| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Another Tax Question |
| From: |
VMoeller@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 01 Aug 2001 20:53:31 EDT |
|
Ave,
I have to agree with the Senior Consul. No one should be exempted from the tax.
When a Development Officer for a non-profit coordinates a black tie dinner the requests for "comping" the table charges(giving away complimentary seating) come in from all quarters. Sponsoring corporations want their executives "comped" because of the dollars they already give, staff want their seats "comped", because they don't get paid enough to afford the high dollar cost per seat and because they're the "foot soldiers" in the charity anyway - so their thinking goes they should receive consideration. And the list goes on and on.
This idea is no different, and while I agree that some people work harder than others in NR no one should be exempted from the tax. NO ONE.
If someone truely has a financial need there are sponsors available to help them. If someone thinks that taxing our sponsored legionnaires is unfair then they should step forward - like the benefactors at a black tie affair - and sponsor their attendance.
If one person is "comped" many more will demand the same treatment. It is a can of worms that any non-profit should avoid.
Respectfully,
---Secunda Cornelia Valeria
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Legates and Information |
| From: |
"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 02 Aug 2001 01:52:17 -0000 |
|
Ave,
Thank you for your summary. In light of this I feel much better
about the lex, that it only adds Governors to those already able to
get information.
However, as I am Censor for about 5 more months, if a Legate requests
this information I would decline it. I believe that all confidential
information should be requested by appropriate Imperium bearing
magistrates. Legates, who according to the Lex Cornelia and the
proposed Lex Vedia, may have access to information, but that
information should be given to them by their direct superior. In
essence following the proper chain of command.
I also just want to add, that if any citizen feels that my
precautions are paranoid thinking or rediculous nothions, it is not
my intention to come off that way. We, are in a very litigious
society. I am just trying to do my duty to Nova Roma to make certain
that we are as protected as we can be both citizens and the state of
Nova Roma. The fact that, this type of abuse "has never happened"
doesn't mean it "never will." My analysis of this proposed
legislation was primarily from a legal standpoint. I was trying to
take into consideration all potential factors. And I would be remiss
as Censor for not pointing out some of the variables and
possibilities, grandiose or paranoid as some citizens and magistrates
choose to deem them.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> wrote:
> 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
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Let the citizens decide for themselves! |
| From: |
gcassiusnerva@-------- |
| Date: |
Wed, 01 Aug 2001 23:09:55 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, PompeiaAntoniaCaesar <europamoon7@--------> wrote:
> Salve,
>
> After some overnight thinking on this I had to ask
> myself, what am I so afraid of?>>
Excellent, and of course you are totally free to pass out your
personal info to any and all.
But, you may not make the decision for me. Let each citizen choose
for himself. Why do you not wish us to have this choice?
Nerva
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Matrona Ceres |
| From: |
trog99@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 02 Aug 2001 04:05:04 -0000 |
|
On this day of public ritual, I was sadly lacking in any formal
participation of the ritual as written by Pontiff Graecus, and
initiated by our Pontifex Maximus. Excuse? well, we are doing a
provincial reenactment this weekend, and I am trying to leave no stone
unturned regarding planning.
Knowing however, that this day of public ritual is important, I
assembled about 2 hours ago a small bouquet of wheat sheaves, caressed
with a burgundy ribbon, in honour of Ceres, the chosen Matrona of our
Provincia, Canada Orientalis.
Ceres is the patron deity of agriculture, one of the Olympians, and
one of the Roman Pantheon.
Wheat is so abundant in Canada, and upon reflecting on the bounty of
harvest Canada is blessed with, my heart is filled with a joy and
thanksgiving.
If there was a personal experience I entertained today, I would have
to say it was a trip to the grocery store, where I obtained an
abundance of fruits, vegetables and breads for a reasonable price. As
I checked out, I pondered, as I often do, about the plight of children
who do not receive adequate nutrition, and the plight of those who
have access to it, but do not partake.
In keeping with the theme of recognizing and celebrating blessings, I
am hoping that we as Nova Romani will work together in an atmosphere
of counting our blessings; may we strive fervently, sincerely and
objectively toward a common effort to make this world a better place.
I shall quote the words of Pontifex Maximus, Marcus Cassius Iulianus
(who likely doesn't even remember saying this):
"Together we can rebuild the best of what has been lost over the
centuries, and improve the quality of our common future."
Nice, no?
Nova Roma, lets "do it" :)
Pompeia Cornelia Strabo
Propraetrix, Canada Orientalis
NOVA ROMA
Ceres will be honoured by an informal ritual at Fort Malden this
weekend, by Procurator Canada Orientalis, Appius Marcellus Cato (with
the aid of his charming assistant, yours truly, of course !)
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Let the citizens decide for themselves! |
| From: |
QFabiusMaxmi@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 02:17:57 EDT |
|
In a message dated 8/1/2001 8:11:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
gcassiusnerva@-------- writes:
> But, you may not make the decision for me. Let each citizen choose
> for himself. Why do you not wish us to have this choice?
