Forum Romanum


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Fight the real oppressors (was Re: The Oligarchic Problem)
From:	Marcus Octavius Germanicus <haase@-------->
Date:	Mon, 21 May 2001 19:02:09 -0500 (CDT)

Salve Marce Senti,

> This is our list - if the person is so interested in our Republic then they
> should be a Citizen - it is not the forum for views of all and sundry - and
> no !!! it is not as valid as yours and mine as he is not a citizen - period.

But we should welcome prospective citizens. This list is often their
first exposure to Nova Roma, and we should make every effort to extend
the hand of friendship.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Fight the real oppressors (was Re: The Oligarchic Problem)
From:	Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 10:07:18 +1000

Salve Octavius

I agree with you - but in the context of the message post from that person,
I think it was more underhanded than what we believe - some people are out
to cause trouble no matter what environment they are in and in this context
is what I made my comments. I apologise to any genuine interested
prospective Citizen that I may have upset - become a citizen - it is good to
be part of the Republic !!! and make all the comments you want !!

Vale
Marcus Sentius Claudius

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus Octavius Germanicus [mailto:haase@--------]
Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2001 10:02 Am
To: 'novaroma@--------'
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Fight the real oppressors (was Re: The
Oligarchic Problem)

Salve Marce Senti,

> This is our list - if the person is so interested in our Republic then
they
> should be a Citizen - it is not the forum for views of all and sundry -
and
> no !!! it is not as valid as yours and mine as he is not a citizen -
period.

But we should welcome prospective citizens. This list is often their
first exposure to Nova Roma, and we should make every effort to extend
the hand of friendship.

Vale, Octavius.

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
**********************************************************************

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] A Fair Trial for Sulla
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 02:08:11 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus L. Sicinio Druso et omnibus Civibus S.P.D.

Some re]plies to you mi Sicini, who wrote:

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 03:03:31 -0000
From: "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Subject: Re: Some Praise for Draco

--- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:

SNIP

> I have also seen random words about "informing the
Praetors".

Salve,

Marcus Apollonius, I was the person who bought up the topic of
informing the Praetors, and there was nothing random about it.

MAF: I believe one or two others may have mentioned something about
the Praetors too. In any case, my basic point was that the Praetors
are on this list and are able to read. A posting on the Nova Roma
Main List is a de facto act of informing the Praetors. They can
hardly pretend not to know when it has been cried out loud in the
Forum here. When no legal action is called for - and Draco did not
call for any - I cannot see any reason why they need be addressed any
more specifically. If they think they would like to investigate on
their own initiative, they have been given as many of the necessary
facts that Draco knows or that others subsequently offered here.
____________
(Drusus:)
As I pointed out, the accusation had been made that high officals had
violated the constitution, and I cited the section that applied. This
was a matter that could have resulted in an Impaechment process being
bought against certain Magistrates.

MAF: Well, Draco did not call for that. Neither did you. Neither did
I, although I rather think it might have been a good thing for
someone to have done.
___________
(Drusus:)
The fact that these men hold high office does NOT have any effect on
their right to a fair trail process. A trial process before a jury
that has NOT been tainted by hearing excerpts of the evidence with
policital spin attached to it.

MAF: Here I think you are confusing modern Common Law ideas of
unbiased juries with the Roman concept that the sovereign People are
the ultimate guardian of the fair treatment of each of their number..
That is as much political as judicial, in fact, and is not like our
modern notion. (Both have their good and bad points, but in any case
they are different.)

In our little community no one is going to be "untainted" with
*knowledge*. On the contrary, the more knowledge we have, the better
better we can do our job of judging if need be.
_____________
(Drusus:)
If an Impeachment trail had occured it would have taken place before
the Comitia Centuriata, and the jury would have been the people
assembled in their centuries. The People who had allready read
portions of the evidence on this list, and would NOT be entering the
Comitia as an unbiased jury.

The Right to a fair trail takes precedance over politics. That means
you present the evidence to the Praetors privatly, not to the Jury
BEFORE the trail process begans. If the Praetors do not think the
matter is worth persuing, then you may bring it before the people.

MAF: As I said, this in not a Common Law jury and the concept is
different. Practically speaking, furthermore, the Praetors are part
of the Oligarchy, and one is an especially close friend of Sulla,
while the other has publically spoken out against prosecution because
he does not feel our legal system is ready for it (a point of view
having some truth to it - our impeachment procedures are not as clear
as they might be).

One can imagine that they might indeed act if there were enough
public pressure on them, perhaps, but one can scarcely imagine that
they would act on the basis of the evidence in the accusation itself
in the absence of a public outcry. As I understand the situation,
this would not have been a private suit of one individual by another,
for which Diocletianus' praetorial edictum admirably prepared a
definite procedure, but a request for an official prosecution of an
errant magistrate in the carrying out of his duties, i.e. an
impeachment. A single ordinary citizen does not have the influence to
get this officially initiated solely on his own request. The request
would simply have died in secrecy in the hands of the Praetors if the
approach suggested by you had been tried. Only a public outcry would
normally have any hope to get such an action taken by the Praetors,
and there would be no public outcry if the public did not know.
_________________
(Drusus:)
When you bypass the Praetors you are showing that the Right to a fair
trail is a Right that you do not respect. That is hardly keeping the
the postion of the defender of Indiviual rights that you aspire to.

MAF: The Praetors were never "bypassed" - they were informed of
everything Draco knew right along with everyone else. Your words have
the assumptions behind them that:

(1) an impeachment was being sought - but it wasn't;
(2) the Praetores are truely non-political and independent and would
initiate ompeachment proceedings if one ordinary citizen laid
evidence before them - but they aren't and almost certainly wouldn't;
(3) that our Roman system of trial by the People is the same form of
protection as the Common Law jury system - but it isn't.

I would like to clarify my statement about the Praetors, by the way:
That Q.F. Maximus is a friend of the accused is in no way immoral.
Having friends, having indeed political allies, is normal. The only
problem is that it does not leave us unbiased. Merullus last year
being caught between being a completely unbiased Censor and the
Paterfamilias of Marius with duties of being his advocate and
protector is another case in point, one in which he was not really
able to do either job completely adequately because of natural
conflicts of duty.

This is because we are in size a village, and one with excellent
communications. Finding truely unbiased people is difficult - we all
have different linkages with one another and multiple personally
interlocking rôles. The oligarchism, of course, makes this an even
greater problem. So, I think the closest we can get to justice here
is by calling on the whole People to hear everything ab initio. In
numbers there is the best chance of cancelling out special
relationships - not in ignorance of the facts.

I agree completely that even high officials deserve a fair trial if
somone is going to try them. Draco took a different approach and
brought the matter directly before the People, not assembled as legal
judges, but simply in their basic capacity as cives, presumably
concerned with honesty in their officials and good government.

I am slightly disappointed that neither Praetors nor Senate nor
Consuls have offered of their own accord to hold a formal
investigation, but that is what I have come to expect when a member
of the Oligarchy is accused, even with considerable evidence, most of
which came to be admitted as true by everyone.

But thanks to Draco, all of us now know that Sulla (who must have
known that Nerva was his old friend and wanted to return) failed to
take an interest in making sure that his friend had been forced to
wait at the door for six months in accordance with his own edictum
intended for non-friends. He did not (apparently) check dates or
inform his colleague. Whether this was an honest mistake (and so
merely incompetence), or a deliberate omission or connivance (and so
malfeasance in office) we cannot in the absence of a very probing
investigation ever know. But as either interpretation is damaging, we
can take the reduction in his credibility and auctoritas in the eyes
of the public to be all the punishment he will receive. The public
has heard both sides of the story and can judge for itself. And
indeed that is all that Draco wished.

I do not intend to continue on this topic if others do not. Draco
has very creditably made his point with the evidence presented and
deserves public thanks.

Valete!

_________________________________________________
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, Aedilis Plebeius Novae Romae
Amicus Dignitatis; Scriba Censorius
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis
Magister Scholae Latinae
Moderator Indicis protoprovincialis NR_Venediae
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
Minervium Virtuale: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/Minervium.htm
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
____________________________________________________
Memento Idus Martias - Remember the Ides of March.
____________________________________________________

All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph in the world is for
enough good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
___________________________________________________

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Gladiatorial combats and races on the NR chat room.
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Mon, 21 May 2001 17:20:56 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes!

I have just had a "brainstorm" with Octavius Germanicus (our Curator
Arenae) on the chat room, and we have worked up this crazy idea.

We could have gladiatorial combats and chariot races on the chat room.

"How?" I can hear you asking."What are you talking about?".

Well, to illustrate this idea, let me present a hypothetical situation.

Imagine Oppius Flaccus Severus and I have generated one gladiator each
to participate in this month's games (sorry, Oppius. I had to choose
someone ;-) ). We would be both dearly wishing to win, for both our
gladiators are high on the Nova Roma ranking.

On a given date, at a given time, Oppius and I enter the chat room of
the main web site. We click a button which will make every single
message between us to be followed by a random number (Octavius says he
can implement this button in the chat room). So we start to fight. We
take the decisions for our gladiators (when to attack, how to do it),
and the random numbers tell us if our attempts have been successful.
Later, when Oppius' gladiator (who is called Severinus, BTW) kills mine
(Asturix), we can both send a message to the Aediles informing about
the results of the fight, so the gladiatorial roster can be updated.

The same thing could work with racing chariots; and we could also have
spectators (who could "thumb up" for mercy on my poor Asturix :-) ).

Please, let me know if you think this would be a good idea. Specially
the Aediles, who should be in charge, by tradition, of organizing such
"games".

If you think this is a good idea, I could come up with a set of rules
for combat.

=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
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] Fight the real oppressors (was Re: The Oligarchic Problem)
From:	TSardonicus@--------
Date:	Mon, 21 May 2001 20:28:37 EDT

In a message dated 5/21/01 4:56:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mark_a_bird@-------- writes:

> This is our list - if the person is so interested in our Republic then they
> should be a Citizen - it is not the forum for views of all and sundry - and
> no !!! it is not as valid as yours and mine as he is not a citizen -
period.

Salve,

This is an open list. If the person is interested in our Republic, then they
should join the list, consider becoming a citizen, and weigh the words of
those who post here. It is a forum for anyone interested enough to voice
their views in a dignified and respectful manner. Any view expressed on this
list is valid, whether or not you agree with it.

Have we become such an exclusive society that we close our eyes and when
someone who "doesn't belong" expresses an opinion? That road is a dark
one...and a short one at that.

