourself. I have issued this challenge to a
few citizens. I am interested to see what will happen in December.
>
> I believe my post yesterday answers your issue about communication. The
Censors discussed whether or not we should communicate this case to the
People, both Censors agreed it would be a more equitiable case for this
hearing to be held in privacy.
>
> As for the list of books, the Tabularium is not the venue for that. That
would be in the Marcellum where our citizens can buy them via amazon.com. I
have tried to get books added to that. I think other people would be better
in trying to go about getting additional books on that. As a matter of fact
I had that idea for the Musarum.
>
> Sulla Felix
> Censor
>
> gmvick32@-------- wrote:
>
> > Quirities
> >
> > I am a practical person. I see administration of the state of Nova Roma
and research into the forms of goverment as two complimentary, supporting,
but distinctly separate, items.
> >
> > As a person with limited time, I expect that doing a quantity of
original reading and research into ancient roman law shouldn't be a
pre-qualification for understanding the Nova Roma institutions. I have many
books on Rome I'm trying to find time to read, it's not incumbent on me to
wage a scholarly campaign before grasping our government. That should be
self-evidenced by the Nova Roma documentation itself.
> >
> > It's not a matter of lowering the bar for poor, inadequate Livi. It's a
matter of documenting and publishing the procedure you used.
> >
> > Furthermore, it IS incumbent on the magistrates (i.e. Censors) to
provide appropriate levels of communication around affairs of state,
especially given the mediated environment we operate in. Maybe not in your
minds, but certainly in mine, and I DO count by virtue of the fact that you
need me, and all the other non-magistrial but active cives, if you want Nova
Roma to thrive and exist long after you. Not only was Rome not built in a
day, it wasn't built by one or a few good men and women. There are no
heroes among us (except maybe Germanicus and Cassius, who started it all).
> >
> > I maintain the censors didn't communicate adequately enough or early
enough. I point that out to help you be better magistrates, not to
antagonize you.
> >
> > So, yes, thank you for clarifying it's a Nota hearing on charges of
abuse of public morality. Thank you for pointing out (privately, not
publicly where all could benefit from your wisdom) the exact clause in the
constitution giving censors jurisdiction over nota hearings. [Cives: see
constitution from 12/31/99, paragraph IV(A)(1)(f)(1).]
> >
> > I'm glad you appointed an independent iudex. I just despise the secrecy
with which it was done.
> >
> > I STILL had to figure out on my own the purpose of this hearing. For
her abrogation of public morality and honor, a hearing is convened on the
issue of depriving Mari the right to vote for an unspecified time. That's
directly from the constitution. Right? Wrong? Not my issue.
> >
> > Since she IS charged with offending PUBLIC morality, the public ought to
be kept apprised of how and when it's being dealt with. That's my issue.
> >
> > Livia Cornelia Aurelia
> >
> > BTW, if you ARE going to expect citizens to read up on Roman law, you'd
best post a permanent recommended reading list in the Tabularium to make
sure we're all as appropriately read as you.
> >
> > "L. Cornelius Sulla" wrote:
> >
> > > Ave Livia and others!
> > >
> > > As for your paragraph about not pointing you to this or that document.
I think that is not a good attitude. Here is why I think that. Our laws
and edictas are stepping stones. They are foundations to rebuilding the
republic. What you should do is to read more about the subject that you
have questions in. For example, I am sure there are many people in Nova
Roma more knowledgable in matters of Roman Jurisprudence, so in an effort to
lower that difference. This one text that I have, Roman Law an Historical
Introduction is a good first step. I have a few more at home, but this is
small enough that I can take it to my work and read it. To get back to the
point I am trying to make. If you have questions, ask them. I am sure
someone will be able to help. Just as our chats on AIM.
> > >
> > > I am definately open to comments in this post.
