Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Media Group
From:	"Mark Bird" <markbird@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:57:07 +1000

Of course - the focus of the Group will be to pool specific resources with
similar skill sets and equipment to take on specific projects for Nova Roma.

Marcus Sentius Claudius
-----Original Message-----
From:
sentto-1520-21399-988131222-markbird=waterbyrdfilmz.com.au@--------
om
[mailto:sentto-1520-21399-988131222-markbird=waterbyrdfilmz.com.au@--------
nelist.com]On Behalf Of mike rasschaert
Sent: Wednesday, 25 April 2001 2:07
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Media Group


And artists. i'm an artist in training at an artschool in Ghent, Belgium.
I
also write stories and draw as paint. Can they join.


>From: "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: <novaroma@-------->
>Subject: RE: [novaroma] Media Group
>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:20:28 -0400
>
>Salve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark A Bird [mailto:mark_a_bird@--------]
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 20:26
> >
> > I wish to start a list of citizens who are able to commit high end
media
> > resources to the benefit of the development of Nova Roma - if any
>citizen
>is
> > involved in the media (production / video / film) can they email me
>either
> > at this list or at :
> >
> > mark_a_bird@--------
> > markbird@--------
> >
> > I am thinking of pooling our resources together to produce something
> > tangible for our young republic.
>
>If I may, you might find some interest among the Sodalitas Egressus
(which
>is involved specifically in such "outreach" programs to get the word out
>about Nova Roma). Your high-end media project sounds right up our alley.
I
>hope the powers-that-be forgive my presumption, but please do check out
the
>Sodalitas' email list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Egressus
>
>Next year in the Forum!
>
>Valete,
>
>Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
>Consul
>
>email: germanicus@--------
>AIM: Flavius Vedius
>www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>

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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:05:41 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> wrote:
> Salvete omnes; et salve, Consul Flavi Vedi Germanice.
>
> --- Flavius Vedius Germa--------s <germa--------s@--------> wrote: >
> (snipped)
>
> > The brief overview of the proposed lex is that Citizens who do pay
> > taxes are
> > classified as assidui, and those who do not are classified as
> > proletarii.
> > Citizens who are proletarii would still be Citizens, and still
have
> > the
> > right to vote, but would be gathered into a single Century
designated
> > for
> > that purpose, and be relegated to the four Urban Tribes.
Proletarii
> > would
> > also not be elegible to hold a magistracy or governorship.
> >
>
> Once again, Germanicus has proved his well known excellence. I
> completely support this proposal, for I feel it is very coherent
with
> everything I have been posting on this list.
>
> I would like to make a suggestion, though. Maybe scribae could be
> exempted from taxes. In this way, citizens who cannot pay taxes will
> still have a way out of the Proletarii. As most of these citizens
will
> probably be students, they will have enough time to dedicate to Nova
> Roma. And, increasing in such way the number of candidates for
scriba,
> many magistrates will see the burden of governing the Republic
> partially lessened.

Ave,

I disagree with your recommended change. I believe the appropriate
exemption would be if a magistrate had to purchase supplies out of
his own pocket, and could supply proof of the expenditure.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla

> Please, tell me what do you think about this idea. Thank you.
>
>
>
> =====
> Bene Valete!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Civis romanus.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:37:36 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, Censor Corneli Sulla.

>
> Ave,
>
> I disagree with your recommended change. I believe the appropriate
> exemption would be if a magistrate had to purchase supplies out of
> his own pocket, and could supply proof of the expenditure.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla
>

I've already suggested in other posts (in coalition with Caeso Fabius
Quintilianus) that those expenditures which magistrates may have during
the fulfillment of their duties should be proved in front of the Senate
and then paid back from the Aerarium.



=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Civis romanus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:43:03 -0700

on 4/24/01 5:37 PM, Gnaeus Salix Astur at salixastur@-------- wrote:

> Salvete omnes; et salve, Censor Corneli Sulla.
>
>>
>> Ave,
>>
>> I disagree with your recommended change. I believe the appropriate
>> exemption would be if a magistrate had to purchase supplies out of
>> his own pocket, and could supply proof of the expenditure.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Lucius Cornelius Sulla
>>
>
> I've already suggested in other posts (in coalition with Caeso Fabius
> Quintilianus) that those expenditures which magistrates may have during
> the fulfillment of their duties should be proved in front of the Senate
> and then paid back from the Aerarium.

Right,

But magistrates in general no matter what capacity should be taxed just like
every other citizen. It is my opinion that magistrates should pay even more
in comparision to regular citizens, not less.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:01:34 -0700 (PDT)

> -----
>
> LEX VEDIA DE ASSIDUI ET PROLETARII (proposed)
>
> I. This Lex Vedia de assidui et proletarii is hereby
> enacted to define the
> classifications of taxpayers and non-taxpayers, and
> put in place special
> conditions on those who are unable or unwilling to
> support the financial
> welfare of the Republic through payment of those
> taxes which may be enacted
> by the Senate.
>
> II. Citizens who pay taxes in such amount and in
> such manner as may be
> defined by the Senate shall be considered assidui.
> No special conditions
> shall be placed on assidui in regards to their
> placement in centuries and
> tribes or their ability to run for or hold office.
>
> III. Citizens who do not pay taxes in such amount
> and in such manner as may
> be defined by the Senate shall be considered
> proletarii. The following
> special conditions shall apply to proletarii:
>
> A. The Censors shall place all proletarii in
> the last century in Class
> V as defined in the Lex Vedia Centuriata and those
> leges which may amend it,
> and no other Citizens shall be enrolled therein.
>
> B. The Censors shall place all proletarii in
> the urban tribes as
> defined in the Lex Vedia Tributorum and those leges
> which may amend it.
>
> C. No member of the proletarii may run for or
> hold office as one of the
> ordinarii (including the apparitores), nor be
> appointed to or hold office as
> provincial governor. Proletarii may hold provincial
> or local offices at the
> discretion of the governor of the province in
> question.
>
> -----

Salvete Quirites,

I consider this to be a moderate and just lex, and I
shall certainly vote for it!

Some may look apon this as "punishment" directed at
those who chose not to contribute to Nova Roma's
government. I disagree, it is no more than a sensible
means of insuring that those who contribute will have
a greater voice in how Nova Roma is governed than
those who do not contribute.

The only problem I have with this law is very minor.
The term "proletarii" has acquired a secondary
postmarxist meaning that didn't exist when our
forefathers applied it to the citizens who paid no
taxes. I have found that the using the term
proletariat causes some people to come to unjustified
conculsions, so I personly avoid this term and use
"Capiti Censi" or headcount for this group of
citizens.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:16:34 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve Sicini Druse.

> The only problem I have with this law is very minor.
> The term "proletarii" has acquired a secondary
> postmarxist meaning that didn't exist when our
> forefathers applied it to the citizens who paid no
> taxes. I have found that the using the term
> proletariat causes some people to come to unjustified
> conculsions, so I personly avoid this term and use
> "Capiti Censi" or headcount for this group of
> citizens.
>
> Valete,
> L. Sicinius Drusus

I agree with you. "Capiti Censi" is more appropriate, and it even sonds
nicer. But what about the term "Assidui"? Is it historically correct?


=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Civis romanus.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:33:58 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@e...> wrote:
SNIP
>
> But magistrates in general no matter what capacity should be taxed
just like
> every other citizen. It is my opinion that magistrates should pay
even more
> in comparision to regular citizens, not less.


Salve Luci Corneli,

There is some justification for this. For example the Aediles did have
a fund for the games that were part of thier office, but were highly
praised if they also contributed funds from thier private purse. The
Ancient model was Magistrates weren't actually taxed higher, but were
lauded for using thier private funds to do a better than expected job
while in office, as you have done.

There was however a different means of taxing some citizens higher
than others. The Class assignments were based on a citizen's taxable
assets. The justification for giving the higher classes greater
powers, was they contributed more in taxes than the lower classes. If
we were to follow this model, then a citizen's taxes would be based on
the assets that determined his/her class. In our Republic that asset
is Century Points. Since Magistrates recive extra points this would
have the effect of taxing the Magistrates at a higher rate than other
citizens.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:40:22 -0700

on 4/24/01 6:33 PM, lsicinius@-------- at lsicinius@-------- wrote:

> --- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> SNIP
>>
>> But magistrates in general no matter what capacity should be taxed
> just like
>> every other citizen. It is my opinion that magistrates should pay
> even more
>> in comparision to regular citizens, not less.
>
>
> Salve Luci Corneli,
>
> There is some justification for this. For example the Aediles did have
> a fund for the games that were part of thier office, but were highly
> praised if they also contributed funds from thier private purse. The
> Ancient model was Magistrates weren't actually taxed higher, but were
> lauded for using thier private funds to do a better than expected job
> while in office, as you have done.
>
> There was however a different means of taxing some citizens higher
> than others. The Class assignments were based on a citizen's taxable
> assets. The justification for giving the higher classes greater
> powers, was they contributed more in taxes than the lower classes. If
> we were to follow this model, then a citizen's taxes would be based on
> the assets that determined his/her class. In our Republic that asset
> is Century Points. Since Magistrates recive extra points this would
> have the effect of taxing the Magistrates at a higher rate than other
> citizens.
>
> Vale,
> L. Sicinius Drusus

Ave,

Right, however Nova Roma has modified this in lieu of the reality of today's
world. But I agree with your assessment. Most Senior Magistrates have
contributed their monies for the advancement of Nova Roma. And, I hope most
magistrates who serve Nova Roma now are just as willing to contribute their
funds for Nova Roma.

