| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] um...how do I temporarily unsubscribe? |
| From: |
"J. T. Sibley" <jrsibley@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 18 May 2001 20:36:30 -0400 |
|
Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
> > Salvete omnes!
> > I tried to unsubscribe last night; am leaving crack >snip<
> Your best bet is to switch your delivery method from "individual emails" to
> "no email". You can do that at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/join?referer=1
Tried that. But since I originally subscribed to novaroma with my email
jrsibley@-------- (and yes, I also have a yahoo email address, but that's for
the business!), but nothing happened. Oh magnificent Guru of the
Incomprehensible Magic Thinkum-Dinkum (aka the computer), what else should I
try?
fulvia, who, being a mere soothsayer out in the boonies, and having never
travelled to Rome nor seen its grand and vast delights, is rather puzzled by all
this New Technology.
>
>
> That way, you are still subscribed, but just won't get tons of email sent to
> your inbox (it's for people who want to read the list via the
> yahoogroups.com website).
>
> Hope that helps, and have fun on your trip!
>
> Vale,
>
> 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/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Oligarchy |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <lespeterson@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 18 May 2001 17:13:40 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
Could one of the individuals speaking out in support of individuals rights explain the difference between calling someone by a name they don't wish to hear like Sam or Sue, and calling them a name they don't want to hear like oligarch or tyrant? In a recent post about "oligarchs" it sounded like it was appropriate to call a person something as long as you have your definition correct. Is that how the observation of individual rights work? Or does the rule only apply to proper nouns? In which situations should I respect a persons wishes and in which can I disregard them? Is this courtesy extended to private cives and not magistrates? If anyone, maybe even Formosanus, could clear this up I would be grateful. Thanks in advance.
Apologies in advance if I double send this, I'm experiencing difficulties with Yahoo.
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] A Presumption of Innocence |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 18 May 2001 17:07:26 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete Quirites,
One of our forefathers greatest accomplishments was
Roman Law. There can be no doubt that a presumption of
innocence was a basic feature of Roman Law. I would
like to submit to you an excerpt from a document that
refers to this basic premise of Roman Law.
"... there can be no question that the Roman law was
pervaded with the results of this maxim of criminal
administration, as the following extracts show:
'Let all accusers understand that they are not to
prefer charges unless they can be proven by proper
witnesses or by conclusive documents, or by
circumstantial evidence which amounts to indubitable
proof and is clearer than day.' Code, L. 4, tit. 20,
1,l. 25.
'The noble (divus) Trajan wrote to Julius Frontonus
that no man should be condemned on a criminal charge
in his absence, because it was better to let the crime
of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the
innocent.' Dig. L. 48, tit. 19,l. 5.
'In all case of doubt the most merciful construction
of facts should be preferred.' Dig. L. 50, tit. 17, l.
56.
'In criminal cases the milder construction shall
always be preserved.' Dig. L. 50, tit. 17, 1, 155, 2.
'In cases of doubt it is no less just than it is safe
to adopt the milder construction.' Dig. L. 50, tit.
17, l. 192, 1. [156 U.S. 432,455] Ammianus Marcellinus
relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julian which
illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the
Roman law. Numerius, the governor of Narbonensis, was
on trial before the emperor, and, contrary to the
usage in criminal cases, the trial was public.
Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and
there was not sufficient proof against him.
His adversary, Delphidius, 'a passionate man,' seeing
that the failure of the accusation was inevitable,
could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, 'Oh,
illustrious Caesar! if it is sufficient to deny, what
hereafter will become of the guilty?' to which Julian
replied, 'If it suffices to accuse, what will become
of the innocent?'
Next I wish to submit an excerpt from Nova Roma's
Constitution.
II B 2. The right and obligation to remain subject to
the civil rights and laws of the countries in which
they reside and/or hold citizenship, regardless of
their status as dual citizens of Nova Roma;
Quirites, I remind you that BOTH of our Censors are
also citizens of the United States, and under our
Constitution they have the civil rights enjoyed by all
US citizens, and that among these rights is the
presumption of innocence.
This right was upheld by an 1895 US Supreme Court
ruling, and the first excerpt I submitted is NOT just
a review of Roman law, but is taken directly from the
US Supreme Court ruling that cited the Roman law as a
precedent, and gave all US citizens the presumption of
innocence that our ancestors wrote into Roman law.