Vale,
LTS

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: A Fair Trial for Sulla
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 01:55:00 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:
>
> M. Apollonius Formosanus L. Sicinio Druso et omnibus Civibus S.P.D.
>
> Some re]plies to you mi Sicini, who wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 03:03:31 -0000
> From: "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
> Subject: Re: Some Praise for Draco
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > I have also seen random words about "informing the
> Praetors".
>
> Salve,
>
> Marcus Apollonius, I was the person who bought up the topic of
> informing the Praetors, and there was nothing random about it.
>
> MAF: I believe one or two others may have mentioned something about
> the Praetors too. In any case, my basic point was that the Praetors
> are on this list and are able to read. A posting on the Nova Roma
> Main List is a de facto act of informing the Praetors. They can
> hardly pretend not to know when it has been cried out loud in the
> Forum here. When no legal action is called for - and Draco did not
> call for any - I cannot see any reason why they need be addressed any
> more specifically. If they think they would like to investigate on
> their own initiative, they have been given as many of the necessary
> facts that Draco knows or that others subsequently offered here.
> ____________
> (Drusus:)
> As I pointed out, the accusation had been made that high officals had
> violated the constitution, and I cited the section that applied. This
> was a matter that could have resulted in an Impaechment process being
> bought against certain Magistrates.
>
> MAF: Well, Draco did not call for that. Neither did you. Neither did
> I, although I rather think it might have been a good thing for
> someone to have done.
> ___________
> (Drusus:)
> The fact that these men hold high office does NOT have any effect on
> their right to a fair trail process. A trial process before a jury
> that has NOT been tainted by hearing excerpts of the evidence with
> policital spin attached to it.
>
> MAF: Here I think you are confusing modern Common Law ideas of
> unbiased juries with the Roman concept that the sovereign People are
> the ultimate guardian of the fair treatment of each of their number..
> That is as much political as judicial, in fact, and is not like our
> modern notion. (Both have their good and bad points, but in any case
> they are different.)
>
> In our little community no one is going to be "untainted" with
> *knowledge*. On the contrary, the more knowledge we have, the better
> better we can do our job of judging if need be.
> _____________
> (Drusus:)
> If an Impeachment trail had occured it would have taken place before
> the Comitia Centuriata, and the jury would have been the people
> assembled in their centuries. The People who had allready read
> portions of the evidence on this list, and would NOT be entering the
> Comitia as an unbiased jury.
>
> The Right to a fair trail takes precedance over politics. That means
> you present the evidence to the Praetors privatly, not to the Jury
> BEFORE the trail process begans. If the Praetors do not think the
> matter is worth persuing, then you may bring it before the people.
>
> MAF: As I said, this in not a Common Law jury and the concept is
> different. Practically speaking, furthermore, the Praetors are part
> of the Oligarchy, and one is an especially close friend of Sulla,
> while the other has publically spoken out against prosecution because
> he does not feel our legal system is ready for it (a point of view
> having some truth to it - our impeachment procedures are not as clear
> as they might be).
>
> One can imagine that they might indeed act if there were enough
> public pressure on them, perhaps, but one can scarcely imagine that
> they would act on the basis of the evidence in the accusation itself
> in the absence of a public outcry. As I understand the situation,
> this would not have been a private suit of one individual by another,
> for which Diocletianus' praetorial edictum admirably prepared a
> definite procedure, but a request for an official prosecution of an
> errant magistrate in the carrying out of his duties, i.e. an
> impeachment. A single ordinary citizen does not have the influence to
> get this officially initiated solely on his own request. The request
> would simply have died in secrecy in the hands of the Praetors if the
> approach suggested by you had been tried. Only a public outcry would
> normally have any hope to get such an action taken by the Praetors,
> and there would be no public outcry if the public did not know.
> _________________
> (Drusus:)
> When you bypass the Praetors you are showing that the Right to a fair
> trail is a Right that you do not respect. That is hardly keeping the
> the postion of the defender of Indiviual rights that you aspire to.
>
> MAF: The Praetors were never "bypassed" - they were informed of
> everything Draco knew right along with everyone else. Your words have
> the assumptions behind them that:
>
> (1) an impeachment was being sought - but it wasn't;
> (2) the Praetores are truely non-political and independent and would
> initiate ompeachment proceedings if one ordinary citizen laid
> evidence before them - but they aren't and almost certainly wouldn't;
> (3) that our Roman system of trial by the People is the same form of
> protection as the Common Law jury system - but it isn't.
>
> I would like to clarify my statement about the Praetors, by the way:
> That Q.F. Maximus is a friend of the accused is in no way immoral.
> Having friends, having indeed political allies, is normal. The only
> problem is that it does not leave us unbiased. Merullus last year
> being caught between being a completely unbiased Censor and the
> Paterfamilias of Marius with duties of being his advocate and
> protector is another case in point, one in which he was not really
> able to do either job completely adequately because of natural
> conflicts of duty.
>
> This is because we are in size a village, and one with excellent
> communications. Finding truely unbiased people is difficult - we all
> have different linkages with one another and multiple personally
> interlocking rôles. The oligarchism, of course, makes this an even
> greater problem. So, I think the closest we can get to justice here
> is by calling on the whole People to hear everything ab initio. In
> numbers there is the best chance of cancelling out special
> relationships - not in ignorance of the facts.
>
> I agree completely that even high officials deserve a fair trial if
> somone is going to try them. Draco took a different approach and
> brought the matter directly before the People, not assembled as legal
> judges, but simply in their basic capacity as cives, presumably
> concerned with honesty in their officials and good government.
>
> I am slightly disappointed that neither Praetors nor Senate nor
> Consuls have offered of their own accord to hold a formal
> investigation, but that is what I have come to expect when a member
> of the Oligarchy is accused, even with considerable evidence, most of
> which came to be admitted as true by everyone.
>
> But thanks to Draco, all of us now know that Sulla (who must have
> known that Nerva was his old friend and wanted to return) failed to
> take an interest in making sure that his friend had been forced to
> wait at the door for six months in accordance with his own edictum
> intended for non-friends. He did not (apparently) check dates or
> inform his colleague. Whether this was an honest mistake (and so
> merely incompetence), or a deliberate omission or connivance (and so
> malfeasance in office) we cannot in the absence of a very probing
> investigation ever know. But as either interpretation is damaging, we
> can take the reduction in his credibility and auctoritas in the eyes
> of the public to be all the punishment he will receive. The public
> has heard both sides of the story and can judge for itself. And
> indeed that is all that Draco wished.
>
> I do not intend to continue on this topic if others do not. Draco
> has very creditably made his point with the evidence presented and
> deserves public thanks.
>
> Valete!
>
Salve,

Marcus Apollonius, you disapoint me. Of all the powers of the state
the power to lay criminal charges against citizens is the avenue that
is most likely to lead to abuses, and that jury system is the greatest
protection the people have against the trynany of the state.

The state has the prestiege of it's officals that it can use as a
weapon to do a far better job of tainting the jurors than any private
citizen, so I do consider the common law notion of an unbiased jury an
inovation that is as worthy of consideration as allowing women a voice
equal to men, and a ban on slavery.

As for the posibility that the Praetors would place personal
relationships ahead of thier duties. I will give our Praetors the
presumption of innocence until I see them act otherwise. If some
future Praetor were to try such an action, All of our doccuments are
digital, and sending them to the Praetor dosen't remove them from my
hard drive, a fact that I sure he would be well aware of. Refusing to
act on clear and compelling evidence, would turn those same doccuments
into evidence that could be used against him in a trail for corruption.

I'll admit that the system won't work if BOTH Praetors and BOTH
Consuls are corrupt, but if we ever reach that state Nova Roma is
allready done for, and it won't matter any more.

Vale
L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: A Fair Trial for Sulla
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 02:10:47 -0000

DOH!

I Left out one minor point, If we are going to follow the practices of
Antiquita, rather than use modern inovations, we must remember that
for most of the Republic the Jury only consisted of Senators. During
the Late Republic It was the Ordo Equester, and the Ancient Order was
different than ours. This model would limit Jury duty to those in the
first class who were not Senators. The common law concept of a jury of
your peers was alien to Roma, The jury consisted of the "best" men,
and the lower orders were locked out.

Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] A Fair Trial for Sulla
From:	QFabiusMax@--------
Date:	Mon, 21 May 2001 22:36:52 EDT

In a message dated 5/21/2001 5:27:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bvm3@--------
writes:

<< But thanks to Draco, all of us now know that Sulla (who must have
known that Nerva was his old friend and wanted to return) failed to
take an interest in making sure that his friend had been forced to
wait at the door for six months in accordance with his own edictum
intended for non-friends. He did not (apparently) check dates or
inform his colleague.<<
That is his statement. But you don't believe the man, that is what you are
saying.

>> Whether this was an honest mistake (and so merely incompetence), or a
deliberate omission or connivance (and so malfeasance in office) we cannot in
the absence of a very probing investigation ever know. <<
Hmm how shall we investigate? I don't have a lie detector attached to my
notebook here. Once accussed publically the people all involved in
Apollonius' "sweep" made public statements. Either we believe them or we
don't. If the Praetors wanted to interview the participants we'd get the
same statements.

Consider this. Why would the censor allow his friend to come back only a
month early? There was no major election that needed to be decided, nor was
Sulla running for anything. You are grasping at straws.
At this point I'd like to make some points about your competence. However I
can't on this list. So I can only hope the People see what exactly you are.
The public has heard both sides of the story and can judge for itself.

>>And indeed that is all that Draco wished.<<
Uh huh. However the timing was too fine. One of your friends says something
about disrupting our election and this is reported to the main list, Draco
the following day, discredits the reporting "citizen." I'd have rather
Draco wait till after the election to report the "citizen's" illegality then
in its middle.

>>I do not intend to continue on this topic if others do not.<<
That the gods for that...

>>Draco has very creditably made his point with the evidence presented and
deserves public thanks.<<
Creditability is a little strong. Cassius Nerva's comments were just as
credible, yet you had to discredit him. What does that tell us?

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Gladiatorial combats and races on the NR chat room.
From:	"Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 00:21:53 -0300

Salvete, Quirites
--
Gnaeus Salix Astur wrote:
>Salvete omnes!
>
>I have just had a "brainstorm" with Octavius Germanicus (our Curator
>Arenae) on the chat room, and we have worked up this crazy idea.

MAIOR: This isnt a crazy idea, but a good one!

>We could have gladiatorial combats and chariot races on the chat room.

MAIOR: Very good! Some time ago, i inquired Q Fabius Maximus about how to promote virtual games (since he and An Gryllus Graecus promoted this type of games years ago, and a Chariot Racing at last 21/apr) but it appeared to be excessively complex to me (or better, im a ignorant in this things).

>The same thing could work with racing chariots; and we could also have
>spectators (who could "thumb up" for mercy on my poor Asturix :-) ).
>
>Please, let me know if you think this would be a good idea. Specially
>the Aediles, who should be in charge, by tradition, of organizing such
>"games".

MAIOR: a good idea, really. We can think in what dates this events can happen (Ludi Romani, Ludi Plebeii, others) and promote them officially.

>If you think this is a good idea, I could come up with a set of rules
>for combat.

MAIOR: Please, go ahead!

>=====
>Bene Valete!
>Gnaeus Salix Astur.
>Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

Marcus Arminius Maior
Aedilis Plebis

Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Some Praise for Draco
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 06:14:56 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilis Plebeius
Mario Cornelio Scipioni Aedili Curuli S.P.D.

I do wish you would be a bit more moderate! I have most strictly
stuck to veritas in all of my posts, except where I made a mistake of
fact about the identity of Sulla's nomenclator, and I apologised to
him publically for that and acknowledged his correction. Of course
with respect to those pieces of veritas which might be considered
"opinion" or "interpretation" people can differ - but that is not
exactly lying, and should not be termed such, as you seem to be
doing. Although you grumble that I do not "accept" others' opinions,
I do not observe you accepting mine, but rather see fulminations
about censorial notae because I speak my mind and speak out for
needful changes to the political situation.

The whole idea of a conflict between Apollonii and Cornelii is very
nice as myth or symbol, but in reality, as usual, things are muddled
and less simple. In the Gens Apollonia we have complete freedom of
political opinion, although I warn newcomers that we are mostly
rather liberal. In fact, however, the degree of political congruence
in the views of the three politically active Apollonii is very high,
perhaps 75% to 90%. In the larger Gens Cornelia with its greater
number of politically-active gentiles, I suspect that there is a bit
more variation.

I am not under any illusions that all Cornelians are such
enthusiastic oligarchy-supporters as their Paterfamilias. Likewise
Draco, for instance, is not under my influence as some have unkindly
said, but simply happens to have similar ideas in favour of freedom
and fairness.

In the case of Cornelians, there is the added point that since the
idea of oligarchy involves supporting certain individuals perhaps
even more than supporting the ideal of oligarchy, any
personal/political support you give Sulla is used by him to support
his rôle in the Oligarchy, and therefore to support the faction of
the Oligarchy which actually believes in the goodness of Oligarchy.
To say that, however, is not to say that you personally have an
ideological preference for oligarchy, which is an independent issue I
shall discuss below. Perhaps you have a right to have that made
clear, so here I do so.

I am surprised at the virulence with which people hate the term
"oligarchy". The oligarchic or aristocratic element is supposed to be
one of three elements in the traditional Roman "mixed republic" (the
other two being the "monarchist" of the magistrates and the
"democratic/populist" of the Tribunes and Comitia). I personally
favour a considerable uncrease of the last here rather underdeveloped
element over its present level, but that does not mean that I am
using "oligarchic" as a term of abuse, or even that I wish to
eliminate the oligarchic element completely.

It might also be useful to distinguish between oligarchs - people
who are in the oligarchy (*loosely* the Senate), and persons who are
"supporters of oligarchy". If I had been elected to the Praetorate, I
would now be an oligarch - but I would not have become a supporter of
oligarchy. And indeed there are, among us, oligarchs who are against
oligarchy (as the dominant element in our republic) - as there are
non-oligarchs who support the oligarchic principle (whom I might
suspect of aspiring to the Oligarchy personally in the long run).

You must not be so intolerant if I must use special terms and labels
to analyse and identify problems we have and suggest solutions.
"Oligarchy" is a term that goes back at least to Aristotle, and is
not Marxist in origin. We cannot eliminate socio-political realities
by railing at the terms necessary to describe things, including
unpleasant things. We can only by so doing cover up evils instead of
perceiving them and thus enabling ourselves to identify them for what
they are and so deal with them.