In a sence the same Class function remains. Those magistrates who are
currently serving are awarded Century Points. Those people who serve Rome
are rewarded in Class position and Century alignment so in a round about way
we have retained that structure.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:48:30 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@--------> wrote:
> Salvete omnes; et salve Sicini Druse.
>
> > The only problem I have with this law is very minor.
> > The term "proletarii" has acquired a secondary
> > postmarxist meaning that didn't exist when our
> > forefathers applied it to the citizens who paid no
> > taxes. I have found that the using the term
> > proletariat causes some people to come to unjustified
> > conculsions, so I personly avoid this term and use
> > "Capiti Censi" or headcount for this group of
> > citizens.
> >
> > Valete,
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> I agree with you. "Capiti Censi" is more appropriate, and it even sonds
> nicer. But what about the term "Assidui"? Is it historically correct?
>
>
> =====
> Bene Valete!
> Gnaeus Salix Astur.
> Civis romanus.
>

the "Assidui" were the citizens who had the assets that were the basis
of taxiation and a citizens standing in the pre-marian legio, so it is
both accurate in the context of this law, and historically correct.

"Proletarii" originaly was a reference to these citizens only "duty",
to bear children. "Capiti Censi" refered to the miminal paperwork the
Censors had to deal with for these citizens. They had no taxable
assets to record, so nothing more was done than to count the number of
heads.
Drusus

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 02:16:00 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> on 4/24/01 6:33 PM, lsicinius@-------- at lsicinius@-------- wrote:
>
> > --- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@e...>
wrote:
> > SNIP
> >>
> >> But magistrates in general no matter what capacity should be taxed
> > just like
> >> every other citizen. It is my opinion that magistrates should pay
> > even more
> >> in comparision to regular citizens, not less.
> >
> >
> > Salve Luci Corneli,
> >
> > There is some justification for this. For example the Aediles did have
> > a fund for the games that were part of thier office, but were highly
> > praised if they also contributed funds from thier private purse. The
> > Ancient model was Magistrates weren't actually taxed higher, but were
> > lauded for using thier private funds to do a better than expected job
> > while in office, as you have done.
> >
> > There was however a different means of taxing some citizens higher
> > than others. The Class assignments were based on a citizen's taxable
> > assets. The justification for giving the higher classes greater
> > powers, was they contributed more in taxes than the lower classes. If
> > we were to follow this model, then a citizen's taxes would be based on
> > the assets that determined his/her class. In our Republic that asset
> > is Century Points. Since Magistrates recive extra points this would
> > have the effect of taxing the Magistrates at a higher rate than other
> > citizens.
> >
> > Vale,
> > L. Sicinius Drusus
>
> Ave,
>
> Right, however Nova Roma has modified this in lieu of the reality of
today's
> world. But I agree with your assessment. Most Senior Magistrates have
> contributed their monies for the advancement of Nova Roma. And, I
hope most
> magistrates who serve Nova Roma now are just as willing to
contribute their
> funds for Nova Roma.
>
> In a sence the same Class function remains. Those magistrates who are
> currently serving are awarded Century Points. Those people who
serve Rome
> are rewarded in Class position and Century alignment so in a round
about way
> we have retained that structure.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Ave,

I fully understand that the modern idea of one man one vote is too
firmly entreanched for a full return to the ancient model of giving
those who contribute more to the state greater powers.

While I also hope that Nova Roma's future Magistrates continue to show
the virtue of Liberalitas that our present Magistrates have shown. I
do have one concern.

Our present system of expecting our Magistrates to pay ALL the costs
of thier office evcludes many of our citizens from aspiring to serve
the Republic. I hear talk of how some citizens may not be able to
afford US $12.00 a year. Think of how many more citizens aren't able
to afford the far higher costs that holding a Magistracy now entails.
In effect we have a system that sets income requirements on holding a
Magistracy.

I hope that we can follow the Ancient model, that funds be made
avaible for the Magistrate to do a good job, and then heap praise on
those who suplement these funds from thier private purse to do an
outstanding job.

Drusus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:31:43 -0700

on 4/24/01 7:16 PM, lsicinius@-------- at lsicinius@-------- wrote:

> --- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@e...> wrote:
>> on 4/24/01 6:33 PM, lsicinius@-------- at lsicinius@-------- wrote:
>>
>>> --- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@e...>
> wrote:
>>> SNIP
>>>>
>>>> But magistrates in general no matter what capacity should be taxed
>>> just like
>>>> every other citizen. It is my opinion that magistrates should pay
>>> even more
>>>> in comparision to regular citizens, not less.
>>>
>>>
>>> Salve Luci Corneli,
>>>
>>> There is some justification for this. For example the Aediles did have
>>> a fund for the games that were part of thier office, but were highly
>>> praised if they also contributed funds from thier private purse. The
>>> Ancient model was Magistrates weren't actually taxed higher, but were
>>> lauded for using thier private funds to do a better than expected job
>>> while in office, as you have done.
>>>
>>> There was however a different means of taxing some citizens higher
>>> than others. The Class assignments were based on a citizen's taxable
>>> assets. The justification for giving the higher classes greater
>>> powers, was they contributed more in taxes than the lower classes. If
>>> we were to follow this model, then a citizen's taxes would be based on
>>> the assets that determined his/her class. In our Republic that asset
>>> is Century Points. Since Magistrates recive extra points this would
>>> have the effect of taxing the Magistrates at a higher rate than other
>>> citizens.
>>>
>>> Vale,
>>> L. Sicinius Drusus
>>
>> Ave,
>>
>> Right, however Nova Roma has modified this in lieu of the reality of
> today's
>> world. But I agree with your assessment. Most Senior Magistrates have
>> contributed their monies for the advancement of Nova Roma. And, I
> hope most
>> magistrates who serve Nova Roma now are just as willing to
> contribute their
>> funds for Nova Roma.
>>
>> In a sence the same Class function remains. Those magistrates who are
>> currently serving are awarded Century Points. Those people who
> serve Rome
>> are rewarded in Class position and Century alignment so in a round
> about way
>> we have retained that structure.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>>
>> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
> Ave,
>
> I fully understand that the modern idea of one man one vote is too
> firmly entreanched for a full return to the ancient model of giving
> those who contribute more to the state greater powers.
>
> While I also hope that Nova Roma's future Magistrates continue to show
> the virtue of Liberalitas that our present Magistrates have shown. I
> do have one concern.
>
> Our present system of expecting our Magistrates to pay ALL the costs
> of thier office evcludes many of our citizens from aspiring to serve
> the Republic. I hear talk of how some citizens may not be able to
> afford US $12.00 a year. Think of how many more citizens aren't able
> to afford the far higher costs that holding a Magistracy now entails.
> In effect we have a system that sets income requirements on holding a
> Magistracy.
>
> I hope that we can follow the Ancient model, that funds be made
> avaible for the Magistrate to do a good job, and then heap praise on
> those who suplement these funds from thier private purse to do an
> outstanding job.


Ave,

Well let me comment on this....first off this is my own opinion..I hope that
magistrates of the future will not HAVE to pay for all of the costs of their
office themselves. One of the reason I have been such a proponent of taxes
was to help alleviate SOME of that cost. As I posted before, I have paid
$500.00 last year alone to accomplish my duties as Censor. Hopefully with
the implementation of taxes (or dues) we can create some sort of rudimentary
budget. I have a draft of a budget that was created by Livia Marica and
myself last year when she and I chatted on AIM. I have posted that model to
the Senate last year when I ran out of funds to contribute to the
Censorship.

However, I do not think that the taxes should pay for ALL of the
expenditures. I think there is a certain amount of sacrifice one is
expected when one becomes a magistrate. We sacrifice our time and money to
help this organization. I think that is a very important aspect each
citizen must make if he/she decides they want to serve Nova Roma. Being a
magistrate is not an easy job. One should take time to deliberate on this
issue if they can afford the office both in the avenue of financial
expenditures and in time allocation.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	TSardonicus@--------
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:26:14 EDT

In a message dated 4/24/01 9:02:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
lsicinius@-------- writes:

> The term "proletarii" has acquired a secondary
> postmarxist meaning that didn't exist when our
> forefathers applied it to the citizens who paid no
> taxes. I have found that the using the term
> proletariat causes some people to come to unjustified
> conculsions....


Salve L. Sicinius Drusus,

I see nothing wrong with the term Proletariat that a bit of definition within
the Lex won't cure. The Random House College Dictionary defines proletariat
as, "1. the working class, including esp. those who do not possess capital
and must sell their labor to survive. 2. (in ancient Rome) the unpropertied
class."

I was a member of the US Military before becoming a citizen of Nova Roma and
took minor exception to the term Plebe until I read up on the subject. The
dictionary definition of Plebe is much more derogatory than that of
Proletariat.