>
> Nerva
>
Personally Cassius since you are not in my province, I don't care. But if
you were I'd like to know where to mail that letter I am about to send you.
Vale
Q. Fabius
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED. |
| From: |
Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 1 Aug 2001 23:47:33 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salve,
My confusion is cleared up. My biggets concern was
for safeguards, and this posting shows me that they
exist. I would still like to see punishments
included, but that is being discussed separately.
Dalmaticus
--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> wrote:
> 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.
=====
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] Legal Penalties (was Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.) |
| From: |
Jeff Smith <JSmithCSA@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 1 Aug 2001 23:56:21 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Salvete,
--- Flavius Vedius Germanicus
<germanicus@--------> wrote:
> 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.
There is no need to itemize the punishments to be
meted out.
The legal system I am most familiar with, the Uniform
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is derived from a
series of laws (English Admiralty Laws) that date back
to the 1600s. Typically, the UCMJ specifies only the
most serious punishment, for example (and I hope we
don't use this one!): "Punishable by death or other
sentence as a Court Martial may direct."
As example of a NR line like this could be:
"Punishable by banishment or other sentence as the
Senate may direct."
That does not mean that the guilty party is
immediately banished, only that it could happen. The
Senate may chose that, due to circumstances, the
guilty party may be issued a Nota or sentenced to some
form of service.
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] Edictum Propraetoricium XXI about the Re-organization of Cohors Propraetoris Thules |
| From: |
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:45:08 +0200 |
|
Ex Officio Propraetoris Thulae
Edictum Propraetoricium XXI about the Re-organization of Cohors
Propraetoris Thules
After four month of my administration, my workload and the areas of
responsibility have expanded, as has the work-load of my Cohors
Propraetoris (The Propraetorian Staff, Provincial Governament). Therefore
I, Caeso Fabius Quintilianus, have decided to widen and re-organize my
Cohors Propraetoris. Honorable Gaius Rubellius Rufus has been asked by me
to to take care of many tasks, Senior Legatus Thules, Legatus Regionis
Norvegicae and Triumvir Novae Romae Academiae in Thule. Now when the work
with the new re-enactment Legio has shown the need for expertise in that
area too, I have asked Honorable Gaius Rubellius Rufus to take this
responsibility as my "Contubernalis Provincia (Provincial Adjutant), the
personal military assistant to the Propraetor" (quoted from The Regula).
This has lead to the conclusion that he would have to step down from one of
the other assignments to not be over-loaded with work. I have because of
this decided to appoint a new Senior Legatus.
I am still seeking for more active members of my Cohors Propraetoris. I
have now found a new member to take care of areas that are in need of
handling. Honorable Gaius Minucius Lynx has taken on himself to take
responsibility of local meeting at the Propraetorium Sävar and to
centralize the knowledge of the Provincia in the areas of Philosophy and
Roman Religio. But as his his citizenship is pending due to his private
life, his appointment will have to wait.
I, as a Nova Roman citizen within the Provincia Thule, am proud to see the
Gravitas and Pietas these citizens show! My workload is heavy and my amici
Honorable Gaius Rubellius Rufus and Honorable Titus Octavius Pius have
taken oupon themselves to help me.
I. Honorable Titus Octavius Pius is hereby appointed "Senior Legatus
Thules", ("Deputy to the Propraetor when so ordered by the Propraetor
Thules. The Senior Legati can also be assigned special missions"). As
Senior Legatus Honorable Titus Octavius Pius will automatically sit in the
Consilium Provinciale Thules, therefore he is dismissed as my Consiliarius.
Honorable Titus Octavius Pius will continue in his capacity as Praeco
Aranei Thules.
II. Honorable Gaius Rubellius Rufus is hereby appointed "Contubernalis
Provincia", (Provincial Adjutant, the personal military assistant to the
Propraetor). As Legatus Regionis Norvegicae Honorable Gaius Rubellius Rufus
will still automatically sit in the Consilium Provinciale Thules, even as
he now leaves the position as my Senior Legatus. Honorable Gaius Rubellius
Rufus will continue in his capacities as Legatus Regionis Norvegicae and
Triumvir Novae Romae Academiae in Thule.
III. Above appointed officials are asked to observe that they are bound by
the "Approved Regula (Charter) for the Administration of Thule" as it was
published on the 15th of April 2001.
IV. As a official in Provincia Thule they are asked to within one week
swear the public oath shown on
http://www.novaroma.org/tabularium/lex99191002.html,
using both their Nova Roman name and within parenthesis their macroworld
(real) name. Observe that the Oath must include all appointed positions of
each cives. The Oath must be published on the NovaRomaThule List and the
Nova Roma Main List!
V. This edictum becomes effective immediately.
Given August 2nd, in the year of the consulship of Flavius Vedius
Germanicus and Marcus Cassius Iulianus, 2754 AUC.