I am neither an oligarch nor a supporter of oligarchy, whereas Sulla
is both. You are not an oligarch and claim not to support the
principle of oligarchy. However, you say you would not countenance
the oligarchic system, when one already exists here - and that
implies that you wish to deny the Oligarchic Problem we have and make
the oligarchy look like a democracy or whatever your favourite code
word for good and respectable government may be. On this basis of
that implied denial of the current situation, I must presume that you
are indeed a supporter of the oligarchic principle. I come to that
conclusion not based on any supposition that Cornelians are robots,
but from your own words in this post. If I have misinterpreted, I
hope you can tell me how so in moderate language.

I shall not here repeat my whole analysis of the Oligarchic Problem.
But I think that anyone who looks at the present six highest
magistrates and the relative absence of new blood among them (1/6)
and all of the other factors I presented in my post on that topic
would be hard put to deny that the real levers of power here are
controlled by a very few - a few into which persons with different
and more liberal political perspectives are seldom knowingly allowed
to penetrate and somewhat rarely desire to stay, a few who grow
alarmed when an independent popular leader like Piscinus grows
significantly active, a few who even control the bills laid before
the people so as to allow little latitude for choice among
alternative versions, a few who will support one of their number most
of the time even when he is abusing individual citizens or breaking
his own edicta. A few which even right now is attempting to get a
vote to downgrade the suffrage rights of those who might not wish to
or be able to put money in the hands of that Oligarchy. And the real
supporters of oligarchy as an ideal among them (a majority, but not
100%) want to keep things this way.

If you care to admit these problems exist and that they are a
detriment to our Respublica, and if you want to engage in
constructive dialogue on how to solve them, I shall be happy to do
so. If you wish to ostrich-like deny their existence as problems,
then I must personally consider you to be part of the problem and not
part of the solution - on the basis of your own viewpoint, not of
being a Cornelian.

I have nothing against the people in the Gens Cornelia apart from
their head. Naturally they each deserve to be judged primarily on
their own individual merits, and I consider some of them to be good
people. However, insofar as they defend and support their
Paterfamilias, however natural and laudable in itself that may be,
they may find themselves defending indefensible things.

I am proud of the fact that all of the politically active Apollonii
are proponents of freedom, equality, and change to bring those things
about. However, there is no vendetta between our two gentes - simply
a conflict of values among certain individuals - let us say between
myself, Draco and Tiberius on our side and Sulla and those who may
agree with or defend him on your side. Cornelians who wish to stay
out of the fray certainly should not fear attack just because they
are Cornelians, and I wish to assure you that in our private talks we
Apollonians quite often say "Cornelian X is not so bad" or even more
positive things about several of you. :-)

I note that we Plebeian Aediles awarded the Cerealia prize to a
Cornelian, and I was the one who pressed most for that award, as my
colleague would gladly confirm. Does that look like general hostility
against Cornelians?

There are ethical and political conflicts here, but they are only
rather loosely and accidentally related to gentes. They are the
normal conflicts between libertarians and authoritarians which exist
in most societies, and which are rather strong in Nova Roma, perhaps
because so many of the Oligarchy tend to be authoritarian in
persuasion, which generates a rather strong natural opposition from
below. I predict that when and if we have a more politically mixed
oligarchy and more vigorous and independent plebeian institutions,
this normal conflict will shrink to more normal proportions. Or at
least we can hope so.

Vale!

Message: 10
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 15:27:08 -0000
From: "Nick R. Ramos Jr." <nramos@-------->
Subject: Re: Some Praise for Draco

Salvete Omnes!

I have exercised some restraint in this discussion, because in the
most part I have deemed it somewhat overblown. However, let me
address
one issue that is deeply offensive, and clearly states that this
whole
mess is jsut about rabble-rousing by a very irresponsible individual:

M. Appollonius Formosanus clearly states in his post that we
Cornelii are interested in establishing an oligarchy. As a Cornelii,
I
am offended on two counts:

1. The greatly arrogant and overbearing assumption by this man that I

am a mindless slave hopelessly in lockstep with my Paterfamilias on
every issue. Mi Formosane, I happen to by several years senior to my
Paterfamilias, and pretty damn opinionated. I have had some very
distinctive differences of opinion with him, and I am fed up with
your
sweeping generalizations and false arguments - and most of all, for
your utter lack of respect for anyone who may differ one iota from
your opinion. Discrimination? Isn't that rooted in the absolute
refusal to accept anyone else's point of view? You seem to practice
it blatantly and openly here on an almost daily basis.

2. I am not an oligarch, nor would I countenance such a system in
Nova Roma. Stop labeling us simply to make political discussion
points. Your dialectic fails even in the Marxist context you seem to
like using for all your arguments. I did not come here for
"rightist", "leftist" or any other "-ist" ideology. I came to this
Forum because I believe in Roma and her heritage; because despite her
vices and cruelty, She was the Lux Mundi that made our world
possible. I am honored to serve as an Aedile - as you should be - in
this noble endeavour to bring the best of Roma back into breathing,
living reality. As part of that, I will endeavour to respect you and
keep you free from labels and slurs - I only ask that you do the
same. Calling us Nazis, fascists, or OLIGARCHS demeans you and your
cause, the same as it would for us to resort to name-calling.

We in Gens Cornelia have discussed for over a month now how to
create a better rapport with Gens Appollonia. In my discussions with
you and yours I have attempted to be civil and respectful, and
discuss ideas rather than trade insults. Your response has been to
insult us to try and make yourself look better. If I were to search
for a better way to bolster a contention that you do not care one
whit for Nova Roma, but only care for your capacity to be a gadfly
and disrupt the work of others, I could not have found one.

Formosane, if you truly care about Nova Roma, begin by practising
the virtue of Veritas. There is truly much to praise in Draco, for if
nothing else, he is a passionate and earnest young man. Although he
may err in judgement sometimes, he has demonstrated he is trying to
learn and work towards the future. Perhaps you would do very well
indeed to emulate his accomplishments.

With all due respect, if my Paterfamilias was not a Censor, I would
have sought a Censorial Nota against you or exercised a provocatio
against you for these insults. No one should be subject to the
harassment and slander that these words have brought upon our
Gens. I am trying, with this very public appeal, to find a way to
stop this very un-Roman conduct and inject Veritas back into this
discussion. I stretch forth my hand in amicitia and Concordia to you,
mi Formosane - it is entirely up to you how we end this. But end it
must.

Marius Cornelius Scipio
Aedilis Curulis

_________________________________________________
Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, Aedilis Plebeius Novae Romae
Amicus Dignitatis; Scriba Censorius
Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis
Magister Scholae Latinae
Moderator Indicis protoprovincialis NR_Venediae
ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
Minervium Virtuale: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/Minervium.htm
The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
____________________________________________________
Memento Idus Martias - Remember the Ides of March.
____________________________________________________

All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph in the world is for
enough good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
___________________________________________________

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Some Praise for Draco
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Mon, 21 May 2001 21:40:57 -0300

Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > I have also seen random words about "informing the Praetors".
>
> Salve,
>
> Marcus Apollonius, I was the person who bought up the topic of
> informing the Praetors, and there was nothing random about it.
>
> As I pointed out, the accusation had been made that high officals had
> violated the constitution, and I cited the section that applied. This
> was a matter that could have resulted in an Impaechment process being
> bought against certain Magistrates.
>
> The fact that these men hold high office does NOT have any effect on
> their right to a fair trail process. A trial process before a jury
> that has NOT been tainted by hearing excerpts of the evidence with
> policital spin attached to it.
>
> If an Impeachment trail had occured it would have taken place before
> the Comitia Centuriata, and the jury would have been the people
> assembled in their centuries. The People who had allready read
> portions of the evidence on this list, and would NOT be entering the
> Comitia as an unbiased jury.

Do you really mean that the fact that for ex. the Watergate scandal was
unveilled by the press, meaning that everybody knew of it, should have
disaalowed any action against Nixon because it was not fair ?
Do you really think that to be a juror, the jurors have never taken
notice
of the crime and the policy inquire trough newspapers or TV ?
>
> The Right to a fair trail takes precedance over politics. That means
> you present the evidence to the Praetors privatly, not to the Jury
> BEFORE the trail process begans. If the Praetors do not think the
> matter is worth persuing, then you may bring it before the people.
>
> When you bypass the Praetors you are showing that the Right to a fair
> trail is a Right that you do not respect. That is hardly keeping the
> the postion of the defender of Indiviual rights that you aspire to.
>

The notion of fair trial is very macronation depended. In France for ex.
the jurors are asked to forget everything about the evidences presented
during the process and to judge following their initmate conviction.
That too
gives a fair trial. You are applying some extremely distorted rules from
your macronation which definitively is not a reference on this subject.

Vale,

Manius Villius Limitanus

> 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:	Re: [novaroma] A Fair Trial for Sulla
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Mon, 21 May 2001 22:09:34 -0300

"M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:
>
> M. Apollonius Formosanus L. Sicinio Druso et omnibus Civibus S.P.D.
>
> Some re]plies to you mi Sicini, who wrote:
>
> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 03:03:31 -0000
> From: "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
> Subject: Re: Some Praise for Draco
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > I have also seen random words about "informing the
> Praetors".
>
> Salve,
>
> Marcus Apollonius, I was the person who bought up the topic of
> informing the Praetors, and there was nothing random about it.
>
> MAF: I believe one or two others may have mentioned something about
> the Praetors too. In any case, my basic point was that the Praetors
> are on this list and are able to read. A posting on the Nova Roma
> Main List is a de facto act of informing the Praetors. They can
> hardly pretend not to know when it has been cried out loud in the
> Forum here. When no legal action is called for - and Draco did not
> call for any - I cannot see any reason why they need be addressed any
> more specifically. If they think they would like to investigate on
> their own initiative, they have been given as many of the necessary
> facts that Draco knows or that others subsequently offered here.
> ____________
> (Drusus:)
> As I pointed out, the accusation had been made that high officals had
> violated the constitution, and I cited the section that applied. This
> was a matter that could have resulted in an Impaechment process being
> bought against certain Magistrates.
>
> MAF: Well, Draco did not call for that. Neither did you. Neither did
> I, although I rather think it might have been a good thing for
> someone to have done.
> ___________
> (Drusus:)
> The fact that these men hold high office does NOT have any effect on
> their right to a fair trail process. A trial process before a jury
> that has NOT been tainted by hearing excerpts of the evidence with
> policital spin attached to it.
>
> MAF: Here I think you are confusing modern Common Law ideas of
> unbiased juries with the Roman concept that the sovereign People are
> the ultimate guardian of the fair treatment of each of their number..
> That is as much political as judicial, in fact, and is not like our
> modern notion. (Both have their good and bad points, but in any case
> they are different.)
>
> In our little community no one is going to be "untainted" with
> *knowledge*. On the contrary, the more knowledge we have, the better
> better we can do our job of judging if need be.
> _____________
> (Drusus:)
> If an Impeachment trail had occured it would have taken place before
> the Comitia Centuriata, and the jury would have been the people
> assembled in their centuries. The People who had allready read
> portions of the evidence on this list, and would NOT be entering the
> Comitia as an unbiased jury.
>
> The Right to a fair trail takes precedance over politics. That means
> you present the evidence to the Praetors privatly, not to the Jury
> BEFORE the trail process begans. If the Praetors do not think the
> matter is worth persuing, then you may bring it before the people.
>
> MAF: As I said, this in not a Common Law jury and the concept is
> different. Practically speaking, furthermore, the Praetors are part
> of the Oligarchy, and one is an especially close friend of Sulla,
> while the other has publically spoken out against prosecution because
> he does not feel our legal system is ready for it (a point of view
> having some truth to it - our impeachment procedures are not as clear
> as they might be).
>
> One can imagine that they might indeed act if there were enough
> public pressure on them, perhaps, but one can scarcely imagine that
> they would act on the basis of the evidence in the accusation itself
> in the absence of a public outcry. As I understand the situation,
> this would not have been a private suit of one individual by another,
> for which Diocletianus' praetorial edictum admirably prepared a
> definite procedure, but a request for an official prosecution of an
> errant magistrate in the carrying out of his duties, i.e. an
> impeachment. A single ordinary citizen does not have the influence to
> get this officially initiated solely on his own request. The request
> would simply have died in secrecy in the hands of the Praetors if the
> approach suggested by you had been tried. Only a public outcry would
> normally have any hope to get such an action taken by the Praetors,
> and there would be no public outcry if the public did not know.
> _________________
> (Drusus:)
> When you bypass the Praetors you are showing that the Right to a fair
> trail is a Right that you do not respect. That is hardly keeping the
> the postion of the defender of Indiviual rights that you aspire to.
>
> MAF: The Praetors were never "bypassed" - they were informed of
> everything Draco knew right along with everyone else. Your words have
> the assumptions behind them that:
>
> (1) an impeachment was being sought - but it wasn't;
> (2) the Praetores are truely non-political and independent and would
> initiate ompeachment proceedings if one ordinary citizen laid
> evidence before them - but they aren't and almost certainly wouldn't;
> (3) that our Roman system of trial by the People is the same form of
> protection as the Common Law jury system - but it isn't.
>
> I would like to clarify my statement about the Praetors, by the way:
> That Q.F. Maximus is a friend of the accused is in no way immoral.
> Having friends, having indeed political allies, is normal. The only
> problem is that it does not leave us unbiased. Merullus last year
> being caught between being a completely unbiased Censor and the
> Paterfamilias of Marius with duties of being his advocate and
> protector is another case in point, one in which he was not really
> able to do either job completely adequately because of natural
> conflicts of duty.
>
> This is because we are in size a village, and one with excellent
> communications. Finding truely unbiased people is difficult - we all
> have different linkages with one another and multiple personally
> interlocking rôles. The oligarchism, of course, makes this an even
> greater problem. So, I think the closest we can get to justice here
> is by calling on the whole People to hear everything ab initio. In
> numbers there is the best chance of cancelling out special
> relationships - not in ignorance of the facts.
>
> I agree completely that even high officials deserve a fair trial if
> somone is going to try them. Draco took a different approach and
> brought the matter directly before the People, not assembled as legal
> judges, but simply in their basic capacity as cives, presumably
> concerned with honesty in their officials and good government.
>
> I am slightly disappointed that neither Praetors nor Senate nor
> Consuls have offered of their own accord to hold a formal
> investigation, but that is what I have come to expect when a member
> of the Oligarchy is accused, even with considerable evidence, most of
> which came to be admitted as true by everyone.
>
> But thanks to Draco, all of us now know that Sulla (who must have
> known that Nerva was his old friend and wanted to return) failed to
> take an interest in making sure that his friend had been forced to
> wait at the door for six months in accordance with his own edictum
> intended for non-friends. He did not (apparently) check dates or
> inform his colleague. Whether this was an honest mistake (and so
> merely incompetence), or a deliberate omission or connivance (and so
> malfeasance in office) we cannot in the absence of a very probing
> investigation ever know. But as either interpretation is damaging, we
> can take the reduction in his credibility and auctoritas in the eyes
> of the public to be all the punishment he will receive. The public
> has heard both sides of the story and can judge for itself. And
> indeed that is all that Draco wished.