Vale,
T. Lucius Sardonicus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:59:48 -0500 (CDT)

Salve T Luci,

> I see nothing wrong with the term Proletariat that a bit of definition within
> the Lex won't cure. The Random House College Dictionary defines proletariat
> as, "1. the working class, including esp. those who do not possess capital
> and must sell their labor to survive. 2. (in ancient Rome) the unpropertied
> class."

Even if we define it, some people will have a negative reaction upon
first seeing the word, and might view the explanation in the lex with
suspicion.

I think "capite censi" is a better term. It has no modern connotation,
and the only people who understand what it means will likely understand
our meaning originally, and not take offense.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Taxes and The survey
From:	"J. T. Sibley" <jrsibley@-------->
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:58:05 -0400

Salve S. Apollonius Draco!
Thanks for posting in three languages! My, you are talented!


> 1. Would you pay a yearly membership fee/tax to Nova Roma of an estimated average of 12$ ?

yes

> 1a. If not, why?
> 1b. If you do, do you think non-paying members should suffer "penalties"?

In the SCA, there are non-paying members; they cannot vote for Territorial Baron/ess, and frequently have to pay more to attend events. They are not, however, cut off from SCA functions. To whom would we send the money? Overseas folks, where would they send the money? It can cost
money to have a check written out in foreign money (like, if I hafta get a check written out in kroner or francs, it costs me $25 and I have to go to a commercial bank!) Some arrangement would have to be made for this...

> 2. Do you agree with the language policy on the main list, that says that "non-English postings are not welcome if they are not accompanied by an English translation"?

Not really; there are enough Nova Romans floating around who can translate, if the original poster doesn't know English or feels uncomfortable in that language.

> 2a. Do you have the main list? Why (not)?

Yes...to keep up with what's going on.

> 2b. What languages do you speak?

English, Norwegian, French, a little German. I can understand Swedish and Danish just fine, too.

> 3. Other remarks?
>

It's *grand* to see so much interest in Nova Roma throughout the world!
Vale,
S. Ambrosia Fulvia

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	TSardonicus@--------
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:06:47 EDT

In a message dated 4/24/01 10:56:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
haase@-------- writes:

> I think "capite censi" is a better term. It has no modern connotation,
> and the only people who understand what it means will likely understand
> our meaning originally, and not take offense.

Salve,

I simply meant to point out that the term Plebian carries offensive modern
connotations and yet, to my knowledge, there is no objection to the Nova
Roman usage. Why the concern over over one and not the other?

Vale,
L. Tiberius Sardonicus

Subject:	[novaroma] Nova Roma
From:	"Mark Bird" <markbird@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:13:59 +1000

Ave

Is there some special stuff that needs to be done to become a member of
Sodalitas Egressus group as I applied three hours ago, and have not yet been
approved - I just want to post a message...

Vale,

Marcus Sentius Claudius
Legatuse Australia Austrorientalis

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Nova Roma
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:24:09 -0700

on 4/24/01 9:13 PM, Mark Bird at markbird@-------- wrote:

> Ave
>
> Is there some special stuff that needs to be done to become a member of
> Sodalitas Egressus group as I applied three hours ago, and have not yet been
> approved - I just want to post a message...
>
> Vale,
>
> Marcus Sentius Claudius
> Legatuse Australia Austrorientalis

Ave,

I think you need to give them some time....it is a Sodalitas so I am sure
there are some procedures they must do before you are apart of the list and
not everyone in NR has 24 hour accessibility to the Net. Please be patient.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Winner of Roma Conditio Laurel
From:	"Salonina Flacca" <saloninaflacca@-------->
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:28:57 -0700

Salvete Omnes,

A warm-hearted thanks to everyone for this great award....I am speechless.

Bene Valete,

Salonina Flacca
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick R. Ramos Jr. [mailto:nramos@--------]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 7:09 AM
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Winner of Roma Conditio Laurel


Salvete omnes!

It is with great pleasure that I, Marius Cornelius Scipio, with the
concurrence of my colleague, Titus Sertorius Albinus, hereby announce
the winner of the Roma Conditio Laurel:

And the laurel goes to Salonina Flacca, for her opus called:
"A Vineyard in Pompeii"!

Gratias multas to all who participated - you gave us such an arduous
task! The wide array and depth of talent displayed in this festival
heartens and inspires me to believe that our Urbs will grow towards
higher and higher achievements. May the Gods smile upon us all, and
may we all continue to benefit from this deep well of talent and
beauty!

Optime vale!

Marius Cornelius Scipio
Aedilis Curulis Nova Romani

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 04:30:29 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, TSardonicus@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/24/01 10:56:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> hu---------------- writes:
>
> > I think "capite censi" is a better term. It has no modern
connotation,
> > and the only people who understand what it means will likely
understand
> > our meaning originally, and not take offense.
>
> Salve,
>
> I simply meant to point out that the term Plebian carries offensive
modern
> connotations and yet, to my knowledge, there is no objection to the
Nova
> Roman usage. Why the concern over over one and not the other?
>
> Vale,
> L. Tiberius Sardonicus

Salve L. Tiberi,

Allthough Plebian has some negative modern connotations, there is no
equlivent term that carries the same meaning.

With capite censi and proletariat we have two terms that refer to the
same class of citizens, and capite censi dosen't have the modern
policital baggage that proletariat does.

Also proletariat was a derogitory term in ancient times. It refers to
citizens who's only contribution was to bear children and was used in
the same context that someone of today would refer to a person
recieving public aid as a "Baby Factory"

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	coriolanus@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 05:42:03 -0000

Salvete

To assign all non taxpayers into one century is punishment. Maybe you
feel it some other way but I feel it as someone has said "Pay or be
punished".

I don't want to talk about the fact, that taxes will put major part
of my family into insignificant part of nova roma population without
any political voice. (It'a a pity, but they are (me too) from poor
parts of the world).

Issue that seems more important to me is what part of gathered money
will stay in province? I will send my hard saved bucks and all I get
will be that some people in USA will make a record in their documents?
I give you money but I want something back.

And next issue is the way like to gather contributions. I have asked
financial offices around me, and I have found that it is quite
expensive to send money abroad. (there are local taxes, and bank
charges that reaches more than 10% )

Vale
Coriolanus














--- In novaroma@--------, Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@t...> wrote:
> Salvete, omnes.
>
> I'd just like to state my opinion, even if it's one not likely
shared
> with many other citizens.
>
> I'm opposed to all taxation and punishment because of failure. I'm
not
> saying that I'm not willing to contribute to Nova Roma, but I would
> prefer to do it on a voluntary basis. For example, if whoever does
the
> budget, one month before they start doing it, mail everyone, telling
> them that a (voluntary) donation of approx. $15 submitted thus-and-
thus
> would be good, I'd likely donate $30 without much hesitation.
> Admittedly, I'm a student, without as much money as some citizens
might
> have, but even $30 wouldn't seem too much, as long as it was
voluntary.
> It's just that part, "pay or be punished", (or downgraded,
> whatever...paying and non-paying citizens are separated, somehow)
that
> bothers me. Just a friendly mail, telling me that you need money,
and
> this is the quick and easy way to supply you with it. I don't
consider
> everything all the time, so a nice yearly reminder that I could
make a
> donation to Nova Roma, and all would be happy.
>
> Admittedly, this would probably not be as efficient as mandatory
taxes,
> but it would feel (To me, at least) much better. Just my opinion,
my
> thoughts.
>
> Valete,
>
> Titus Octavius Pius,
> Consiliarius Thules,
> Praeco Anarei Thules,
> Scriba to the Curator Araneum
>
> AKA Kristoffer From
>
> ---
>
> Si hoc signum legere potes,
> operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
> et fructuosis potiri potes.
>
> - Not-so-famous quotation

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Tue, 24 Apr 2001 22:51:17 -0700

Ave,

To take the position of devil's advocate in this....let me ask you a
question. Why should your vote be the same as mine. When I have paid $500
dollars to this organization and you dont pay any?

And, another question, to you since you do not have the funds to pay, is it
still something in your agenda to eventually run for office? If you do run
for office how do you plan to pay for the necessary expenses such as office
supplies or phone calls and such? Email only goes so far when a magistrate
accumlates over 200 emails a day (I average about 250 myself).

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

on 4/24/01 10:42 PM, coriolanus@-------- at coriolanus@-------- wrote:

> Salvete
>
> To assign all non taxpayers into one century is punishment. Maybe you
> feel it some other way but I feel it as someone has said "Pay or be
> punished".
>
> I don't want to talk about the fact, that taxes will put major part
> of my family into insignificant part of nova roma population without
> any political voice. (It'a a pity, but they are (me too) from poor
> parts of the world).
>
> Issue that seems more important to me is what part of gathered money
> will stay in province? I will send my hard saved bucks and all I get
> will be that some people in USA will make a record in their documents?
> I give you money but I want something back.
>
> And next issue is the way like to gather contributions. I have asked
> financial offices around me, and I have found that it is quite
> expensive to send money abroad. (there are local taxes, and bank
> charges that reaches more than 10% )
>
> Vale
> Coriolanus
>
>

Subject:	[novaroma] Toward a new, free world
From:	exitil@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 02:35:42 EDT

(Possibly of interest to some members of Nova Roma)

Greetings, all. I am sending you this message in the hopes that you will
review the new Individual Sovereigntist Network website, in order to see if
we can be of service to you in achieving your goals for a new and better
world. Whether you are an anarchist, a stateless communist, a libertarian,
or just the average Joe who wants something better, we're here to help. At
the ISN, our goal is to provide you with the tools you need to more quickly
achieve your ends, and to connect you with others who share the same desires.
Please take a few minutes to look through our site to see what we're about,
what individual sovereigntism is, and how we can help you. If you see an
existing association you'd like to join, sign up for their mailing list and
they'll be sent a message telling them you're joining so that they can send
you the information you need. If you don't quite see what you're looking
for, contact me personally with information about what you're looking for, at
exitil@--------, and I'll try to help you in any way I can to find or create
the group right for you. Our website is at
http://www.geocities.com/indsovnet. Thank you.

