Fwd: [NovaRoma-Announce] Update on Events
56 views
Skip to first unread message
L. Livia Plauta
Jan 27, 2016, 3:33:15 PM1/27/16
to societas-...@googlegroups.com
---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
Da: "Robert Woolwine robert....@gmail.com [NovaRoma-Announce]" <NovaRoma-Ann...@yahoogroups.com>
Data: 26/gen/2016 05:07
Oggetto: [NovaRoma-Announce] Update on Events
A: <NovaRoma...@yahoogroups.com>
Cc:
Da: "Robert Woolwine robert....@gmail.com [NovaRoma-Announce]" <NovaRoma-Ann...@yahoogroups.com>
Data: 26/gen/2016 05:07
Oggetto: [NovaRoma-Announce] Update on Events
A: <NovaRoma...@yahoogroups.com>
Cc:
Avete Omnes,
Ladies and Gentlemen, I understand that most of you are aware that there has been something going on behind the scenes in Nova Roma. On behalf of the Res Publica, I come before you to try to give you a broader picture of what is going on and the response of the government of Nova Roma.
In November, our now ex Tribunes tried to veto two Senatus Consulta's that dealt with conflict of interest issues affecting new applicants. Over the course of the months its now clear to us that the reason the Tribunes tried to veto these SCs was not out of concern for the Res Publica, but for the benefit of one silly young man who stood on pride and refused to do what he had been told to do by the Censor(s).
What do I mean? Former Tribune acted to find a way to prevent the SC's from taking affect for the benefit of a former citizen Publius Claudius Caecus. Caecus responded to the finding on his citizenship being null and void by eventually founding his own Roman organization, that ended up being deemed competing by the Nova Roman Senate. The ONLY identifiable person that we can think of that these SC's would have affected would have been Caecus. The explanation given that someone one day might ignore the ex-post facto clause in the Constitution just made no sense as a rational argument for an intercessio. Someone might one day accuse someone of bank robbery after doctoring the security cameras, but that is no argument for never installing a camera. It is absurd. Certainly one of the ex-tribunes and a party to the complaint seems to be a strong supporter and advocate for Caecus. Hence our belief that the motivation for this whole saga has been the individual Caecus. That is in my opinion just so petty, self-serving and sad if this is the case. The former Tribunes then tried to subverted and overturn the governance of the Senate of Nova Roma resulting in turning Nova Roma into a Late Roman Republic organization governed by the Tribunes! Tribunes, who should be noted, are not held liable for the actions of the organization at the expense of Nova Roma's most seasoned, experienced and most decorated citizens (The Senate).
The result culminated in mid November at the request of Consul Caninus by the activation of the Executive Committee of Nova Roma and within that framework the Dictatorship was implemented in Nova Roma for the first time since 1999. Fairly quickly the Officers of Nova Roma were contacted by an attorney, the same attorney used during the last Civil War. Their demand was simple, reinstatement. Of course this was not a simple request. Over the past month the officers of Nova Roma worked with our attorney to respond to the demand letter. The result was concluded today when neither party was able to agree on a settlement to resolve the matter. In plain English, the Dictatorship still exists as it has since Mid November, the parties expelled from Nova Roma remain expelled from Nova Roma, The government of Nova Roma moves forward while we have concluded our dealings those who have been expelled.
Should they decide to go forward and file a complaint in Maine, Nova Roma will fight it! The Board of Directors of Nova Roma will fight it! The Officers of Nova Roma will fight it! And, remember as we are fighting this, this all began as a premeditated event to protect a kid who lied on his application, got caught, and would not reapply and start over from scratch. This will be the reason why NR has to spend its funds it has accumulated over the years. If you doubt my analysis - you can read the debates on the Back Alley and see if you come to a different conclusion.
To sum up, Nova Roma's government will continue to serve the interests of all of the People of Nova Roma to the very best of our efforts. In the coming days we will begin to roll out the beginnings of Nova Roma Reborn and to implement some of those changes. While this goes on we will ensure its compliance with Maine law by working with the advice of Nova Roma's attorney to do something that has never happened in all of Nova Roma's history a solid foundation that serves the interest of the Res Publica as well as the legal requirements of Maine working in concert, not in opposition to each other. Should this chapter be concluded our reforms will roll out quicker, but should this issue continue in Maine, please bear with us while we deal with both the reformation of Nova Roma and the possible lawsuit in Maine. In the end Nova Roma will be Victorious!
Thank you for your time and your consideration,
Long Live the Res Publica!
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix
Magister Equitium
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
.