These men are entitled to a presumption of innocence
under Roman law, and according to our Constitution
under US law. The Burden of proof lies on the accusers
not the accused, and if the accusers can't come up
with some proof I'd like to remind them of their
obligation under Roman law.
'Let all accusers understand that they are not to
prefer charges unless they can be proven by proper
witnesses or by conclusive documents, or by
circumstantial evidence which amounts to indubitable
proof and is clearer than day.' Code, L. 4, tit. 20,
1,l. 25.
The text of the ruling I cited is at
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/156-432.txt
Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] um...how do I temporarily unsubscribe? |
| From: |
"JusticeCMO" <justicecmo@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 00:10:58 -0400 |
|
Salve,
I have taken the liberty of placing you on "no mail" for now. At such time
as you wish to resume receipt of mail on an individual basis, please contact
me and I will be happy to switch you back.
Priscilla Vedia Serena
Curatrix Sermonis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. T. Sibley [mailto:jrsibley@--------]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 8:37 PM
> To: novaroma@--------
> Subject: Re: [novaroma] um...how do I temporarily unsubscribe?
>
>
>
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus wrote:
>
> > > Salvete omnes!
> > > I tried to unsubscribe last night; am leaving crack >snip<
>
> > Your best bet is to switch your delivery method from
> "individual emails" to
> > "no email". You can do that at
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/join?referer=1
>
> Tried that. But since I originally subscribed to novaroma with my email
> jrsibley@-------- (and yes, I also have a yahoo email address,
> but that's for
> the business!), but nothing happened. Oh magnificent Guru of the
> Incomprehensible Magic Thinkum-Dinkum (aka the computer), what
> else should I
> try?
>
> fulvia, who, being a mere soothsayer out in the boonies, and having never
> travelled to Rome nor seen its grand and vast delights, is rather
> puzzled by all
> this New Technology.
>
> >
> >
> > That way, you are still subscribed, but just won't get tons of
> email sent to
> > your inbox (it's for people who want to read the list via the
> > yahoogroups.com website).
> >
> > Hope that helps, and have fun on your trip!
> >
> > Vale,
> >
> > 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/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus (wasDraco the villain, Sulla the saint) |
| From: |
marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 05:45:16 -0000 |
|
Salvete cives,
> True, however both Censors have determined for the sake of privacy
that
> we will only give confidential information to Governors. I can
tell you
> why I have this opinion, we (magistrates and Senators) have no
control
> over the appointment of Legates. They are not held for public
> scrutiny. I believe My colleague already explained this to Sextus
> Apollonius.
I sent off for confidential information as a scriba, and although you
need Vado's confirmation, you sent it to ME, tho' I was not a
propraetor. And yet you didn't send it to Draco, despite the fact
that the Censores had already received the Propraetor of Gallia's
confirmation.
Bene valete!
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus (wasDraco the villain, Sulla the saint) |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 18 May 2001 22:51:50 -0700 |
|
on 5/18/01 10:45 PM, marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------- at
marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------- wrote:
>
> Salvete cives,
>
>> True, however both Censors have determined for the sake of privacy
> that
>> we will only give confidential information to Governors. I can
> tell you
>> why I have this opinion, we (magistrates and Senators) have no
> control
>> over the appointment of Legates. They are not held for public
>> scrutiny. I believe My colleague already explained this to Sextus
>> Apollonius.
>
> I sent off for confidential information as a scriba, and although you
> need Vado's confirmation, you sent it to ME, tho' I was not a
> propraetor. And yet you didn't send it to Draco, despite the fact
> that the Censores had already received the Propraetor of Gallia's
> confirmation.
>
> Bene valete!
> Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
Yes, however my colleague in the Censorship changed and as such...my
colleague and I discussed this and we felt that we should protect private
information more. So, when we talked about this issue on the phone we
decided that we would give confidential information to governors...just like
my colleagues decision not to give addresses and phone numbers of citizens.
I understand his concerns and agreed with them.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus (wasDraco the villain, Sulla the saint) |
| From: |
"L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 18 May 2001 22:55:17 -0700 |
|
on 5/18/01 10:51 PM, L. Cornelius Sulla Felix at alexious@--------
wrote:
> on 5/18/01 10:45 PM, marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------- at
> marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------- wrote:
>
>>
>> Salvete cives,
>>
>>> True, however both Censors have determined for the sake of privacy
>> that
>>> we will only give confidential information to Governors. I can
>> tell you
>>> why I have this opinion, we (magistrates and Senators) have no
>> control
>>> over the appointment of Legates. They are not held for public
>>> scrutiny. I believe My colleague already explained this to Sextus
>>> Apollonius.