-Alexander Temal, ISN
"Helping you make the world the way it was meant to be."

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:07:25 +0200

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> LEX VEDIA DE ASSIDUI ET PROLETARII (proposed)
>
> I. This Lex Vedia de assidui et proletarii is hereby enacted to define the
> classifications of taxpayers and non-taxpayers, and put in place special
> conditions on those who are unable or unwilling to support the financial
> welfare of the Republic through payment of those taxes which may be enacted
> by the Senate.
>
> III. C. No member of the proletarii may run for or hold office as one of the
> ordinarii (including the apparitores), nor be appointed to or hold office as
> provincial governor. Proletarii may hold provincial or local offices at the
> discretion of the governor of the province in question.

Salve, Flavi Vedi Germanice.

I suggest a distinction should be made between those unable and those
unwilling to pay their taxes, since they in my opinion constitute two
completely different classes of citizens. As a suggestion, those
genuinely unable to pay taxes, shouldn't be affected by III. C. This is
mainly because of the simple fact that otherwise none of the citizens in
a poor province might qualify for governor. Considering the recent
debate on the negative connotation of proletarii, why not name those
unwilling to pay taxes proletarii (they've got themselves to blame :) )
and those unable capiti censi, and exempt the capiti censi from point
III. C.?

Just my humble opinion, mostly to not overly punish those who have done
nothing wrong, but simply lacks the funds.

Vale,

Titus Octavius Pius,
Consiliarius Thules,
Praeco Anarei Thules,
Scriba to the Curator Araneum

AKA Kristoffer From

---

Si hoc signum legere potes,
operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes.

- Not-so-famous quotation

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 01:55:47 -0700

Kristoffer From wrote:
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> > LEX VEDIA DE ASSIDUI ET PROLETARII (proposed)
> >
> > I. This Lex Vedia de assidui et proletarii is hereby enacted to define the
> > classifications of taxpayers and non-taxpayers, and put in place special
> > conditions on those who are unable or unwilling to support the financial
> > welfare of the Republic through payment of those taxes which may be enacted
> > by the Senate.
> >
> > III. C. No member of the proletarii may run for or hold office as one of the
> > ordinarii (including the apparitores), nor be appointed to or hold office as
> > provincial governor. Proletarii may hold provincial or local offices at the
> > discretion of the governor of the province in question.
>
> Salve, Flavi Vedi Germanice.
>
> I suggest a distinction should be made between those unable and those
> unwilling to pay their taxes, since they in my opinion constitute two
> completely different classes of citizens. As a suggestion, those
> genuinely unable to pay taxes, shouldn't be affected by III. C. This is
> mainly because of the simple fact that otherwise none of the citizens in
> a poor province might qualify for governor. Considering the recent
> debate on the negative connotation of proletarii, why not name those
> unwilling to pay taxes proletarii (they've got themselves to blame :) )
> and those unable capiti censi, and exempt the capiti censi from point
> III. C.?
>
> Just my humble opinion, mostly to not overly punish those who have done
> nothing wrong, but simply lacks the funds.

Ave,

How can that distinction be made? Since we do not request income
verification. Remember we do not have a substantial bureaucracy in
place. Who would make that determination?

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	lsicinius@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:41:38 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, coriolanus@c... wrote:
> Salvete
>
> To assign all non taxpayers into one century is punishment. Maybe you
> feel it some other way but I feel it as someone has said "Pay or be
> punished".
>

Is it fair to give those who fail to contribute the same voice in our
government as those who do not?

> I don't want to talk about the fact, that taxes will put major part
> of my family into insignificant part of nova roma population without
> any political voice. (It'a a pity, but they are (me too) from poor
> parts of the world).
>
This is a point I have bought up before when I argued for indexing
taxes. A trivial ammount of Money to a Citizen in the very wealthy USA
is a hardship to some of our citizens, and I for one, have no problem
with being taxed at a rate several times higher than my fellow
citizens who work just as hard as I do, but recive far less money for
it because they happen to reside in a part of the world that isn't as
wealthy as my Macronation (USA)


> Issue that seems more important to me is what part of gathered money
> will stay in province? I will send my hard saved bucks and all I get
> will be that some people in USA will make a record in their documents?
> I give you money but I want something back.
>

I agree with you on this point. I would like to see part of the funds
stay in the Provinciae. However this is a goal was badly undermined by
the actions of the former citizens in the UK. For now I think the
Senate will wish to maintain very strict control of the money. I ask
you to realize that a lot of money is being spent in the USA to
provide the limited services that Nova Roma now has. It is fair that a
part of your tax money find it's way to where these services originate.

> And next issue is the way like to gather contributions. I have asked
> financial offices around me, and I have found that it is quite
> expensive to send money abroad. (there are local taxes, and bank
> charges that reaches more than 10% )
>
I would like to bring up a point that few citizens in the USA are
aware of. Many of the poorer Macronations have laws and regulations
that are intended to discourage sending money out of the macronation.
They wish to keep as much of thier limited wealth at home as possible.
Some citizens will have a harder time contributing than others. This
IMHO is something that needs to be addressed in the actual tax
structure rather than in the lex that deals with those who contribute
nothing.

L. Sicinius Drusus

> Vale
> Coriolanus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:56:44 +0200

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix wrote:
> How can that distinction be made? Since we do not request income
> verification. Remember we do not have a substantial bureaucracy in
> place. Who would make that determination?

Salve, Luci Corneli.

My suggestion would be the local governor, since he is most likely the
Nova Roman official most aware of the local conditions. Or maybe income
verifications should be required of those claiming they should belong to
the capiti censi. There are likely other solutions to this problem as
well, but the one I'd like is simply that those who claim capiti censi
should be given those rights. I'd like to believe in a citizens honesty
until he's given me reason to do otherwise.

However, some sort of verification process is likely to be required. The
two mentioned above are my suggestions, feel free to name any others, or
any flaws in mine. I'm sure there are a few, apart from the obvious.

Vale,

Titus Octavius Pius,
Consiliarius Thules,
Praeco Anarei Thules,
Scriba to the Curator Araneum

AKA Kristoffer From

---

Si hoc signum legere potes,
operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes.

- Not-so-famous quotation

Subject:	[novaroma] To Tax or not to Tax?
From:	Kanat Elibol <kelibol@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:28:29 +0300

Avete Omnes...
I don't think that the proposed tax system will cause a great
change...the names we see
frequently on this list will pay....and they are the minority!The
hundreds of names we don't
see, will not....and they are the majority!
So,we will have a small group of payers ruling a large group of
non payers...with this
system the minority will have the right to say to the majority ' I am
paying..you are not! So
sit down and shut up! '...In fact there are already such statements made...
In a macronation such a political situation would inevitably lead
to a rebellion followed
with a revolution...In a micronation as we have it will only lead to a
deepened lack of interest
on the part of the majority!
Little will change.. but then we can afford to pay the expenses
of the office holders and
that's a fine thing!I think we are discussing here for days of how to
tax ourselves rather than
the res publica in general.
In the present situation we are in (with a very small number of
participants) I can't support
this system but I think it will be approved anyway.I'd rather to see
some improvements made with
the voluntarily made donations whenever the need occurs.For I believe
the tax system may provide
some financial relief... but then it will also provide a deeper silence
on the social life of the res
publica.
Valete bene

Publius Sentius Rutilianus Dexion

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers (I support this Proposition)
From:	tflacco@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:34:15 EDT

I Agree,

You both have my full support on this. This proposition is better then mine,
and more so, very fair.

Next question, Who can I vote for who supports this?

On a wider note, Can we have a show of support from the senate and possible
candidates as to inform the populus of your support or concerns. In this way
those of us who are for this proposition will know who is in support of it.

Those who do not support this proposition, I invite you to try to change my
mind.

Scipio

E.S. I did not snip the actual e-mail, I figure if your reading this one you
already read the original. No sense wasting electrons.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Newbie Question
From:	tflacco@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:37:10 EDT

I am new also, and think I have been spending more time reading then anything
else.

I do love this forum. Even when it gets a bit nasty. I think it is a great
reflection of Rome.

Welcome aboard

Scipio Flaccus Americus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	tflacco@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:58:17 EDT

Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus just made a good point when he said;
"I don't think we should ban non-payers from being magistrates; why? Because
some people might prefer to show their dedication to Nova Roma by working
rather than paying"

Agreed -but-

It would be very simple to assign tax credit to anyone rendering services to
Roma.