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Propraetor Thules
Vale
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
Propraetor of Thule
Accensus to Consul Marcus Cassius Julianus
The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an offical opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
Join the Main List for Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma
Join the List for the Thule Provincia in Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ThuleNovaRoma/join
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
Using a keyboard that don't want to make L! :-(
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Let the citizens decide for themselves! |
| From: |
"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 02 Aug 2001 09:06:55 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, gcassiusnerva@c... wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, PompeiaAntoniaCaesar <europamoon7@--------> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > After some overnight thinking on this I had to ask
> > myself, what am I so afraid of?>>
>
> Excellent, and of course you are totally free to pass out your
> personal info to any and all.
>
> But, you may not make the decision for me. Let each citizen choose
> for himself. Why do you not wish us to have this choice?
>
> Nerva
Nerva, you are misrepresenting what this lex does.
Where is the section that says the information will be passed out to
"any and all"?
All this lex does is clarify the existing law. By Precedent the
Governors are considered Magistrates under the existing law. I can
request personal information NOW. By existing precedent my Legates
won't be given this information, but a new precedent could be set
today. Under existing law my legates CAN recieve Personal information.
Under the current law, my legates CAN request information on "any and
all" citizens and recieve that information. The Censors have not been
giving that information out, but it would be legal for the Censors to
give one of my legates YOUR personal information, even though you
don't live in my province. This law closes that loophole. You are
fighting a law that increases your privacy.
As far as choice goes, you don't have a choice now. Any magistrate or
thier aides can get your information NOW.
This law increases your privacy and takes nothing away from you.
Instead of fighting this law, you need to be pushing for another law
that gives you the "choice" that you don't have now.
Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus
Propraetor, America Austrorientalis
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Legates and Information |
| From: |
gcassiusnerva@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 02 Aug 2001 05:09:30 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@-------->
wrote:<< 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.>>
That is very interesting Drusus, but it is not good enough. The
censor is not required to release such information, but the key point
is that he *can*.
So far I have seen some people give their reasons why *they* would
not mind having their own personal information released. But no one
has made a case why we should *not* be able to choose for ourselves.
Your address is yours. Your phone number is yours. Unless you
permit it yourself, no one has any business sending this inforation
to other people. The proposed lex does NOT aloow us to choose for
ourselves. This makes it a bad lex as curretly written,
Som as I saod before, if YOU wish to choose to have your personal
info released, great. But kindly let the rest of us have that choice
as well.
Nerva
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Let the citizens decide for themselves! |
| From: |
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus <tjalens.h@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 15:00:34 +0200 |
|
>All this lex does is clarify the existing law. By Precedent the
>Governors are considered Magistrates under the existing law.
>Vale,
>L. Sicinius Drusus
>Propraetor, America Austrorientalis
Salve Illustrus Propraetor Lucius Sicinius Drusus et Salvete Omnes!
You have not been Governor so long, neither have I. But during my four
month long guvernorship I have got the impression (at the
{ColloquimProvincia} list, consisting of all Guvernors) that it has been
very hard, even sometimes impossibe for Guvernors (not to mention Legates)
to get, at least, the snail mail adresses for citizens in their province.
It was there this Lex was born as I understand it.
I agree with You that it is essensial to get this information to be able to
function as Guvernor. As a European I am not verys scared to leave my
information to an organization that I have freely choosen to be a
member/citizen of. I take it for granted, as I think most Europeans do,
that I will be contacted by that organization. Yes I even demand that I
will be! Why in heavens would I otherwise join. To continue to be anonymous
and isolated? Then it is better to abstain from joining, I think.
I have understood that there is a certain feeling of misgivings when it
comes to Legates. If there is concern in a certain Provincia among the
citizens I propose that the Guvernor issue an Edictum that demands that his
Legates must have his consent to collect information about citizens in his
Provincia.
I don't want to insult anyone by my stand-point! It is not my intension to
quarrel, I am sure that I have been lucky not to having been harrassed by
some lunatic or some stupid company. But I still think that we will have to
support "Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus", it is dearly needed by us, the
Guvernors, to be able to do our job for You our fellow-citizens.
Vale
Caeso Fabius Quintilianus
Quaestor of Nova Roma
Propraetor of Thule
Accensus to Consul Marcus Cassius Julianus
The Opinions expressed are my own,
and not an offical opinion of Nova Roma
************************************************
Join the Main List for Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/novaroma
Join the List for the Thule Provincia in Nova Roma
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ThuleNovaRoma/join
************************************************
The homepage of the Nova Roma Provincia Thule:
http://thule.novaroma.org/
************************************************
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
"I'll either find a way or make one"
************************************************
"Do not give in to hate. That leads to the dark side."
************************************************
Caeso, he who also is known as Christer Edling.