We have much more information then that. Sulla stated he knew thet
Nerva=Festus
and that this was a readmission, he informed his colleague of that fact
and declared to him that Nerva resigned aproximatively in Late
August/September (instead of October).
Knowing that Lucius Equitus met Festus and asked him when he resigned,
strangely he advanced the same date as Sulla.
How two "non-concerted" persons can simultaneous mistake end of summer
with middle of autumn is fairly beyond my understanding.
But this was obvioulsy necessary in order to induce Censor Lucius
Equitus in error, since with a respected Censor and the candidate to
citizenship according on the date he had no reason to doubt and do any
firther research on the date of resignment.
And this way Sulla covered his back because he did not directly readmit
Festus.
Great work, from an artistic point of view I must applaude.

Manius Villius Limitanus

>
> I do not intend to continue on this topic if others do not. Draco
> has very creditably made his point with the evidence presented and
> deserves public thanks.
>
> Valete!
>
> _________________________________________________
> Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, Aedilis Plebeius Novae Romae
> Amicus Dignitatis; Scriba Censorius
> Paterfamilias Gentis Apolloniae (http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/)
> Moderator et Praeceptor Sodalitatis Latinitatis
> Magister Scholae Latinae
> Moderator Indicis protoprovincialis NR_Venediae
> ICQ# 61698049 AIM: MAFormosanus MSN: Formosanus
> Civis Novae Romae in Silesia, Polonia
> Minervium Virtuale: http://www.crosswinds.net/~bvm3/Minervium.htm
> The Gens Apollonia is open to new members.
> Ave nostra Respublica Libera - Nova Roma!
> ____________________________________________________
> Memento Idus Martias - Remember the Ides of March.
> ____________________________________________________
>
> All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph in the world is for
> enough good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
> ___________________________________________________
>
>
>
> 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] Lex
From:	Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 18:23:53 +1000

Ave

Does anyone know when we will know if the new law(s) has been passed ???

Marcus Sentius Claudius
Legate
Australia Provincia

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
**********************************************************************

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Legio VIIII Hispana, Australia
From:	Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 18:30:22 +1000

How does one become part of the Legion in Australia - as I am dead keen !!!

Marcus Sentius Claudius

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Sheridan Richards [mailto:legioix@--------]
Sent: Tuesday, 22 May 2001 12:14 Am
To: novaroma@--------
Subject: [novaroma] Legio VIIII Hispana, Australia

>From Legio IX Hispana's Austalian cousins.. Wayne and Glenda Robinson of
Legio VIIII Hispana...

The other thing we have done recently was the
Computer Associates "Empire" ad. The General next to the Emperor was
wearing a helmet and beltus I made, Glenda and I also equipped three
soldiers and a stack of civilians. I'm the one in the toga walking
next to the bus in the street scene, Glenda is on the right of frame
with her back to the camera in the scene with the balcony.

.. Wayne came the USA on business few years ago and spent a couple of days
visiting San Diego....

His webpage:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3296/index.htm

Salvete
Hibernicus
LEG IX HSPA

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
**********************************************************************

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Books
From:	Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 18:34:05 +1000

Ave

Thank you to all those kind Citizens who advised me of some Roman books to
buy - I appreciate your help.

Vale

Marcus Sentius Claudius
Legate
Australia Provincia

Cheers,

Mark Bird - Village Roadshow

Tax Compliance Manager

Phone 9667 6964 (03), Fax 9639 5900 (03), Mobile 0408 532 963

This communication and any files transmitted with it are intended for the
named addressee only, are confidential in nature and may contain legally
privileged information. The copying or distribution of this communication or
any information it contains, by anyone other than the addressee or the
person responsible for delivering this communication to the intended
addressee, is prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please
advise us by telephone on 613 9667 6511, then delete the communication. You
will be reimbursed for reasonable costs incurred in notifying us.

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the Network Administrator on +61 3 9667 6699.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been scanned
for the presence of computer viruses and inappropriate content.
**********************************************************************

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Gladiatorial combats and races on the NR chat room.
From:	QFabiusMax@--------
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 05:23:06 EDT

In a message dated 5/21/2001 11:07:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
m_arminius@-------- writes:

<<MAIOR: Very good! Some time ago, i inquired Q Fabius Maximus about how to
promote virtual games (since he and An Gryllus Graecus promoted this type of
games years ago, and a Chariot Racing at last 21/apr) but it appeared to be
excessively complex to me (or better, im a ignorant in this things).
>>
Salvete
Actually it wasn't that complex. And the system works fine. My biggest
problem was using
a virtual Arena. The one I had designed for beseen had the disadvantage of
breaking down at the most inopertune time. Gladia and I were working on a
virtual harena until she became to busy to continue.
If NR citizens want to be gladiators that's ok, we have a combat matrix that
is easily to learn.
All the one player would have to do enter his attack while the other his
defense. The two are cross-indexed by the editor to give a result. I.E.
Attacker choses a slice, while the defender choses a parry, the editor cross
indexes the two, and we get a parry. No hit is scored. The attacker now
becomes the defender and the defender the attacker. The bout is over when
the gladiator receives the number of hits indicated. The problem with doing
this virtually is that fatigue is built in by reducing the number of attacks
and defenses, since they are on cards held by the players. But I'm sure I
can come up with some way to limit it via online. When I return home from
France next week, I'll be glad to put together a school and be your lanista.

The problem I have with this is that Roman citizens were not Gladiators. In
fact in the republic there was a Lex passed to keep citizens out of the
harena. Of course if a citizen was sold into slavery to settle a debt he was
eligible for the harena. It was another way to pay off his debt.
The second reason, is as much as I enjoy studying history through recreation,
this adds a role playing aspect to Nova Roma. And we have tried to keep that
part to the back of the micronation. Since this would put it to the
forefront again I think the NR chat room is not the ideal place for this.
People not in the know might get the wrong idea about Nova Roma.
If indeed we want this to work, I'll resume the work I started as Curule
Aedile on the harena, there we could have the fights to our hearts content.

Citizens who are interested in being "Gladiators" should submit their names
to the Curule Aediles, I will work with them in establishing a training
school for you. Let's make the second week in June the deadline for signups.
There is a certain learning curve that should be followed. I'll sponsor the
first series of bouts, after that other Magistrates may sponsor fights of
their own. Any takers?

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Some Praise for Draco
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 10:10:16 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Michel Loos <loos@u...> wrote:
> Lucius Sicinius Drusus wrote:
> >
> > --- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > I have also seen random words about "informing the Praetors".
> >
> > Salve,
> >
> > Marcus Apollonius, I was the person who bought up the topic of
> > informing the Praetors, and there was nothing random about it.
> >
> > As I pointed out, the accusation had been made that high officals had
> > violated the constitution, and I cited the section that applied. This
> > was a matter that could have resulted in an Impaechment process being
> > bought against certain Magistrates.
> >
> > The fact that these men hold high office does NOT have any effect on
> > their right to a fair trail process. A trial process before a jury
> > that has NOT been tainted by hearing excerpts of the evidence with
> > policital spin attached to it.
> >
> > If an Impeachment trail had occured it would have taken place before
> > the Comitia Centuriata, and the jury would have been the people
> > assembled in their centuries. The People who had allready read
> > portions of the evidence on this list, and would NOT be entering the
> > Comitia as an unbiased jury.
>
> Do you really mean that the fact that for ex. the Watergate scandal was
> unveilled by the press, meaning that everybody knew of it, should have
> disaalowed any action against Nixon because it was not fair ?
> Do you really think that to be a juror, the jurors have never taken
> notice
> of the crime and the policy inquire trough newspapers or TV ?

I Do Recall the Watergate episode. The Washington Post has made a
habit of overstating it's role. The Crime was discovered by a Security
gaurd at the Watergate Complex, and far more evidence was uneathed by
the Senate Comititee than any News Organization.

In truth Nixon did nothing that his predecesser didn't also do. The
differance was Nixon made too many enimies and eventually there were
enough of them to destroy him. I Used to laugh my ass off when I'd see
the Senators investigating him, It was so funny to see Herman Talmadge
investigating coruption! Talmadge inheirited a corupt policital
machine from his Daddy, one that had raped Georgia for over 40 years,
and his fellow Senators were well aware of it. A Man who started his
Policital climb to power by acting as his Daddy's Campaign Chairman
and used Racist tatics in the 1946 election that even shocked
Southerners of that era, and who then attempted to take over the
Governers office in a coup when his Daddy died before assuming office.
Talmadge investigating Nixon!! That was a joke that showed the true
nature of Watergate, an exercise in power politics, two gangs of shady
politicans fighting it out for power, and one side aided by an
abetting press that hated the other side.

Watergate is NOT the model we want to use for Nova Roma.
> >
> > The Right to a fair trail takes precedance over politics. That means
> > you present the evidence to the Praetors privatly, not to the Jury
> > BEFORE the trail process begans. If the Praetors do not think the
> > matter is worth persuing, then you may bring it before the people.
> >
> > When you bypass the Praetors you are showing that the Right to a fair
> > trail is a Right that you do not respect. That is hardly keeping the
> > the postion of the defender of Indiviual rights that you aspire to.
> >
>
> The notion of fair trial is very macronation depended. In France for
ex.
> the jurors are asked to forget everything about the evidences presented
> during the process and to judge following their initmate conviction.
> That too
> gives a fair trial. You are applying some extremely distorted rules from
> your macronation which definitively is not a reference on this subject.

Sorry, I disagree, Protecting the rights of the accused is far more
important than any present policital struggle, and the Common law type
of Jury does this better than any other example. Though I do reject
the McCarthy style witch hunts that have been used for the past twenty
eight years in my Macro Nation, from Watergate to The Clinton
Impeachment, where the idea of Justice is trampled to grab headlines
and Policital Power.