Scipio

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Media Group
From:	"mike rasschaert" <hadescallias@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:58:10 -0000

>From: SkaldElf@--------
>Reply-To: novaroma@--------
>To: novaroma@--------
>Subject: Re: [novaroma] Media Group
>Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:39:29 EDT
>
>Salve,
>
>Did I hear correctly about the writing of stories? What storywriting form
>do
>you write by any chance? Any poetry within the mix?
>
>Vale,
>Aeternia
no poetry, just a story of the war between the Olympians and the Titans.
Actualy, its more about the war between de Olympian Gods and the Giants that
folluw up the Titanomachy. it goes in the direction of horror and thriller
than an ordinary mythology book. the summary is to complicated to explain in
an couple of sentences. you have to know dutch to read since i posted it at
my website, wich is about Gods, demons and other occult stuff.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:26:42 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: from@-------- [mailto:from@--------]On Behalf Of
Kristoffer From
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 05:07
>
> I suggest a distinction should be made between those unable and those
> unwilling to pay their taxes, since they in my opinion constitute two
> completely different classes of citizens.

Actually, the assumption on the part of the lex is that anyone who doesn't
pay is in fact unable to pay. And that is a kindly assumption, let us not
forget! Anyone who willingly refused to pay their taxes in Roma Antiqua (or
even in the 21st-century United States) would find themselves in quite a
nastier situation than simply being relegated to an urban tribe...

Next year in the Forum!

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:32:17 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lsicinius@-------- [mailto:lsicinius@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 05:42
>
> Some citizens will have a harder time contributing than others. This
> IMHO is something that needs to be addressed in the actual tax
> structure rather than in the lex that deals with those who contribute
> nothing.

Precisely. As I indicated in the initial proposal, this lex has _nothing_ to
do with the actual amount or structure of the taxes themselves. That is
indeed a different discussion. If folks want to discuss such matters more,
by all means do so, but I would ask that such things be separated from the
question of what to do with people who don't pay their taxes (in whatever
form, and whatever amount that ends up being).

Thusfar I've seen three answers to that question; throw them out (and
witness an enormous drop in our population and pool of talent), do nothing
to them at all (and defeat the whole purpose; a "voluntary tax" is an
oxymoron), or keep them as Citizens but limit their political impact (my own
proposal). Personally, I like my solution, and it seems like most folks here
do, too. :-)

Next year in the Forum!

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Consul Germanicus' Taxpayer Proposal
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:32:33 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oppius Flaccus Severus [mailto:oppiusflaccus@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 17:02
>
> 1-Would this proposal apply to any 'federal' tax
> proposal that was ultimately adopted? (i.e. membership
> fees, Gens taxes, etc.)

I would say that would depend on how the Senatus Consultum authorizing the
tax was worded. The way the proposed lex is worded, only "taxes" per se
would be covered. Other revenue streams, such as fees, duties, tolls, etc.
would not. Thus, there is a lot of flexibility built in to the proposal.
Don't want the lex to apply? Don't call it a tax. The devil is in the
legalese...

> 2-Would the proposal have any bearing on any subsequent
> two-tier taxation schedule such as national and
> provincial taxes? Say in the situation where a civis
> was 'paid up' nationally, but was behind in provincial
> taxes.

Again, it would depend on how the Senatus Consultum enabling the tax was
worded. If the Senate simply authorizes the governors to levy their own tax,
I would say it would not apply. If the Senate combined the provincial with
the national tax I would say that the lex would apply. But of course, as I
say, it really depends.

> Again nice work! I especially like the proposition
> of proletarii not holding offices.

Many thanks. No law will ever please 100% of the people, but I do think this
idea is pretty fair, all things considered.

Next year in the Forum!

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Subject:	[novaroma] The Resignation Edict
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:58:25 -0400

Salvete quirites

Inasmuch as the Censores' resignation edictum from last year is also
scheduled to be voted on by the comitia, I would like to point out what I
believe to be a technical flaw. In the very beginning of the edict, it
states:

"Resignation of citizenship from Nova Roma, as stated in the constitution of
Nova Roma (IIA4), is effected by notification to the censores, or by
declaration before three or more witnesses. Messages posted on the main Nova
Roman e-mail list, and on the Nova Roman message board, meet the requirement
for three witnesses to a resignation; messages posted to minority lists,
regional, belonging to sodalitates or other such lists or boards, do not
meet the requirement for three witnesses to a resignation."

I believe the second sentence flatly contradicts the first. If, for example,
someone posts a resignation to the ReligioRomana list (which as of this
writing has 129 subscribers), then there will of course have been at least
three witnesses to that action. Indeed, if, for example, someone at "Roman
Days" decides he's had enough and tells myself, Cassius, and Priscilla that
he's resigning his Citizenship, he has fulfilled the Constitutional
obligation of getting three witnesses.

I suggest the passage should be altered to read as follows:

"Resignation of citizenship from Nova Roma, as stated in paragraph II.A.4.
of the constitution of Nova Roma, is effected by notification to the
censores, or by declaration before three or more witnesses. Verbal or
written statements before at least three Citizens, messages posted on the
official Nova Roman internet message board, or on any email list where at
least three Citizens are subscribers, meet the requirement for three
witnesses to a resignation. Messages posted to email lists where fewer than
three Citizens are subscribers, or to internet message boards other than the
official Nova Roman board, do not meet the requirement for three witnesses
to a resignation."

Comments?

Next year in the Forum!

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:10:37 +0200

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> Actually, the assumption on the part of the lex is that anyone who doesn't
> pay is in fact unable to pay. And that is a kindly assumption, let us not
> forget! Anyone who willingly refused to pay their taxes in Roma Antiqua (or
> even in the 21st-century United States) would find themselves in quite a
> nastier situation than simply being relegated to an urban tribe...

Salve, Flavi Vedi Germanice.

Granted, but I doubt the IRS would see to it that you were unable to get
a job in the nation where you owed your debt. After all, they want you
to find some way to pay what you owe 'em.

If the assumption is that anyone not paying tax is unable to do so, I
move for a complete removal of III. C. of your proposal. As I stated
earlier, if we don't allow citizens without money to become governors,
some provincias will not have a governor until someone "rich" in their
provincia joins. If this is done, their votes still won't mean much, and
for them to get a position, many tax-paying citizens must support them
in their candidacy. Thus, we taxpayers will retain our right to elect
whomever we find suitable for an office.

This is mostly to be able to benefit of the skills of any citizen
willing to devote them and their time to Nova Roma, and as I've said
earlier, won't affect me personally. Comments?

Vale,

Titus Octavius Pius,
Consiliarius Thules,
Praeco Anarei Thules,
Scriba to the Curator Araneum

AKA Kristoffer From

---

Si hoc signum legere potes,
operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes.

- Not-so-famous quotation

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 09:36:21 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: from@-------- [mailto:from@--------]On Behalf Of
Kristoffer From
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 09:11
>
> If the assumption is that anyone not paying tax is unable to do so, I
> move for a complete removal of III. C. of your proposal. As I stated
> earlier, if we don't allow citizens without money to become governors,
> some provincias will not have a governor until someone "rich" in their
> provincia joins. If this is done, their votes still won't mean much, and
> for them to get a position, many tax-paying citizens must support them
> in their candidacy. Thus, we taxpayers will retain our right to elect
> whomever we find suitable for an office.

That is a question to be taken up when discussing the taxes themselves, not
what to do with non-payers. What happens if the Senate passes a tax that's
scaled to macronational incomes? Or that's scaled to century points? Your
argument breaks down outside of the single tax model you're assuming will be
the case, and this lex is intended as a general measure, applicable in a
variety of scenarios.

You're getting too wrapped up in the specifics of what a particular tax
"might be". Let's just stick to the general principle of what should happen
to folks who don't pay their taxes, in whatever form, and whatever amount,
they might eventually come. Let us not forget; this is already a damn sight
more forgiving than most macronations or even membership organizations are
willing to go...

Next year in the Forum!

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

email: germanicus@--------
AIM: Flavius Vedius
www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Subject:	[novaroma] Congratulations Salonina Flacca
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:05:43 -0000

Salvete Omnes!

My personal congrats and a heaping helping of kudos for the recipient
of this year's Roma Condito Laurel, Salonina Flacca.

I thought your screenplay was excellent; a two thumbs up :)

Valete!
Pompeia

Subject:	[novaroma] Sodalitas Egressus Memberships
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:09:07 -0000

Salvete Omnes:

Please take notice that I shall be closing the Sodalitas Egressus to
new members as of THURSDAY APRIL 26, 2754 AUC until such time as
election proceedings are overwith and a new executive is elected.

If you have been thinking about joining the sodalitas, please do so
before this deadline by contacting me.

Valete,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
Praefectus Fabrum pro temp
Sodalitas Egressus
NOVA ROMA

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Media Group
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Tiberius=20Apollonius=20Cicatrix?= <consulromanus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:03:37 +0100 (BST)

Salve

--- mike rasschaert <hadescallias@--------> wrote:
> the summary is to
> complicated to explain in
> an couple of sentences. you have to know dutch to
> read since i posted it at
> my website, wich is about Gods, demons and other
> occult stuff.