__,_._,___
Publius Porcius Licinus
Feb 8, 2016, 12:48:17 AM2/8/16
to Societas Via Romana
Salve Plauta,
And now for the other side of the story. I'll just correct Sulla's errors.
1) Sulla is absolutely dead wrong when he claims this is all about Caecus. I was dimly aware of him from some message traffic about his Academia Minerva project from a couple of years prior. At that time, the idea seemed intriguing, but not well coordinated with Nova Roma, and Caecus came across to me as a little too disorganized to be heading up that kind of a project. I recall he proposed some IT improvements for Nova Roma along the lines of establishing a Nova Roma forum, and offered to do this himself. I recall that his offers were rejected, and my takeaway was that we should be doing something like his proposals, but I wasn't too put out by the fact that his particular offer was rejected. To put it a different way, good idea, lots of details lacking on implementation. After that, Caecus faded from my interest, to the point where I forgot his name.
The intercessio of November 2015 had nothing to do with Caecus, and everything to do with what I saw as the threat of abuse of the SCs I pronounced intercessio against. With 20/20 hindsight, I would say that I underestimated that threat! At the time, I did not think anyone in Nova Roma capable of that sort of abuse, but quite correctly feared some future officer would use it to conduct a purge. Not only was I the personal victim of that sort of end run around both state law and Nova Roman law, but I was to later learn that sort of abuse had already happened, and had happened to Caecus. One poster on the Back Alley had it quite correct when he called Caecus our "Rosa Parks": more of a "mascot" than any sort of instigator. It was the "aha" moment when we realized that not only were we not the only ones who had been screwed, but someone else had been screwed in a similar way before us.
2) Caecus did not "form his own Roman organization". That is essentially Sulla's paranoia running away with him. What Caecus formed was a website with a forum (remember his promise to host a forum for Nova Roma?). People, both members and non-members of Nova Roma, went there, signed up for accounts, logged in, and discussed various projects, some having to do with Nova Roma and some having to do with Romanitas in general. There was no "organization", save for a webmaster (Caecus), and ad hoc leaders of various projects (for those projects for which there was a discernible leader). It's amusing, because Caesar and Sulla can't identify a single members of "romanrepublic.org" save for Caecus...mainly because there was no organization and no members, unless you count having a login account a "membership". It is, of course, fertile ground for them to speculate that any present or future member of Nova Roma is or was a "member of romanrepublic.org", which would entitle them under the SCs that I vetoed to "disappear" that member without a trial and without the right of provocatio.
3) What is absurd is the argument that having a policy of requiring new members to declare that they "are not now nor have they ever been a member of [RPR or romanrepublic.org]" is akin to installing a security camera at a bank. Having a former member of the RPR (who was never a member of Nova Roma) join Nova Roma as a member poses practically no threat to Nova Roma whatsoever. If Sulla's estimates of RPR's membership are correct, Nova Roma could absorb the entire organization and still not be at risk of having them vote in any policy that Nova Roma does not want. I can attest that when you join the ACLU, they do not ask you if you are a former member of the KKK. Yet, strangely, although being diametrically opposed to the goals of the ACLU, the KKK has thus far failed to take it over. I wonder why?
Nova Roma has an existing prohibition on any board member of a "competing organization" also serving on the board (Senate) of Nova Roma. This COMPLETELY protects them against the threat of "competing organizations". No further restrictions on the membership are required. The IRS certainly does not require them, as Sulla claims. Nor is there any automatic promotion to the Senate for any member who is also a member of a "competing organization", since the Censors may simply elect to not sublect that member. If there is any lingering concern, it would be appropriate to pass a lex banning any CURRENT member of a "competing organization" from serving as Censor, Consul, or Praetor. But see, if they did that, they wouldn't have a convenient tool for "disappearing" inconvenient members of Nova Roma without due process.
4)There was and is absolutely no intent to turn Nova Roma into a "Late Roman Republic" organization "ruled by tribunes". My intent with the intercessio was to negate two particular SCs that were abuses waiting to happen. Sulla conveniently omits that there were several other SCs passed that session that nobody pronounced intercessio against. Sulla also conveniently omits that in that same Senate session, Caesar "discovered" a new interpretation of an existing rule that required 4 agenda items to be sent to committee before being presented to the Senate, and that Sulla found Consul Tutor to be in contempt of the Senate for failing to discover this interpretation before Caesar did and daring to place these items on the agenda (Caesar's "discovery" came several days into the debate).
There was absolutely no collusion between any of the tribunes. I never had any communication with Figulus before he upheld my intercessio in my life. After he did so, I sent him one message thanking him for having the courage to express his opinion. He sent me one message back, saying that he thought it was obvious that I had the right of the issue. Lupus made one post upholding my intercessio the following day, and I did not even know he did so, as I was removed from the main list before I even saw his post. (I've since gotten in touch and thanked him.)