>>
>> I sent off for confidential information as a scriba, and although you
>> need Vado's confirmation, you sent it to ME, tho' I was not a
>> propraetor. And yet you didn't send it to Draco, despite the fact
>> that the Censores had already received the Propraetor of Gallia's
>> confirmation.
>>
>> Bene valete!
>> Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
>
> Yes, however my colleague in the Censorship changed and as such...my
> colleague and I discussed this and we felt that we should protect private
> information more. So, when we talked about this issue on the phone we
> decided that we would give confidential information to governors...just like
> my colleagues decision not to give addresses and phone numbers of citizens.
> I understand his concerns and agreed with them.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
>
Oh and one addendum...To my knoweldge I never received the Governor of
Gallia's confirmation....I forgot to mention that in my original post.
Sulla Felix
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Oligarchy |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Fri, 18 May 2001 23:06:33 -0700 (PDT) |
|
--- Lucius Mauricius Procopious
<lespeterson@--------> wrote:
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> Could one of the individuals speaking out in support
> of individuals rights explain the difference between
> calling someone by a name they don't wish to hear
> like Sam or Sue, and calling them a name they don't
> want to hear like oligarch or tyrant? In a recent
> post about "oligarchs" it sounded like it was
> appropriate to call a person something as long as
> you have your definition correct. Is that how the
> observation of individual rights work? Or does the
> rule only apply to proper nouns? In which situations
> should I respect a persons wishes and in which can I
> disregard them? Is this courtesy extended to private
> cives and not magistrates? If anyone, maybe even
> Formosanus, could clear this up I would be grateful.
> Thanks in advance.
> Apologies in advance if I double send this, I'm
> experiencing difficulties with Yahoo.
>
> Lucius Mauricius Procopious
> Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
Salve Luci Maurici,
Please do not forget there are two groups speaking out
on this subject. Those who beleave in individual
rights show no discrimination. There is no differance
between calling someone a gender they don't care for
or an oligarch. Either way, You (As a private
individual) have the right to use whatever term you
desire. The only limit is how much you care for your
Diginitas.
There are some who call for group rights, rather than
individual rights. These people divide the world into
their favored groups and the oppressors. If you are
lucky enough to belong to one of the favored groups,
then any whim you have is a right. If you aren't a
member of one of the groups they have decided deserve
to have their "rights" protected, then you are a
oppressor and have no rights at all.
The defenders of group rights portray themselves as
the protectors of minorities, but they often have
little regard for the ultimate minority, the
indiviual. They only recognize certain minorities whom
they favor, and care little for other minorities.
Salve,
L. Sicinius Drusus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus (wasDraco the villain, Sulla the saint) |
| From: |
lsicinius@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 06:35:00 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> on 5/18/01 10:51 PM, L. Corn--------s Sulla F-------- at al--------us@--------
> wrote:
>
> > on 5/18/01 10:45 PM, marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------- at
> > marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------- wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Salvete cives,
> >>
> >>> True, however both Censors have determined for the sake of privacy
> >> that
> >>> we will only give confidential information to Governors. I can
> >> tell you
> >>> why I have this opinion, we (magistrates and Senators) have no
> >> control
> >>> over the appointment of Legates. They are not held for public
> >>> scrutiny. I believe My colleague already explained this to Sextus
> >>> Apollonius.
> >>
> >> I sent off for confidential information as a scriba, and although you
> >> need Vado's confirmation, you sent it to ME, tho' I was not a
> >> propraetor. And yet you didn't send it to Draco, despite the fact
> >> that the Censores had already received the Propraetor of Gallia's
> >> confirmation.
> >>
> >> Bene valete!
> >> Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
> >
> > Yes, however my colleague in the Censorship changed and as such...my
> > colleague and I discussed this and we felt that we should protect
private
> > information more. So, when we talked about this issue on the phone we
> > decided that we would give confidential information to
governors...just like
> > my colleagues decision not to give addresses and phone numbers of
citizens.
> > I understand his concerns and agreed with them.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> >
> >
> >
> Oh and one addendum...To my knoweldge I never received the Governor of
> Gallia's confirmation....I forgot to mention that in my original post.
