Album Publicum Iudiciorum Novae Romanae
(Establishing page) |
m (Adding Case Details) |
||
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
==Case Record of the Constitutional Court== | ==Case Record of the Constitutional Court== | ||
| − | ' | + | {| border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="center" width="60%" |
| + | |- | ||
| + | ! style="background:#E6E6E6; text-align:center;" | | ||
| + | ! style="background:#E6E6E6; text-align:center;" | | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | Nova Roma – Constitutional Court – Case I | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | [[Decimus Aurelius Ingeniarius (Nova Roma)|D. Aurelius Ingeniarius]], consul vs [[Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus (Nova Roma)|Cn. Cornelius Lentulus]], curator rei informaticae | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | CASE OUTLINE: | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | On February 16th 2026 L. Aurelius Lepidus Quaestor Consularis, acting as advocate for Consul D. Aurelius Ingeniarius, issued a petitio actionis against Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Curator rei Informaticae, regarding the latter's power to enact ius edicendi. The advocate stated that under the Lex Cornelia Domitia de Re publica constituenda (A.U.C. 2774), the power to issue edicta belongs only to the magistracies and officers although there have been edicts issued by Cn. Cornelius Lentulus in the past and as recently as on the 31st of December of last year. On this matter, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus stated that because his office is considered a successor of the magister aranearius (now abolished) as confirmed by the Senate, the curator is allowed to issue edicts on the supposition that the office of Curator rei Informaticae has the same responsibilities as the previous one (magister aranearius). | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | ! style="background:#E6E6E6; text-align:center;" | | ||
| + | ! style="background:#E6E6E6; text-align:center;" | | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | SUMMARY JUDGEMENT: | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | Issued by [[Lucius Calpurnius Bestia (Nova Roma)|L. Calpurnius Bestia]], praetor, [https://groups.io/g/TheForumRomanum/message/102319 Forum Romanum #102319] <br> | ||
| + | To refer the matter to the Senate for a definitive Senatus Consultus on the matter. That vote in the Senate, which should take place no longer than in 3 months from today if agreement is reached among the parties, would consist of the following agenda item: "Should the curator rei informaticae be explicitly granted ius edicendi and should this also apply retroactively?" Until the result of that Senate vote is announced, the status quo prevails and the curator rei informaticae could issue edicta if, on face value, it seems necessary to fulfill his mandate. | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | OUTCOME: | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | The Summary Judgement was REJECTED by both parties. | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | ! style="background:#E6E6E6; text-align:center;" | | ||
| + | ! style="background:#E6E6E6; text-align:center;" | | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE: | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | Decemviri stlitibus iudicandis<br> | ||
| + | Appointed Chair: [[Quintus Arrius Nauta (Nova Roma)|Q. Arrius Nauta]], decemvir stlitibus iudicandis | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | FORMULAE: | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | | ||
| + | *I. '''Decretum decemvirorum de iudicio iuris edicendi curatoris rei informaticae:''' The curator rei informaticae possesses the ius edicendi based on customary law, inherited from the magister aranearius, and based on several newer laws referring to the capacity of the curator to issue edicts.<br> | ||
| + | *II. '''Decretum decemvirorum de iudicio edictorum curatoris rei informaticae validandorum:''' The curator rei informaticae does not possess the ius edicendi, all edicts issued by the curator are legally invalid, but due to the necessity of these edicts to be valid, and based on costumary law, since in practice these edicts were always considered valid, hereby through this present decree of the decemviri, the invalid edicts are recognized as valid retroactively by the force of this present decree, and this decree calls the Senate to issue a senatus consultum granting the ius edicendi to te curator, otherwise no more edicts may be issued by the curator until their ius edicendi is legally granted.<br> | ||
| + | *III. '''Decretum decemvirorum de iudicio edictorum curatoris rei informaticae invalidorum:''' The curator rei informaticae does not possess the ius edicendi, and all edicts issued by the curator are legally invalid, their effects shall be reversed and rescinded immediately where possible. This decree calls the Senate to issue a senatus consultum if it wishes the curator to have ius edicendi, and the curator is then invited to issue those edicts they think necessary. | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | RESULT: | ||
| + | | style="text-align:center; font-size:10pt;" | ***Case still under progress*** | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | ! style="background:#E6E6E6; text-align:center;" | | ||
| + | ! style="background:#E6E6E6; text-align:center;" | | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |} | ||
Revision as of 15:45, 7 May 2026
Home | Latíné | Deutsch | Español | Français | Italiano | Magyar | Português | Română | Русский | English
⚜⚜⚜ Site Index - Key Pages ⚜⚜⚜
· Home: Legal System ·
Declaration -
Constitution
Leges -
Senatus Consulta -
Decreta -
Edicta
·The People's Assembly·
Comitia Curiata
Comitia Centuriata
Comitia Populi Tributa
Comitia Plebis Tributa
Collegium Pontificum
Collegium Augurum
· Judiciary court · Administrative court · Constitutional court ·
Contents |
I. Introducing the Public Register of the Courts of Nova Roma
As proclaimed under the "Edictum Paetoris", so enacted on a.d. III Id. Quin. ‡ P. Aurelio C. Flavio cos. ‡ MMDCCLXXVIII a.u.c., this album stands as a record of all cases presided over in Nova Roma, from the Judiciary, Administrative and Constitutional Courts.
