Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On the change to the Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus
From:	PompeiaAntoniaCaesar <europamoon7@-------->
Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:20:39 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,

I did not state that I disagreed with the new lex. I
stated in my previous message that I reluctantly
agreed with Drusas on it's necessity. I also stated
that this step is unavoidable as NR continues to grow
and affairs will have to be handled more on a local
level. However, I am not, as a woman, enthusiastic
about having my personal information floating around.
I have personal control over who receives my home
address and phone number at this time and prefer it
that way, however, if this type of information is
needed for NR to be administered effectively I will
provide it, as I said, reluctantly. I was presenting
arguments for both sides. I fully support the growth
of NR and if I must go against my own personal
preferences to be of service, I will do so.

Vale,

Pompeia Antonia Caesar



--- QFabiusMaxmi@-------- wrote:
> Salvete
>
> As the person most pushing for this change, I have
> to say one thing.
> When is a person's privacy paramount in a state that
> they voluntarily joined?
> Because that becomes the over riding issue here.
> Are we an Internet
> organization or
> are we are trying to become more of a real nation?
> If we are an Internet
> organization then Pompeia and Cassius are correct,
> certain information really
> is not needed. However, and I use however, if we
> are on our to becoming a
> real nation and this I believe we are, one that must
> have meetings of the
> populace, collect dues, give out information, so we
> are going to need
> addresses of the populace.
>
> The old lex was for an Internet organization of 250
> souls. This revision is
> for a growing population of 900+.
> Citizens of Rome, how are the Provincial Praetors
> going to do their jobs if
> they are denied the addresses of their provincial
> populace? And what about
> these multi-lingual provinces that some Praetors
> have to administer? Unless
> the Praetors are bi or tri lingual, they are going
> to have to assistants,
> Legatii, that do. The Senate appoints the Praetor,
> they assume that these
> are responsible adults, who understand the meaning
> of privacy. The Senate
> also assumes that the
> Praetor will show good judgment in appointing
> legatii.
>
> Now we have to examine what information the
> Provincial administrators,
> because that they are, are going to receive to allow
> adminstership.
> Mailing Addresses and phone numbers. That's all.
> We do not need to know
> anything else.
> We are not going to have large dossiers on citizens
> like Cassius Nerva
> alludes to, and even if we wanted harass personal
> enemies as several contend,
> my Lex Fabia makes it illegal to do so.
>
> So while more people might know how to mail you,
> citizens, a letter, it is
> the for the good of Rome and it is needed if we are
> to take the next step in
> organizing the provinces.
> Thank you for listening.
>
> Valete
> Q Fabius Maximus
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 02:39:01 -0000

Ave,

I checked the schedule when the Comitia is officially summoned,
according to that we are not yet in the discussion period, which
begins July 30. I have taken the liberty of rewriting the proposed
lex to reflect some changes that I think are important. I hope that
this can inspire some comments and hopefully serve as a suitable
compromise to both parties.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Censor

ITEM II: LEX VEDIA DE PRIVATUS REBUS
The Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus is hereby amended to include the
following:

"Provincial governors, may receive confidential information, but only
relating to those citizens within their provincia, in accordance with
the restrictions and procedures governing release of such information
for magistrates.

"Provincial governors may give this information to their assistants
in accordance with the restrictions and procedures governing release
of such information for magistrates.

"Individual citizens may, at their express request, allow
confidential information of their choice to be made available and/or
public, and may rescind such permission as they see fit."

Any violation of this lex would result in a breech of trust. This
must be spelled out clearly to prevent abuse. There are two factors
that must be taken into account of.

1. If the person who violates this is a Senior Magistrate or
Provincal Governor.

2. If the person who violated this is a subordinate (appatories,
legates, and any other non-elected or appointed magistrate).

As per item one above, the following punishments must be applied:

A Nota must be issued by the Censors; and if he/she was a Senator,
they will automatically lose their seat in the Senate.

At the next Senatorial Summons, an item must be included to determine
if the Senior Magistrate or Provincal Governor should be removed from
office.

And, based on Senatorial discretion if a trial should be held for
potential banishment from Nova Roma.

And a disbarment from running for any (elected or appointed) office
for 5 years.

If the individual falls under the conditions of #2 then the following
punishments are available.

Automatic termination of subordinate position.

A Nota must be issued by the Censors.

Trial in the Comitia Centuriata for banishment- under the guidelines
of the Constitution of Nova Roma.

And a disbarment from running for any (elected or appointed) office
for 7 years.

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED v2
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:56:38 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete,

I like this rewrite more than its predecessor, but
have a few comments (some of which, I admit are picky
grammatical, but need to be done at some point, so why
not here; apologies to anyone who is offended by this
"school marm" review, but it's part of what I do for a
living and I like it).

L. Cornelius Dalmaticus

> ITEM II: LEX VEDIA DE PRIVATUS REBUS
> The Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus is hereby amended
> to include the
> following:
>
> "Provincial governors, may receive confidential
> information, but only
> relating to those citizens within their provincia,
> in accordance with
> the restrictions and procedures governing release of
> such information
> for magistrates.

"Provincial governors may receive confidential
information only relating to those citizens within
their provincia, in accordance with the restrictions
and procedures governing release of such information
for magistrates.

> "Provincial governors may give this information to
> their assistants
> in accordance with the restrictions and procedures
> governing release
> of such information for magistrates.
>
> "Individual citizens may, at their express request,
> allow
> confidential information of their choice to be made
> available and/or
> public, and may rescind such permission as they see
> fit."

"Individual citizens may, at their express request,
allow confidential information of their choice to be
made available and/or public, and may rescind such
permission as they see fit. Releases and rescissions
shall be in writing."

> Any violation of this lex would result in a breech
> of trust. This
> must be spelled out clearly to prevent abuse. There
> are two factors
> that must be taken into account of.

Any violation of this lex is a breach of trust. This
must be spelled out clearly to prevent abuse.
Violators fall into one of the following two
categories.

> 1. If the person who violates this is a Senior
> Magistrate or
> Provincal Governor.

1. Senior Magistrate or Provincal Governor.

> 2. If the person who violated this is a subordinate
> (appatories,
> legates, and any other non-elected or appointed
> magistrate).

2. Lesser Magistrate or subordinate (appatories,
legates, or any other non-elected or appointed
magistrate), or anyone else not covered in category 1.
>
> As per item one above, the following punishments
> must be applied:

Punishments (Category 1)

> A Nota must be issued by the Censors; and if he/she
> was a Senator,
> they will automatically lose their seat in the
> Senate.

A Nota must be issued by the Censors and if the
violator is a Senator, he/she will automatically lose
his/her seat in the Senate.

> At the next Senatorial Summons, an item must be
> included to determine
> if the Senior Magistrate or Provincal Governor
> should be removed from
> office.
>
> And, based on Senatorial discretion if a trial
> should be held for
> potential banishment from Nova Roma.

Based on Senatorial discretion, a trial may be held
for potential banishment from Nova Roma.

> And a disbarment from running for any (elected or
> appointed) office
> for 5 years.

Violators will be barred from running for any elected
or appointed office for 5 years.

> If the individual falls under the conditions of #2
> then the following
> punishments are available.

Punishments (Category 2)

> Automatic termination of subordinate position.
>
> A Nota must be issued by the Censors.
>
> Trial in the Comitia Centuriata for banishment-
> under the guidelines
> of the Constitution of Nova Roma.
>
> And a disbarment from running for any (elected or
> appointed) office
> for 7 years.

Violators will be barred from running for any elected
or appointed office for 7 years.

Question: I feel that a breach in confidence of a
senior magistrate is more serious than an offense by a
lesser magistrate, but the law (as rewritten above)
offers more punishment to the lesser magistrate.

Categ. 1 Categ. 2
Nota issued yes yes
Fired from office up to Senate yes
Loss of senate seat yes not covered
Banished from NR up to Senate yes
Barred from office 5 yrs 7 yrs

I'd like to see these reversed.

Dalmaticus

=====
JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow." -Dilbert

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: The Comitia Centuriata is Convened
From:	"G. Noviodunus Ferriculus" <Gaius.Noviodunus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 09:07:34 +0200

Salvete omnes,

>>>ITEM II: LEX VEDIA DE PRIVATUS REBUS
Shouldn't this read:
"de privatis rebus"?
Valete bene,
--
Gaius Noviodunus Ferriculus
Civis Provinciae Germaniae, Regionis Superioris
Friburgii Helvetiorum

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.
From:	QFabiusMaxmi@--------
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 03:45:53 EDT

In a message dated 7/31/2001 7:41:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
alexious@-------- writes:


> office.
>
> And, based on Senatorial discretion if a trial should be held for
> potential banishment from Nova Roma.
>
> And a disbarment from running for any (elected or appointed) office
> for 5 years.
>
> If the individual falls under the conditions of #2 then the following
> punishments are available.
>
> Automatic termination of subordinate position.
>
> A Nota must be issued by the Censors.
>
> Trial in the Comitia Centuriata for banishment- under the guidelines
> of the Constitution of Nova Roma.
>
> And a disbarment from running for any (elected or appointed) office
> for 7 years.
>
>
Salvete
I think that definition of Crime and its Punishment be best left to the
Praetors, Lucius Cornelius. I see no reason to include these in a lex.

I also have to say, that if you think that the Provincial Praetors are going
to sell their citizens addresses to a direct marketer, well not only is my
dignatis impinged, but so are the other Praetors. I'm outraged by such a
suggestion.
People. It is for us to better administer the province. I'm sure now that
everybody realizes that we are not asking for this info lightly. We all
discussed this, among the greater number of Praetors and we all came to the
agreement. We need this information. And to answer
Lucius Equitius' comment about the silent citizen, perhaps mi Equiti there
will be less silent citizens if we get them more involved. Direct mailing is
just one more way to do this.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus.


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

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] On the change to the Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 01:13:10 -0700 (PDT)

Salvete,

--- QFabiusMaxmi@-------- wrote:
> Salvete
>
> As the person most pushing for this change, I have
> to say one thing.
> When is a person's privacy paramount in a state that
> they voluntarily joined?

Since the US ratified the 4th Amendment, guaranteeing
freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, commonly
agreed nowadays to give us somewhat of a guarantee of
privacy. Since we are organized under US law, we are
obligated to follow the US Constitution, like it or
not.

I agree that some degree of information sharing is
called for. I only want to ensure there are
safeguards for our citizens.

Dalmaticus

=====
JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies out of the trunk." -- anonymous

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] Query on a book
From:	=?iso-8859-1?q?Craig=20Stevenson?= <gaiussentius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 18:43:21 +1000 (EST)

Salvete omnes,

I am looking at purchasing a book, but would like to
know what others thought of it. It is called Sulla:
The Last Republican by Arthur Keaveney.

Any feedback would be much appreciated.