************************************************
Using a keyboard that don't want to make L! :-(
************************************************
PRIVATE PHONE: +90 - 10 09 10
DOG BOARDING HOUSE PHONE: +90 - 503 56
MOBILE: +70 - 643 88 80
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Pip on Trip - Trip, Trip, Trip |
| From: |
Steven - Piparskeggr <catamount_grange@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 02 Aug 2001 08:26:46 -0500 |
|
Hej all,
Sorry, saw one of my old Dr. Seuss books this morning.
This is crossposted to get good coverage.
By the time you all see this, I shall be on the road
to the Virginia Thing being hosted by the Waters of the
James Shire of the Asatru Folk Assembly.
So, no need to reply
The high points will be meeting Stephen McNallen (a
premier thinker of modern Heathery) for the first time,
and possibly seeing my friends Garman (another great mind)
and Aluric (Writer, Tafljarl and Master of Loki stoves!)
again, plus several other I've been looking forward to
seeing face-to-face.
Travis, the High Sheriff of the event, has asked me to help
out with a talk, so, I'll be giving one on poetry, esp.
trying to get folks to write the eddas and sagas of our
Re-Awakening.
For the non-Asafolk: Re-Awakening - the rediscovery of the
pre-Christian Folk and Faithways of our forebears and their
incorporation into our lives - write your stories, too!
--
=========================================
In Frith under Troth, may the Gods see you!
- Piparskeggr skjaldberi Ullar
AFA - AA - ORV - MSR
alias
In Amicus sub Fidelis
- Piperbarbus Ullerius Venator
Cives et Paterfamilias
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Legal Penalties (was Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.) |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 08:37:12 US/Central |
|
Salvete
> As example of a NR line like this could be:
> "Punishable by banishment or other sentence as the
> Senate may direct."
This is not a bad idea, but I would change "Senate" to "praetor". The
praetores are and were responsible for such things. The Senate should set
policy, not try criminal cases.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Legal Penalties (was Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.) |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:05:21 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rckovak@-------- [mailto:rckovak@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 3:54 PM
>
> 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).
I think that's a pretty good idea, and one we should definitely bear in mind
as we put together that portion of the civil law code.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Legal Penalties (was Re: Lex Vedia de Privatus Rebus - REVISED.) |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:19:35 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucius Sicinius Drusus [mailto:lsicinius@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 4:43 PM
>
> 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.
Excellent. I'm only wondering if incorporating such into our law code might
not require a slight amendment to our Constitution. Right now the right to
vote is pretty unequivocal.
> 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.
Absolutely. That seems most appropriate, at the very least.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Legates and Information |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 10:29:45 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Woolwine [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 9:52 PM
>
> Legates, who according to the Lex Cornelia and the
> proposed Lex Vedia, may have access to information, but that
> information should be given to them by their direct superior. In
> essence following the proper chain of command.
While you're certainly allowed to hold this attitude, it completely ignores
the reason that governors would want to appoint legates in the first place.
Governors delegate their authority to the legates; the legates are not
(intended to be, anyway) mere scribes or gofers. They are certainly under
the authority of the governors, but when they act, they act in his or her
name. The same would go for a request from a legate for contact information.
(Although I would certainly see it as reasonable for a Censor to restrict
such information to the geographical area within the province for which the
legate was responsible.)
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Legates and Information |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 11:23:57 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcassiusnerva@-------- [mailto:gcassiusnerva@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 1:09 AM
>
> So far I have seen some people give their reasons why *they* would
> not mind having their own personal information released. But no one
> has made a case why we should *not* be able to choose for ourselves.
>
> Your address is yours. Your phone number is yours. Unless you
> permit it yourself, no one has any business sending this inforation
> to other people. The proposed lex does NOT aloow us to choose for
> ourselves.
You give your information to Nova Roma, and within Nova Roma it will stay.
But you want to decide on a case-by-case basis where _within_ Nova Roma's
administrative apparatus it will go, and that's just not reasonable.
How many organizations have you joined where you do have that choice? When
you give your home address to, say, the Britney Spears Fan Club, you are not
then able to turn around and declare "I don't want you to give my address to
the Maryland coordinator of the fan club", or "You can give my address to
the Maryland coordinator, but her secretary can't see it".
So too is the case in Nova Roma; we are not an internet club where people
can hide behind anonymous screen names. We are a real-life organization,
with real-life goals, real-life meetings, and real-life administrative
needs.
When you join an organization, you should reasonably expect to know whether
or not your personal information will be given or sold to outside agencies.
That is already the case in Nova Roma; the lex privatis is quite explicit on
the point. Other than work-related requests from Magistrates, or
macronational law enforcement authorities, "indirect transmission or
communication of Nova Roman citizens' confidential information is strictly
prohibited."