>
> Sulla Felix
Salve Luci Corneli,
I do not dispute that you and your colleague have the right to handle
the duties of your office as you see fit, bound only by the Leges of
Nova Roma.
However I would like to point out that in Antiquita the custom was
that when Magistrates started their term at the first of the year they
issused a procedural edicta, stating how they would handle procedures
during the year. Often these were no more than a single line that they
would follow the procedures established by one of their predacessors.
If you and your colleague had done this when you decided to use a
stricter standard regarding private information, this misunderstanding
could have been avoided.
Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Basilica 0.9 Release |
| From: |
lsicinius@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 07:19:25 -0000 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
Basilica 0.9 is ready!
This version contains too many changes for a theme installer to work,
so it has to be installed by hand.
First Install Mozilla 0.9 on your Computer. Versions for 12 different
Operating systems may be found at
http://www.mozilla.org/releases/
Next download basilica.zip from
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/files/Basilica/
Unzip basilica.zip
You should find the following files
basilica.ico
chatzilla.jar
classic.jar
comm.jar
en-US.jar
legal.txt
toolkit.jar
US.jar
The files that end in .jar are basilica files.
basilica.ico is a Windows icon that you can use on your Desktop if you
wish.
legal.txt is the Basilica License
Find the Directory (Folder for Windows) that you installed Mozilla in.
there will be a Chrome directory (folder) inside this directory. On
Windows the folder will be in Mozilla\bin\chrome
Copy the jar files from basilica to this directory, replacing
Mozilla's jar files with the same name. This will convert Mozilla 0.9
to Basilica 0.9 It replaces Mozilla's classic theme with the Basilica
theme from Basilica 0.8
If anyone has any questions, please contact me off list and I'll be
glad to help.
Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus (wasDraco the villain, Sulla the saint) |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 00:20:44 -0700 |
|
lsicinius@-------- wrote:
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, "L. Cornelius Sulla Felix" <alexious@e...> wrote:
> > on 5/18/01 10:51 PM, L. Corn--------s Sulla F-------- at al--------us@--------
> > wrote:
> >
> > > on 5/18/01 10:45 PM, marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------- at
> > > marcusaemiliusscaurus@-------- wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Salvete cives,
> > >>
> > >>> True, however both Censors have determined for the sake of privacy
> > >> that
> > >>> we will only give confidential information to Governors. I can
> > >> tell you
> > >>> why I have this opinion, we (magistrates and Senators) have no
> > >> control
> > >>> over the appointment of Legates. They are not held for public
> > >>> scrutiny. I believe My colleague already explained this to Sextus
> > >>> Apollonius.
> > >>
> > >> I sent off for confidential information as a scriba, and although you
> > >> need Vado's confirmation, you sent it to ME, tho' I was not a
> > >> propraetor. And yet you didn't send it to Draco, despite the fact
> > >> that the Censores had already received the Propraetor of Gallia's
> > >> confirmation.
> > >>
> > >> Bene valete!
> > >> Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
> > >
> > > Yes, however my colleague in the Censorship changed and as such...my
> > > colleague and I discussed this and we felt that we should protect
> private
> > > information more. So, when we talked about this issue on the phone we
> > > decided that we would give confidential information to
> governors...just like
> > > my colleagues decision not to give addresses and phone numbers of
> citizens.
> > > I understand his concerns and agreed with them.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > >
> > > Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Oh and one addendum...To my knoweldge I never received the Governor of
> > Gallia's confirmation....I forgot to mention that in my original post.
> >
> > Sulla Felix
>
> Salve Luci Corneli,
>
> I do not dispute that you and your colleague have the right to handle
> the duties of your office as you see fit, bound only by the Leges of
> Nova Roma.
>
> However I would like to point out that in Antiquita the custom was
> that when Magistrates started their term at the first of the year they
> issused a procedural edicta, stating how they would handle procedures
> during the year. Often these were no more than a single line that they
> would follow the procedures established by one of their predacessors.
>
> If you and your colleague had done this when you decided to use a
> stricter standard regarding private information, this misunderstanding
> could have been avoided.