Valete bene,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Governors (was Re: The Comitia Centuriata is Convened)
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 02:43:43 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,

--- "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
wrote:

> But in some provinciae, governors aren't always
> present, or must delegate
> tasks to their Legates because of practical reasons.

I think Draco has a good point here. We are -- and
must -- placing a heavier load on the governors.
There are several vacancies (the recent search for a
POC for the cive from Italy brought this to light).

Is there some mechanism which exists, or can be
created, to allow the appointment of an acting
governor until one can be appointed by the Senate
(which is also meeting less frequently)?

Dalmaticus

=====
JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies out of the trunk." -- anonymous

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] PUBLIC RITUAL TODAY
From:	cassius622@--------
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 07:04:05 EDT

Salvete,

I am again posting the Supplication ritual that will be done today by members
of the Collegium Pontificum and the NR Priesthood. Interested Citizens are
invited to participate, to help bring the blessings of Iuno, Spes, Victoria
and Ceres to our community!

The ritual may be done any time today or tonight. All that is needed is some
green foliage of some sort, some incense, (stick, cone or powdered) and some
wine. If you don't have a Lararium in your home, a table facing East will do.

I'll be doing the ritual early this evening, between work and having to go
out for a couple of hours. I'll try to post to the Religio Romana list before
the rite. I will also post after the rite (most likely tomorrow morning.) I
hope other Citizens will also post their experience to that list, so that we
can share information. :)

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus


8/1/2001

SUPPLICATION RITUAL TO IUNO, SPES, VICTORY, AND CERES


I. Preparation

Incense burner, if available. Prayers should be directed at the Lararium
(ideally with statuettes or pictures of Iuno, Spes, Victoria and Ceres), or
towards East if a Lararium is not available. Men may hold laurel leaves and
also adorn their heads with laurel or other foliage. Women can let their
hair loose, and during prayer they can kneel and outstretch the arms if they
feel prone to the idea.

II. Offering

On a supplication, prayers can be spoken freely, as each individual asks
his/her desired blessings, offering incense in return, and/or reminding the
goddesses that prayers are being said and thought. The suppliant is
kneeling, and/or reminding the deities that the Roman people are pious and
are showing their piety together in this supplication, etc.. At this time
people should concentrate on the following blessings, and ask to one deity
at a time. Those who are too shy to pray aloud can also participate by
praying in silence.

- To Iuno (goddess to whom the Kalends belong):
. To accept and favor this supplication of the Roman people of the
Quirites.
. To favor the senate and people of Roma.
. To favor the women and children of Roma and to favor the growth of the
nation.

- To Spes (Hope):
. To accept this supplication of the Roman people of the Quirites.
. To never fail the senate and people of Roma, independently of the
obstacles encountered.

- To Victoria (Victory)
. To accept this supplication of the Roman people of the Quirites.
. To never fail the senate and people of Roma.
. To guide the senate and the people of Rome to achieve their objectives and
be recognized as a nation with its land and temples.

- To Ceres (goddess of grain, equated with Tellus, the Earth)
. To accept this supplication of the Roman people of the Quirites.
. To favor the agriculture in all the Roman provinces.
. To favor the growth of the grain.

For those who wish to do it in Latin and/or in a more orderly fashion, a
supplication by the incense (ideally it should be incense and wine) can be
done as follows. The suppliants should again be holding laurel leaves, and
if possible be crowned with laurel or other foliage.

1) Offering to Iuno

Before offering, say the following prayer:
"Iuno Regina, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti huius
supplicationis acceptrix sies; uti sies volens propitia senatui populoque
romano et utique faveas matribus liberisque populi romani.
"Iuno Regina, while offering this incense I pray good prayers so that you
may accept this supplication; may you be willingly propitious to the senate
and the people of Rome; and may you favor the mothers and children of the
Roman people."

Then light the incense or throw it to the fire of the hearth with the
following words:
"Harum rerum ergo macte hoc ture esto. Fito volente propitia populo romano."
"For these things shall you be honoured by this incense. Make yourself
willingly propitious to the Roman people."

2) Offering to Spes

Before offering, say the following prayer:
"Spes, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti huius supplicationis
acceptrix sies; utique sies volens propitia senatui populoque romano et
nunquam desoles populum romanum.
"Spes, while offering this incense I pray good prayers so that you may
accept this supplication; may you be willingly propitious to the senate and
the people of Rome; and may you never abandon the Roman people."

Then light the incense or throw it to the fire of the hearth with the
following words:
"Harum rerum ergo macte hoc ture esto. Fito volente propitia populo romano."
"For these things shall you be honored by this incense. Make yourself
willingly propitious to the Roman people."

3) Offering to Victoria

Before offering, say the following prayer:
"Victoria, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti huius
supplicationis acceptrix sies; uti sies volens propitia senatui populoque
romano; uti nunquam desoles populum romanum, immo auxilies senatum
populumque romanum construendo patriam romanam cum terra aedibusque suis.
"Victoria, while offering this incense I pray good prayers so that you may
accept this supplication; may you be willingly propitious to the senate and
the people of Rome; may you never abandon the Roman people, on the contrary
may you guide the senate and the people of Rome in building a Roman nation
with its own land and its own temples."

Then light the incense or throw it to the fire of the hearth with the
following words:
"Harum rerum ergo macte hoc ture esto. Fito volente propitia populo romano."
"For these things shall you be honored by this incense. Make yourself
willingly propitious to the Roman people."


4) Offering to Ceres

"Ceres, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti huius supplicationis
acceptrix sies; uti sies volens propitia senatui populoque romano; uti
agriculturae fautrix sies utique faveas incremento farris in totis romanis
provinciabus.
"Ceres, while offering this incense I pray good prayers so that you may
accept this supplication; may you be willingly propitious to the senate and
the people of Rome; may you be the patron of the agriculture and may you
promote the growth of the grain in all Roman provinces."

Then light the incense or throw it to the fire of the hearth with the
following words:
"Harum rerum ergo macte hoc ture esto. Fito volente propitia populo romano."
"For these things shall you be honored by this incense. Make yourself
willingly propitious to the Roman people."



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

Subject:	[novaroma] Welcome and Congratulations!
From:	Publius Sentius Rutilianus Dexion <kelibol@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 14:25:20 +0300

Ave Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura...
I just wanted to congratulate you for your new office in Nova
Roma..I'm glad
to see you climbing the stairs at last :)...
I hope that your 'pilgrimage' have been a wonderful experience
for you
both spiritually and physically..!
Welcome back Pater...
Vale...



Publius Sentius Rutilianus Dexion
Civis Novae Romae

* Sapiens dominabitur astris ! *

Subject:	[novaroma] Let the citizens decide for themselves!
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 00:47:21 -0000

Quintus Fabius Maximus says the old lex was appropriate for a small
internet organization, but is not appropriate now that NR has 900
plus citizens on the rolls.

We do not have 900 citizens. We have nine hundred or so NAMES on a
list. We will see how many real citizens NR actually has when it is
time to pay taxes. NR will be lucky is 400 respond.

And what of the Lex Fabia? Does it not protect us? No, it does
not. The Lex Fabia may take effect only AFTER the damage has been
done.

There is a reasonable solution to this conflict. Let the citizens
decide for themseleves whether or not their personal info will be
released. Each citizen can have the opportunity to check a box on
their profiles. If they check yes, than their info may be released.
If they check no, then it will not be released. This makes perfect
sense. NR has shown itself willing to allow citizens to decide for
themselvbes whether or not to pay taxes; NR can allow them to decide
this for themselves as well.

Nerva

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Ring
From:	Marcus Bianchius Antonius <imperialreign@-------->
Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:04:49 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,

I would like to see this ring. Please send a photo of
it or post it.

Thanks

Marcus Bianchius Antonius
(imperialreign@--------)


--- mark zona <pitdog2002@--------> wrote:
> I have a ring which belonged to my grandfather. It
> is
> very old and my grandfather passed it on to me when
> he
> died. It is of a heavy metal though i do not know of
> what type and of simple design. It is flattened on
> the
> top and ROMA is etched into the flat of the ring.
> Unfortunately i do not know the history of the ring,
> and whether it truely is a relic of the Roman Empire
> or just a very old ring owned by a family proud to
> be
> Roman.
>
> But if there is interest, i will photograph it and
> scan it in my computer. Perhaps an expert could tell
> me where this ring really came from. And if it is
> believed to be of the era of the Roman Empire, then
> perhaps this could serve as a model for our ring?
>
>
> Salve!
>
> Marcus Antonius Zeno
>
> --- Marcus Bianchius Antonius
> <imperialreign@--------> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> >
> > I was thinking about a ring. I have some friends
> > (one
> > really) that is in the Masonic Order and he has a
> > very
> > nice ring with their symbol etched into onyx.
> > Has anyone ever looked into a Nova Roma ring
> before?
> > Maybe a gold band with some sort of black or gold
> > top
> > with our SPQR and laurel leaves etched in? Maybe a
> > stone to accent the image.
> >
> > I have no idea how to implement such an idea, or
> > even
> > the cost. My friend said his ring was about
> $400.00
> > US, but I would assume that price comes with
> > quanities.
> > Plus start up and design costs.
> >
> > I am just throwing this out. It would be nice to
> > have,
> > to wear at events and such. Not to mention a nice
> > conversation starter.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Marcus Bianchius Antonius
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute
> > with Yahoo! Messenger
> > http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute
> with Yahoo! Messenger
> http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	[novaroma] test
From:	TribuneAfricanus@--------
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 02:53:53 EDT

just a quick test to see if my NR email groups are working.

Subject:	[novaroma] Another Tax Question
From:	TribuneAfricanus@--------
Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2001 23:05:54 EDT

During Roman times, Legionaires did not pay taxes as they were in service of
the state. Because I am an officer of the Militarium, several legionaires
locally have asked me about presenting that to the list. Since it is already
expensive enough to purchase and field in full Legionaire kit, and let's face
it, you cant have a successful Roman Day event without the Legio there, so
shouldn't we waive the "tax" for legionaires who are "certified" by the
Militarium as such?

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: On the change to the Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus
From:	TribuneAfricanus@--------
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 07:01:23 -0000

I concur with Legate Venator's comments. As Legate of the Eastern
half of Lacus Magni (Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and W. Virginia)I also
encourage all civies to contact me if we have not already made
contact, to begin planning for an event to be held in our Regio this
October. I also feel that contact information for civies should be
made available to Provincial governors and Legatus. If we are unable
to make contact with them, how can we get them active in our
regions?

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.
From:	gcassiusnerva@--------
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 02:46:31 -0000

Sulla, this is a MUCH better version than the one proposed. I can
support this.

The best and most important feature is that it allows each citizen to
decide for himself whether or not his/her phaone number, address, etc
is passed out. There is NO GOOD REASON why anyone would be against
our people having this choice, and if there are such people, I demand
you explain to everyone here why we should NOT be allowed to choose
if our personal information gets sent out or not.