Kan je de url van je website even doorgeven aub?
(could you please pass the url of your website)

Thanx in advance
Vale

=====
Tiberius Apollonius Cicatrix
civis Novae Romae
____________________________

"De te autem, Catilina, cum quiescunt, probant; cum patiuntur, decernunt; cum tacent, clamant." (M. Tullius Cicero: In Catilinam I, 20)

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

Subject:	[novaroma] Oath of Office for Quaestor
From:	TSardonicus@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:24:56 EDT

Ave Quirites,

I, Lucius Tiberius Sardonicus (Randy Schueler), do hereby solemnly swear to uphold the honor of Nova Roma, and to act always in the best interests of the people and the Senate of Nova Roma.

As a magistrate of Nova Roma, I, Lucius Tiberius Sardonicus (Randy Schueler), swear to honor the Gods and Goddesses of Rome in my public dealings, and to pursue the Roman Virtues in my public and private life.

I, Lucius Tiberius Sardonicus (Randy Schueler), swear to uphold and defend the Religio Romana as the State Religion of Nova Roma and swear never to act in a way that would threaten its status as the State Religion.

I, Lucius Tiberius Sardonicus (Randy Schueler), swear to protect and defend the Constitution of Nova Roma.

I, Lucius Tiberius Sardonicus (Randy Schueler), further swear to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of the office of Quaestor to the best of my abilities.

On my honor as a Citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people and by their will and favor, do I accept the position of Quaestor and all the rights, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities attendant thereto.

I apologize for the long delay between the election and my Oath. I look forward to serving Nova Roma in the office of Quaestor.

Valete bene omnes,

Lucius Tiberius Sardonicus

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Nova Roma
From:	trog99@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:34:59 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Mark Bird" <markbird@w...> wrote:
> Ave
>
> Is there some special stuff that needs to be done to become a member
of
> Sodalitas Egressus group as I applied three hours ago, and have not
yet been
> approved - I just want to post a message...

You should be subscribed by now :). Quite often, when Oz is awake,
aware and alive, we in the land of the Canuckians are sleeping.

Vale,
Pompeia
>
> Vale,
>
> Marcus Sentius Claudius
> Legatuse Australia Austrorientalis

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The survey
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:15:47 +0200

Salve, O Consul,

(snipped)

> > 1. Would you pay a yearly membership fee/tax to Nova Roma of an
> > estimated average of 12$ ?
> > 1a. If not, why?
> > 1b. If you do, do you think non-paying members should
> > suffer "penalties"?
>
> This question is fairly enough worded, I'll grant. I do, however, question
> the conclusion you offered in your earlier post that "tax in its present
> form is getting a no from Gallia". Your survey only represents 27% of the
> population of the province. Of those, only 14% subscribe to the main list,
> and therefore would have access to the various arguments that have been
put
> forth.
>

But these people have the ability to think of some arguments themselves. One
of the reasons why only 27% of the province is represented is that I simply
was unable to obtain all e-mail addresses. However, if 5 out of 6 people say
"no", I bet the majority of the rest would vote likewise. And ask yourself;
why aren't these people subscribed to the main list? Mostly, because they
have a lack of time, secondly, because most of it is politics. But this has
to do with participation, and not necessarily with the opinions these people
hold.

> Do 27% of the people, half of whom are completely ignorant of the debate,
> really form the basis to draw a conclusion about the entire province? Your
> conclusion is completely unfounded.
>

Then my conclusion is completely unfounded for the next argument just as
well. When your plan gets a no from a few people, you dive into the raw
numbers, but when the second topic, which you also take an outspoken
position on, gets a yes, all those arguments seem to disappear, because they
agree with you. The blade you employ cuts both ways. And it isn't my fault
that I could only get 11 e-mail addresses.

> > 2. Do you agree with the language policy on the main list, that
> > says that "non-English postings are not welcome if they are not
> > accompanied by an English translation"?
> > 2a. Do you have the main list? Why (not)?
> > 2b. What languages do you speak?
>
> This is complete rubbish and an outright lie on your part. That is not at
> all what the official list policy says, and putting it in quotes like that
> is deliberately misleading. Here, for your edification (since you were
> obviously not to be bothered to look up the _actual_ list policy) is the
> official list policy on language:
>
> "XI. All posts to the list should be accompanied by an English translation
> if they are written in another language. If you are unable to write in
> English, or uncomfortable posting in English, please let me know and I
will
> be more than happy to facilitate your pairing with a translator who can
help
> you to do so. Posts in multiple languages are MORE than welcome, as long
as
> an English translation is included somewhere therein. Please note there
is
> no penalty for violating this policy on a "first time" basis, as it is
> assumed that anyone doing so is simply in need of assistance and not
> consciously choosing to violate list policy." (from
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/files/NovaRomaList.txt)
>

I could have been more correct. But I view the above wording as a euphimism
of the actual result of this rule. Mine might be peiorative, but it's
simpler, and all in all, it's what it all comes down to. But it's no use
debating over this; people largely agreed with the policy anyway, so what
use is there to fight over my way of questioning?

> Your bias against the above-quoted policy is well-known, and has tainted
the
> results of your survey (perhaps that one person who disagreed with the
> language policy other than yourself might have cast his vote the other way
> had the actual facts been made available).

No. This is a false assumption. It is the same person who, according to the
survey, spoke five languages, and it is not me. It's strange that this
policy gets most criticism from the corner of linguistically oriented
people. More about this below.

> How galling to you it must have
> been when even that despicable misrepresentation of the actual policy
didn't
> obtain the result you desired. I wonder, though, since only 3 of your
> respondents actually subscribe to the main list, what the relevance of
this
> question is?
>

Here you make a valid point, but how would I have known who is subscribed to
the main list, and who isn't? You can hardly accuse me of deliberatly
falsifying things here. I couldn't have known. And the former comment from
you is of no concern in a healthy, constructive debate.

> I also question your conclusion (based, I am assuming on the fact that all
> of your respondents speak more than one language); "Multilinguism has
become
> a must for European people; why not for the rest of us?"
>
> The answer is, of course, when that multilingualism includes English (the
de
> facto auxiliary language of the world), those who already speak it (which
> includes the vast majority of our cives including yourself) have no _need_
> to learn another in order to make themselves understood. The mountain is
> already coming to Mohammed; why should Mohammed betake himself to move?
>

Knowing more than one language enhances one's abilities, and deepens one's
understanding about cultures, viewpoints and people (in other words, it
enhances one's empathy). There is more territory than the mountain alone to
see and explore. You might descend from your mountain one day and discover
the far away valleys the other mountain travellers bear as their own legacy.

Vale bene!
Sextus Apollonius Draco,
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
Darkling_Crawler, Yahoo IM


"Come, fly the teeth of the wind; share my wings" (FSOL)

Subject:	[novaroma] Taxes and non-US countries
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:26:03 +0200

Salvete Novaromani,

A thing many of the citizen from America seem to ignore is that it is really °difficult° to send money from other continents to America, because of the following reasons and objections:

1. As has been argued before, sometimes the cost to send the money is higher than the actual amount you're sending.
2. Some provinciae consist of multiple macronations, so how would you arrange the currency problem?
3. Why should we pay for American expenses? What's our direct benefit?
4. It takes a while before the money reaches the US, and underway many things can happen: it can get lost, and so on.

Censor Sulla argues against provincial treasuries that their is a large possibility of corruption, as has occurred in Britannia. But nothing tells me this will not happen in America, when I cannot excercise control over my money. So to speak, if a local governor plays tricks on me, I can sue him or go up to him personally, but I can't do the same if my money is in America.

Americani, please think about the arguments above: 398 citizens are not from North America, and will suffer from these difficulties and/or will pose similar questions like the ones above. It doesn't matter whether those 398 people are active or not, they're still members of NR. And I don't think it's a coincidence the most moderate proposals came from Europe so far; that's because these questions live among all of us.

Another thing: if people °cannot° pay, don't downclass them (or take a look at Caeso Fabius' plan, which was really good, in my opinion). The taxation as currently proposed will create a real social division if leges or models like the ones proposed will become legislated. No rewards, no punishments. If you believe in true virtues, then giving is its own reward; don't expect extra advantages in return, or others to be punished because they don't do the same as you do. Why should they, anyway?

Valete bene!
Sextus Apollonius Draco,
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
Darkling_Crawler, Yahoo IM


"Come, fly the teeth of the wind; share my wings" (FSOL)


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	Kristoffer From <kristoffer.from@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:57:56 +0200

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> That is a question to be taken up when discussing the taxes themselves, not
> what to do with non-payers. What happens if the Senate passes a tax that's
> scaled to macronational incomes? Or that's scaled to century points? Your
> argument breaks down outside of the single tax model you're assuming will be
> the case, and this lex is intended as a general measure, applicable in a
> variety of scenarios.
>
> You're getting too wrapped up in the specifics of what a particular tax
> "might be". Let's just stick to the general principle of what should happen
> to folks who don't pay their taxes, in whatever form, and whatever amount,
> they might eventually come. Let us not forget; this is already a damn sight
> more forgiving than most macronations or even membership organizations are
> willing to go...

Salve, Flavi Vedi.