So nope, no collusion, no sinister plot, no "coup attempt" (at least not by us), just the paranoia of Caesar and Sulla running amuck.
5) Sulla greatly mischaracterizes our demand as one of reinstatement. We simply ask that Nova Roma be governed in accordance with law, the actual laws of the state of Maine, and the laws of Nova Roma, not Caesar and Sulla's misinterpretation of them. Under the law, Caesar has absolutely no authority to remove anyone from Nova Roma, nor to remove any Senator from the Senate. So yes, undoing those unlawful acts is part of our demands. In addition, we assert that there is no lawful basis for the formation of an Executive Committee, which means that all the acts of the Executive Committee are null and void. Since several of those acts were to alter the composition of the Senate, the new "Senate" has only apparent power to act, which evaporates as soon as anyone challenges that power (and that challenge has happened). If you think about it, that only makes sense. Let's say that it was legal to appoint a Dictator, subject to the provision that nothing he does in office is valid unless the Senate approve it. (I'm not taking that as given, but assume it is for the sake of argument.) Does it make sense that the Dictator could remove anyone he pleases from the Senate and appoint anyone he wants to the Senate? If so, what is the point of having the Senate ratify his actions? If he can remove everyone who opposes him and appoint only yes-men, why would he ever lose a ratification vote? Fortunately, that little trick (or variations of it) have been pulled many, many times in corporate history, and there is ample statute law and case law to prevent anyone from getting away with it. The new "Senate" met recently and "approved" all of Caesar's actions, but that "ratification" carries as much force of law as the decision of a moot court.
Basically, all we want is for the Senate of Nova Roma to obey the law, both the laws of the state of Maine and the laws of Nova Roma. If they do that, we believe there are enough protections in place to prevent the sort of abuses that we've seen from Caesar and Sulla. If they try to fight this, all they are going to succeed in doing is giving the treasury of Nova Roma to lawyers. If they really had Nova Roma's best interests at heart, they would present the points I've raised here to their attorney, openly, honestly, and without sugar-coating their version of events, and then accept his counsel instead of trying to direct it. I believe that if they did that, they would end up saving the taxpaying citizens of Nova Roma a lot of money.
Vale!
Publius Porcius Licinus
And now for the other side of the story. I'll just correct Sulla's errors.
1) Sulla is absolutely dead wrong when he claims this is all about Caecus. I was dimly aware of him from some message traffic about his Academia Minerva project from a couple of years prior. At that time, the idea seemed intriguing, but not well coordinated with Nova Roma, and Caecus came across to me as a little too disorganized to be heading up that kind of a project. I recall he proposed some IT improvements for Nova Roma along the lines of establishing a Nova Roma forum, and offered to do this himself. I recall that his offers were rejected, and my takeaway was that we should be doing something like his proposals, but I wasn't too put out by the fact that his particular offer was rejected. To put it a different way, good idea, lots of details lacking on implementation. After that, Caecus faded from my interest, to the point where I forgot his name.
The intercessio of November 2015 had nothing to do with Caecus, and everything to do with what I saw as the threat of abuse of the SCs I pronounced intercessio against. With 20/20 hindsight, I would say that I underestimated that threat! At the time, I did not think anyone in Nova Roma capable of that sort of abuse, but quite correctly feared some future officer would use it to conduct a purge. Not only was I the personal victim of that sort of end run around both state law and Nova Roman law, but I was to later learn that sort of abuse had already happened, and had happened to Caecus. One poster on the Back Alley had it quite correct when he called Caecus our "Rosa Parks": more of a "mascot" than any sort of instigator. It was the "aha" moment when we realized that not only were we not the only ones who had been screwed, but someone else had been screwed in a similar way before us.
2) Caecus did not "form his own Roman organization". That is essentially Sulla's paranoia running away with him. What Caecus formed was a website with a forum (remember his promise to host a forum for Nova Roma?). People, both members and non-members of Nova Roma, went there, signed up for accounts, logged in, and discussed various projects, some having to do with Nova Roma and some having to do with Romanitas in general. There was no "organization", save for a webmaster (Caecus), and ad hoc leaders of various projects (for those projects for which there was a discernible leader). It's amusing, because Caesar and Sulla can't identify a single members of "romanrepublic.org" save for Caecus...mainly because there was no organization and no members, unless you count having a login account a "membership". It is, of course, fertile ground for them to speculate that any present or future member of Nova Roma is or was a "member of romanrepublic.org", which would entitle them under the SCs that I vetoed to "disappear" that member without a trial and without the right of provocatio.