> > >
> > > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix - Censor and Pater.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/973027860/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Consular Staff |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@-------- |
| Date: |
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:54:04 -0500 (EST) |
|
Salve, Honored Senate Fathers and Nova Roma Citizens;
I, Marcus Minucius Audens, Junior Consul, stands in Forum to make the
following announcement:
At the beginning of this year, upon my electon to the Honored Position
of Consul, I realized that in order to pursue this office effectively,
it would be necessary for me to appoint a staff of people who would be
able to advise me, point out certain items for my edification and
provide me with views, that perhaps differed from my own. I have long
known that it is wise for me to surround myself with those who have
thier own ideas, and who will not back down from thier ideals just on my
say so. That being said, I set about gathering together a Consular
Staff, and today, I wish to introduce these Staff Members who have
served me very well, giving me the benefit of thier ideas, thier views,
thier information and thier options. I have been extremely fortunate,
in that each of these citizens have been extremely helpful, loyal, and
straightforward. I hasten to assure you that none of these citizens
come under the guise of Clients, but rather I think of them as my
friends, some I have met face to face, and some I hope soon to meet. My
purpose in introducing them to you, is that I have urged some of them to
run for office, and I want you to know how well they have served me in
the year that they have been with me:
Gaius Marius Merullus- Censor Suffex and Senator:
Merullus has served as my Advisor Major during the year and until he was
loaded down with the job of Censor Suffex kept Consular records, advised
me on a variety of subjects, and called upon the other three advisors
for specific comments or tasks that I had requested. Merrulus has
always been in his responses to my queries and questions extremely
balanced in his views, and amazingly precise in his advice, options, and
reports. He has demonstrated to me a sincere desire to "do things the
right way" and get it right the first time. He has also demonstrated a
complete ability to work with virtually anyone regardless of thier
political or social views, and get things done. He has been
instrumental in laying the groundwork and the basic ideas / guidelines
for the Sodalitas Egressus as well as pursuing his duties as Advisor
Major. From my assoociation with Merrulus I would unhesitatingly
recommend him for whatever position in Nova Roma that he felt himself
qualified to stand for. His work with me in the Senate and in the
Censors Office has been exemplary.
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo-Scriba, holds two major offices one in each of
the Sodalitas Egressus and Sodalitas Militarium.
Pompeia joined me as my Consular Scriba, and still refers to herself in
that office , but she has done much more. It will be hard for me to
deliniate her tasks since, usually whatever needs to be done, simply
gets done. She is one of the few people in Nova Roma or anywhere else
who has my authority to "take care of problems" and then tell me what
she did. She has simply filled in when my Advisor Major was overwhelmed
with other responsibilities and the workload was always taken care of.
I trust her explicitly and she has never failed to notify me of new and
vital information of particular interest, even to the extent of callng
on the phone. If E-Mail would not be fast or effective enough. She has
completed every task undertaken in the short term, and her long term
responsibilities, show sure and positive advances. She is
straightfrward, honest, hardworking and is in addition quiet and
thoughtful. Her posts reveal her interest in Nova Roma while at the
same time reflecting her love of the people here and her gentle nature.
She has been a real pleasure to work with, and has done the work
effectively of two or three people. Again I would not hesitate to
recomend her for any position that she felt that she would be qualified
to stand for.
Nicholas Morovius (Vado)--Consular Chaplain ProPraetor Provincia
Britannia and Senate Candidate;
Nick comes to me as the guy with the European view, and keeps me
straight in my view of other countries, and thier needs. He has been
extremely forthcoming as an advisor in the Religio Romano and has
accepted the position of my Chaplain in order to assst me in my
responsibiities toward the Gods of Roma, and Religious considerations.
He is an amusing colleague, and his posts are a joy to read. He has
some very passionate views and does not hesitate to give me the benefit
of both the views and the background, which has been extremely valuable.
He has been very generous in sharing with me, some of the personal views
that we Amercans sometimes forget in our dealings with those of other
countries, and he has some excellent ideas in the areas of
administartive organization and is in his own way an excellent recruiter
and organizer. Vado is a doer, and his response to my requests are
always detailed, and specific. I would be most pleased to recommeed him
for any organizational office or task that needs an organizer and
go-getter.
Claudius Nigellus--Consular Advisor
Nigellus has provided me with some excellent views in the areas that I
have assigned him. he has some unique views, and his reasoning behind
his views is impressive. Nigellus is a quiet gentleman and is gentle in
nature preferring to reason out situations rather that make a lot of
noise. His quiet recommendations and data to back up his views, makes
determinations based on solid information easy to make. I would
recommend Nigellus for any beginning magistrates position that he
thought himself qualified to apply for.
In closing, I wish to thank the above Consular Staff for thier
assistance throughout this year, and for thier outstanding efforts on
the part of Nova Roma. Moreso, for the fact that they labored unseen
and unsung for the benefi of the micronation, and in order to gain some
experience and some grasp of this organization and how it works. I am
sure that in the coming year you will see great things from each of
these excellent Advisors. My best to you all, and you certainly have my
support in yu future NR endeavors!!!!
Vale, Respectfully and With Deep Appreciation;
Marcus Minucius Audens
(Note: I also have four additional staff members who have not been with
me quite so long. I will review thier efforts at a later time--MMA)
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/8/_/61050/_/973032850/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
|