Please note: There's a noteable difference between me or you paying $12,
or even $30, and someone from certain countries trying to get $3 sent to
Nova Roma in US. And anyway, as I said, I'm not prepared to give up the
work performed by, for example, yourself as consul, just because you've
gotten into a bad financial situation, and are currently unable to pay
your taxes. I don't see why an individual's ability/will to pay taxes
should affect the work we allow him/her to do for the republic. As I
said, if he and his friends doesn't pay taxes, and no others find him
suitable for the job, he won't have sufficient clout in and of himself
to get elected. If he, however, has performed admirably, I believe he
should be allowed to keep doing so. For example, I would have no problem
with you staying in office, even though you did not pay your taxes. In
fact, I'd most likely give you my vote in a future election, since I
consider you a valuable asset in yourself.

In effect, I stick by my motion of dismissal for part C of the third
point of the proposed law. Once again, this won't have a direct effect
on me, but I think this is something all of us should consider. How
certain are we of our future finances? What would happen if we got fired
tomorrow, and IRS knocked on the door with some "minor anomalities"
found in your taxes? Would those events change your dedication to Nova
Roma? If not, would they affect your ability to contribute financially?
How would you like to be treated under those circumstances?

Vale,

Titus Octavius Pius,
Consiliarius Thules,
Praeco Anarei Thules,
Scriba to the Curator Araneum

AKA Kristoffer From

---

Si hoc signum legere potes,
operis boni in rebus latinis alacribus
et fructuosis potiri potes.

- Not-so-famous quotation

Subject:	[novaroma] Response Time
From:	jmath669642reng@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:49:12 -0400 (EDT)

Citizens of Nova Roma;

I was most amused at the person who posted the message complaining about
having sent an application to join the Sodalitas Egressus "three hours
ago" and had recieved no response as yet.

Let me assure all Citizens of Nova Roma and Citizens-to-be that this is
a voluntary organization, attended by volunteers, admnistered by
volunteers, and peopled by volunteers. To those of you who do not know
just exactly what that means, please let me try to explain.

The word "Volunteer" suggests that the individual has some spare time
from the remainder of his / her life style to devote to a worthy or
interesting (hopefully both) cause, institution or activity. This does
NOT mean that the above institution is run to any specific individual's
requirement or satisfaction who simply wishes to partake of the
institutions offerings. Volunteers take vacations, work (sometimes very
unusual hours), have family duties, and another life entirely beyond
that of an instiution like Nova Roma.

Therefore those of us who have sampled the world's experience for more
than a 10 year period, are aware that our specific needs may take more
than a few miserable minutes to fulfill. In today's world of
ever-increasing rapidity of communications our first tendency is to
object to being kept waiting, and then the adult understanding kicks in
and we realize that perhaps the other person may well be doing something
else, like working, family activities, illness, vacation , outside
activties,and a hundred other possibilites. All of which are very
likley to be of a more important nature to the Volunteer than to the
Applicant.

With the above aspect firmly beore us, what then is the possibility that
the Applicant will not apply again, or wait patiently for a response.
That result is, of course, a distinct possibility, but in retrospect if
an applicant does not have the patience or perserverence to attain his /
her goals, I as the Administrtor of two Sodalitas and of some small
experience in volunteer associations (approx. 35 years), would respond,
of what use would such an individual be???

Specifically, the Sodalitas Militarium, and Egressus have a policy that
if someone who is a Citizen of Nova Roma wishes to join, then the
Citizen is invited to do so by contacting the Scriba of those two
organizations (see above) and ask for permission to do so. Permission
has never to date been refused.

The above requirement is mine, as the Praefectus of both Sodalitas. The
purpose of the requirement is to insure that those applying for
membership have some modicum of patience, understanding and
consideration for others before trying to deal with the potential
members on a more personal basis. To date, the requirement has done
it's job well, and those with whom I have had the pleasure to work
within both Sodlitas have been a joy to work with. Considering today's
Main List comment, I propose, most certainly, and for very obvious good
purpose, to continue my requirement.

Respectfully;
Marcus Minucius Audens
Praefectus
Sodalitas Militarium / Egressus

Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!


http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] What to do with non-taxpayers
From:	"oppius flaccus severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:37:20 -0700

Salve Tite Octavi;

I have to agree with Consul Germanicus; your
point details the specifics of individual taxation
proposals, which is not the issue at hand. Having read
the points made by yourself, S. Apollonius and others
regarding the submission of funds from Europe to the US;
I further agree that there are some valid tax collection
considerations that will require attention in any ultimate
taxation bill. However, that is another thread of discussion
entirely.

The proposed LEX VEDIA DE ASSIDUI ET PROLETARII simply
establishes a classification system. It also specifically
states that 'non-taxpayers' can still hold provincial
offices at the discretion of the Propraetor. Thusly, those
that cannot or will not pay taxes, still have recourse
for fulfilling positions. They can also continue to be
members in the various Sodalitas and other NR venues.

Your example of job loss or unforeseen hardship does
however bring up an interesting point of clarification.
The proposed Lex perhaps could be modified to deal with
specific instances of either candidates or
elected magistrates that are unable
or unwilling to pay taxes in a given fiscal year or
subsequent years in which the candidate may feasibly
hold office.

(Apologies to anyone if the following has been
suggested:)

"All Nova Romanii wishing to declare candidacy for public
office -either elected or appointed, must be completely
paid current in their national tax obligations for the both
the current and following fiscal year. (Provincial tax status
will be between said official/candidate and his/her Propraetor and will
have no effect on nationally elected or appointed offices,
though the individual may be excluded from provincial
appointments at the discretion of the Propraetor.)

Example: A candidate declares a desire to run for a public
office in the December elections. Assuming that a fiscal
year runs January 1 through December 31 (just as an example,)
the candidate must be in good standing (i.e. classified
as 'assidui' at the time of declaration,) and must also
have pre-paid taxes through the next fiscal year.

On declaration of candidacy to the proper magistrates and/or
Senate, the candidate will be given a grace period of 30 days
(if needed,) in which to pay taxes for the following year. If
candidate is unwilling or unable to pay the taxes during that
time, then said candidate may be reclassified and will not be allowed
to stand for election or Senatorial appointment.
Note this also applies to hearings charged with proroguing
provincial officials and other special officials appointed by
the Senate."

This should ensure that our magistrates are properly classified
and are able to assume and conduct their offices without fear of
situational change mid-office.

I won't muddy the waters in this thread with further
discussion of taxation methods and amounts -this has
been adequately addressed elsewhere.

Bene vale,
Oppius

> -----Original Message-----
<snipped>

Consul Germanicus wrote:
> > You're getting too wrapped up in the specifics of what a particular tax
> > "might be". Let's just stick to the general principle of what
> should happen
> > to folks who don't pay their taxes, in whatever form, and
> whatever amount,
> > they might eventually come. Let us not forget; this is already
> a damn sight
> > more forgiving than most macronations or even membership
> organizations are
> > willing to go...
>
Titus Octavius responds:
> Salve, Flavi Vedi.
>
<snipped>
>
> In effect, I stick by my motion of dismissal for part C of the third
> point of the proposed law. Once again, this won't have a direct effect
> on me, but I think this is something all of us should consider. How
> certain are we of our future finances? What would happen if we got fired
> tomorrow, and IRS knocked on the door with some "minor anomalities"
> found in your taxes? Would those events change your dedication to Nova
> Roma? If not, would they affect your ability to contribute financially?
> How would you like to be treated under those circumstances?
>
> Vale,
>
> Titus Octavius Pius,
<snipped>

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Resignation Edict
From:	Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:35:31 -0700

Ave,

As Censor let me comment on that. Censor Merullus and I wrote the edict
the way we did because as Nova Roma grows, we are going to expand as we
have. Our mailing lists number almost 40 lists. Both official and
non-official. There are even lists, such as the Britannia list and the
the Romanitas list that we, the Senior Magistrates of Nova Roma cannot
even get on. With this type of limitation it seemed reasonable to my
colleague and I that we should try to limit the defination just a bit.
Secondly, if someone decides to resign and they send the email privately
to 3 people none of them being the Censors just how will the Censors
find out they resigned? Thirdly, if someone was at a Roman event and no
Censors or magistrates are there...but someone resigned how will the
Censors find out this information. What proof can be given? The change
that our noble Consul has made basically makes any list even such lists
as the Arma List, or Appicus or any other list regardless if it is a
Roman nature a valid avenue to renounce their citizenship. As Censor, I
cannot be on every single list anymore. I am only a member of 7 lists
and I still get about 250 emails a day. As for being informed by other
citizens about resignations, I have just had to close over 70 Gentes
because paters/maters do not respond to Censor requests, I do not think
we have the participation level yet. I think this edict should go to
the Comitia Centuriata and be passed so that it changes the Constitution
of Nova Roma.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> Salvete quirites
>
> Inasmuch as the Censores' resignation edictum from last year is also
> scheduled to be voted on by the comitia, I would like to point out what I
> believe to be a technical flaw. In the very beginning of the edict, it
> states:
>
> "Resignation of citizenship from Nova Roma, as stated in the constitution of
> Nova Roma (IIA4), is effected by notification to the censores, or by
> declaration before three or more witnesses. Messages posted on the main Nova
> Roman e-mail list, and on the Nova Roman message board, meet the requirement
> for three witnesses to a resignation; messages posted to minority lists,
> regional, belonging to sodalitates or other such lists or boards, do not
> meet the requirement for three witnesses to a resignation."
>
> I believe the second sentence flatly contradicts the first. If, for example,
> someone posts a resignation to the ReligioRomana list (which as of this
> writing has 129 subscribers), then there will of course have been at least
> three witnesses to that action. Indeed, if, for example, someone at "Roman
> Days" decides he's had enough and tells myself, Cassius, and Priscilla that
> he's resigning his Citizenship, he has fulfilled the Constitutional
> obligation of getting three witnesses.
>
> I suggest the passage should be altered to read as follows:
>
> "Resignation of citizenship from Nova Roma, as stated in paragraph II.A.4.
> of the constitution of Nova Roma, is effected by notification to the
> censores, or by declaration before three or more witnesses. Verbal or
> written statements before at least three Citizens, messages posted on the
> official Nova Roman internet message board, or on any email list where at
> least three Citizens are subscribers, meet the requirement for three
> witnesses to a resignation. Messages posted to email lists where fewer than
> three Citizens are subscribers, or to internet message boards other than the
> official Nova Roman board, do not meet the requirement for three witnesses
> to a resignation."
>
> Comments?
>
> Next year in the Forum!
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
> email: germanicus@--------
> AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Subject:	[novaroma] Welcome Quaestor!
From:	"oppius flaccus severus" <oppiusflaccus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:00:01 -0700