Vale
L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lex
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 11:55:10 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, Mark A Bird <mark_a_bird@r...> wrote:
> Ave
>
> Does anyone know when we will know if the new law(s) has been
passed ???
>
>
>
>
>
> Marcus Sentius Claudius
> Legate
> Australia Provincia
>
>
Salvete Quirites,

I was wondering the same.

Is there a problem with the votes from that section Of America
Austrorientalis known as Florida?

Did something happen to a Ryder truck transporting the ballots?

Has one of the canidates filed a suit to stop the vote counting?

Will we know in less than 6 weeks?

;o)
Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Lex
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 08:21:33 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark A Bird [mailto:mark_a_bird@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 4:24 AM
>
> Does anyone know when we will know if the new law(s) has been passed ???

Please remember that tallying the votes, and then cross-checking between the
various rogatores' counts, takes time. The law allows 48 hours from the end
of the vote to complete the count, and a further 24 hours for an
announcement to be made regarding the results. Since the vote concluded
Sunday afternoon, the results could theoretically not be announced until
tomorrow (Wednesday).

In other words, please be patient. These things take time.

Next year in the Forum!

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/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] A Fair Trial for Sulla
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 10:04:49 -0300

QFabiusMax@-------- wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/21/2001 5:27:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bvm3@--------
> writes:
>
> << But thanks to Draco, all of us now know that Sulla (who must have
> known that Nerva was his old friend and wanted to return) failed to
> take an interest in making sure that his friend had been forced to
> wait at the door for six months in accordance with his own edictum
> intended for non-friends. He did not (apparently) check dates or
> inform his colleague.<<
> That is his statement. But you don't believe the man, that is what you are
> saying.
>
> >> Whether this was an honest mistake (and so merely incompetence), or a
> deliberate omission or connivance (and so malfeasance in office) we cannot in
> the absence of a very probing investigation ever know. <<
> Hmm how shall we investigate? I don't have a lie detector attached to my
> notebook here. Once accussed publically the people all involved in
> Apollonius' "sweep" made public statements. Either we believe them or we
> don't. If the Praetors wanted to interview the participants we'd get the
> same statements.

With the unique difference that they would have to depose under oath,
that s why I asked Sulla do to this voluntarely which he recused.

Manius Villius Limitanus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Apologies
From:	Gaia Natalina Casca <gaianatalinacasca@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 06:07:56 -0700 (PDT)

I wanted to drop a brief apology for my recent
absence. There were some very important issues I
needed to deal with off line and they took precedence
over my on line life.

I will be available a little bit more from now on and
hope to rejoin the conversations. I can be reached on
Yahoo messenger under the name gaianatalinacasca or on
ICQ where my number is 118792080.

=====
Gaia Natalina Casca
Fremont, California

__________________________________________________
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] Digest No 1416
From:	"Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 09:30:03 -0400

Ex Domo Censor Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Quiritibus SPD

I have seen recently accusations that I have not responded to
requests/demands for information from Provincial Praetores. This is false. I
have always responded to legitimate requests.
However,
I want to make some things clear. I will only give email addresses to the
Governors. I will not pass along telephone numbers or street addresses with
out *specific* permission, which Governors can request from citizens
themselves with the email addresses.

When the law is changed and the website/application is clear that such
information can be shared, then 'private information' can be provided to
"local magistrates".

I.Querius Armoricus Lutecio Propraetor Galliae Dixit:

From: "yquere@--------"<yquere@-------->
Subject: Re: Draco the villain, Sulla the saint

Salvete Quirites

On the point that Sextus Apollonius Draco raises in his
post regarding the Questionnaire we issued in Gallia, I
also asked the Censors a list of e-mail of Gaul NR
citizens to support his own request.

I never received any formal answer, and the debate about
e-mail privacy which was occuring at that time lead me to
think that the problem would'nt be solve until legal
dispositions were voted on that point. That is why I
concluded there was no hope getting informations from the
Censors because lex didn't permit them to give them to me.

>SNIP<

Let Concordia seize her rights back among NR.
Pax Deorum Vobiscum
Bene Valete

I.Querius Armoricus Lutecio
Propraetor Galliae

L Equitius:
Now Specifically, I never received a request from the Propraetor of Gallia.
I did receive 3 or 4 requests from Draco, who is Not the Propraetor, stating
the Propraetor was "too busy" to ask himself! How absurd! So, the Propraetor
went to the trouble to explain to someone else that he was too busy to *ask*
for information!?!
Perhaps, he did not address *this* Censor? I receive many emails addressed
to the Censores which only 'speak' to Sulla. One minor item, though Censor
Sulla often posts to the list he is not the *sole* Censor.
Whenever I post a reply to a request of the Censores I try to always 'cc' my
colleague. This is in the hope that we don't contradict one another and so
that we don't duplicate work

I Querius Armoricus Consule Flavio Vedio Germanico SPD
----- Original Message -----
From: Flavius Vedius Germa--------s <germa--------s@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:22 PM
Subject: RE: [novaroma] Provincia Gallia and Citizens e-Mail information
>SNIP<
> There is certainly no evidence of favoritism (or discrimination), simply
of
> administrative shortcomings, which have been noted and, it seems,
overcome.
> We are none of us perfect, and I would hope that we would be able to make
> allowances for our elected officials, all of whom undertake their duties
to
> the Republic out of their own free time, and with no salary.

IQA : So do I by the way.
Besides, as adviced to me, I would repeat my request to Censores.
Thank you for your answer

Vale

Censor L Equitius: This is the kind of thing that can be so very easily
missed!
If you will note, I have my Nova Roma "main list" account set to "Digest"
and I cannot say I read every word of every message.

The censores have email accounts as an office censors@--------
and each of us have individual accounts as magistrates.
For me it's cincinnatus@--------

An offhand remark in the Forum is not a request. I am not, nor is an other
magistrate, required to be subscribed to this list.
I have still not received a request from Propraetor Galliae I Querius
Armoricus for anything!
Usually, when the Forum become tumultuous, *this* Censor closes his doors so
he can hear himself think.... One needn't kick in my door, but a polite
knock will get answered. (I make no guarantees that the answer will be
pleasing to the querist)
Now,
I want to thank Propraetor Marcus Arminius Maior for his testimony, Gratias
tibi ago, Marco Arminio ..... You have been a real treasure as the
representative in Brasilia.

From: "Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@-------->
Subject: Re: Draco the villain, Sulla the saint

Salvete Quirites, Salve Propraetor Ianus Querius

> yquere@-------- wrote:
>Salvete Quirites
>
>I
>also asked the Censors a list of e-mail of Gaul NR
>citizens to support his own request.
>
>I never received any formal answer, and the debate about
>e-mail privacy which was occuring at that time lead me to
>think that the problem would'nt be solve until legal
>dispositions were voted on that point.
>I was not aware that Britania had the opportunity to get
>these informations. If it is true, I am quite shocked by
>this news.

I requested a list of citizens of Brasil, with their email accounts, and the
Censor Cincinnatus gave it to me quite fast. Perhaps a error or mistake
occurred in your case.

Marcus Arminius Maior
Propraetor of Brasil

L Equitius: Indeed!

Also, I have not asked Marcus Octavius to send information. I simply do it
myself, which doesn't take too long provided it isn't Medialantica with over
100 citizens, this takes a few min.

I apologize for the "gruff" tone of this post, but it is my way to keep
posts as short and to the point as possible.

Valete et Di nos ament

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Some Praise for Draco
From:	Michel Loos <loos@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 10:26:32 -0300

"M. Apollonius Formosanus" wrote:
>
> M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilis Plebeius
> Mario Cornelio Scipioni Aedili Curuli S.P.D.
>
> I do wish you would be a bit more moderate! I have most strictly
> stuck to veritas in all of my posts, except where I made a mistake of
> fact about the identity of Sulla's nomenclator, and I apologised to
> him publically for that and acknowledged his correction. Of course
> with respect to those pieces of veritas which might be considered
> "opinion" or "interpretation" people can differ - but that is not
> exactly lying, and should not be termed such, as you seem to be
> doing. Although you grumble that I do not "accept" others' opinions,
> I do not observe you accepting mine, but rather see fulminations
> about censorial notae because I speak my mind and speak out for
> needful changes to the political situation.
>
> The whole idea of a conflict between Apollonii and Cornelii is very
> nice as myth or symbol, but in reality, as usual, things are muddled
> and less simple. In the Gens Apollonia we have complete freedom of
> political opinion, although I warn newcomers that we are mostly
> rather liberal. In fact, however, the degree of political congruence
> in the views of the three politically active Apollonii is very high,
> perhaps 75% to 90%. In the larger Gens Cornelia with its greater
> number of politically-active gentiles, I suspect that there is a bit
> more variation.
>
> I am not under any illusions that all Cornelians are such
> enthusiastic oligarchy-supporters as their Paterfamilias. Likewise
> Draco, for instance, is not under my influence as some have unkindly
> said, but simply happens to have similar ideas in favour of freedom
> and fairness.
>
> In the case of Cornelians, there is the added point that since the
> idea of oligarchy involves supporting certain individuals perhaps
> even more than supporting the ideal of oligarchy, any
> personal/political support you give Sulla is used by him to support
> his rôle in the Oligarchy, and therefore to support the faction of
> the Oligarchy which actually believes in the goodness of Oligarchy.
> To say that, however, is not to say that you personally have an
> ideological preference for oligarchy, which is an independent issue I
> shall discuss below. Perhaps you have a right to have that made
> clear, so here I do so.
>
> I am surprised at the virulence with which people hate the term
> "oligarchy". The oligarchic or aristocratic element is supposed to be
> one of three elements in the traditional Roman "mixed republic" (the
> other two being the "monarchist" of the magistrates and the
> "democratic/populist" of the Tribunes and Comitia). I personally
> favour a considerable uncrease of the last here rather underdeveloped
> element over its present level, but that does not mean that I am
> using "oligarchic" as a term of abuse, or even that I wish to
> eliminate the oligarchic element completely.
>
> It might also be useful to distinguish between oligarchs - people
> who are in the oligarchy (*loosely* the Senate), and persons who are
> "supporters of oligarchy". If I had been elected to the Praetorate, I
> would now be an oligarch - but I would not have become a supporter of
> oligarchy. And indeed there are, among us, oligarchs who are against
> oligarchy (as the dominant element in our republic) - as there are
> non-oligarchs who support the oligarchic principle (whom I might
> suspect of aspiring to the Oligarchy personally in the long run).
>
> You must not be so intolerant if I must use special terms and labels
> to analyse and identify problems we have and suggest solutions.
> "Oligarchy" is a term that goes back at least to Aristotle, and is
> not Marxist in origin. We cannot eliminate socio-political realities
> by railing at the terms necessary to describe things, including
> unpleasant things. We can only by so doing cover up evils instead of
> perceiving them and thus enabling ourselves to identify them for what
> they are and so deal with them.
>

And in fact Marxism, in the transitory state, is an oligarchic system
where the CP is defined to be an elite of the worker class and being
that aristocracy earns the leadership of the society. A totally
oligarchic organization. Take a look at the Manifest (Marx-Engels) and
you will find this.

> I am neither an oligarch nor a supporter of oligarchy, whereas Sulla
> is both. You are not an oligarch and claim not to support the
> principle of oligarchy. However, you say you would not countenance
> the oligarchic system, when one already exists here - and that
> implies that you wish to deny the Oligarchic Problem we have and make
> the oligarchy look like a democracy or whatever your favourite code
> word for good and respectable government may be. On this basis of
> that implied denial of the current situation, I must presume that you
> are indeed a supporter of the oligarchic principle. I come to that
> conclusion not based on any supposition that Cornelians are robots,
> but from your own words in this post. If I have misinterpreted, I
> hope you can tell me how so in moderate language.
>

The Oligarchic principle is intrinsic in the mixed roman system, we can
not mimic the Roman Republic without it. But we must take care that the
democratic part does not get dominated by the oligarchic part.
That s why we must overall fight clientelism which results in exactly
that.
We must also take care that the oligarchic part does not monopolize the
monarchic part as you show below, if not all what remains is the
oligarchy
which would not be Rome, since the oligarchs were never able to impose
themselves as sole power, when they tried it results in the long civil
wars of the first century.