Nerva

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Another Tax Question
From:	Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 04:47:19 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,

I woould agree to this, so long as they were members
of a sposnored legion and their commander signed for
them.

Dalmaticus

--- TribuneAfricanus@-------- wrote:
> During Roman times, Legionaires did not pay taxes as
> they were in service of
> the state. Because I am an officer of the
> Militarium, several legionaires
> locally have asked me about presenting that to the
> list. Since it is already
> expensive enough to purchase and field in full
> Legionaire kit, and let's face
> it, you cant have a successful Roman Day event
> without the Legio there, so
> shouldn't we waive the "tax" for legionaires who are
> "certified" by the
> Militarium as such?
>
>


=====
JEFFREY C. SMITH
HQ USAREUR/7A
CMR 420, BOX 2839
APO AE 09063-2839

"Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies out of the trunk." -- anonymous

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Query on a book
From:	"Daniel Place" <danat2000@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:24:28 +0930

Gaius Sentius,

I've read it. It's quite good actually. I used it for an essay I did years ago on the sanctuary of Fortuna Primogenia at Praeneste which Sulla is suuposed to have constructed.

You could buy alot worse books than this one :-)

Marcus Arcadius
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Stevenson
To: main list
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 6:13 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Query on a book


Salvete omnes,

I am looking at purchasing a book, but would like to
know what others thought of it. It is called Sulla:
The Last Republican by Arthur Keaveney.

Any feedback would be much appreciated.

Valete bene,

Gaius Sentius Bruttius Sura

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] PUBLIC RITUAL TODAY
From:	"Daniel Place" <danat2000@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 21:26:23 +0930

Ave Cassius,

I've already done it due to our time difference :-) Do you want me to post my personal experience here or on the RR list?

Marcus Arcadius
----- Original Message -----
From: cassius622@--------
To: ReligioRomana@--------
Cc: novaroma@--------
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 8:34 PM
Subject: [novaroma] PUBLIC RITUAL TODAY


Salvete,

I am again posting the Supplication ritual that will be done today by members
of the Collegium Pontificum and the NR Priesthood. Interested Citizens are
invited to participate, to help bring the blessings of Iuno, Spes, Victoria
and Ceres to our community!

The ritual may be done any time today or tonight. All that is needed is some
green foliage of some sort, some incense, (stick, cone or powdered) and some
wine. If you don't have a Lararium in your home, a table facing East will do.

I'll be doing the ritual early this evening, between work and having to go
out for a couple of hours. I'll try to post to the Religio Romana list before
the rite. I will also post after the rite (most likely tomorrow morning.) I
hope other Citizens will also post their experience to that list, so that we
can share information. :)

Vale,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Pontifex Maximus


8/1/2001

SUPPLICATION RITUAL TO IUNO, SPES, VICTORY, AND CERES


I. Preparation

Incense burner, if available. Prayers should be directed at the Lararium
(ideally with statuettes or pictures of Iuno, Spes, Victoria and Ceres), or
towards East if a Lararium is not available. Men may hold laurel leaves and
also adorn their heads with laurel or other foliage. Women can let their
hair loose, and during prayer they can kneel and outstretch the arms if they
feel prone to the idea.

II. Offering

On a supplication, prayers can be spoken freely, as each individual asks
his/her desired blessings, offering incense in return, and/or reminding the
goddesses that prayers are being said and thought. The suppliant is
kneeling, and/or reminding the deities that the Roman people are pious and
are showing their piety together in this supplication, etc.. At this time
people should concentrate on the following blessings, and ask to one deity
at a time. Those who are too shy to pray aloud can also participate by
praying in silence.

- To Iuno (goddess to whom the Kalends belong):
. To accept and favor this supplication of the Roman people of the
Quirites.
. To favor the senate and people of Roma.
. To favor the women and children of Roma and to favor the growth of the
nation.

- To Spes (Hope):
. To accept this supplication of the Roman people of the Quirites.
. To never fail the senate and people of Roma, independently of the
obstacles encountered.

- To Victoria (Victory)
. To accept this supplication of the Roman people of the Quirites.
. To never fail the senate and people of Roma.
. To guide the senate and the people of Rome to achieve their objectives and
be recognized as a nation with its land and temples.

- To Ceres (goddess of grain, equated with Tellus, the Earth)
. To accept this supplication of the Roman people of the Quirites.
. To favor the agriculture in all the Roman provinces.
. To favor the growth of the grain.

For those who wish to do it in Latin and/or in a more orderly fashion, a
supplication by the incense (ideally it should be incense and wine) can be
done as follows. The suppliants should again be holding laurel leaves, and
if possible be crowned with laurel or other foliage.

1) Offering to Iuno

Before offering, say the following prayer:
"Iuno Regina, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti huius
supplicationis acceptrix sies; uti sies volens propitia senatui populoque
romano et utique faveas matribus liberisque populi romani.
"Iuno Regina, while offering this incense I pray good prayers so that you
may accept this supplication; may you be willingly propitious to the senate
and the people of Rome; and may you favor the mothers and children of the
Roman people."

Then light the incense or throw it to the fire of the hearth with the
following words:
"Harum rerum ergo macte hoc ture esto. Fito volente propitia populo romano."
"For these things shall you be honoured by this incense. Make yourself
willingly propitious to the Roman people."

2) Offering to Spes

Before offering, say the following prayer:
"Spes, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti huius supplicationis
acceptrix sies; utique sies volens propitia senatui populoque romano et
nunquam desoles populum romanum.
"Spes, while offering this incense I pray good prayers so that you may
accept this supplication; may you be willingly propitious to the senate and
the people of Rome; and may you never abandon the Roman people."

Then light the incense or throw it to the fire of the hearth with the
following words:
"Harum rerum ergo macte hoc ture esto. Fito volente propitia populo romano."
"For these things shall you be honored by this incense. Make yourself
willingly propitious to the Roman people."

3) Offering to Victoria

Before offering, say the following prayer:
"Victoria, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti huius
supplicationis acceptrix sies; uti sies volens propitia senatui populoque
romano; uti nunquam desoles populum romanum, immo auxilies senatum
populumque romanum construendo patriam romanam cum terra aedibusque suis.
"Victoria, while offering this incense I pray good prayers so that you may
accept this supplication; may you be willingly propitious to the senate and
the people of Rome; may you never abandon the Roman people, on the contrary
may you guide the senate and the people of Rome in building a Roman nation
with its own land and its own temples."

Then light the incense or throw it to the fire of the hearth with the
following words:
"Harum rerum ergo macte hoc ture esto. Fito volente propitia populo romano."
"For these things shall you be honored by this incense. Make yourself
willingly propitious to the Roman people."


4) Offering to Ceres

"Ceres, te hoc ture ommovendo bonas preces precor, uti huius supplicationis
acceptrix sies; uti sies volens propitia senatui populoque romano; uti
agriculturae fautrix sies utique faveas incremento farris in totis romanis
provinciabus.
"Ceres, while offering this incense I pray good prayers so that you may
accept this supplication; may you be willingly propitious to the senate and
the people of Rome; may you be the patron of the agriculture and may you
promote the growth of the grain in all Roman provinces."

Then light the incense or throw it to the fire of the hearth with the
following words:
"Harum rerum ergo macte hoc ture esto. Fito volente propitia populo romano."
"For these things shall you be honored by this incense. Make yourself
willingly propitious to the Roman people."



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

Subject:	[novaroma] Lex Cornelia Revision
From:	"Pompeia Cornelia Strabo" <scriba_forum@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 12:10:25 +0000

Salvete Omnes:

As a Propraetrix, I fully support the position of the Censores with respect
to amending the proposed Lex Cornelia revision to include *governors only*
in the reception of addresses and phone numbers of citizens.

Governors are the persons ultimately accountable for where this information
goes, so I feel it is only appropriate that such information be given to
gubernatorial staff, where deemed necessary by the governor.

Moreover.....

A petition signed by several governors was presented to the Senate (last
Senate call), requesting a revision of the Lex to enable *the governors* to
have better contact information on our civites. This petition was further
worded proposing that the governors would share this information with their
staff, as *the governors* saw necessary.... the petition was not worded to
automatically include the distribution of this info to legates.

Frankly, I am surprised to see the lex revision proposal worded in the
fashion it is.

I further support, as a matter of courtesy, to have some notification,
either "we will" or "may we" give your information, ie addie and phone # to
the provincial governor ? I am sure most will not care, but it is a courtesy
to inform citizens about where their private stuff goes when they join.
Avoids alot of future....Gosh I didn't know that's.....

As excited as I am at the prospect of sending out periodic newsletters to my
people, I shall not vote for this proposal as it is currently worded.

Bene valete,
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
Propraetrix Canada Orientalis
NOVA ROMA

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Another Tax Question
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:18:32 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: TribuneAfricanus@-------- [mailto:TribuneAfricanus@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 11:06 PM
>
> During Roman times, Legionaires did not pay taxes as they were in service
of
> the state. Because I am an officer of the Militarium, several legionaires
> locally have asked me about presenting that to the list. Since it is
already
> expensive enough to purchase and field in full Legionaire kit, and let's
face
> it, you cant have a successful Roman Day event without the Legio there, so
> shouldn't we waive the "tax" for legionaires who are "certified" by the
> Militarium as such?

I think this is a bad idea, for several reasons.

First, while it is indeed an expensive proposition to get kitted out in
reenactor gear, it is no less expensive to provide a web-server and hosting
space. Should the Curator Araneum, then, not be similarly waivered? The
Curatrix Sermonem spends countless hours with her duties; surely she
deserves a break as well. And being a Consul is also quite the
time-consuming and expensive position. Doubtless Consuls (and perhaps other
magistrates as well) should also receive a waiver. And cooking? Can't have a
Roman Days without food. Let's give the members of the Sodalitas pro
Coqueror et Coquus an exemption. See where I'm going with this? Once we
start giving tax exemptions to one group of people because their Roman
activities are particularly expensive, everyone will want to enjoy a similar
benefit.

Second, not every member of a reenactment legion provides their own
equipment. For example, as I understand it, the Roman Historical Society
provides "loaner" equipment for all it's legion members. So being a
reenactor does not, in and of itself, have to drain the bank account.

Third, our sponsored legions are not officially Nova Roman organizations;
they remain completely independent entities. Sponsorship is merely an
agreement between the independent legion and Nova Roma that we will
advertise and support their events, and they will advertise Nova Roma as an
organization and encourage their members to become Citizens. Why would we
give a benefit for belonging to an independent organization?

Fourth, such an arrangement would not be fair to those reenactors who are
members of legions which have, for whatever reason, not chosen to seek
sponsorship. You mentioned Roman Days; do you realize that Legio XX (which
hosts it each year) is not a sponsored legion? Roman Days is not a Nova Roma
event; we are simply guests there.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:26:26 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Woolwine [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 10:39 PM
>
> I checked the schedule when the Comitia is officially summoned,
> according to that we are not yet in the discussion period, which
> begins July 30.