Salve Luci Tiberi;

Congratulations on a fine oath and best of luck in your
new position as Quaestor. I see you're already hard
at work with the fund confirmation letters. Great job!

Bene vale,
-Oppius


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Resignation Edict
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:13:46 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Consul,

> I suggest the passage should be altered to read as follows:
>
> "Resignation of citizenship from Nova Roma, as stated in paragraph II.A.4.
> of the constitution of Nova Roma, is effected by notification to the
> censores, or by declaration before three or more witnesses. Verbal or
> written statements before at least three Citizens, messages posted on the
> official Nova Roman internet message board, or on any email list where at
> least three Citizens are subscribers, meet the requirement for three
> witnesses to a resignation.

I agree with Censor Sulla that this would be very difficult for the
Censores to track. There are far, far too many lists where three
citizens of Nova Roma are present. For example, I know of three
NR citizens on the "Illinois Pagans" mailing list... but how would
the censors be able to act if an announcement of resignation is made
there?

No, the resignation can only be effective when it is made on an official
Nova Roma list, or when one of the three witnesses contacts the Censores
and names the other witnesses.

Vale, Octavius.

--
M. Octavius Germanicus
Propraetor, Lacus Magni
Curator Araneum et Senator

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Media Group
From:	SkaldElf@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 16:25:58 EDT

Salve,

Thanks for the explanation. Pity I don't speak or read Dutch, just some
German.

Vale,
Aeternia

*It is selfish to keep art to one's self*-Me

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] The Resignation Edict
From:	"C. Minucius Hadrianus" <shinjikun@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:32:15 -0400

Salvete Luci Corneli Sulla Felix et omnes,

<snipped>

Our mailing lists number almost 40 lists. Both official and
non-official.

<snipped>

I was wondering, is there any place that has a comprehensive listing of
these (or at least the official) mailing lists? I didn't even know about the
Sodalitas Egressus until today, for example. The addition of a Soldaitas &
mailing list to NR's website would a very valuable resource, especially for
new citizens who're trying to find ways to participate. On a similar note,
it wouldn't be a bad idea to push the main list a bit more on the website. I
wouldn't be suprised if a lot of citizens simply are not aware of it.
Putting a highly visible link on the main page I think would help this, and
in the long run boost particpation. Just a thought!


C. Minucius Hadrianus
Legatus of Massachusetts

ICQ# 28924742

"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." - Vegetius





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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: The Resignation Edict
From:	darkelf@--------
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 22:25:22 -0000

Salvete:

What's the reason for *three* witnesses?

Valete,
Cinnabari, curious

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Resignation Edict
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:33:43 -0700

on 4/25/01 3:32 PM, C. Minucius Hadrianus at shinjikun@-------- wrote:

> Salvete Luci Corneli Sulla Felix et omnes,
>
> <snipped>
>
> Our mailing lists number almost 40 lists. Both official and
> non-official.
>
> <snipped>
>
> I was wondering, is there any place that has a comprehensive listing of
> these (or at least the official) mailing lists? I didn't even know about the
> Sodalitas Egressus until today, for example. The addition of a Soldaitas &
> mailing list to NR's website would a very valuable resource, especially for
> new citizens who're trying to find ways to participate. On a similar note,
> it wouldn't be a bad idea to push the main list a bit more on the website. I
> wouldn't be suprised if a lot of citizens simply are not aware of it.
> Putting a highly visible link on the main page I think would help this, and
> in the long run boost particpation. Just a thought!

Ave,

I gave a comprehensive list to Senator M. Octavius to be included on the NR
website. I even asked him to have a special link made so that if people
wanted to add themselves all they needed to do was to click a link and an
email would go out. I do not know how long it will take our Noble Senator
to get it put up. I know he is a very busy man...maybe he can comment on
that. Til that is up my suggestion would be to go to the
www.yahoogroups.com and do a search for Nova Roma. About 43 lists will be
found.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] The survey
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:39:17 -0400

Salve,

>>I could have been more correct.>>

You could have chosen to be "correct", period. Simple enough to do had you
bothered.

>>But I view the above wording as a euphimism of the actual result of this
rule.>>

Ahhhhhh....okay, this clarifies things. In other words, you didn't care at
all what your Province thinks of the *actual* policy. You only wanted to
know what they though of your spin on it. Interesting.

>>Mine might be peiorative, but it's simpler, and all in all, it's what it
all comes down to.>>

Oh please! Your "version" is wrong. Misleading. Inaccurate. The fact
that you value your "spin" over the truth is quite telling of your methods
and motives. To try and justify lying to your Provincial cives as "simpler"
is truly despicable. Shame on you!

>>But it's no use debating over this; people largely agreed with the policy
anyway, so what
use is there to fight over my way of questioning?>>

To my mind, whether the cives saw through your attempted manipulation is
irrelevant. At stake here is your character and how we now see you conduct
yourself. I find what you have done here, coupled with your attempt at
justifying it, truly repugnant. You would do well to retire for some quiet
contemplation on how better to conduct yourself in the future, most
especially when making any further attempts at "surveys".

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Taxes and non-US countries
From:	"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:39:24 -0400

Salve,

>>3. Why should we pay for American expenses? What's our direct benefit?>>

Hmmmmmm. In your zest to continue your "us versus them" mind-set, you seem
to have forgotten that the expenses discussed are NOVA ROMAN, not American.
The fact is that any given magistrate can be from any given nation on Earth.
Heavens, someday we might even be worrying about the "Belgian" expenses of
Magistrate Draco. The fact that you chose to put the point above in the
terms you did says quite a lot, sadly, about your ultimate approach to Nova
Roma.

For those of us here as cives of Nova Roma for our love of the nation and a
genuine desire to see her grow, the "direct benefits" speak for themselves.
For you, who by your own admission remained here in NR mainly to prevent
"backstabbing" of those who deserted NR, I can see where you might not be
capable of looking beyond your narrow agenda and seeing the bigger picture.
The fault, my boy, in this lies entirely within your own attitude, not the
nation herself. Something for you to consider.

Vale,
Priscilla Vedia Serena

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] The Resignation Edict
From:	"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:45:41 -0700

on 4/25/01 3:32 PM, C. Minucius Hadrianus at shinjikun@-------- wrote:

> Salvete Luci Corneli Sulla Felix et omnes,
>
> <snipped>
>
> Our mailing lists number almost 40 lists. Both official and
> non-official.
>
> <snipped>
>
> I was wondering, is there any place that has a comprehensive listing of
> these (or at least the official) mailing lists? I didn't even know about the
> Sodalitas Egressus until today, for example. The addition of a Soldaitas &
> mailing list to NR's website would a very valuable resource, especially for
> new citizens who're trying to find ways to participate. On a similar note,
> it wouldn't be a bad idea to push the main list a bit more on the website. I
> wouldn't be suprised if a lot of citizens simply are not aware of it.
> Putting a highly visible link on the main page I think would help this, and
> in the long run boost particpation. Just a thought!

Ave,

I gave a comprehensive list to Senator M. Octavius to be included on the NR
website. I even asked him to have a special link made so that if people
wanted to add themselves all they needed to do was to click a link and an
email would go out. I do not know how long it will take our Noble Senator
to get it put up. I know he is a very busy man...maybe he can comment on
that. Til that is up my suggestion would be to go to the
www.yahoogroups.com and do a search for Nova Roma. About 43 lists will be
found.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	[novaroma] Nova Britannia Chat Tonight
From:	"C. Minucius Hadrianus" <shinjikun@-------->
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:37:05 -0400

Salvete omnes,

Just a reminder that the weekly Nova Britannia chat will be held tonight
from 21:00 - 22:00 (EST or GMT -5:00) in the Nova Britannia mailing list
chat room at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NovaBritannia/chat. I encourage
all Nova Britanniae to stop in and say hello (any other interested cives are
welcome, of course!).

Valete,

C. Minucius Hadrianus
Legatus of Massachusetts

ICQ# 28924742

"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." - Vegetius




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