Thus, the institutional policy of Nova Roma, that personal information is to
be safeguarded, has been well established. And so, no; you don't have any
right to deny such information to Nova Roma as an organization. If you join,
you must provide the organization as a whole with certain information it
requires to function effectively and efficiently. You may indeed "choose for
yourself"; if you don't want the relevant adminstrators in Nova Roman to
know your address, don't join Nova Roma. (Just as, if you don't want the
secretary to know your address, don't join the Britney Spears Fan Club.)
In this, Nova Roma is no different than any other organization which you may
join. I've never heard of any group which allowed individual members to
micro-manage which parts of its own internal administration had access to
what information. To expect such in Nova Roma is just bizarre.
As far as potential abuses by individual magistrates and/or appointees who
might have access to that information, that is a different story, and one
which is, quite frankly, best dealt with in the context of the civil law
code. Should we have penalties for magistrates and appointees who abuse
their offices? Abso-freeking-lutely! But that is not, and must not be,
limited merely to those who use Citizens' confidential information for
personal reasons (nor is that necessarily the most heinous example of such
abuse that could be perpetrated). Abuse of power spans a wide spectrum of
possibilities; to focus so myopically on the improper use of contact
information seems to me to be imprudent. Let us rather speak to the larger
issues, not one specific example.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: The Comitia Centuriata is Convened |
| From: |
"M. Apollonius Formosanus" <bvm3@--------> |
| Date: |
Wed, 01 Aug 2001 20:40:08 +0200 |
|
M. Apollonius Formosanus omnibus Quirites S.P.D.
In the present controversy on the release of information I believe
that a happy compromise is possible, although it will be necessary to
vote down the present version, as Censor Sulla intends to do, so as to
have time to improve the bill.
I tend to strongly agree with both sides: as Consul Vedius and
Praetor Fabius (and many others) point out, it is a great impediment to
provincial organisation if we cannot get necessary information to
provincial officials. I also agree with the point of view that people
presumably join a community such as Nova Roma with the purpose of
meeting and interacting with other people. This presupposes the ability
to be contacted. I think that we should also note that in transferring
information to provincial officials we are *not* providing this
information to *outsiders*, but simply to other parts of one, unified
organisation - Nova Roma. If any official of Nova Roma releases the
information inappropriately or abuses it, then Nova Roma as a whole is
responsible to the citizen for the harm done. If it wishes to take the
(hopefully very small) risk of confiding certain information to the
hands of certain of its officers, that is a perfectly normal thing, one
that almost all organisations do routinely every day.
On the other hand, it seems to me that the *types* of information
involved in any such transfers of personal data should be clearly
specified and limited. I see four and only four pieces of information as
being necessary for provincial organisation:
1) The fact that the civis lives in a certain province.
2) The Roman name of the person.
3) The e-mail address of the person. (Or if the person is not
net-enabled, a postal address.)
4) The city or postal code of the person.
I do not see any necessity for any other information being released
to provincial officials. The above information permits the provincial
officials to know how many citizens there are in the province, what
provincial regiones they are in, and how to contact them. Non-Roman
names, telephone numbers and exact street addresses are not necessary
for this.
I think that if we could be assured by the text of a revised lex
that only the above four pieces of information would be released
(without special and completely optional permission of the citizen),
even those citizens who particularly prize their privacy would have
their minds set at ease. It might also usefully be explicitly forbidden
for the provincial governor or any subordinate to put a citizen on a
mailing list against the latter's will. (But it is easy to send
invitations to such lists and easy for citizens to accept them if they
will.)
I appreciate the concern with privacy of Censor Sulla and think that
some of his ideas for revision of the bill have merit. I do not agree
with his habitual desire to find punishments for people - in this case
for provincial officials who engage in carelessness or misconduct - the
important thing, as I see it, is to remove them from office as quickly
as possible, not engage in ritualised vengence after the fact. I more
specifically disagree with the idea of making punishments for legates
more severe than those for governors, who are, after all, those who bear
the primary responsibility for a province.
In fine, I must side with Sulla in opposing the bill in its present
form, but with Vedius and Fabius and numerous governors in wishing to
see the four necessary pieces of information above put into the hands of
governors and their agents as expeditiously as possible, as soon as we
can have a revised bill to keep other, not-absolutely-necessary
information private unless an individual chooses otherwise.
Valete!
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: Let the citizens decide for themselves! |
| From: |
PompeiaAntoniaCaesar <europamoon7@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 09:39:41 -0700 (PDT) |
|
--- gcassiusnerva@-------- wrote:
> --- In novaroma@--------, PompeiaAntoniaCaesar
> <europamoon7@--------> wrote:
> > Salve,
> >
> > After some overnight thinking on this I had to ask
> > myself, what am I so afraid of?>>
>
> Excellent, and of course you are totally free to
> pass out your
> personal info to any and all.
>
> But, you may not make the decision for me. Let each
> citizen choose
> for himself. Why do you not wish us to have this
> choice?
>
> Nerva
Salve Nerva,
I was not speaking for everyone else. I was only
speaking for myself. I have no intentions on taking
the right for individual choice away from anyone. I
was just voicing my own personal feelings in writing.