>
Ave,
I agree it is something that we will definately consider. I planned on
a phone conversation with my colleague last week...but other events and
phone calls happened instead...maybe this weekend we can work out some
other situation. I can only speak for myself though, I have been
working on other projects that are very important, such as the Censor
handbook...and other edict (like the one regarding non-responsive
Paters). Then we have the elections where the edicta that were drafted
last year are finally being promulgated and I have to do research for
that given the recent controversy and debates have raged. I wish I had
more time to be more thorough, maybe my successors, whoever they may be
will do a better job than I have been able to do. I have only tried to
do my best.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Basilica 0.9 Release |
| From: |
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 00:22:40 -0700 |
|
Cool... I guess I will have to download Mozilla now..and use that
instead of IE.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
lsicinius@-------- wrote:
>
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> Basilica 0.9 is ready!
>
> This version contains too many changes for a theme installer to work,
> so it has to be installed by hand.
>
> First Install Mozilla 0.9 on your Computer. Versions for 12 different
> Operating systems may be found at
> http://www.mozilla.org/releases/
>
> Next download basilica.zip from
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/files/Basilica/
>
> Unzip basilica.zip
> You should find the following files
> basilica.ico
> chatzilla.jar
> classic.jar
> comm.jar
> en-US.jar
> legal.txt
> toolkit.jar
> US.jar
>
> The files that end in .jar are basilica files.
> basilica.ico is a Windows icon that you can use on your Desktop if you
> wish.
> legal.txt is the Basilica License
>
> Find the Directory (Folder for Windows) that you installed Mozilla in.
> there will be a Chrome directory (folder) inside this directory. On
> Windows the folder will be in Mozilla\bin\chrome
>
> Copy the jar files from basilica to this directory, replacing
> Mozilla's jar files with the same name. This will convert Mozilla 0.9
> to Basilica 0.9 It replaces Mozilla's classic theme with the Basilica
> theme from Basilica 0.8
>
> If anyone has any questions, please contact me off list and I'll be
> glad to help.
>
> Vale,
> L. Sicinius Drusus
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: A Presumption of Innocence |
| From: |
QFabiusMax@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 06:09:48 EDT |
|
In a message dated 5/18/2001 5:39:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
lsicinius@-------- writes:
<< Let all accusers understand that they are not to
prefer charges unless they can be proven by proper
witnesses or by conclusive documents, or by
circumstantial evidence which amounts to indubitable
proof and is clearer than day.' Code, L. 4, tit. 20,
1,l. 25. >>
Salvete.
I admit I'm confused. Nobody has pressed ANY charge officially to my office.
We have had a lot of innuendo, which around here is pretty normal it appears.
But not a hint of an official charge.
Draco requested the Censores to explain their reasons for admitting Nerva
early.
The censores complied. At best Censor Equitus is "guilty" of the crime of
"culpa."(Carelessness)
However, as he said he didn't want search 2000 pieces of mail looking to
confirm Nerva's story. And after all why should he? He had the word of
several people when the date Nerva left was.
As for Censor Cornelius + the Cassi cooking up this early admittance "plot"
that Draco believes happened, consider: What is to be gained? A month's early
admittence? To what purpose? Like Lucius Marius, Cassius Nerva could have
hung around the out skirts of NR, without being a citizen. There was nothing
pressing about his admittance. It would seem to be what it appears: an
honest mistake.
Final word: We now know that the Cornelians and the Apollonians do not like
each other.
So gentlemen stop it! Who gets the final word is not as important as the
disruption you continue to cause on the main list. So show some dignatis
here. Let's move on to other things.
Vale
Q. Fabius Maximus
Praetor Urbanus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Presumption of Innocence |
| From: |
Lucilla Cornelia Cinna <CorneliaLucilla@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 12:35:25 +0200 |
|
Salve Q. Fabi Maxime
> Final word: We now know that the Cornelians and the Apollonians do not like
> each other.
I suppose I speak at least for the majority of the Cornelii that we
don't want and we don't have anything like a Gens feud with the
Apollonii, and I guess this is true for most Apollonii as well. The Gens
Cornelia as a whole (!) is willing to resolve the quarrellings ... We
are working on it, and I will welcome the benefits arising from a
conciliation and even - if desired - cooperation of both our Gentes.
However, I was _not_ speaking for the Gens Cornelia in my postings, only
for myself. ;o)
Bene vale!
Lucilla Cornelia Cinna
Quaestrix C. Flavio Diocletiano Praetori Propraetori provinciae Germaniae
Retaria Sodalitatis Egressus
Musaea collegiorum Calliopes Cliusque Sodalitatis Musarum
Civis NovaRomana
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Last comments on the topic (was Re: [novaroma] Response to Lucilla Cornelia [long]) |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 16:05:16 +0200 |
|
Salve Lucilla Cornelia,
Since I feel everyone has grown weary of the topic now, I'll "rest my case"
and "retire" from this list for a short while, as Iasonus Serenus suggested.