Ummm... you need to check your calendar. You sent this out the day _after_
the contio began. Thus, it is too late for your revisions to be incorporated
into the current vote.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

Subject:	[novaroma] Legates and Information
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:15:25 -0400

Salvete

I must say I am somewhat shocked by the reaction to the suggestion that
legates should have access to contact information for cives within their
respective sphere of responsibility. Speaking as a provincial governor
myself, I think that such would be necessary for the smooth operation of a
large and active province. That is, in fact, the whole _point_ of appointing
legates; to allow the governors to delegate their authority, so that the
governor is not bogged down in minutae.

Let us not forget, either, that the first paragraph of the amendment is a
mere clarification, making explicit what is already implicit. The current
Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus already includes "lawfully appointed
assistants" as those who are eligible to request information from the
Censors. This is nothing new at all! Under the current law, legates are
already technically allowed to request information from the Censors. This
amendment merely makes the allowance explicit.

Indeed, one wonders why Sulla is so up in arms about the prospect of legates
requesting contact information, since such a provision was already included
in the lex he himself wrote.

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 13:29:22 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Salve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob--------Woolwin--------ailto:al--------us@--------]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 10:39 PM
> >
> > I checked the schedule when the Comitia is officially summoned,
> > according to that we are not yet in the discussion period, which
> > begins July 30.
>
> Ummm... you need to check your calendar. You sent this out the day
_after_
> the contio began. Thus, it is too late for your revisions to be
incorporated
> into the current vote.

Ave,

Thanks for the correction..the computer date I was looking at was
incorrect. Oh well...I shall have to vote no on the revision then.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Legates and Information
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 13:36:58 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Salvete
>
> I must say I am somewhat shocked by the reaction to the suggestion
that
> legates should have access to contact information for cives within
their
> respective sphere of responsibility. Speaking as a provincial
governor
> myself, I think that such would be necessary for the smooth
operation of a
> large and active province. That is, in fact, the whole _point_ of
appointing
> legates; to allow the governors to delegate their authority, so
that the
> governor is not bogged down in minutae.
>
> Let us not forget, either, that the first paragraph of the
amendment is a
> mere clarification, making explicit what is already implicit. The
current
> Lex Cornelia de Privatus Rebus already includes "lawfully appointed
> assistants" as those who are eligible to request information from
the
> Censors. This is nothing new at all! Under the current law, legates
are
> already technically allowed to request information from the
Censors. This
> amendment merely makes the allowance explicit.
>
> Indeed, one wonders why Sulla is so up in arms about the prospect
of legates
> requesting contact information, since such a provision was already
included
> in the lex he himself wrote.

Ave,

My problem with the lex revision, is the lack of controls. There are
no controls that prevent a Legate asking such information. A
governor is granted Imperium (when the Comita Curiata is called.)
Not a Legate. How do I know, as Censor, that a governor was EVEN
notified that the Legate was requesting information. To be appointed
a Legate is easier than getting a job in the real world. In Nova
Roma, how do we truly know the governors know of any record the
Legate has? We don't. Its being realistic and safe to try to
protect private information as much as possible. To jeopardize our
confidential information is very serious.

I remember once that Consul Cassius once criticized me for trying to
publish an edict when I was Proconsul of California, mandatory
subscribing the members of the California Provinca on the California
Nova Roma list. I was told by him, Q. Fabius and others that it was
up to the individual to decide if they wanted to be a member of that
list. I was criticized and I removed the edict from consideration.
Now, we are seeing a revision of a lex that completely takes control
away from the citizens, some of the protections of the lex. I have
seen the error of my ways, have you Consul?

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 13:43:33 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/31/2001 7:41:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> al--------us@-------- writ--------/font>
>
>
> > office.
> >
> > And, based on Senatorial discretion if a trial should be held for
> > potential banishment from Nova Roma.
> >
> > And a disbarment from running for any (elected or appointed)
office
> > for 5 years.
> >
> > If the individual falls under the conditions of #2 then the
following
> > punishments are available.
> >
> > Automatic termination of subordinate position.
> >
> > A Nota must be issued by the Censors.
> >
> > Trial in the Comitia Centuriata for banishment- under the
guidelines
> > of the Constitution of Nova Roma.
> >
> > And a disbarment from running for any (elected or appointed)
office
> > for 7 years.
> >
> >
> Salvete
> I think that definition of Crime and its Punishment be best left to
the
> Praetors, Lucius Cornelius. I see no reason to include these in a
lex.

Ave,

Just for clarification, you see no reasons that there should be
stipulated and pointed out in the lex? May I respectfully ask why?

> I also have to say, that if you think that the Provincial Praetors
are going
> to sell their citizens addresses to a direct marketer, well not
only is my
> dignatis impinged, but so are the other Praetors. I'm outraged by
such a
> suggestion.

I am saying that is just one example that might possible happen. I
am sure there are a number of others. For example harassment. But,
I really don't want to speculate too much on what ifs, execpt for the
issue of making sure the what if's do not happen. Remember, if NR
ever gets sued, it is the Senators who will be the one to take the
fiscal responsbility.

> People. It is for us to better administer the province. I'm sure
now that
> everybody realizes that we are not asking for this info lightly.

I am sure most of us realize that the information is absolutely
needed. The problem is lack of controls. You know I am for most of
this revision, but I cannot support the stated revision in its
current form. Legislation should be detailed and account for
violations. Mine did not. That was a mistake which I admit, for I
was new at writing legislation. I have learned a great deal, and am
still not through learning. Is it better to pass a poorly worded law
sooner and wait for a detailed revision, I respectfully say no. I
would rather wait it out write up a detailed and concise lex and then
promulgate it.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

<Snip?

Subject:	[novaroma] Untrustworty Governors
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 13:46:00 -0000

Salvete Omnes,

It seems that some of our citizens do not trust thier Governor,and
are using this as an excuse to limit the ability of all the Governors
to do the job the Senate apointed them to.

If you give your phone number to your Doctor, and he has his
receptionist call you about an apointment, do you consider this an
invasion of your privacy? Should the Doctor have to act as his own
receptionist?

I am NOT apointting Legates so some citizen can have a meaningless
tittle to add to his signiture. I intend to put these people to work,
and that means that they will need to contact citizens.Since I
haven't had any psychics apply to be legates, they will have to get
the contact information through traditional means.

We are planning a provincial census, so that we can find out what
areas of Nova Roma our citizens have the most intrest in. These are
the areas we will concetrate on. How can we do this without contact
information?

We will be setting up Municipia as soon as posible. We need physical
addresses to do this. How do we set up the municipia of Anytown, if
we have no idea if there are any citizens there?

There is no need to handicap all the provinces just because thinks
that thier Governor is untrustworty.

If you think your Governor can't be trusted, I suggest that you
contact the Senate ASAP with the reasons, so they can be removed.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Let the citizens decide for themselves!
From:	asseri@--------
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 10:36:22 EDT

Salve,
If I didn't want to be accessible why would I join any organization
that is member oriented. All the groups I belong to have limited access to my
information and all the officers of importance most certainly do. I want to
be found.

Why belong to NR if you don't want to be notified of activities in
your province or even your own town or village!

      we must get out into the physical world and farther away from the cyber.

Drusila



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

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Another Tax Question
From:	PompeiaAntoniaCaesar <europamoon7@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 08:47:08 -0700 (PDT)

Avete,

I have to agree with Flavius Vedius on this one. It
would be showing favoritism to one group over another
if this allowance is made. No one really knows how
much time or money an individual devotes in service to
NR and no assumptions should of this nature should be
made. With this immunity shown to leggionaires on
taxes we are assuming that they spend more and give
more to service than any other group. I also find it
very difficult to believe that anyone living in this
country (USA) cannot afford to give $1.00 a month to
an organization they support and want to see grow.
What can the priorities be of such an individual.
Every citizen who pays taxes is worth ten names on a
list. And if only 400 cives pay taxes as Nerva
projects then that's 400 more than are paying now.

Vale,

Pompeia Antonia Caesar



--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> wrote:
> Salve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TribuneAfricanus@--------
> [mailto:TribuneAfricanus@--------]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 11:06 PM
> >
> > During Roman times, Legionaires did not pay taxes
> as they were in service
> of
> > the state. Because I am an officer of the
> Militarium, several legionaires
> > locally have asked me about presenting that to the
> list. Since it is
> already
> > expensive enough to purchase and field in full
> Legionaire kit, and let's
> face
> > it, you cant have a successful Roman Day event
> without the Legio there, so
> > shouldn't we waive the "tax" for legionaires who
> are "certified" by the
> > Militarium as such?
>
> I think this is a bad idea, for several reasons.
>
> First, while it is indeed an expensive proposition
> to get kitted out in
> reenactor gear, it is no less expensive to provide a
> web-server and hosting
> space. Should the Curator Araneum, then, not be
> similarly waivered? The
> Curatrix Sermonem spends countless hours with her
> duties; surely she
> deserves a break as well. And being a Consul is also
> quite the
> time-consuming and expensive position. Doubtless
> Consuls (and perhaps other
> magistrates as well) should also receive a waiver.
> And cooking? Can't have a
> Roman Days without food. Let's give the members of
> the Sodalitas pro
> Coqueror et Coquus an exemption. See where I'm going
> with this? Once we
> start giving tax exemptions to one group of people
> because their Roman
> activities are particularly expensive, everyone will
> want to enjoy a similar
> benefit.
>
> Second, not every member of a reenactment legion
> provides their own
> equipment. For example, as I understand it, the
> Roman Historical Society
> provides "loaner" equipment for all it's legion
> members. So being a
> reenactor does not, in and of itself, have to drain
> the bank account.
>
> Third, our sponsored legions are not officially Nova
> Roman organizations;
> they remain completely independent entities.
> Sponsorship is merely an
> agreement between the independent legion and Nova
> Roma that we will
> advertise and support their events, and they will
> advertise Nova Roma as an
> organization and encourage their members to become
> Citizens. Why would we
> give a benefit for belonging to an independent
> organization?
>
> Fourth, such an arrangement would not be fair to
> those reenactors who are
> members of legions which have, for whatever reason,
> not chosen to seek
> sponsorship. You mentioned Roman Days; do you
> realize that Legio XX (which
> hosts it each year) is not a sponsored legion? Roman
> Days is not a Nova Roma
> event; we are simply guests there.
>
> Vale,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Let the citizens decide for themselves!
From:	PompeiaAntoniaCaesar <europamoon7@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 09:05:08 -0700 (PDT)

Salve,

After some overnight thinking on this I had to ask
myself, what am I so afraid of? I belong to other
organizations that have my home address, phone number,
email address, fax number, legal name, etc. yet I
would not freely give this information to Nova Roma? I
think that the concept of NR being an internet group
at this time made me hesitate. These other groups I
belong to are physical groups with offices, employees,
direct contact numbers, etc. which I feel gives me a
little more security in allowing my personal
information to be given to them. I'm not saying this
is right or wrong but those are my feelings. But I
must now say that after reading the previous posts
arguing the necessity of allowing this information to
be accessed I no longer have these reservations. And
if it makes things run more smoothly and more
effectively than why not give what is needed to do so?
To refuse this would be like saying I don't trust
Nova Roma and don't want to go any farther than
posting emails on a list to people I don't know. I
should just leave if that's how I truly feel. Most
people join organizations to bond and share with
others who have similar interests and that is why I
joined Nova Roma. How much bonding and sharing can I
do if I won't even give my real name, address or phone
number to someone in charge? The more I think about it
the more I realize I have nothing to fear and
everything to gain by this action.