> I shall not here repeat my whole analysis of the Oligarchic Problem.
> But I think that anyone who looks at the present six highest
> magistrates and the relative absence of new blood among them (1/6)
> and all of the other factors I presented in my post on that topic
> would be hard put to deny that the real levers of power here are
> controlled by a very few - a few into which persons with different
> and more liberal political perspectives are seldom knowingly allowed
> to penetrate and somewhat rarely desire to stay, a few who grow
> alarmed when an independent popular leader like Piscinus grows
> significantly active, a few who even control the bills laid before
> the people so as to allow little latitude for choice among
> alternative versions, a few who will support one of their number most
> of the time even when he is abusing individual citizens or breaking
> his own edicta. A few which even right now is attempting to get a
> vote to downgrade the suffrage rights of those who might not wish to
> or be able to put money in the hands of that Oligarchy. And the real
> supporters of oligarchy as an ideal among them (a majority, but not
> 100%) want to keep things this way.

<snipped the Appolonian -Cornelian discussion>

Manius Villius Limitanus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Digest No 1416
From:	"Daniel" <danat2000@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 23:52:25 +0930

Salve,

In defence of the Censors, I also received my request within an hour of submitting it.

vale

Marcus Arcadius Pius
Propraetor Australia

[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] Digest No 1416
From:	"yquere@--------"<yquere@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 16:49:46 +0200

I. Querius Armoricus Lucio Equitio Cincinnato SPD

This must be a misunderstanding cause I effectively
posted a request to the adress censors@-------- after
Draco told me I didn't manage to get the information.
This is not a question of being too busy, but as he is
Legatus Galliae Borelais, I let him work on the project.

But as we have already seen, problems in mailing
transmsission can occur and my own messaging provider is
sometimes down. It may just a problem of that kind.

I did not ask for telephone nor street adress but only e
mail adresses in order to issue a small survey on the
feeling of the Gaul citizens, survey which was prepared
by Sextus Apollonius Draco. This was an aprroach trying
to motivate Gaul citizens and ask them what they were
expected us to do to provide them with interesting
matters and topics which would conduct them to be more
active among NR in Gallia.

I am sorry to have disappointed you, and I admit the
tone of my message was a bit upset but please understand
my own disappointment.

Censors will soon received an other request for the list
of e-mail adress of Gaul citizens

Vale bene
Ianus Querius Armoricus
Propraetor Galliae

> ---------- Initial message -----------
>
> From : "Lucius Equitius" <vze23hw7@-------->
> To : "Nova Roma" <novaroma@-------->
> Cc :
> Date : Tue, 22 May 2001 09:30:03 -0400
> Subject : [novaroma] Digest No 1416
>
> Ex Domo Censor Lucius Equitius Cincinnatus Quiritibus
SPD
>
> I have seen recently accusations that I have not
responded to
> requests/demands for information from Provincial
Praetores. This is false. I
> have always responded to legitimate requests.
> However,
> I want to make some things clear. I will only give
email addresses to the
> Governors. I will not pass along telephone numbers or
street addresses with
> out *specific* permission, which Governors can request
from citizens
> themselves with the email addresses.
>
> When the law is changed and the website/application is
clear that such
> information can be shared, then 'private information'
can be provided to
> "local magistrates".
>
> I.Querius Armoricus Lutecio Propraetor Galliae Dixit:
>
> From: "yquere@--------"<yquere@-------->
> Subject: Re: Draco the villain, Sulla the saint
>
> Salvete Quirites
>
> On the point that Sextus Apollonius Draco raises in his
> post regarding the Questionnaire we issued in Gallia, I
> also asked the Censors a list of e-mail of Gaul NR
> citizens to support his own request.
>
> I never received any formal answer, and the debate about
> e-mail privacy which was occuring at that time lead me
to
> think that the problem would'nt be solve until legal
> dispositions were voted on that point. That is why I
> concluded there was no hope getting informations from
the
> Censors because lex didn't permit them to give them to
me.
>
> >SNIP<
>
> Let Concordia seize her rights back among NR.
> Pax Deorum Vobiscum
> Bene Valete
>
> I.Querius Armoricus Lutecio
> Propraetor Galliae
>
>
> L Equitius:
> Now Specifically, I never received a request from the
Propraetor of Gallia.
> I did receive 3 or 4 requests from Draco, who is Not
the Propraetor, stating
> the Propraetor was "too busy" to ask himself! How
absurd! So, the Propraetor
> went to the trouble to explain to someone else that he
was too busy to *ask*
> for information!?!
> Perhaps, he did not address *this* Censor? I receive
many emails addressed
> to the Censores which only 'speak' to Sulla. One minor
item, though Censor
> Sulla often posts to the list he is not the *sole*
Censor.
> Whenever I post a reply to a request of the Censores I
try to always 'cc' my
> colleague. This is in the hope that we don't contradict
one another and so
> that we don't duplicate work
>
>
> I Querius Armoricus Consule Flavio Vedio Germanico SPD
> ----- Original Message -----

> From: Flavius Vedius Germa--------s <germa--------s@--------> > To: <novaroma@-------->
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:22 PM
> Subject: RE: [novaroma] Provincia Gallia and Citizens e-
Mail information
> >SNIP<
> > There is certainly no evidence of favoritism (or
discrimination), simply
> of
> > administrative shortcomings, which have been noted
and, it seems,
> overcome.
> > We are none of us perfect, and I would hope that we
would be able to make
> > allowances for our elected officials, all of whom
undertake their duties
> to
> > the Republic out of their own free time, and with no
salary.
>
> IQA : So do I by the way.
> Besides, as adviced to me, I would repeat my request to
Censores.
> Thank you for your answer
>
> Vale
>
>
> Censor L Equitius: This is the kind of thing that can
be so very easily
> missed!
> If you will note, I have my Nova Roma "main list"
account set to "Digest"
> and I cannot say I read every word of every message.
>
> The censores have email accounts as an office
censors@--------
> and each of us have individual accounts as magistrates.
> For me it's cincinnatus@--------
>
> An offhand remark in the Forum is not a request. I am
not, nor is an other
> magistrate, required to be subscribed to this list.
> I have still not received a request from Propraetor
Galliae I Querius
> Armoricus for anything!
> Usually, when the Forum become tumultuous, *this*
Censor closes his doors so
> he can hear himself think.... One needn't kick in my
door, but a polite
> knock will get answered. (I make no guarantees that the
answer will be
> pleasing to the querist)
> Now,
> I want to thank Propraetor Marcus Arminius Maior for
his testimony, Gratias
> tibi ago, Marco Arminio ..... You have been a real
treasure as the
> representative in Brasilia.
>
> From: "Marcos Boehme" <m_arminius@-------->
> Subject: Re: Draco the villain, Sulla the saint
>
> Salvete Quirites, Salve Propraetor Ianus Querius
>
> > yquere@-------- wrote:
> >Salvete Quirites
> >
> >I
> >also asked the Censors a list of e-mail of Gaul NR
> >citizens to support his own request.
> >
> >I never received any formal answer, and the debate
about
> >e-mail privacy which was occuring at that time lead me
to
> >think that the problem would'nt be solve until legal
> >dispositions were voted on that point.
> >I was not aware that Britania had the opportunity to
get
> >these informations. If it is true, I am quite shocked
by
> >this news.
>
> I requested a list of citizens of Brasil, with their
email accounts, and the
> Censor Cincinnatus gave it to me quite fast. Perhaps a
error or mistake
> occurred in your case.
>
> Marcus Arminius Maior
> Propraetor of Brasil
>
> L Equitius: Indeed!
>
> Also, I have not asked Marcus Octavius to send
information. I simply do it
> myself, which doesn't take too long provided it isn't
Medialantica with over
> 100 citizens, this takes a few min.
>
> I apologize for the "gruff" tone of this post, but it
is my way to keep
> posts as short and to the point as possible.
>
>
> Valete et Di nos ament
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--------------
Jusqu'à 60 heures gratuites
pour toute souscription à l'un des
nouveaux Forfaits Liberty Surf
http://register.libertysurf.fr/subscribe_fr/signup.php3

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Some Praise for Draco
From:	"Nick R. Ramos Jr." <nramos@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 15:01:45 -0000

Marius Cornelius Scipio Aedilis Curulis
Mario Appolloni Formosane Aedili Plebi Salutem Plurimam Dixit:
--- In novaroma@--------, "M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> wrote:
>
> M. Apollonius Formosanus Aedilis Plebeius
> Mario Cornelio Scipioni Aedili Curuli S.P.D.
>
> I do wish you would be a bit more moderate! I have most
strictly
> stuck to veritas in all of my posts, except where I made a mistake
of
> fact about the identity of Sulla's nomenclator, and I apologised to
> him publically for that and acknowledged his correction. Of course
> with respect to those pieces of veritas which might be considered
> "opinion" or "interpretation" people can differ - but that is not
> exactly lying, and should not be termed such, as you seem to be
> doing. Although you grumble that I do not "accept" others' opinions,
> I do not observe you accepting mine, but rather see fulminations
> about censorial notae because I speak my mind and speak out for
> needful changes to the political situation.

With all due respect my friend, your interpretation of strictly
sticking to veritas seems to be very different from mine. I will
accpet in discussion facts that can be confirmed, and I do prefer the
"moderate view" that all the facts need to be in and considered before
judgement is passed. In fact, in Antiqvita the verdict was not
rendered until all arguments from all parts had been heard and
considered - "altera pars auditur", if I recall, was the admonishment
to all courts and juries convened.

In this matter, you rushed to judgement before any of that had
occurred. As for willingness to listen to opinions, you disappoint me,
mi Formosane. Believe it or not, I have listened to your opinions and
carefully weighed them before forming my own judgement. In fact, if
you will note how we two have had our discourses over the past several
conversations, you might observe that I have tried to understand your
points and in some instances have agreed with some of your premises,
even if we come to different conclusions.

My fulminations about censorial notae were perhaps rash - but they
were a response to the continual call to arms that you espoused
against the magistrates of Nova Roma. One can only hear so many
false accusations bandied about regarding our motives and desires
before irritation sets in. If I have been excessive, my apologies -
but also note that you have shown about as much discretion in this and
other matters.
<post edited for brevity>

> I am surprised at the virulence with which people hate the
term
> "oligarchy". The oligarchic or aristocratic element is supposed to
be
> one of three elements in the traditional Roman "mixed republic" (the
> other two being the "monarchist" of the magistrates and the
> "democratic/populist" of the Tribunes and Comitia). I personally
> favour a considerable uncrease of the last here rather
underdeveloped
> element over its present level, but that does not mean that I am
> using "oligarchic" as a term of abuse, or even that I wish to
> eliminate the oligarchic element completely.
>
> It might also be useful to distinguish between oligarchs -
people
> who are in the oligarchy (*loosely* the Senate), and persons who are
> "supporters of oligarchy". If I had been elected to the Praetorate,
I
> would now be an oligarch - but I would not have become a supporter
of

Then, amici mei, perhaps if your shafts of "oligarch" were restricted
to those you consider oligarchs, perhaps those of us who are not in
that august club would be less prone to respond to you in a hostile
manner. BTW, you have consistently defined oligarchy as a negative and
undesirable system, in fact, even leading the charge against it. Now
you defend it?

> oligarchy. And indeed there are, among us, oligarchs who are against
> oligarchy (as the dominant element in our republic) - as there are
> non-oligarchs who support the oligarchic principle (whom I might
> suspect of aspiring to the Oligarchy personally in the long run).
>
> You must not be so intolerant if I must use special terms and
labels
> to analyse and identify problems we have and suggest solutions.
> "Oligarchy" is a term that goes back at least to Aristotle, and is
> not Marxist in origin. We cannot eliminate socio-political realities
> by railing at the terms necessary to describe things, including
> unpleasant things. We can only by so doing cover up evils instead of
> perceiving them and thus enabling ourselves to identify them for
what
> they are and so deal with them.

Ah yes, it does date back to Aristotle - along with demos kratein,
aristo kratein, etc. - but your usage is almost exactly as described
in Engels and Marx's writings. Also, there is an issue of whetther the
socio-political reality of Nova Roma is strictly as you describe, or
whether there may be elements that differ from your description. And
demanding that actions be taken according to your specific
interpretation of events and no other way is hardly "suggesting
solutions".

>
> I am neither an oligarch nor a supporter of oligarchy, whereas
Sulla
> is both. You are not an oligarch and claim not to support the
> principle of oligarchy. However, you say you would not countenance
> the oligarchic system, when one already exists here - and that
> implies that you wish to deny the Oligarchic Problem we have and
make

I am not entirely convinced that Oligarchy as you would define it is
what exists here. There are some elements of that form of government
present, but I suspect your list of those and mine would differ. BTW,
having studied Aristoteles for quite some time, I differ with him on
the "purity" of government models, and definitely disagree that
democracy is the most "degenerate" of systems :-).