So this will be my last reply -- any public reply will go by unanswered, at
least by me :-). People who wish to discuss it further privately are welcome
to do so.
Let's see...
> You still seem not to get the point ...
>
> All I am trying to say is that you presented yourself in a very bad
> light yesterday, because you didn't keep to some very Roman rules which
say
> "In dubio pro reo"
> i.e. as long as you don't have definite proof for the accusations you
> present, keep them to yourself. You must be willing and able to present
> this proof before the audience you choose for your accusations. If you
> don't, you're just insinuating.
> "Audiatur et altera pars"
> i.e. don't present final conclusions before the person accused or his
> attorney has spoken.
>
I understand what you're trying to say here. _But_ this was not a trial, so
there were no attorneys involved. Also, even though I'm beginning to sound
repeating myself, I summed up all my indications and evidence in that
e-mail. But how can you prove an "intention"? That's nigh impossible. So if
I would follow your line of reasoning, I could have shut up forever. "My
accusation" has only been denied partially, and even so, denial is no
innocence, even though I'm prepared to give the accused the advantage of
doubt -- a practice that made Rome so great, as Lucius Sicinius says.
> Besides, still it seems you don't see the point why repeatedly admitting
> you were thinking of placing them here anonymously or under a different
> name and insisting on the idea that it would have been more clever, if
> you had done so, does not support your moral integrity (because in the
> end you didn't), but makes people think "We would do it. He would cheat
us."
> And since you also repeatedly said you had held back this knowledge of
> yours for some appropriate moment, I have to ask you, what do you call
> an appropriate moment? A moment where you can most effectively damage
> someone else's reputation (Nerva/Festus? Sulla?)?
>
I fear I won't be able to convince you that damaging the reputation of
someone else was not the intent. If I had presented my informations
anonymously, the criticism would have been for the info rather than the
sender -- another reason among the others why it would have been better that
way. The reputational damage incurred would be an inevitable consequence
anyway. But my "timing" had to do with the impact and attention on and for
the public rather than waiting until I could strike out of some silly
revenge motive.
On a related note: I only had completed my "list of suspicions" about a week
ago. So it's not like I had it last month and could have sent it then.
> In my humble opinion, it was a mistake, a bad mistake, Draco, and
> unfortunately (to me) it proved L. Sulla's opinion about your being
> incapable of holding the office of Aedilis Plebis, right, although I
> didn't share his opinion at that time.
>
That doesn't have anything to do with administrational capacities, imho.
> Please don't get me wrong - If there is truth in your accusations, the
> whole matter certainly will be investigated by the Praetores (I think I
> can speak for C. Flavius Diocletianus here).
>
> I am not going to contact you privately about your witness, I prefer
> "playing with open cards". And the fact that nobody contacted you about
> that, should make you think things over.
Yes, for me it proves that people actually don't want to know who the
witness is -- they rather villify my sources than actually check on them.
Should I violate someone else's privacy for the sake of playing with open
cards? I think not.
> As I said, your recent
> activities seem rash, ill-considered and ill-advised to me and I would
> rather see you return to your remarkable work within the Sodalitas
> Musarum, instead of risking your reputation for the purposes of people
> who are no longer a part of Nova Roma - or what else are you traing to
> tell me about an ex-citizen being a witness for your accusations against
> the censors - particularly one of them.
>
I may be wrong, but I interprete this as an insinuation that I'm working at
the behest of someone else. But even if you didn't mean it that way: it's
not true. I am one individual, not a cartel. I am one political activist,
and not a conspiracy. And I am nobody's lapdog, and don't carry out orders
from dark superiors. This was all my own doing, even though I greatly regret
some of it.
--------->
My personal conclusion...
Even though I wish I would have done some things differently, the largest
part of my original posting is still standing. The part that isn't, hasn't
been exactly countered with significant evidence, but then again accused
does not mean guilty.