Regular terms used in the courts of Nova Roma:
| petitio actionis = request for action (formal compliant made to a magistrate) | actor = plaintiff (the one raising the complaint) | reus = the defendant (the accused or opposite party) | litigant parties = the actor and reus of a particular case |
| trinundinum = a period including three nundinae (market days, held every eight days), total 24 calendar days. | poena/poenae = punishment/punishments | Sententia/Sententiae = The expression of opinion of conviction | iudex/iudices = judge/judges |
| advocatus = advocate or barrister |
Due to the temporary nature of the praetor office, timely and accurate record keeping is important to ensure diligent and accurate records that can be maintained indefinitely. Responsible magistrates are required to follow the processes below. There are three different processes and recording methods to be aware of, depending on the type of cases:
- A. Private Record:
- i. Magisterial Controversy (Decemviral) Administrative Court cases
- ii. Forum Management (Triumviral) Administrative Court cases
- iii. Civic (Aedilician) Administrative Court cases
- iv. Criminal (Praetorial) Judicial Court cases
- v. Uncategorized (Decemviral) Judicial Court cases
- B. Public Record:
- i. Law Interpretation (Decemviral) Constitutional Court cases
- ii. Appellate courts to the Comitia Centuriata
- C. Reporting Only Record:
- i. Municipal (duoviri iure dicundo) Judicial Court cases
- ii. Provincial (Governor) Judicial Court cases
Recording Procedures
Private Record Procedures
Upon receiving a formal petitio actionis, the receiving magistrate is to undertake the following, in addition to all other requirements as stipulated in the and lex Lucilia iudiciaria and lex Salvia iudiciaria (the leges).
- A. The magistrate is to notify the praetores that they have received a petitio actionis and are actioning it according to law.
- B. The magistrate is to immediately create a new “Groups.io” (an email subscription-based) group to record all case events and decisions:
- i. They are to create a “Free” group.
- ii. They are to name the group according to the template name:
- Nova Roma – [Administrative/Judicial] Court – Case [Issued Sequential Roman Numeral (see article VII below)]
- iii. Once created, the magistrate is to ensure the “Visibility” of the newly group is private (not listed on the directory), and group moderation is simply based on “Restricted Membership” (no “New Member” moderation required).
- iv. Upon request of the magistrate, or direct decision of the praetores, the praetores may create this group on behalf of the magistrate.
- C. The magistrate is to invite to the group the current praetors and award them “Moderator” privileges. The praetores are not obliged to join. They are to also invite the actor, or his or her advocate, or both, depending on the wishes of the actor. Finally, the Curator rei Informaticae, or designated representative, is to be invited as well, granting him or her “Owner” privileges.
- D. The magistrate is to post in the group details of the petitio actionis and when it was received.
- E. Once the reus is privately notified of the petitio actionis in accordance with the leges, The magistrate is to also invite to the group, the reus, or his or her advocate, or both, depending on the wishes of the reus.
- F. If it is a case tried by the decemviri, the collegiately appointed chairman is to notify the praetores of his or her appointment.
- G. Proceedings continue according to the leges, with all correspondence, judgements, formula statements and presentations of evidence etc. to be posted within this group. For the purposes of meeting timing requirements by law, the time in which a post is made to the group constitutes the official timing of relevant action under the applicable leges.