> the oligarchy look like a democracy or whatever your favourite code
> word for good and respectable government may be. On this basis of
> that implied denial of the current situation, I must presume that
you
> are indeed a supporter of the oligarchic principle. I come to that
> conclusion not based on any supposition that Cornelians are robots,
> but from your own words in this post. If I have misinterpreted, I
> hope you can tell me how so in moderate language.

Mi Formosane, I am most glad to use moderate language - I hope you can
do the same. We have seen several posts from you in which the words
"Nazi", "fascist", "homophobe", etc. have been an integral part of
your arguments. Perhaps that could also be a source of friction,
nonne? Also, you are most fond of interpreting my position based on
your strawman view of my arguments - perhaps it would be closer to
Veritas to consider my views as I present them, not as you choose to
interpret them to your dialectic convenience.
>
> I shall not here repeat my whole analysis of the Oligarchic
Problem.
> But I think that anyone who looks at the present six highest
> magistrates and the relative absence of new blood among them (1/6)
> and all of the other factors I presented in my post on that topic
> would be hard put to deny that the real levers of power here are

Are you aware of the fact that Nova Roma is in it's infancy, and in
such a condition, it is quite natural for the folks who started this
effort to be re-elected to top position simply because they have a
better grasp of what's going on than relative newcomers? It has
nothing to do with a desire to control the levers of power - it is a
phenomenom well observed and documented in the development of social
groups. Perhaps a better understanding of social dynamics and
development of associations and groups is required here - rather than
constant fulmination against "old blood"! Hey, I've been here less
than a year - I jumped in into the political fray early on (and
stepped on some delicate Senatorial toes, I might add :-)) - yet you
seem to classify me as a part of some "Cohors Senex"!

> controlled by a very few - a few into which persons with different
> and more liberal political perspectives are seldom knowingly allowed
> to penetrate and somewhat rarely desire to stay, a few who grow
> alarmed when an independent popular leader like Piscinus grows
> significantly active, a few who even control the bills laid before
> the people so as to allow little latitude for choice among
> alternative versions, a few who will support one of their number
most
> of the time even when he is abusing individual citizens or breaking
> his own edicta. A few which even right now is attempting to get a
> vote to downgrade the suffrage rights of those who might not wish to
> or be able to put money in the hands of that Oligarchy. And the real
> supporters of oligarchy as an ideal among them (a majority, but not
> 100%) want to keep things this way.
>

A curious interpretation of the Lex Vedia - in most associations
extant, if you don't pay, not only don't you vote, you're outta there!
Consul Vedius provides a way for those who can't or won't pay to be
part of the Res Publica, and yet you choose too view this as an
attempt to jealously retain power... A real attempt to grasp power
would be to expulse those who would be unable or unwilling to pay
taxes - and yet this lex does just the opposite. This is what I mean
by distortion and misinterpretation - you apply highly inflammatory
language to expound your views, and yet you berate others when they
assume a hard-line position against your imprecise use of language.

> If you care to admit these problems exist and that they are a
> detriment to our Respublica, and if you want to engage in
> constructive dialogue on how to solve them, I shall be happy to do
> so. If you wish to ostrich-like deny their existence as problems,
> then I must personally consider you to be part of the problem and
not
> part of the solution - on the basis of your own viewpoint, not of
> being a Cornelian.
>

>From this post, I would think that judgement was made long ago, mi
Formosane. I see that there are problems - a lot of improvements need
to be made to our leges, our institutions, and our general discourse.
Castigating those with differing views, deprecating any views but your
own and constantly casting aspersions against those you consider
opponents is not the way to fix these problems. I am willing to work
with you 100%, and respect your point of view; the only thing I have
asked you in return is for the same. I have always lived under the
principle that I will always try to work with, rather than against
people. There is also a point where a gentleman's agreement to
disagree on issues may be in order, and that's fine by me.

It sounds mellifluous to cast your Gens as the champion of liberty -
and I would have no heartburn with that. You have every right to
aspire to that ideal. However, it is very insulting and patronizing
that in order to reinforce your statement, you find it necessary to
denigrate my Gens and call us "supporters of the oligarchy" - an
oligarchy, BTW, that has a very negative definition by your own
standards. Praise yourself and yours (nothing wrong with that, in my
estimation), but please refrain from insulting me and mine to do so.

> I am proud of the fact that all of the politically active
Apollonii
> are proponents of freedom, equality, and change to bring those
things
> about. However, there is no vendetta between our two gentes - simply
> a conflict of values among certain individuals - let us say between
> myself, Draco and Tiberius on our side and Sulla and those who may
> agree with or defend him on your side. Cornelians who wish to stay
> out of the fray certainly should not fear attack just because they
> are Cornelians, and I wish to assure you that in our private talks
we
> Apollonians quite often say "Cornelian X is not so bad" or even more
> positive things about several of you. :-)

This is exactly what I am referring to - you insist on factionalism
when there should be none. I happen to like Draco immensely, and
admire his writing talent. I appreciate some of your arguments, for
they have made me examine my views and learn more about them and
myself. This expresses itself in my addresses to you and others in our
Forum. However, it avails us nothing when the courtesy is not
returned, and I personally would prefer that we debate ideas, not
personal likes or dislikes. Politics is rich with the tradition of the
ad hominem attack - why would we not endeavour to make it a bit poorer
in that respect? Would it not be better for you and I to discuss what
really matters, and not our personal prejudices?
>
> I note that we Plebeian Aediles awarded the Cerealia prize to
a
> Cornelian, and I was the one who pressed most for that award, as my
> colleague would gladly confirm. Does that look like general
hostility
> against Cornelians?
>

I look at posts where Cornelii as a whole are castigated as supporters
of the "evil empire" and even as having our own "Darth Vader" as a
Paterfamilias, and I do see general hostility. The Cerealia was a high
point in the recent months, when we turned away from infighting and
showcased our talent. It restored my faith in this res publica, and I
was pleasantly surprised to see that we had far more in common than
that which sunders us. Since then, politics as usual resumed and the
attacks have increased in stridency and frequency. The Comitia is over
- is the infighting done? Somehow, I doubt this.

> There are ethical and political conflicts here, but they are
only
> rather loosely and accidentally related to gentes. They are the
> normal conflicts between libertarians and authoritarians which exist
> in most societies, and which are rather strong in Nova Roma, perhaps
> because so many of the Oligarchy tend to be authoritarian in
> persuasion, which generates a rather strong natural opposition from
> below. I predict that when and if we have a more politically mixed
> oligarchy and more vigorous and independent plebeian institutions,
> this normal conflict will shrink to more normal proportions. Or at
> least we can hope so.
>

I guarantee you that once this group has reached critical mass, our
successors will look back on our debates and fondly chuckle over the
issues which so consume us. Libertarian vs. Authoritarian? Heck, that
duality was old by the time Roma came about :-)! Also, note that our
Patricians are more like Plebs, and our Plebs more like Patricians,
than was ever dreamed in Antiqvita. I agree we will see a vast
improvement in our discussion as our institutions grow and become more
vigorous - how about you and I help them grow rather than stifle them
with the blood of political and personal feuding.

I again extend my hand to you, in amicitia and concordia. Do you
believe in Roma? DO you wish to bring back Her best? By Semo Sanco
Fides, I now give you my word that I believe in Her, and I am willing
to work with you in amicitia et concordia to build a better future.
May Dis Pater hear my oath and hold me to it. I now invite you to do
the same, amici mei.

Marius Cornelius Scipio
Aedilis Curulis
Legatus, California Provincia
Miles Probatus Legio IX Hispaniensis

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] A Fair Trial for Sulla
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 17:07:17 +0200

Salve, O Praetor,

(snipped)

> >>Draco has very creditably made his point with the evidence presented and
> deserves public thanks.<<
> Creditability is a little strong. Cassius Nerva's comments were just as
> credible, yet you had to discredit him. What does that tell us?
>

Hm. While I don't want to bring up old conflicts, I think the fact that
Nerva resorted to call me a kid is not a credible action.

Vale bene!
Draco

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Draco's age is NOT a valid issue (was Re: A Fair Trial for Sulla)
From:	"Nick R. Ramos Jr." <nramos@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 15:37:07 -0000

Salvete Omnes!

--- In novaroma@--------, "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@p...>
wrote:
> Salve, O Praetor,
>
> (snipped)
>
> > >>Draco has very creditably made his point with the evidence
presented and
> > deserves public thanks.<<
> > Creditability is a little strong. Cassius Nerva's comments were
just as
> > credible, yet you had to discredit him. What does that tell us?
> >
>
> Hm. While I don't want to bring up old conflicts, I think the fact
that
> Nerva resorted to call me a kid is not a credible action.
>

With all due fairness, Draco does have a point here. While he and I
may not always agree on issues or methods, he has been attacked
several times on his age - not on the ideas or points he has brought
up. That is neither ethical nor acceptable conduct - his age has
certainly not hindered either his talent or his service to Nova Roma.
Disagree with him if you must, but do not castigate him on this.

Valete bene, et Iuppiter nos protegas!

Scipio

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Re: A Fair Trial for Sulla
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 15:45:13 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@p...>
wrote:
> Salve, O Praetor,
>
> (snipped)
>
> > >>Draco has very creditably made his point with the evidence
presented and
> > deserves public thanks.<<
> > Creditability is a little strong. Cassius Nerva's comments were
just as
> > credible, yet you had to discredit him. What does that tell us?
> >
>
> Hm. While I don't want to bring up old conflicts, I think the fact
that
> Nerva resorted to call me a kid is not a credible action.
>
> Vale bene!
> Draco

That is true, but those who insist on pointing out your age hurt
their Dignitas, not yours. So when someone calls you a "kid", just
laugh at the "old goat" ;o)

Drusus

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Thanks to the Censores
From:	"yquere@--------"<yquere@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 18:10:27 +0200

Salvete Quiritibus

On deference to the Censores, it is with incredible
quickness that I have just received answer to my request
of informations about citizens of Provincia Gallia.

I would like to thank them publically, even after having
sent a private message to pray for Maxima Fortuna Deorum
for them.

Bene Valete
I Querius Armoricus Lutecio
Propraetor Galliae

--------------
Jusqu'à 60 heures gratuites
pour toute souscription à l'un des
nouveaux Forfaits Liberty Surf
http://register.libertysurf.fr/subscribe_fr/signup.php3

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Venii - Computer trouble, again
From:	Steven - Piparskeggr <catamount_grange@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 11:52:00 -0500

Avete Omnes;

Windows gakked and we had to reformat the hard drive and reinstall
everything.

Fortunately it happened just after a full backup, so the data is
recoverable.

If I owe anyone offlist replies, I apologize for my tardiness, but
several things fell together
and apart, particularly at my place of employment.

It'll be another couple weeks while I recover the Netscape files and the
messages to which I need to reply.

Partially this is due to my trip to Massachusetts, USA for Family
gatherings (25 May to 3 June).

I should be back up to speed by 4 or 5 June.

Be well - Venii

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Gladiatorial combats and races on the NR chat room.
From:	Gnaeus Salix Astur <salixastur@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 11:42:09 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete omnes; et salve, Fabi Maxime.

--- QFabiusMax@-------- wrote:

<snipped>

> Salvete
> Actually it wasn't that complex. And the system works fine. My
> biggest
> problem was using
> a virtual Arena. The one I had designed for beseen had the
> disadvantage of
> breaking down at the most inopertune time. Gladia and I were working
> on a
> virtual harena until she became to busy to continue.
> If NR citizens want to be gladiators that's ok, we have a combat
> matrix that
> is easily to learn.
> All the one player would have to do enter his attack while the other
> his
> defense. The two are cross-indexed by the editor to give a result.
> I.E.
> Attacker choses a slice, while the defender choses a parry, the
> editor cross
> indexes the two, and we get a parry. No hit is scored. The
> attacker now
> becomes the defender and the defender the attacker. The bout is over
> when
> the gladiator receives the number of hits indicated. The problem
> with doing
> this virtually is that fatigue is built in by reducing the number of
> attacks
> and defenses, since they are on cards held by the players. But I'm
> sure I
> can come up with some way to limit it via online. When I return home
> from
> France next week, I'll be glad to put together a school and be your
> lanista.

Sounds pretty good. It is what I was thinking about, more or less.

>
> The problem I have with this is that Roman citizens were not
> Gladiators. In
> fact in the republic there was a Lex passed to keep citizens out of
> the
> harena. Of course if a citizen was sold into slavery to settle a
> debt he was
> eligible for the harena. It was another way to pay off his debt.
> The second reason, is as much as I enjoy studying history through
> recreation,
> this adds a role playing aspect to Nova Roma. And we have tried to
> keep that
> part to the back of the micronation. Since this would put it to the
> forefront again I think the NR chat room is not the ideal place for
> this.
> People not in the know might get the wrong idea about Nova Roma.