-------->
Valete bene,
Sextus Apollonius Draco,
Vainqueur, ICQ# 32924725
Darkling_Crawler, Yahoo IM
"Come, fly the teeth of the wind; share my wings" (FSOL)
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Cornelii et Apollonii |
| From: |
"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 16:10:38 +0200 |
|
Salve Lucilla Cornelia,
> I suppose I speak at least for the majority of the Cornelii that we
> don't want and we don't have anything like a Gens feud with the
> Apollonii, and I guess this is true for most Apollonii as well. The Gens
> Cornelia as a whole (!) is willing to resolve the quarrellings ... We
> are working on it, and I will welcome the benefits arising from a
> conciliation and even - if desired - cooperation of both our Gentes.
>
Allow me to echo these words as an Apollonian. Cooperation could be much
more fruitful than contestation.
(snipped)
Vale bene,
Draco
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Concordia and temporary 'exile'. |
| From: |
gcassiusnerva@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 13:26:14 EDT |
|
Salve Iasonvs Serenvs, and to everyone,
Your idea that I spend a month off the list and out of touch with the
electronic body of the republic, is one I actually entertained a few days
ago. But I had to reject this idea for two reasons.
1. A temporary exile from our main forum is a punitive action. No one has
been charged with any crime by the state, and so no one has been tried or
convicted of any crime. It makes no sense to impose a punishment where there
has been no conviction.
2. The mailing list is open to all, citizen, non-citizen, and
pending-citizen alike. No one during the period before his/her application
is approved is asked to stay off the mailing list. I would not benefit from
this, and neither would anyone else.
Another solution is being worked out between the censors office, myself, and
another magistrate.
However, there is another thing I am personally happy to do. A few days
ago, I wrote a check for Nova Roma in the amount of fifty dollars. I did not
mail it yet. I will void that check and write one for double that amount, so
that there will be the original fifty dollars contribution, and fifty dollars
for Concordia, and for good will for this republic. This is not a fine or
penalty, and no one has asked this or suggested this to me. It is a gesture
for the good will of the Res Publica and to express my own regret this error
happened.
These are my last words on this business. If the magistrates or the Senate
have questions for me regarding this, I will be happy to assist them in any
inquiries they may have. And if citizens Draco and Limitanus still wish to
make accusations, and call for a 'trial', I will be only too happy to meet
them head on---in a properly constituted Nova Roma court.
Gaius Cassius Nerva
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Roman Days Preparations? |
| From: |
gcassiusnerva@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 13:54:57 EDT |
|
I will be at Roman Days, and my wife and I plan to attend the feast and
hospitality suite.
Since I live here in the area, I have left that Saturday open all day. If
NR vendors need help in setting up, I would like to offer to be of assistance.
Gaius Cassius Nerva
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Festus/Nerva |
| From: |
"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 14:12:54 -0400 |
|
Ex Domo Censor Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Praetoribus SPD
Since the application and approval of Gaius Cassius Nerva was premature and he should not, under "Edictum Censorial de Civitate Eivranda", have been legally approved, his citizenship is void.
However, since his 6 month waiting period is now passed he is certainly welcome to reapply immediately. This will have the effect of having reset his citizen "clock" to 21 May 2001.
Also, I request that Curator Araneae Marcus Octavius Germanicus provide the Rogatores with his voters code so that any vote that he may have cast be voided.
I make this decision with the hope that everyone will be equally unhappy, but all will see it as just.
From: Lykaion1@--------
Date: Fri Oct 13, 2000 3:19 pm
Subject: notice
Personal email to the censors did not go through.
I am resigned effective 10/13/00
Gaius Lupinius Festus
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Lex Vedia de assidui et capiti censi |
| From: |
"L. Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete Quirites,
Those of you who haven't voted now have less than a
day to make your voice heard. Voting ends at 18:00
Roman time tomorrow, and that is less than 22 hours
away as I write this.
The Lex Vedia de assidui et capiti censi is vital to
the future health of our Republic. It establishes a
very fair and mild treatment for citizens who fail to
pay the taxes that Nova Roma needs if she is to
continue to grow. I urge you to vote yes for this just
lex.
Quirites,
If you have not voted yet, do so now.
I'll make it easy!
Here is the link to vote
http://www.novaroma.org/cursus_honorum/voting/
Vale
L. Sicinius Drusus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: A Presumption of Innocence |
| From: |
Caius Flavius Diocletianus <3s@--------> |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 22:41:23 +0200 |
|
Caius Flavius Diocletianus Quiritibus S.P.D.
Itīs not only a question of innocence or guiltyness. A simple
administrative mistake was bruhed up to a wholescale crisis.