I have a right to my opinion just as you have a right
to yours. My point was that every other organization
I belong to has and requires personal information of
some sort to function. And I find it somewhat
perplexing that we expect Nova Roma to function
efficiently without it. My question is, do other
nations operate this way?
Vale,
Pompeia Antonia Caesar
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Legates and Information |
| From: |
ksterne@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 02 Aug 2001 16:49:52 -0000 |
|
Salvete,
Our Province, America Austrorientalis, has recently received a
Propraetor and we have begun to organize.
An obvious step is a Provencial census of sorts. We need to know
how to contact our cives and where they are if we are ever to get
anything done.
I'm not sure what we would do with phone numbers and street addresses
right now, but we at least need e-mail and city. If a cive doesn't
wish to supply that info., they won't be able to be a full part of
Nova Roma.
Valete,
Gaius Popillius Laenas
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] My Absence of Late |
| From: |
jmath669642reng@-------- |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:57:16 -0400 (EDT) |
|
Citizens of Nova Roma;
My apologies if I have not been as attentive of late to those who expect
a response from me, but I have been deeply involved in the organization
and approach of several reenactment events, two of which are very Roman
in Nature.
The first of which is, of course, the Gladitorial School Presentation
at Eisenhower Park on Long Island this coming weekend (4-5 Aug.). This
is the first presentation of it's kind since "Roman Days" in Baltimore,
and will be attended by "Maximus the Great" the famous Roman Gladiator
and five members of Legion VI, and two members from Legion XXIV. This
activity is unfortunately planned on the same date as the "Canadian
Roman Days" through the fault of no-one, but for those who cannot attend
the Canadian Event, I invite them to come and be a part or spectator of
the "Gladitorial Games" on Long Island. For those citizens who dwell in
the Province of New England, although it is an event out of the
province, as ProConsul, I declare this event to be an official Province
of New England Event.
The second event will be the Mt. Pocono, PA event on the 8-9th of
September. This will again be a Gladitorial Presentation which will
feature "The Great Maximus" and to which I have been very kindly invited
to attend. As ProConsul of the Province of New England, I again
proclaim these Mt. Pocono Games to be an official provincial activity.
I am further pleased and very excited to announce that the Sodalitas
Militarium's valued Tribune Angusticlavius Africanus (now also named
Legate Regio to the Honored ProPraetor and Senator Octavius Germanicus)
has announced a Roman Event to be held in October in his Province. I am
both proud and pleased to re-announce this Event, and invite all NR
Citizens who are able to take part in this endeavor. Tribune Africanus
has contributed strongly to the Militarim since his appointment, and it
is my opinion based on his past efforts in Militarium that this activity
will be fun, exciting and educational. In an unrelated activity, I will
be most pleased to meet with any who are interested in Lebanon, Ohio on
the 11th of August for a no-host luncheon, and face -to-face meeting
with any NR Citizens in the area. For any interested, contact me for
time and place of the luncheon.
I am slowly and steadily, as time permits, working through my mail, and
answering those who are awaiting a reply. Your kind patience is desired
and much appreciated.
As to the other activities, I have been greatly honored to be chosen to
play the part of General Garth, Commander of the 3000 man British
raiding force against the seaport city of New Haven (Rev War). This
celebration and memorial will be in West Haven Park in the morning of
August 18. For the remainder of the 18-19 weekend I will be reenacting
a Civil War Major of Engineers at Fort Nathan Hale, and conducting
lantern tours of the Fort on Saturday Evening.
As to other events on my calendar until the end of the year:
--Museum Village--Monroe, NY-- 31 Aug- 1-2 Sept--Federal Engineer (CW);
--Oak Grove Farm--Millis, MA--15-16 Sept.--Federal Engineer (CW);
--Fort Nathan Hale--New Haven, CT--21-23 Sept--Federal Engineer (CW);
--Scottish Games--Goshen, CT--6 Oct--Adjutant, 42nd Regmt. ; Black Watch
(RW);
--Scottish Festival--Scotland, CT--7 Oct--Adjutant, 42nd Regmt. ; Black
Watch (RW);
--Smith-Harris House, East Lyme, CT--13-14 Oct--Federal Naval Commander,
North Atlantic Blockading Squadron (CW);
--Pound Ridge, NY--27-28 Oct-- Adjutant, 42nd Regmt. ; Black Watch (RW);
--Hope Lodge Park, Fort Washington, PA--Adjutant, 42nd Regmt. ; Black
Watch (RW);
--Re-dedicaton of a Civil War Monument, North Attleboro. MA--Federal
Naval Commander, North Atlantic Blockading Squadron (CW).
I apologize for the above off-topic list but several NR citizens have
asked me for such. These are the list of firm actvities, at this date.