Vale,

Pompeia Antonia Caesar



--- asseri@-------- wrote:
> Salve,
> If I didn't want to be accessible why would I
> join any organization
> that is member oriented. All the groups I belong to
> have limited access to my
> information and all the officers of importance most
> certainly do. I want to
> be found.
>
> Why belong to NR if you don't want to be
> notified of activities in
> your province or even your own town or village!
>
>       we must get out into the physical world and
> farther away from the cyber.
>
> Drusila
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Mars novel
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 19:15:24 +0200

Salvete,

> <<<I wanted to hold comment until I saw how the character develped from
the
> first mention.
>
> I am coming to like this Venator quite well.
> Very nicely done, nicely done indeed.
>
> Perhaps when you are finished, the chapters could be assembled into an
> e-book available through the Macellum.
>
> mea sententia>>>
>
>
> Salvete,
> I think having a "e-publisher" type section in the Macellum would be a
great
> idea. This novel is not the only one being written and there are poems,
> plays etc. Good idea.
> Helena Galeria
>

Nice idea. If the Mars novel would ever make it to the macellum as an e-book
(for sale?) I would offer any and all profits made out of it to NR. Sort of
my way of paying tax ;-).

Valete,
Draco

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Legates and Information
From:	"S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 19:13:19 +0200

Salvete Quirites et Censor Sulla,

I will agree with you, Nerva and others who have said that it is up to the
individual to decide whether or not they want their info to be made
available to their governor. While I think this would be a very idiotic,
asocial and narrow-minded thing to do, every citizen has the right to be
idiotic, asocial and narrow-minded.

What I find completely rediculous, however, are the prospects of severe
punishments, banishments and notae when a governor or a legate would break
the trust and confidentiality of the information given. Todate, this has
_never_ happened. In fact, most of the shady legal affairs happen in the
central government, and not in provincial councils. It's an utterly paranoid
idea to suppose that provincial staffs would sell information to companies
or would begin to stalk their citizens.

Also, Nerva remarked that the lex Fabia only springs to life after the
damage has been incurred. Of course. Did anyone ever hear of a preventive
stalking law? "Sir, he's going to stalk me! Put him into prison". Well,
forgive me my sarcasm, but I can't really see the necessity to hide yourself
from your fellow citizens, unless you have something to hide, nor can I see
any good reason why a legate or a propraetor would go bonkers. If you follow
the same line of reasoning, what would we do if we had a Censor violating
privacy?

Valete bene,
Draco

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:57:02 -0400

Salvete

Just to hopefully clear up some of the confusion that has surrounded this
issue, here is what the privacy law would look like in it's entirety if the
amendment were to be passed:

-----

LEX CORNELIA DE PRIVATIS REBUS, ET LEX VEDIA DE PRIVATIS REBUS

Confidential information will consist of the following:

- information obtained directly from persons applying for citizenship on the
application for citizenship
- information on the e-mail address list that can be obtained from Onelist
- subscription lists from the Eagle newsletter

"Directly" in this law means that the citizen or applicant himself
voluntarily communicates the information to its recipient; "indirectly"
means communication of citizens' confidential information by any other
means.

Censores, Curator Differum and Curator Sermonum are to be the only
individuals who have access to this information. However, in the event that
another magistrate may need some of the information, s/he is either to
obtain such information directly from the citizens' whose information s/he
seeks, or apply to the Censores to obtain that information indirectly.

Only magistrates, or their lawfully appointed assistants, of Nova Roma may
receive confidential information from the censores, except in the case of a
other formal request for such information from a law enforcement agent or
other non-Nova Roman entity empowered under municipal law. In the event of
such an extra-Nova Roma formal request, citizens whose information is sought
are to be notified of all circumstances relevant to the request. All other
indirect transmission or communication of Nova Roman citizens' confidential
information is strictly prohibited.

In the case of a consular application to the censores for confidential
information, refusal entitles the applying consul to require of the censores
full public disclosure, excluding any specific confidential information as
defined within this law, of the reasoning for the refusal. Such disclosure
is to be posted to the Nova Roma e-mail list and message board within 24
hours of the applying consul's request. In addition to the above, if a
magistrate is denied information by the censors, he shall have the recourse
of an appeal to the senate who will have the power to override the censors'
denial by a two thirds majority vote.

Provincial governors, or their lawfully appointed assistants, may receive
confidential information, but only relating to those citizens within their
provincia, in accordance with the restrictions and procedures governing
release of such information for magistrates.

Individual citizens may, at their express request, allow confidential
information of their choice to be made available and/or public, and may
rescind such permission as they see fit.

-----

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.
From:	mark zona <pitdog2002@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 07:51:23 -0700 (PDT)

>
>
>
> ...Remember, if NR
> ever gets sued, it is the Senators who will be the
> one to take the
> fiscal responsbility...

>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

If so, perhaps NR should consider becoming a limited
liability partnership of some type, or perhaps there
are similar legal protections offered to non-profit
groups.
In this manner, only the assets of NR would be
vulnerable to legal action. The personal assets of
individual senators would be protected in most
instances.

respecfully,

Marcus Antonius Zeno.

Salve!




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Untrustworty Governors
From:	TribuneAfricanus@--------
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:27:33 EDT

I agree with L. Sicinius Drusus's statement. As a newly appointed Regio
Legate, one of my first actions was to attempt to contact all civies within
my Regio to introduce myself, and find out more about them. I went through
the entire Album Civium for our Provinicia, and clicked on the profile for
each person in my Regio. The ones who had no contact information for me to
use, I contacted the Paterfamilias of their Gens in an attempt to make
contact. Thus far, out of almost fifty in my Regio of Lacus Magni, I have
managed to contact 5. As a servant of Nova Roma who has already proven his
worth in the Militarium, it is increasingly difficult for me to work towards
getting the civies within my sphere of influence active, if I cant contact
them! I am the first to agree that I dont want every Tom, Dick, and
Carthaginian to know my personal contact information, but at the very least,
and email is appropriate. I mean if you're on the list, and you post to the
list, people can put two and two together. Also, if a governor is
untrustworthy, lazy, or simply lacking, it is the duty of the civie to bring
this to the attention of the Senate. And even though I have much respect for
my Governor, I will be the first to move for his removal if he is ever found
to be distrustful or lacking in his duties. ;o)

Respectfully submitted,
Marcus Scipio Africanus
Legatus of Lacus Magni Orientalis
Tribunus Angusticlavii of the Sodalitas Militarium

Subject:	[novaroma] Regio Lacus Magni Orientalis Roman Day Event!
From:	TribuneAfricanus@--------
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 11:27:37 EDT

Honored Senate and Civies of Nova Roma,
I Legatus M. Scipio Africanus, and pleased to announce the finalized
plans of the event to be held here in Columbus, Ohio this fall. The date
will be Saturday, October 13, from 10am until 4 pm. For those who wish to
indulge, there will be a period dinner at 6 pm which is a RSVP only event,
and will have a cover charge (to help pay for food). ALL are invited to
attend. I strongly encourage all civies from my Regio (Ohio, Michigan,
Kentucky, and W. Virginia) to contact me at your earliest convenience, and to
make an effort to attend. Although the exact times for the following events
have not been decided yet, this is a list of what we are planning to have.
Also, I plan to contact all known legio within march distance (8 hour drive)
to get a maximum effort for attendance. One of the things planned is a major
military exercise. I would also appreciate it if a senior member of the Ordo
Equestor and the Religio Romana please contact me directly (offlist)
concerning my request for representation of your organizations at this event.

Roughly about 9:30 there will be a private (citizen only) opening ceremony
and benediction. All honored guests (Senators, Legatus, etc etc) will be
given mention, and a small ritual to the gods performed by the Religio
Romana.

There will be a vendor area for the sale of food, wares, and small children.
(kidding)

There will be an information booth where we will be playing Romanesque movies
on a screen, people can pick up NR flyer, talk to people about joining, etc
etc.

As mentioned above, there will be a major military encampment planned.
People tend to gravitate towards weapons of war, and I may also be getting a
couple seige craft there for display. If you are a Legionaire and want to
make sure your Legio gets an invite to this event, please contact me off list
to make arrangements.

We are planning for there to be a Religio display there, and would like
members of the Religio Romana within reasonable distance to us to attend and
set up a display. Afterall, Legions, Politics, Arcitecture, and the gods are
what made Rome what it was. :o)

We will have gaming! Games of chance, Roman period board games, and most
importantly, athletic games.

There will also be several contests. Besides the athletic games, there will
be an arts contest for our aspiring artisans, an oratory contest (subject to
be announced), and possibly a gladiatorial combat. ( foam or wooden weapons)
Awards will be given for the winners of the different contests, and the
awards will be Roman in nature, and in conjunction with the style of contest
won.

And ALL Romans in attendance will get a commemorative keepsafe of the event.

Subject:	[novaroma] Legal Penalties (was Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.)
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:06:47 -0400

Salvete

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Woolwine [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 9:44 AM
>
> --- In novaroma@--------, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
> >
> > I think that definition of Crime and its Punishment be best left to the
> > Praetors, Lucius Cornelius. I see no reason to include these in a lex.
>
> Just for clarification, you see no reasons that there should be
> stipulated and pointed out in the lex? May I respectfully ask why?

At the risk of answering a question that was put to someone else, I would
like to reply. :-)

While Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla is quite correct in pointing out that no
concrete penalties are described within the lex, I would point out that no
concrete penalties are yet established for _any_ of our laws, with the
exception of the Lex Iunia, and even there the penalties are only vaguely
decribed ("...expulsion from the Nova Roma list for a certain time, or
fines.").

I believe that we do indeed need to define penalties for crimes under our
legal system, but that such need to be enacted comprehensively and
coherently. To require each lex that is passed to contain an exact
description of the penalties attendent to it's transgression is to my mind
not only overkill, but inviting uneven and unequal penalties.

Now, I think that a discussion of possible penalties for breaking our laws
is long overdue, and I see no reason not to begin it now. However, it should
be separate and distinct from the question of the amendment to the privacy
lex; let the penalties for breaking that be decided in the context of
breaking any of our laws, not piecemeal.

In terms of possible penalties that could (and/or should) be enacted, as
always we should look to the example of Roma Antiqua. I am far from an
expert on such matters (I invite members of the Civil Law Committee with
more expertise to chime in here), but as I recall the four real options
historically were death, banishment, slavery, and the payment of fines.
Prisons, as such, were not used as places of correction so much as places to
hold the accused pending a trial.

Now, obviously death is not an option. :-) Too, I think the institution of
slavery, while it could possibly be adapted to our purposes, would be
ultimately undesireable for a variety of reasons, many of which should be
apparant. Banishment is indeed a viable option for us (and can be seen as
replacing the death penalty in our situation), and certainly the payment of
fines is workable. What would remain is to determine the scale of such
fines, what to do with individuals who refuse to pay, and where the break
would come between fine-paying and banishment.

Anyone else have any thoughts on what sort of penalties should accompany the
breaking of Nova Roma's laws?

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Query on a book
From:	QFabiusMaxmi@--------
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:12:29 EDT

In a message dated 8/1/2001 1:43:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gaiussentius@-------- writes:


> Sulla:
> The Last Republican

Pass. Read Plutarch instead.
QFM


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

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:24:26 -0400

Salve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Woolwine [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 9:44 AM
>
> Remember, if NR
> ever gets sued, it is the Senators who will be the one to take the
> fiscal responsbility.

A minor correction; one of the reasons that Nova Roma was incorporated as a
non-profit corporation in the first place was the fact that such a corporate
structure limits the personal liability of the officers and board members of
that corporation. Only in the most grossly neglegent and knowingly
actionable activities could the individual members of the Board of Directors
(the Senate) or the corporate officers (the greater magistrates) be held
personally liable.

> I am sure most of us realize that the information is absolutely
> needed. The problem is lack of controls. You know I am for most of
> this revision, but I cannot support the stated revision in its
> current form. Legislation should be detailed and account for
> violations.

For my response to this, please see a separate thread on the subject of
legal penalties which I've started.

> Mine did not. That was a mistake which I admit, for I
> was new at writing legislation. I have learned a great deal, and am
> still not through learning.

Are you suggesting that we undertake a comprehensive review of every lex in
the Tabularium that bears the name Cornelia? After all, if the Lex Cornelia
de Privatis Rebus was so deeply flawed, and that because of your inability
to properly craft it the first time, should we not assume that the rest of
the legislation you authored may be similarly lacking? This is indeed a
strange argument for you to be making, Lucius Cornelius...

> Is it better to pass a poorly worded law
> sooner and wait for a detailed revision, I respectfully say no. I
> would rather wait it out write up a detailed and concise lex and then
> promulgate it.

I don't believe this is "a poorly worded law", nor do I believe it will
require "detailed revision". It _will_ need the passage of a comprehensive
system of penalties for breaking the law in order to really have "teeth", to
be sure. But that's something which effects all our laws; not just this
amendment. The "teeth" you seem to want your lex to have will come, but
let's get them in all our leges, not just one at a time.

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Legates and Information
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:51:00 -0400

Salvete

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Woolwine [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 9:37 AM
>
> My problem with the lex revision, is the lack of controls. There are
> no controls that prevent a Legate asking such information. A
> governor is granted Imperium (when the Comita Curiata is called.)
> Not a Legate.

Imperium has to do with the power to compel obedience to edicta. What does
it have to do with having access to contact information necessary to do
one's job?

> How do I know, as Censor, that a governor was EVEN
> notified that the Legate was requesting information.

You could ask the governor... Or simply trust their judgement in appointing
their legati. I know that as a governor myself I have personally met my
legati face to face. While that may not be practical for other governors, I
don't think we should approach the subject with the assumption that the
appointees are dishonest churls waiting for the opportunity to try to sell
insurance door-to-door to the cives in their regions.

> To be appointed
> a Legate is easier than getting a job in the real world. In Nova
> Roma, how do we truly know the governors know of any record the
> Legate has? We don't. Its being realistic and safe to try to
> protect private information as much as possible. To jeopardize our
> confidential information is very serious.

Agreed, and that is why it is limited to those individuals who are elected
and/or appointed to a position of authority within the government, and only
to that specific information required and in those circumstances that
warrant it. I say it again; we should not go in with the assumption that our
appointed officials are going to try to abuse the system.

> I remember once that Consul Cassius once criticized me for trying to
> publish an edict when I was Proconsul of California, mandatory
> subscribing the members of the California Provinca on the California
> Nova Roma list. I was told by him, Q. Fabius and others that it was
> up to the individual to decide if they wanted to be a member of that
> list. I was criticized and I removed the edict from consideration.

I too criticized you for the idea, but I don't believe that it is
comparable. To subscribe someone to an email list (especially a discussion
list) against their will is to forcibly intrude upon their persons on a
constant basis. If someone does not want to hear the back-and-forth chatter
of their fellow cives, they should not be subjected to it against their
will. That is, I believe, a different proposition from receiving an
occasional official communication from the legally-appointed representative
of an organization which they voluntarily joined.

> Now, we are seeing a revision of a lex that completely takes control
> away from the citizens, some of the protections of the lex.

The amendment does no such thing. The original lex did that. The amendment
just clarifies that governors can indeed have access to the information as
well as Consuls, etc. You yourself said it would be okay for the governors
to have access to the information. How does allowing the appointed legates
to get the information destroy the control of the Citizens over their
information, while allowing the governors to get the information does not?

Your position seems consistent only in one respect; you're against the
amendment. Your reasons for doing so seem to shift with the wind, however.
First it was that legates could access the information at all. Then it was
that citizens should be able to withhold information from governors _and_
legates. Then it was that legates could access the information without the
express authority of the governor. Then it was that there were no penalties
written into the lex. Then it was that citizens could sue the corporation if
they were harassed. Now it's that the whole concept of allowing anyone
access to the information destroys Citizens' privacy. Ye Gods, Sulla! Why
even bother coming up with these reasons? Just say "I hate it I hate it I
hate it" and be done with it!

> I have
> seen the error of my ways, have you Consul?

Absolutely. In fact, I'm seeing the error of your ways right now. ;-)

Vale,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

Subject:	RE: [novaroma] Re: Legates and Information
From:	"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:53:41 -0400

Salvete

> -----Original Message-----
> From: S. Apollonius Draco [mailto:hendrik.meuleman@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 1:13 PM
>
> If you follow the same line of reasoning, what would we
> do if we had a Censor violating privacy?

An excellent question. For those who are so opposed to governors and legates
accessing the contact information of cives in their provincia; just what is
so much worse about that than the Censors (or Consuls) having access to it
for the entire Republic?

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Legates and Information
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:16:24 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@p...>
wrote:
> Salvete Quirites et Censor Sulla,
>
> I will agree with you, Nerva and others who have said that it is up
to the
> individual to decide whether or not they want their info to be made
> available to their governor. While I think this would be a very
idiotic,
> asocial and narrow-minded thing to do, every citizen has the right
to be
> idiotic, asocial and narrow-minded.

Sulla: I think it is insulting for you to insult the potential
prefernces of our citizens. Some of our citizens may have had
experiences that prefer them to take this additional precautions. In
NR we have had harassment take place (the reason for the Lex Fabia).
In outside NR, people have been harassed there too. We have citizens
who have been stalked. Do you think taking this precautions and
reservations is an asocial thing to do now? I think you need some
additional life experience Sextus. (This is not necessarily an age
insult, but a life experience check for you, because you might not
generally know what it feels like to be stalked, harassed etc).


> What I find completely rediculous, however, are the prospects of
severe
> punishments, banishments and notae when a governor or a legate
would break
> the trust and confidentiality of the information given. Todate,
this has
> _never_ happened. In fact, most of the shady legal affairs happen
in the
> central government, and not in provincial councils. It's an utterly
paranoid
> idea to suppose that provincial staffs would sell information to
companies
> or would begin to stalk their citizens.

You actually find the punishments rediculous? Why is that? Consider
this scenario. Its a few years down the Road. The province of Gaul
has well 10,000 members. A business sends an email to either the
Legate or the Governor, requesting to purchase the members of the
provincia. (This happens ALL THE TIME). The magistrate decides to
sell the confidentail information. That company in turn sells it..to
other companys and now you are getting Spam via email...and your
regular mail. Now, this happens ALL the time...and was the reason
why I wrote the original Lex Cornelia because many citizens came to
me when I was Consul and wanted to make sure their information would
be protected by those people in authority.

Now as for you final statment. I disagree about the abuses of the
central goverment and that is fine. You and I have decided to agree
to disagree. But let me ask you this, JUST because there has not
been any abuse in the local governments dont you think we should
prepare for the inevitable? Shouldnt we build in at least what MIGHT
happen if a violation of this magnitude occurs? We are talking of a
breech of trust here. This to me, is a serious offence, if others in
NR disagree then the Lex will pass. If others agree with me, then I
think that the reservations being spoken of by myself in others will
defeat the Lex and it will be rewritten. The Draft I wrote
yesterday, I think would satisfy most, if not all reservations most
citizens have with the law.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Legal Penalties
From:	QFabiusMaxmi@--------
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 15:49:22 EDT

In a message dated 8/1/2001 12:22:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
germanicus@-------- writes:


> Anyone else have any thoughts on what sort of penalties should accompany the
> breaking of Nova Roma's laws?
>

I will be posting the first of my monographs on Ancient Roman Law and it's
implications to NR Law on the Law Committee list.
In there is a whole section on punishments.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus


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

Subject:	[novaroma] Legal Penalties (was Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.)
From:	rckovak@--------
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:53:42 -0000

<as I recall the four real options
> historically were death, banishment, slavery, and the payment of
fines.
<I think the institution of
> slavery, while it could possibly be adapted to our purposes, would
be
> ultimately undesireable for a variety of reasons, many of which
should be
> apparant. > Anyone else have any thoughts on what sort of penalties
should accompany the
> breaking of Nova Roma's laws?
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul

Salvete,
If you change "slavery" to "public service" then perhaps that might
be used for minor infractions ( as in, either a fine or such & such
task be done to make up for whatever you did).
Valete,
Helena Galeria

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 20:04:35 -0000

Ave,

My comments below:

First off let me preface this, in saying I am not trying to
personally attack anyone. I am just stating something as per my own
personal opinion. One can take it and disregard it....or accept it.
It is totally up to each citizen.

<Snip>

> > Remember, if NR
> > ever gets sued, it is the Senators who will be the one to take the
> > fiscal responsbility.
>
> A minor correction; one of the reasons that Nova Roma was
incorporated as a
> non-profit corporation in the first place was the fact that such a
corporate
> structure limits the personal liability of the officers and board
members of
> that corporation. Only in the most grossly neglegent and knowingly
> actionable activities could the individual members of the Board of
Directors
> (the Senate) or the corporate officers (the greater magistrates) be
held
> personally liable.