Nobody refuses that Cassius Nerva was reaccepted premature -- ca. one
month! Remember, that Cassius Nerva has a subjective right of
reacception into Nova Roma after the legal period of time. We speak
about one month, citizens. But we speak about an administrative mistake,
too.
But, is this mistake worth to forge a crisis, or to speculate about a
plot? The emnity between the Apollonii and the Cornelii is obvious.
I appeal to both the gentiles of the Apollonii and the Cornelii to stop
here, to withdraw and to think about, how to solve the situation and how
to improve concordia. Our republic has itīs legal offices and
magistrates for any review of the procedure and the mistakes here. Not
the administrative problem here is a danger for the State, itīs the
emnity between two gentes.
I once more appeal to all citizens to show dignitas, concordia, and
respect for the personality of any other citizen, official or
magistrate. Nobody benefits from accusing magistrates in office.
Magistrates are human beings, and human beings make mistakes sometimes.
Only those who donīt work at all will make no mistakes. Donīt forget
this, citizens! No reason to damage oneīs personal dignitas!
Valete,
Caius Flavius Diocletianus
Praetor, Senator
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Invalid Voter Code |
| From: |
"Domna Claudia Auspicata" <comptess@--------> |
| Date: |
Sun, 20 May 2001 10:09:19 +1200 |
|
Salvete Quirites!
One more Invalid Voter Code...
Tracking # 6150
Less than one more day to go so if the citizen with this tracking number could try again or contact the Rogators or Censors immediately if the problem persists.
Valete
Domna Claudia Auspicata
Rogator
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Our virtues must be protected. |
| From: |
antoniuscorvusseptimius@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 18:04:57 -0000 |
|
Salvete omnes,
With respect to my gens and my ancestors I state that my
comments are my responsibility. That being said, I will defend our
virtues in any way that I can. The total disregard (and disrespect)
that has been in occurance in Nova Roma, must be dealt with in a
manner
that would put a stop to these acts that have every opportunity
to hurt the future of our cause. And (may I remind everyone) that our
goal is to reinstate this pure and honest way of life, that has been
blurred and desicrated in the past.
Being a devoted Roman is what I am. And a proud citizen of
Nova Roma. There must be action taken against these acts of blatent
disregard to our system, and our ways of handling accusations. Ours
is
a system that works, USE IT WISELY. Its time now for the accusers
(that
have crossed the line) to face the consiquences of their actions. As
everyone (who follows our virtues) knows it would be disrespectful to
do otherwise.
respectfully, Antonius Corvus Septimius
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Our virtues must be protected. |
| From: |
lsicinius@-------- |
| Date: |
Sat, 19 May 2001 23:52:20 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, antoniuscorvusseptimius@-------- wrote:
> Salvete omnes,
>
> With respect to my gens and my ancestors I state that my
> comments are my responsibility. That being said, I will defend our
> virtues in any way that I can. The total disregard (and disrespect)
> that has been in occurance in Nova Roma, must be dealt with in a
> manner
> that would put a stop to these acts that have every opportunity
> to hurt the future of our cause. And (may I remind everyone) that our
> goal is to reinstate this pure and honest way of life, that has been
> blurred and desicrated in the past.
> Being a devoted Roman is what I am. And a proud citizen of
> Nova Roma. There must be action taken against these acts of blatent
> disregard to our system, and our ways of handling accusations. Ours
> is
> a system that works, USE IT WISELY. Its time now for the accusers
> (that
> have crossed the line) to face the consiquences of their actions. As
> everyone (who follows our virtues) knows it would be disrespectful to
> do otherwise.
>
> respectfully, Antonius Corvus Septimius
Salve,
While I commend your zeal in defending our virtues, I have to warn you
that you are making the same mistake as the accusers. If you think
action should be taken, you should bring this matter before the
Praetors, not the main list.
Those who made the accusations have the same rights as any other
citizen. Allthough their posts are evidence of their actions, we have
not enacted a lex to deal with matters like this. Under Roman law
charges could be bought, but we have not ratified those leges, and I
think it would not be wise to bring charges against a citizen based on
Ancient laws we have not ratified. Even if we ratified one of the
ancient leges, or passed a new lex applying to this matter would be a
case of lex ex post facto, an after the fact law, and a gross
violation of their rights. They have commited no crime recognized by
Nova Roma.
If you wish to advocate a lex against future occurances like this, you
have the right to do so. In this case "punishment" must be limited to
the loss of dignitas the accusers have allready suffered.
Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