There are two or three other possibles which are currently being
discussed. If any are interested in those, which will be within the
range from Philadelphia to Boston, the East coast to the New York line,
please contact me individually. I apologize for the partial list at
this late date, since the first 12 events in which I took part preceeded
this date.
Respectfully;
Marcus Audens
Fair Winds and Following Seas!!!
http://community.webtv.net/jmath669642reng/NovaRomaMilitary
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: The Comitia Centuriata is Convened |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 14:00:30 -0400 |
|
Salvete
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. Apollonius Formosanus [mailto:bvm3@--------]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 2:40 PM
>
> On the other hand, it seems to me that the *types* of information
> involved in any such transfers of personal data should be clearly
> specified and limited. I see four and only four pieces of information as
> being necessary for provincial organisation:
>
> 1) The fact that the civis lives in a certain province.
> 2) The Roman name of the person.
> 3) The e-mail address of the person. (Or if the person is not
> net-enabled, a postal address.)
> 4) The city or postal code of the person.
>
> I do not see any necessity for any other information being released
> to provincial officials. The above information permits the provincial
> officials to know how many citizens there are in the province, what
> provincial regiones they are in, and how to contact them. Non-Roman
> names, telephone numbers and exact street addresses are not necessary
> for this.
With respect (and thanks for your excellent contribution to the discussion),
this is not necessarily the case. While in most ordinary circumstances what
you say is quite correct, I can definitely see circumstances where a
provincial governor might require a mailing address (for example, the
all-too-common situation where an email address is either invalid or simply
unresponsive).
To institute an absolute limit such as you describe would rob us of the
flexibility that the current lex affords us. Let us remember that the
Censors remain the gatekeepers of Citizens' contact information. When
approached by a provincial governor (or, for that matter, a Consul or
Praetor) with a request for information for the first time (say, to conduct
a provincial census), they would very likely not require more than the four
items you list. However, there would in all likelihood be circumstances in
which it was impossible to contact a cive via email. Is it unreasonable, in
such circumstances, for that governor to then ask for the mailing addresses
of the cives in question, to have another chance at contacting them? It is
far easier to change one's email address than ones snailmail address, and
often email gets changed without informing all the necessary people (such as
NR). Governors should not be limited to email contact only.
I believe that to strictly limit the information available to governors as
you suggest is just too restrictive. Let us rely, as we have thusfar, in the
good judgement not only of our governors in what information they ask for,
but also in our Censors in what information they will provide. Let's not let
a zeal for privacy rob our elected and appointed officials of the
flexibility they need to exercise their judgement in doing their jobs.
Valete,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Legates and Information |
| From: |
"Lucius Sicinius Drusus" <lsicinius@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 02 Aug 2001 18:09:40 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, ksterne@b... wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> Our Province, America Austrorientalis, has recently received a
> Propraetor and we have begun to organize.
>
> An obvious step is a Provencial census of sorts. We need to know
> how to contact our cives and where they are if we are ever to get
> anything done.
>
> I'm not sure what we would do with phone numbers and street
addresses
> right now, but we at least need e-mail and city. If a cive doesn't
> wish to supply that info., they won't be able to be a full part of
> Nova Roma.
>
> Valete,
> Gaius Popillius Laenas
Salve,
The reason we need Street addresses and phone numbers is the E-mail
addresses in the Censors database are old, in some cases over three
years old. It is very common for people to change thier E-mail
addresses in that period of time. If we only have the e-mail then it
lessens our chances of contacting our citizens.
Vale,
L. Sicinius Drusus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Privacy/citizenship |
| From: |
"Lucius Mauricius Procopious" <lespeterson@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 12:18:22 -0700 |
|
Salvete Omnes,
For those individuals concerned about their personal information being released is the fear that they will be contacted or is it that they fear they will be contacted by those they wish to avoid? If it is a desire to avoid contact at all, wouldn't it be easier to forgo citizenship in favor of simply participating on the main list. If it is a desire to avoid "salespeople" or others, then let's discuss how to safeguard the information rather than avoid it's use.
Besides, if the Censors won't trust me with my cives info, I won't trust them with mine and will ask it be removed from Nova Roman records. :) Let's see the Senate check on what I'm doing with my Province if they can't even find me. {Please insert sarcasm and a humorous tone here :) }
My point is: I joined NR to be found by all of you. If I wanted to avoid contact, I should have declined citizenship in favor of limiting myself to ML activity.
Lucius Mauricius Procopious
Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
(This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
procopious@--------
ICQ# 83516618
*America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
* The Gens Mauricia
http://www.geocities.com/procopious
"Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will decide for himself according to his taste."
-Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Privacy/citizenship |
| From: |
=?iso-8859-1?B?WWFubiBRdely6Q==?= <yquere@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 21:35:51 +0200 |
|
Salve Lucio Mauricio Procopio
You are absolutely right and there is nothing to add.