I believe there are times when the board of directors can be held
financially responsible, despite the inherent advantages of the fact
that we are incorporated. If not, then why does Board of Directors
insurance exist? My point was simply that we, as Senators can be
sued in apart of NR.

> > I am sure most of us realize that the information is absolutely
> > needed. The problem is lack of controls. You know I am for most
of
> > this revision, but I cannot support the stated revision in its
> > current form. Legislation should be detailed and account for
> > violations.
>
> For my response to this, please see a separate thread on the
subject of
> legal penalties which I've started.

I like your discussion and plan to participate. However, I do not
think that the thought of eventually having punishments will help
this piece of legislation. Since it still currently does not have
punishments stipulated to prevent abuse.

> > Mine did not. That was a mistake which I admit, for I
> > was new at writing legislation. I have learned a great deal, and
am
> > still not through learning.
>
> Are you suggesting that we undertake a comprehensive review of
every lex in
> the Tabularium that bears the name Cornelia? After all, if the Lex
Cornelia
> de Privatis Rebus was so deeply flawed, and that because of your
inability
> to properly craft it the first time, should we not assume that the
rest of
> the legislation you authored may be similarly lacking? This is
indeed a
> strange argument for you to be making, Lucius Cornelius...

I am saying every single law in the tabularium should always be
comprehensively reviewed for correction, modification and stopping up
loopholes. Many of the laws promulgated in Nova Roma have already
been in that vein. Many of your laws that you promulgated (including
the one in question is a revision of an existing law). We should
always review laws that have been on the books to make certain that
forseeable circumstances are adequately defined.

The laws I wrote were based on the information and skills of myself
and others who contributed to them. Does that make them perfect?
No. But they were as good as they could be under the existing
circumstances. The beauty of a Constitution and our laws is that
they are living documents being able to be revised. I think its a
truly wonderful thing.

> > Is it better to pass a poorly worded law
> > sooner and wait for a detailed revision, I respectfully say no. I
> > would rather wait it out write up a detailed and concise lex and
then
> > promulgate it.
>
> I don't believe this is "a poorly worded law", nor do I believe it
will
> require "detailed revision". It _will_ need the passage of a
comprehensive
> system of penalties for breaking the law in order to really
have "teeth", to
> be sure. But that's something which effects all our laws; not just
this
> amendment. The "teeth" you seem to want your lex to have will come,
but
> let's get them in all our leges, not just one at a time.

That is perfectly your opinion, and I respect that. I think
differently. I think at the very least the punishments should be
built in now. I think its dangerous to pass a law and say "later we
will need the passage of a comprehensive system of penalties for
breaking the law." I think given the importance and trust that is
involved we need it built in now.

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Legates and Information
From:	"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 20:23:04 -0000

Ave,

Consul, I hope you are not taking my criticism personally. Because
my criticism is based on the law. Not on you. I just wanted to get
that out in the open now.

Now my comments below:
<SNIP>

> > My problem with the lex revision, is the lack of controls. There
are
> > no controls that prevent a Legate asking such information. A
> > governor is granted Imperium (when the Comita Curiata is called.)
> > Not a Legate.
>
> Imperium has to do with the power to compel obedience to edicta.
What does
> it have to do with having access to contact information necessary
to do
> one's job?

Sulla: I am saying it should be. Why have Imperium if anyone can
get confidential information?

> > How do I know, as Censor, that a governor was EVEN
> > notified that the Legate was requesting information.
>
> You could ask the governor... Or simply trust their judgement in
appointing
> their legati. I know that as a governor myself I have personally
met my
> legati face to face. While that may not be practical for other
governors, I
> don't think we should approach the subject with the assumption that
the
> appointees are dishonest churls waiting for the opportunity to try
to sell
> insurance door-to-door to the cives in their regions.

Sulla: That is totally wonderful that you meet your Legates. When I
was Proconsul I did not. Therefore, that is an issue, since we have
most of our governors who have not meet their legates face to face.
Consul, I understand you belief that human nature is good and that
people should be trusted. I cannot accept that frame of reference.
I think we should take moderate and reasonable steps to protect
information that should be private. You and I disagree, so why dont
we just agree to disagree?

Respectfully,

Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	[novaroma] Legal Penalties (was Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.)
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 20:43:15 -0000

--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...> wrote:

SNIP

>
> In terms of possible penalties that could (and/or should) be enacted, as
> always we should look to the example of Roma Antiqua. I am far from an
> expert on such matters (I invite members of the Civil Law Committee with
> more expertise to chime in here), but as I recall the four real options
> historically were death, banishment, slavery, and the payment of fines.
> Prisons, as such, were not used as places of correction so much as
places to
> hold the accused pending a trial.
>

Salve,

There were two other penalities, loss of Honores and loss of
Suffragium. That is being deprived of the right to stand for office,
or be appointed to office, and the right to vote. Much of the Lex
Julia Municipalis dealt with which crimes or other actions would
result in a loss of one or both of these rights.

I do think loss of Honores for a stated time should be included in the
punishment for any magistrate who is convicted of a crime that
involves abuse of his office.

Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Legal Penalties (was Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.)
From:	PompeiaAntoniaCaesar <europamoon7@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:50:10 -0700 (PDT)

Avete,

Public humiliation would be a severe enough punishment
for me to avoid breaking Nova Roma laws. Actually in
some states, the court system makes offenders hold a
sign by a freeway or busy street informing oncoming
traffic and pedestrians of their offense. They must
hold the signs for whatever the number of days they
have been sentenced to do so. I am not saying that we
should apply this, but public posting of the offense
on the main list could be considered a punishment and
perhaps a list of offenders could be offered on the
main web site. Also community service is another form
of punishment. Have the individual perform a certain
amount of hours to some sort of service for Nova Roma.
I would use banishment as a last resort for
punishment since it is so severe and is somewhat
final. Just my thoughts.

Vale,

Pompeia Antonia Caesar


--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> wrote:
> Salvete
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert Woolwine
> [mailto:alexious@--------]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 9:44 AM
> >
> > --- In novaroma@--------, QFabiusMaxmi@a... wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that definition of Crime and its
> Punishment be best left to the
> > > Praetors, Lucius Cornelius. I see no reason to
> include these in a lex.
> >
> > Just for clarification, you see no reasons that
> there should be
> > stipulated and pointed out in the lex? May I
> respectfully ask why?
>
> At the risk of answering a question that was put to
> someone else, I would
> like to reply. :-)
>
> While Censor Lucius Cornelius Sulla is quite correct
> in pointing out that no
> concrete penalties are described within the lex, I
> would point out that no
> concrete penalties are yet established for _any_ of
> our laws, with the
> exception of the Lex Iunia, and even there the
> penalties are only vaguely
> decribed ("...expulsion from the Nova Roma list for
> a certain time, or
> fines.").
>
> I believe that we do indeed need to define penalties
> for crimes under our
> legal system, but that such need to be enacted
> comprehensively and
> coherently. To require each lex that is passed to
> contain an exact
> description of the penalties attendent to it's
> transgression is to my mind
> not only overkill, but inviting uneven and unequal
> penalties.
>
> Now, I think that a discussion of possible penalties
> for breaking our laws
> is long overdue, and I see no reason not to begin it
> now. However, it should
> be separate and distinct from the question of the
> amendment to the privacy
> lex; let the penalties for breaking that be decided
> in the context of
> breaking any of our laws, not piecemeal.
>
> In terms of possible penalties that could (and/or
> should) be enacted, as
> always we should look to the example of Roma
> Antiqua. I am far from an
> expert on such matters (I invite members of the
> Civil Law Committee with
> more expertise to chime in here), but as I recall
> the four real options
> historically were death, banishment, slavery, and
> the payment of fines.
> Prisons, as such, were not used as places of
> correction so much as places to
> hold the accused pending a trial.
>
> Now, obviously death is not an option. :-) Too, I
> think the institution of
> slavery, while it could possibly be adapted to our
> purposes, would be
> ultimately undesireable for a variety of reasons,
> many of which should be
> apparant. Banishment is indeed a viable option for
> us (and can be seen as
> replacing the death penalty in our situation), and
> certainly the payment of
> fines is workable. What would remain is to determine
> the scale of such
> fines, what to do with individuals who refuse to
> pay, and where the break
> would come between fine-paying and banishment.
>
> Anyone else have any thoughts on what sort of
> penalties should accompany the
> breaking of Nova Roma's laws?
>
> Valete,
>
> Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
> Consul
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Legates and Information
From:	margali <margali@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 16:51:54 -0400

Speaking as one who is stalked. For 15 years.

I have a public web page. I do this so I can make known select
things about me. I don't keep my email secret, I have people who
need to communicate with me. Since Nova Roma is mentioned on my
web page, I have no doubt that my stalker might possibly decide
to join Nova Roma as a means to get closer to me than I would
like. I could see a reason for him/her/it to lie to my
paterfamilias or my provincial officials to get otherwise
confidential information. Believe me - this person is convincing
enough to get teh damnedest info from supposedly confidential
sources. I have changed my address 7 times, and my phone number
about once a year avoiding this dipwit. I would really rather
have people email me [I do read it at least once per day unless I
am out of town, and anybody can attest that I tend to answer
fairly quickly] and ask for my contact info than to have an
official have access to it and possibly get it conned out of
them. I have met and trust Proconsul Audens, but he may not be my
proconsul next month and I may have somebody I don't trust
because I don't know him/her/it.