Public Record Procedures
Public cases take place in extant Groups.io lists that are used for multiple cases. Each case is managed within its own “thread”, a single post that each participate replies to (ie. new subjects are not created). Specifically, public cases take place as follows:
- A. Law Interpretation (Decemviral) Constitutional Court cases are to take place in a standing Groups.io list called, “Curia Constitutionis Novam Romanam”. The Curator rei Informaticae, or designated representative, is to be granted “Owner” privileges. Each year, the praetores and the decemviri are to be granted “Moderator” status to this list.
- B. Appellate courts of the Comitia Centuriata are to take place in the Groups.io list, “Forum Novum Romanum”. The Curator rei Informaticae, or designated representative, is to be granted “Owner” privileges.
Reporting Only Procedures
Cases of municipal or provincial origins are managed in accordance with local law and procedures. Presiding magistrates of municipal or provincial cases are only required to report the following to the praetors (through a provincial governor) upon a case’s conclusion:
- A. Date and time of when the original petitio actionis was received.
- B. The Roman name of the parties involved.
- C. Date and time of when any summary judgements were issued.
- D. Date and time of when any court trial took place, the court duration, the sententia, and any penalties applied.
- E. Date and time of when any appeal was lodged and which court the appeal was lodged with.
- F. Any designation, numbering or title the local authority applied to the case in question.
Album Records
This album page will sequentially record non-provincial cases, assigning a Roman numeral designation; a separate numbering for each of the three courts. The specifics of private cases will not be published. All public cases will be documented in detail. Although the Curator rei Informaticae has responsibilities for maintaining the framework of recording past cases, it is the responsibility of the praetores to verify and add any new content to this website record. The following details should be noted in three sections on the webpage:
- A. For Private Records, the following format will be used:
- Nova Roma – [Administrative/Judicial] Court – Case [Issued Sequential Roman Numeral] – [name vs name]
- B. For Public Records, the following format will be used:
- Nova Roma – [Administrative/Judicial/Constitutional] Court – Case [Issued Sequential Roman Numeral] – [name vs name]
- A collective summary (not a full transcript) of the case is to published for each case.
- C. For Reporting Only Records, the following format will be used:
- Nova Roma – [Province name/Municipality name] Court – [name vs name] – [Title/designation (if any)]
Case Record of the Judicial Court
No cases have yet occured.
Case Record of the Administrative Court
No cases have yet occured.
Case Record of the Constitutional Court
| Nova Roma – Constitutional Court – Case I | D. Aurelius Ingeniarius, consul vs Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, curator rei informaticae |
| CASE OUTLINE: | On February 16th 2026 L. Aurelius Lepidus Quaestor Consularis, acting as advocate for Consul D. Aurelius Ingeniarius, issued a petitio actionis against Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Curator rei Informaticae, regarding the latter's power to enact ius edicendi. The advocate stated that under the Lex Cornelia Domitia de Re publica constituenda (A.U.C. 2774), the power to issue edicta belongs only to the magistracies and officers although there have been edicts issued by Cn. Cornelius Lentulus in the past and as recently as on the 31st of December of last year. On this matter, Cn. Cornelius Lentulus stated that because his office is considered a successor of the magister aranearius (now abolished) as confirmed by the Senate, the curator is allowed to issue edicts on the supposition that the office of Curator rei Informaticae has the same responsibilities as the previous one (magister aranearius). |
| SUMMARY JUDGEMENT: | Issued by L. Calpurnius Bestia, praetor, Forum Romanum #102319 To refer the matter to the Senate for a definitive Senatus Consultus on the matter. That vote in the Senate, which should take place no longer than in 3 months from today if agreement is reached among the parties, would consist of the following agenda item: "Should the curator rei informaticae be explicitly granted ius edicendi and should this also apply retroactively?" Until the result of that Senate vote is announced, the status quo prevails and the curator rei informaticae could issue edicta if, on face value, it seems necessary to fulfill his mandate. |
| OUTCOME: | The Summary Judgement was REJECTED by both parties. |
| COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE: | Decemviri stlitibus iudicandis Appointed Chair: Q. Arrius Nauta, decemvir stlitibus iudicandis |
| FORMULAE: |
|
| RESULT: | ***Case still under progress*** |