Well, I guess we could make clear that this is not what Nova Roma is
all about. Having said that, I really can't find any impediment that
could stop us from holding these games. Games were an important part of
Roman culture, and through this system we could recreate them avoiding
the cruelty and brutality of the original games. After all, I am also a
member of the Sodalitas Munerum, and I think this could be a good
initiation to the Ludi.

> If indeed we want this to work, I'll resume the work I started as
> Curule
> Aedile on the harena, there we could have the fights to our hearts
> content.

Please, go ahead. Should you need any kind of help, like improving your
combat and racing system, please contact me. I do have some experience
with these kind of games.

>
> Citizens who are interested in being "Gladiators" should submit their
> names
> to the Curule Aediles, I will work with them in establishing a
> training
> school for you. Let's make the second week in June the deadline for
> signups.
> There is a certain learning curve that should be followed. I'll
> sponsor the
> first series of bouts, after that other Magistrates may sponsor
> fights of
> their own. Any takers?

Take my name amongst those willing to fight :-).

=====
Bene Valete!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Thules.

__________________________________________________
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: A Fair Trial for Sulla
From:	"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 21:41:40 +0200

M. Apollonius Formosanus Druso et omnibus Civibus S.P.D.

Scripsis, O Druse:

Salve,

Marcus Apollonius, you disapoint me. Of all the powers of the state
the power to lay criminal charges against citizens is the avenue that
is most likely to lead to abuses, and that jury system is the greatest
protection the people have against the trynany of the state.

MAF: I share your admiration for the Common Law jury as an important safeguard for the individual. I was just this Sunday teaching my British History students about how it saved the British State from utter excess in the time of the Younger Pitt in an age when all social reform
and popular initiative were as feared as they seem to be here. However, it is a matter of fact that it was not the model of Roma antiqua for appeals to the People, although Rome had something like real juries too (i.e., not the whole People).

If the whole People is going to constitute the jury and hear all the facts and arguments, then I do not see any particular danger in letting them hear such arguments and facts partly before a trial is officially declared. Remember that in the Common Law tradition there is a
considerable body of procedural law devoted to excluding certain sorts of evidence, which the jury is supposed to be protected from and made to ignore. The Roman and Civil Law tradition does not rely upon such limitations very much, but assumes that those judging will hear
*all* the evidence available and discount unreliable sources of information to an appropriate degree. Thus, knowledge is not to be considered as necessarily "tainting", as it might be in the Common Law situation.

Practically speaking, it is difficult to find people here who know nothing about major events or who have no complicating and biasing relationships. And if the whole People is involved, inevitably there may be many people biased for or agianst the accused, and all we can do is
hope that involving the whole community will reduce the effects of these normal biases.

The state has the prestiege of it's officals that it can use as a
weapon to do a far better job of tainting the jurors than any private
citizen, so I do consider the common law notion of an unbiased jury an
inovation that is as worthy of consideration as allowing women a voice
equal to men, and a ban on slavery.

MAF: If you mean we should change the assumptions of our Constitution and present laws to one more consonant with common Law, then I await your detailed proposals before trying to evaluate them. I fear that finding unbiased juries would be difficult in such a small community as
ours, though.

As for the posibility that the Praetors would place personal
relationships ahead of thier duties. I will give our Praetors the
presumption of innocence until I see them act otherwise. If some
future Praetor were to try such an action, All of our doccuments are
digital, and sending them to the Praetor dosen't remove them from my
hard drive, a fact that I sure he would be well aware of. Refusing to
act on clear and compelling evidence, would turn those same doccuments
into evidence that could be used against him in a trail for corruption.

MAF: I think that you see things in too black and white a manner. We have just seen the Censors perform an illegal act, and their only defence, if one believes it, is that they made a mistake, or at the worst were slightly careless. There is plausibility in that (although I do
not really believe it personally), so if the Praetors threw out the charge on the grounds of its being unintential human error, would the evidence that conclusively proved the identity of Festus/Nerva and the illegality of the censorial actions seem so strong later that a
corruption trial for praetorial inaction would be countenanced by the next Praetors? The degree of human judgement involved at each step is too great. The fact is that in the present case illegal action was proven and admitted, but no one, including the Praetors and Consuls
and Senate stood up to do anything legal about it. Why would we suppose that that would change in the future?

I'll admit that the system won't work if BOTH Praetors and BOTH
Consuls are corrupt, but if we ever reach that state Nova Roma is
allready done for, and it won't matter any more.

MAF: Neither Praetor and neither Consul expressed interest in an impeachment prosecution, although the fact of the crime is proven and only the exact intention of the culprits is unclear. They all decided to overlook a clearcut crime without giving either Censor or Nerva a fair
trial, even pro forma, even to prove some level of non-culpability if that is possible. If I wonder if an accusation handed quietly and secretly to the Praetors would result in a trial, consider that even when it is not secret at all and the facts are known to every responsible
person in Nova Roma, no action is taken!

The fact is, the Oligarchy does not wish to police itself, and resists common citizens' initiatives to police them - in this case primarily by just refusing to take action. As long as those with the power to impeach have no interest in doing so, magistrates will feel free to
break the laws when it suits them, while passing ever more restrictive and punitive laws to apply when they wish to suppress those not in their charmed and immune circle.

Our judiciary processes are already not working to protect us right now, and we need not wait for an imagined future state of universal corruption. If you have any doubt, try to initiate an impeachment action against the Censors, mi Druse, and see if either Praetor allows your
action. Although there is no doubt that an illegal act was performed by one or both of these magistrates, the Praetors won't act on your request. They have already decided, like the Consuls and the Senate, to protect the Censors without letting the matter come to a public
trial.

Because of that reality, Draco did not try to go the route of a formal impeachment.

L. Sicinius Drusus
22368
From: Lucius Sicinius Drusus <lsicinius@-------->
Date: Mon May 21, 2001 7:10pm
Subject: Re: A Fair Trial for Sulla

DOH!

I Left out one minor point, If we are going to follow the practices of
Antiquita, rather than use modern inovations, we must remember that
for most of the Republic the Jury only consisted of Senators. During
the Late Republic It was the Ordo Equester, and the Ancient Order was
different than ours. This model would limit Jury duty to those in the
first class who were not Senators. The common law concept of a jury of
your peers was alien to Roma, The jury consisted of the "best" men,
and the lower orders were locked out.

Drusus

MAF: You are right. But in provocatio the People decided collectively as peers as the ultimate protection of the accused. We seem to be more following that as a model here, and I do not think that to be a bad or unfair one. I would be interested in seeing your detailed ideas on
merging the virtues of Common Law with those of Roman Law. I think that with some people here it would be unpopular, but it does have more resonance with modern ideas of fairness in Anglo-Saxon countries. My main concern is that we have *effective* judicial review of
magisterial abuses, and that we have a code of civil and human rights enforced as part of that. In the present case Nerva was spared the rigours of a *bad* law, and we might well congratulate him and wish that everyone could be treated the same, but a contempt for the law among
the magistrates who are supposed to enforce it is a long-term disadvantage to us all. I would be pleased if you and all who are concerned with our legal system worked to set up a code of civil rights with teeth and effective judicial review to make it stick. If your Common Law
ideas can somehow be harmonised with the Roman Ius Civilis to those ends, I shall be most interested to see what contribution they could make to this process.

Valete!

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Please leave us, Formosanus (was Re: A Fair Trial for Sulla)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 16:40:41 -0400

Salve

I find myself having to (once again) correct a misrepresentation of the
facts by Formosanus:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Apollonius Formosanus [mailto:bvm3@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 3:42 PM
>
> MAF: Neither Praetor and neither Consul expressed interest in an
> impeachment prosecution, although the fact of the crime is proven
> and only the exact intention of the culprits is unclear.

This is quite simply at variance with the facts. I will remind Formosanus
that it was in fact I who introduced the possibility of a call for
impeachment in this instance, because no real alternative legal option was
at hand. I refer you to the main list archives
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/message/22223).

I stand by my last statement in that email. If you would care to produce
evidence-- not vague accusations based on your personal grudges-- of a
deliberate intent to violate the law, then I will be more than happy to
consider calling a vote of impeachment.

Otherwise, your rash accusations about conspiracies among the "Oligarchy"
and your demands for punishment of apparent innocent error, are obviously
merely yet another attempt on your part to foment dissent and disruption
within our Republic. You have publically (if mistakenly) admitted that you
despise Nova Roma, and you have privately told me that you intend to resign
eventually anyway. One can only think the only reason you have not yet done
so is to be able to throw yet more monkey-wrenches into the works before you
finally do bless us with your back.

I have had enough of your lies and misrepresentations, I have had enough of
your transparent attempts to disrupt the growth and prosperity of Nova Roma,
I have had enough of your self-righteous indignation, and I have had enough
of you.

I hereby call upon you, Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, to resign your
Citizenship and offices, and never darken our door again. You are obviously
miserable here (other than whatever glee you derive from causing grief for
well-meaning men and disorder for our Republic as a whole). Your idea of
what Nova Roma should be is so far from what the vast majority of Cives
think as to be laughable, and yet your insistance that the rest follow your
vision becomes shriller and more tedious with every passing day. What
positive contributions you do make are few and far between, and are
completely overwhelmed by your main passtime; tearing down and complaining
about the work of others, and assaulting their character and persons.

In short, you and we will both be happier once you are gone.

Please leave us, Formosanus.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul, Senator, Augur

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] Please leave us, Formosanus (was Re: A Fair Trial for Sulla)
From:	mansker@--------
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 22:08:14 -0000

Salve . .

I second the motion.

Gaia Flacca Severa

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Salve
>
> I find myself having to (once again) correct a misrepresentation of
the
> facts by Formosanus:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: M. Apollonius Formosanus [mailto:bvm3@--------]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 3:42 PM
> >
> > MAF: Neither Praetor and neither Consul expressed interest in an
> > impeachment prosecution, although the fact of the crime is proven
> > and only the exact intention of the culprits is unclear.
>
> This is quite simply at variance with the facts. I will remind
Formosanus
> that it was in fact I who introduced the possibility of a call for
> impeachment in this instance, because no real alternative legal
option was
> at hand. I refer you to the main list archives
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma/message/22223).
>
> I stand by my last statement in that email. If you would care to
produce
> evidence-- not vague accusations based on your personal grudges--
of a
> deliberate intent to violate the law, then I will be more than
happy to
> consider calling a vote of impeachment.
>
> Otherwise, your rash accusations about conspiracies among
the "Oligarchy"
> and your demands for punishment of apparent innocent error, are
obviously
> merely yet another attempt on your part to foment dissent and
disruption
> within our Republic. You have publically (if mistakenly) admitted
that you
> despise Nova Roma, and you have privately told me that you intend
to resign
> eventually anyway. One can only think the only reason you have not
yet done
> so is to be able to throw yet more monkey-wrenches into the works
before you
> finally do bless us with your back.
>
> I have had enough of your lies and misrepresentations, I have had
enough of
> your transparent attempts to disrupt the growth and prosperity of
Nova Roma,
> I have had enough of your self-righteous indignation, and I have
had enough
> of you.
>
> I hereby call upon you, Marcus Apollonius Formosanus, to resign your
> Citizenship and offices, and never darken our door again. You are
obviously
> miserable here (other than whatever glee you derive from causing
grief for
> well-meaning men and disorder for our Republic as a whole). Your
idea of
> what Nova Roma should be is so far from what the vast majority of
Cives
> think as to be laughable, and yet your insistance that the rest
follow your
> vision becomes shriller and more tedious with every passing day.
What
> positive contributions you do make are few and far between, and are
> completely overwhelmed by your main passtime; tearing down and
complaining
> about the work of others, and assaulting their character and
persons.
>
> In short, you and we will both be happier once you are gone.
>
> Please leave us, Formosanus.
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul, Senator, Augur
>

> email: germa--------s@-------- > AIM: Flavius Vedius
> www: http://mediatlantica.novaroma.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Subject:	[novaroma] Draco's age is NOT a valid issue (was Re: A Fair Trial for Sulla)
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Tue, 22 May 2001 22:10:11 -0000

Use of the word "kid" to designate those in Draco's age range is
common and is not considered at all to be derogatory.

However, I apologise if I hurt the boy's feelings.

Nerva

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/