margali
Hyapatia Assinia Margali
--
~~~~~
The Quote Starts Here:
> --- In novaroma@--------, "S. Apollonius Draco" <hendrik.meuleman@p...>
> wrote:
> > Salvete Quirites et Censor Sulla,
> >
> > I will agree with you, Nerva and others who have said that it is up
> to the
> > individual to decide whether or not they want their info to be made
> > available to their governor. While I think this would be a very
> idiotic,
> > asocial and narrow-minded thing to do, every citizen has the right
> to be
> > idiotic, asocial and narrow-minded.
>
> Sulla: I think it is insulting for you to insult the potential
> prefernces of our citizens. Some of our citizens may have had
> experiences that prefer them to take this additional precautions. In
> NR we have had harassment take place (the reason for the Lex Fabia).
> In outside NR, people have been harassed there too. We have citizens
> who have been stalked. Do you think taking this precautions and
> reservations is an asocial thing to do now? I think you need some
> additional life experience Sextus. (This is not necessarily an age
> insult, but a life experience check for you, because you might not
> generally know what it feels like to be stalked, harassed etc).
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix

Subject:	[novaroma] Crime and Punishment
From:	"Domna Claudia Auspicata" <comptess@-------->
Date:	Thu, 2 Aug 2001 08:48:17 +1200

Salvete Quirites

With the NR law machine in full swing it is indeed a good time to talk about the penalty incurred for breaking these laws. For a time may come when someone may consider their own interest above that of Nova Roma (or mistakenly believe that breaking a law voted by the people is in the best interest of Nova Roma). I throw in a few opinions for consideration:

Fines - indeed a most common solution in almost every culture. No doubt it should be strongly considered, however I have my reservations. Aside from those who just won't pay the fact is there are those who may find the fines deterrent enough and those who being more financially well off will find the fine to be a paltry amount and really nothing to be concerned about. Unless a fine system is predominantly a money-making idea it may not be the best form of 'punishment' and certainly isn't fair. But what about fines paid in the currency of Century points. This would have to be done on a percentage basis, eg. the fine would be 10% of your total Century points for a year. Alternatively one could be reassigned to another Century for a term - the Prison Century perhaps! Oh dear, this topic is getting more and more grim.

Banishment and Suspension - This sounds like the harshest of penalties, other than a legion trudging over your flower garden and dragging you down the street. How long would a banishment be imposed? Of course differing lengths of time for different offences. Which leads onto an idea of Suspension. This could be suspension of the voting priviledge, access to NR lists, magistracies, even suspension of citizenship if banishment was to be considered permanent. Voting suspensions would probably need to be at least a year to be effective or perhaps counted by the number of elections called.

Atonement - If the gods are angry at such transgression, then perhaps more ritual and a valuable sacrifice must be conducted by the transgressor. Impossible to enforce? Well, that is for the gods to decide. Or perhaps even prohibition to perform ritual to the gods? I would be interested in the Pontifices opinion on this.

Other - Although I don't feel their is any shortage of possible punishments I am sure their are other ways to deter law-breaking. Perhaps a citizen could opt to 'pay their due' by serving their local NR-sponsored Legio for a time. A sort of Community Service or Hard Labour idea.

I admit thinking up punishments is a lot easier than assigning them fairly to our current and future laws. Citizens need to consider which laws they consider most valuable and deserving of the harshest punishments assuming of course noone wants to follow the example of Draco (historical). In short my opinion is that punishment would ideally have the effect of deterring an individual with an intent to break laws in the first place, and protect Nova Roma from future law breaking by that individual if they have proceeded with illegal actions.

Valete
Domna Claudia Auspicata
----- Original Message -----
From: Flavius Vedius Germanicus
To: novaroma@--------
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 6:06 AM
Subject: [novaroma] Legal Penalties (was Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.)

<snippa>

Salvete

In terms of possible penalties that could (and/or should) be enacted, as
always we should look to the example of Roma Antiqua. I am far from an
expert on such matters (I invite members of the Civil Law Committee with
more expertise to chime in here), but as I recall the four real options
historically were death, banishment, slavery, and the payment of fines.
Prisons, as such, were not used as places of correction so much as places to
hold the accused pending a trial.

Now, obviously death is not an option. :-) Too, I think the institution of
slavery, while it could possibly be adapted to our purposes, would be
ultimately undesireable for a variety of reasons, many of which should be
apparant. Banishment is indeed a viable option for us (and can be seen as
replacing the death penalty in our situation), and certainly the payment of
fines is workable. What would remain is to determine the scale of such
fines, what to do with individuals who refuse to pay, and where the break
would come between fine-paying and banishment.

Anyone else have any thoughts on what sort of penalties should accompany the
breaking of Nova Roma's laws?

Valete,

Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Re: Legates and Information
From:	PompeiaAntoniaCaesar <europamoon7@-------->
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 14:05:32 -0700 (PDT)

Avete,

How would an individual know if their name had been
sold to a business by NR? I have my number unlisted,
always ask not to be listed or passed on to any other
organization for future solicitation, and yet I still
receive a fair share of unwanted email, mail and phone
calls. Who do I blame? Who can I take action
against? I am simply told to use equipment that I
must pay for to avoid this situation meaning that it
is my responsibility to take action to discourage this
and that I can do nothing about what has already taken
place. My point is that a list of cives' personal
information being sold by NR to another establishment
would seem to be a difficult action to prove.

Vale,

Pompeia Antonia Caesar



--- Robert Woolwine <alexious@--------> wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, "S. Apollonius Draco"
> <hendrik.meuleman@-------->
> wrote:
> > Salvete Quirites et Censor Sulla,
> >
> > I will agree with you, Nerva and others who have
> said that it is up
> to the
> > individual to decide whether or not they want
> their info to be made
> > available to their governor. While I think this
> would be a very
> idiotic,
> > asocial and narrow-minded thing to do, every
> citizen has the right
> to be
> > idiotic, asocial and narrow-minded.
>
> Sulla: I think it is insulting for you to insult
> the potential
> prefernces of our citizens. Some of our citizens
> may have had
> experiences that prefer them to take this additional
> precautions. In
> NR we have had harassment take place (the reason for
> the Lex Fabia).
> In outside NR, people have been harassed there too.
> We have citizens
> who have been stalked. Do you think taking this
> precautions and
> reservations is an asocial thing to do now? I think
> you need some
> additional life experience Sextus. (This is not
> necessarily an age
> insult, but a life experience check for you, because
> you might not
> generally know what it feels like to be stalked,
> harassed etc).
>
>
> > What I find completely rediculous, however, are
> the prospects of
> severe
> > punishments, banishments and notae when a governor
> or a legate
> would break
> > the trust and confidentiality of the information
> given. Todate,
> this has
> > _never_ happened. In fact, most of the shady legal
> affairs happen
> in the
> > central government, and not in provincial
> councils. It's an utterly
> paranoid
> > idea to suppose that provincial staffs would sell
> information to
> companies
> > or would begin to stalk their citizens.
>
> You actually find the punishments rediculous? Why
> is that? Consider
> this scenario. Its a few years down the Road. The
> province of Gaul
> has well 10,000 members. A business sends an email
> to either the
> Legate or the Governor, requesting to purchase the
> members of the
> provincia. (This happens ALL THE TIME). The
> magistrate decides to
> sell the confidentail information. That company in
> turn sells it..to
> other companys and now you are getting Spam via
> email...and your
> regular mail. Now, this happens ALL the time...and
> was the reason
> why I wrote the original Lex Cornelia because many
> citizens came to
> me when I was Consul and wanted to make sure their
> information would
> be protected by those people in authority.
>
> Now as for you final statment. I disagree about the
> abuses of the
> central goverment and that is fine. You and I have
> decided to agree
> to disagree. But let me ask you this, JUST because
> there has not
> been any abuse in the local governments dont you
> think we should
> prepare for the inevitable? Shouldnt we build in at
> least what MIGHT
> happen if a violation of this magnitude occurs? We
> are talking of a
> breech of trust here. This to me, is a serious
> offence, if others in
> NR disagree then the Lex will pass. If others agree
> with me, then I
> think that the reservations being spoken of by
> myself in others will
> defeat the Lex and it will be rewritten. The Draft
> I wrote
> yesterday, I think would satisfy most, if not all
> reservations most
> citizens have with the law.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] Legal Penalties (was Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.)
From:	labienus@--------
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 16:08:08 US/Central

Salvete

> In terms of possible penalties that could (and/or should) be enacted, as
> always we should look to the example of Roma Antiqua. I am far from an
> expert on such matters (I invite members of the Civil Law Committee with
> more expertise to chime in here), but as I recall the four real options
> historically were death, banishment, slavery, and the payment of fines.

There is another option, which was referred to as 'infamia'. Infamia wasn't
assigned as a punishment, but arose as a condition of having been convicted of
various crimes. A person who was infamous was barred from voting or holding
office, in much the same way that a censorial nota would bar someone from doing
so. However, a nota was a temporary thing, while infamia was essentially
permanent. It may be that we could (unhistorically) assign a period of infamia
for cives who have committed various crimes.

Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus

Subject:	Re: [novaroma] PUBLIC RITUAL TODAY
From:	QFabiusMaxmi@--------
Date:	Wed, 1 Aug 2001 17:43:29 EDT

I will be doing this at 3 PM PDT today. I invite all citizens who wish to
join me at that time, in carrying out the ritual.

Valete
Q. Fabius Maximus
Pontiff


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

Subject:	[novaroma] Re: Legates and Information
From:	"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2001 22:30:27 -0000

Salvete Quirites,

Lets look at the actual wording of this lex.

"Provincial governors, or their lawfully appointed assistants, may
receive confidential information, but only relating to those citizens
within their provincia, in accordance with the restrictions and
procedures governing release of such information for magistrates."

The word "may" is the key word in this law. "may" means that it is
permited to release this information to a Governor or a legate. It
does NOT mean that the action is required, only that it is permitted.
There is nothing here that states "The Censors shall release this
information". The use of the word "shall" would have required release
of this information, but it is NOT in the admendment.

So we have to look at the wording of the original Lex Cornelia de
Privatis Rebus to see if the Censors are required to release this
information.

Lex Cornelia de Privatis Rebus

Confidential information will consist of the following:

- information obtained directly from persons applying for citizenship
on the application for citizenship
- information on the e-mail address list that can be obtained from Onelist
- subscription lists from the Eagle newsletter

"Directly" in this law means that the citizen or applicant himself
voluntarily communicates the information to its recipient;
"indirectly" means communication of citizens' confidential information
by any other means.

Censores, Curator Differum and Curator Sermonum are to be the only
individuals who have access to this information. However, in the event
that another magistrate may need some of the information, s/he is
either to obtain such information directly from the citizens' whose
information s/he seeks, or apply to the Censores to obtain that
information indirectly.

Only magistrates, or their lawfully appointed assistants, of Nova Roma
may receive confidential information from the censores, except in the
case of a other formal request for such information from a law
enforcement agent or other non-Nova Roman entity empowered under
municipal law. In the event of such an extra-Nova Roma formal request,
citizens whose information is sought are to be notified of all
circumstances relevant to the request. All other indirect transmission
or communication of Nova Roman citizens' confidential information is
strictly prohibited.

In the case of a consular application to the censores for confidential
information, refusal entitles the applying consul to require of the
censores full public disclosure, excluding any specific confidential
information as defined within this law, of the reasoning for the
refusal. Such disclosure is to be posted to the Nova Roma e-mail list
and message board within 24 hours of the applying consul's request. In
addition to the above, if a magistrate is denied information by the
censors, he shall have the recourse of an appeal to the senate who
will have the power to override the censors' denial by a two thirds
majority vote.

This lex not only does NOT require that information be released to
anybody, but even gives the procedures that have to be followed if a
request from the Consul is denied.

So the admendment does NOT require that the Censors release
information to the Governors or thier aides, it just adds them to the
list of magistrates that are premitted to recive information. The
Censors retain the right to refuse to release the information.

There was some question in the original law if the Governors were in
fact considered magistrates. So far the precedenct has been that they
are, and can recive information on citizens. The old law did NOT place
the limit of "relating to those citizens within their provincia" on
the Governors, so right now it would be legal for the Censors to
release information on ALL citizens to the Governor of a province.
This admendment actually increases privacy by limiting the amount of
information a Governor can recieve.

Valete,
L. Sicinius Drusus