Ianus Querius Armoricus Lutecio
Propaetor Galliae
----- Original Message -----
From: Lucius Mauricius Procopious <lespeterson@-------->
To: <novaroma@-------->
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 9:18 PM
Subject: [novaroma] Privacy/citizenship
> Salvete Omnes,
>
> For those individuals concerned about their personal information being
released is the fear that they will be contacted or is it that they fear
they will be contacted by those they wish to avoid? If it is a desire to
avoid contact at all, wouldn't it be easier to forgo citizenship in favor of
simply participating on the main list. If it is a desire to avoid
"salespeople" or others, then let's discuss how to safeguard the information
rather than avoid it's use.
> Besides, if the Censors won't trust me with my cives info, I won't trust
them with mine and will ask it be removed from Nova Roman records. :) Let's
see the Senate check on what I'm doing with my Province if they can't even
find me. {Please insert sarcasm and a humorous tone here :) }
> My point is: I joined NR to be found by all of you. If I wanted to avoid
contact, I should have declined citizenship in favor of limiting myself to
ML activity.
>
> Lucius Mauricius Procopious
> Propraetor America Boreoccidentalis
> (This is an unofficial post for which I assume full responsibility)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> procopious@--------
> ICQ# 83516618
> *America Boreoccidentalis Mail List
> http://www.egroups.com/group/AmBor_Waves
> * The Gens Mauricia
> http://www.geocities.com/procopious
>
> "Indeed, it is not by the plans of men, but by the hand of God that the
affairs of men are directed; and this men call Fate, not knowing the reason
for what things they see occur; and what seems to be without cause is easy
to call the accident of chance. Still, this is a matter every mortal will
decide for himself according to his taste."
> -Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s]
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: Legates and Information |
| From: |
"Robert Woolwine" <alexious@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 02 Aug 2001 19:42:55 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@n...>
wrote:
> Salve
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob--------Woolwin--------ailto:al--------us@--------]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 9:52 PM
> >
> > Legates, who according to the Lex Cornelia and the
> > proposed Lex Vedia, may have access to information, but that
> > information should be given to them by their direct superior. In
> > essence following the proper chain of command.
>
> While you're certainly allowed to hold this attitude, it completely
ignores
> the reason that governors would want to appoint legates in the
first place.
> Governors delegate their authority to the legates; the legates are
not
> (intended to be, anyway) mere scribes or gofers. They are certainly
under
> the authority of the governors, but when they act, they act in his
or her
> name. The same would go for a request from a legate for contact
information.
> (Although I would certainly see it as reasonable for a Censor to
restrict
> such information to the geographical area within the province for
which the
> legate was responsible.)
Ave,
Thank you for your support. You and I have spoken on similar issues
relating to privacy before. You know exactly where I stand. I would
rather be excessive in protecting the confidential information than
be not. That is how important I view this.
The way our provincial government is established, there is a set
chain of command. I believe that should be utilized in this case.
As stated, the governor appoints the Legates, the governor can
delagate such information as he/she sees fit to the Legate. If the
governor wants to share the confidential information with his
subordinate, then perfect. If not, I see no reason why the
subordinate should be able to bypass his superior and obtain such
information.
Respectfully,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
|
| Subject: |
RE: [novaroma] Re: Legates and Information |
| From: |
"Flavius Vedius Germanicus" <germanicus@--------> |
| Date: |
Thu, 2 Aug 2001 16:18:28 -0400 |
|
Salve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Woolwine [mailto:alexious@--------]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 3:43 PM
>
> The way our provincial government is established, there is a set
> chain of command. I believe that should be utilized in this case.
> As stated, the governor appoints the Legates, the governor can
> delagate such information as he/she sees fit to the Legate.
Herein lies the problem. To insist that all information pass through the
governor and they must then sort through it and send it to the legati,
defeats the purpose of having legati in the first place. Think about it; one
appoints a legatus exactly because one doesn't have the time, knowledge, or
inclination to manage the day-to-day details of a particular area. If, every
time a legatus needs information about (for instance) new cives in their
region, they must first ask the governor, who must then petition the
Censors, who would then give the governor the information, who would then
pass it to the legatus, why bother to have a legatus in the first place? It
actually creates more work.
You're unnecessarily complicating the administration of the provincia by
your refusal to see that legati are appointed by the governors and ACT IN
THEIR NAME in that capacity (not shouting; emphasizing). Do you honestly
think a general in the Army has to sort through every piece of information
and then personally hand it out to his subordinates as appropriate? Of
course not.
In addition, it might be argued that to do so is in fact unconstitutional.
Paragraph V.C.1.c. of the Constitution states that governors have the power
"To manage the day-to-day organization and administration of their
provincia." By insisting that they conform the internal practices of their
province to your arbitrary personal standard, it could be said that you as
Censor are usurping their power to administer their province as they see
fit. If they want their legati to ask for information directly, that should
be their call.
Vale,
Flavius Vedius Germanicus,
Consul
|