3) What is absurd is the argument that having a policy of requiring new members to declare that they "are not now nor have they ever been a member of [RPR or romanrepublic.org]" is akin to installing a security camera at a bank. Having a former member of the RPR (who was never a member of Nova Roma) join Nova Roma as a member poses practically no threat to Nova Roma whatsoever. If Sulla's estimates of RPR's membership are correct, Nova Roma could absorb the entire organization and still not be at risk of having them vote in any policy that Nova Roma does not want. I can attest that when you join the ACLU, they do not ask you if you are a former member of the KKK. Yet, strangely, although being diametrically opposed to the goals of the ACLU, the KKK has thus far failed to take it over. I wonder why?
Nova Roma has an existing prohibition on any board member of a "competing organization" also serving on the board (Senate) of Nova Roma. This COMPLETELY protects them against the threat of "competing organizations". No further restrictions on the membership are required. The IRS certainly does not require them, as Sulla claims. Nor is there any automatic promotion to the Senate for any member who is also a member of a "competing organization", since the Censors may simply elect to not sublect that member. If there is any lingering concern, it would be appropriate to pass a lex banning any CURRENT member of a "competing organization" from serving as Censor, Consul, or Praetor. But see, if they did that, they wouldn't have a convenient tool for "disappearing" inconvenient members of Nova Roma without due process.
4)There was and is absolutely no intent to turn Nova Roma into a "Late Roman Republic" organization "ruled by tribunes". My intent with the intercessio was to negate two particular SCs that were abuses waiting to happen. Sulla conveniently omits that there were several other SCs passed that session that nobody pronounced intercessio against. Sulla also conveniently omits that in that same Senate session, Caesar "discovered" a new interpretation of an existing rule that required 4 agenda items to be sent to committee before being presented to the Senate, and that Sulla found Consul Tutor to be in contempt of the Senate for failing to discover this interpretation before Caesar did and daring to place these items on the agenda (Caesar's "discovery" came several days into the debate).
There was absolutely no collusion between any of the tribunes. I never had any communication with Figulus before he upheld my intercessio in my life. After he did so, I sent him one message thanking him for having the courage to express his opinion. He sent me one message back, saying that he thought it was obvious that I had the right of the issue. Lupus made one post upholding my intercessio the following day, and I did not even know he did so, as I was removed from the main list before I even saw his post. (I've since gotten in touch and thanked him.)
So nope, no collusion, no sinister plot, no "coup attempt" (at least not by us), just the paranoia of Caesar and Sulla running amuck.
5) Sulla greatly mischaracterizes our demand as one of reinstatement. We simply ask that Nova Roma be governed in accordance with law, the actual laws of the state of Maine, and the laws of Nova Roma, not Caesar and Sulla's misinterpretation of them. Under the law, Caesar has absolutely no authority to remove anyone from Nova Roma, nor to remove any Senator from the Senate. So yes, undoing those unlawful acts is part of our demands. In addition, we assert that there is no lawful basis for the formation of an Executive Committee, which means that all the acts of the Executive Committee are null and void. Since several of those acts were to alter the composition of the Senate, the new "Senate" has only apparent power to act, which evaporates as soon as anyone challenges that power (and that challenge has happened). If you think about it, that only makes sense. Let's say that it was legal to appoint a Dictator, subject to the provision that nothing he does in office is valid unless the Senate approve it. (I'm not taking that as given, but assume it is for the sake of argument.) Does it make sense that the Dictator could remove anyone he pleases from the Senate and appoint anyone he wants to the Senate? If so, what is the point of having the Senate ratify his actions? If he can remove everyone who opposes him and appoint only yes-men, why would he ever lose a ratification vote? Fortunately, that little trick (or variations of it) have been pulled many, many times in corporate history, and there is ample statute law and case law to prevent anyone from getting away with it. The new "Senate" met recently and "approved" all of Caesar's actions, but that "ratification" carries as much force of law as the decision of a moot court.
Basically, all we want is for the Senate of Nova Roma to obey the law, both the laws of the state of Maine and the laws of Nova Roma. If they do that, we believe there are enough protections in place to prevent the sort of abuses that we've seen from Caesar and Sulla. If they try to fight this, all they are going to succeed in doing is giving the treasury of Nova Roma to lawyers. If they really had Nova Roma's best interests at heart, they would present the points I've raised here to their attorney, openly, honestly, and without sugar-coating their version of events, and then accept his counsel instead of trying to direct it. I believe that if they did that, they would end up saving the taxpaying citizens of Nova Roma a lot of money.
Vale!
Publius Porcius Licinus
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages