October 6, 2021 at 4:06 am #41731
With sadness I hereby issue this edict as censor in order to be in compliance with: http://romanrepublic.org/roma/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/CCu-On-the-removal-of-senators-from-the-senate-1.pdf
The actionable parts of the edict are:
THE FOLLOWING SENATORES ARE HEREBY REMOVED FROM THE SENATE ON OCT 20:October 27, 2021 at 11:34 pm #41851
TI. TERENTIUS VARRO CEN. SAL.
Having not met the criteria listed in this edict before the date stated. I solemnly declare in public that citizens Marcus Flavius Celsus and Quintus Vergilius Crassus are now removed from the senate as required by LEX CURIATORUM: On the removal of senators from the senate.
Due to our present population our laws require at least two new senators to be elevated. I will invite such citizens who qualify very soon. These invitations will be posted here in the forum for all to see and comment.October 29, 2021 at 11:29 am #41872
Quintus Vergilius CrassusDenarii: 𐆖 279.35PatriciusSarmatia
It is strange that I do not see here the comments of the tribunes of the people or other fighters for the rights of others. When someone’s rights are really violated, for some reason everyone is silent here.
Varro, what you have done is a direct violation of my rights and legitimate interests. The same goes for Celsus.
You have violated clause III of LEX CURIATORUM: On the removal of senators from the senate. You issued an edict, that is, you made a decision to remove it without notifying interested parties. Decision making cannot precede notification. This is just an epic mistake.
In less than six months, this is the second time the magistrate has treacherously violated my rights. The first time the praetor came up with non-existent requirements for the post of pontiff, in order to prevent my candidacy from the election.
For the first time, my rights and legitimate interests were deliberately violated by the magistrate, but he did not bear responsibility. The second time my rights were deliberately violated again, because the law was violated. I believe that no one will be held accountable, everyone will remain silent again.
The “Roman Republic” is becoming more and more Nova Roma. And this is just surprising. Flavius Severus in Nova Roma was illegally, in violation of the procedure, deprived of the status of a senator, and in less than a time history repeats itself in the “Roman Republic” with another Sarmatian – with me.
It’s just ridiculous and ridiculous. Moreover, Varro appoints new senators to the illegally vacated seats. Shame.
I demand the restoration of my violated rights.October 29, 2021 at 1:01 pm #41875
Quintus Marius BestiaDenarii: 𐆖 532.10PlebeiusScandia
Salve Senator Crassus,
I fully sympathize with your situation and being removed from any office is not pleasant. However, the initial edict was posted on October 6th, which is over 15 days ago, so technically, both you and Consul Celsus have been, although publicly, notified of your pending removal in accordance with LEX CURIATORUM: On the removal of senators from the senate Clause III. You were publicly notified that if you did not fulfill the criteria before October 20th, you would be removed. So Censor Varro is not in breach of the law. You could of course make the case that it would be more fair to have had it also as a private message (which I assume from your response you have not), but there is no illegality committed here if we strictly look to the law, as the Lex does not specify the method of communication of the pending removal. If you can provide a more concise case as to why it is, then please do so, of course there is no wish to violate anyone’s rightsOctober 30, 2021 at 11:19 pm #41915
Appia Claudia HeminaDenarii: 𐆖 146.10PlebeiusCalifornia Ulterior
I see only the law being followed here. Your denarii balance was too low. You had years to be more active and earn denarii. You received a very public notice of this fact. FYI: This was also a reason why senators of ancient times lost their senate seat. There is nothing uncouth about what has transpired here. This is the law. The details are in the books.
I’m sorry you feel so strongly against it. Please do contact me, I’d still like to talk with you if there are big additional missing details. But I do not think you should be critical of the Censor for this based on what I’ve seen and our laws. I doubt you were treated unfairly.
Regarding your political status: once your senate seat has been lost you can again be a senator if you meet the needed criteria and are reappointed. I double checked this with the praetors. So perhaps you can work towards this goal by running for magisterial office?November 1, 2021 at 5:37 pm #41955
Titus Flavius SeverusDenarii: 𐆖 1,430.25PatriciusSarmatia
I’m too damn lazy to write what I’ll write next, because it’s not pointless for a number of reasons, firstly, Senator Crassus has already explained everything, and secondly, I don’t see any reason at all to spend on the fuss of the project that the Sarmatians left behind. … The Sarmatians have been busy with other things for a long time, so if the procedure had been followed, no one would have even said a word, but, as it turned out, even in such a simple matter, someone made a mistake … but to put it bluntly, this is not the first times when such mistakes are made in relation to the Sarmatians … so I will have to knock on the keys to explain to the magistrates what and how.
1. According to clause III lex curiatorum: On the removal of senators from the senate, it follows that:
III. Any senator at risk of losing their position by the criteria listed in section II must be notified of pending removal 15 days in advance of removal by the Censores.
2. According to subparagraph “C” of paragraph 40 of the Roman Republic Cultural Group bylaws, it follows that
40. Operating Procedures
C. Temporary Operating Procedures (Edict / Senatus Consultum) – These are operating procedures which define temporary activities of officers,
members, and other regular undertakings of the Corporation.
These operating procedures cannot conflict or supersede ratified standing operating procedures (lex) or with the by-laws or the charter of the
Corporation. Both the by-laws/charter and standing operating procedures may govern the influence temporary operating procedures have on the activities of the Corporation.
3. And here is the content of the edict of the Censor Varro:
THE FOLLOWING SENATORES ARE HEREBY REMOVED FROM THE SENATE ON OCT 20:
Marcus Flavius Celsus for failure to maintain optimo iure status
Quintus Vergilius Crassus for having less than 300 denarii after 3 years in the senateThis edict is effective immediately on this day of III Non. Oct. M. Flavio A. Iulio Cos.
An analysis of the above quotes leads to the following conclusions.
1. The decision of the magistrate, in this case the Censor, is formalized in a special organizational and administrative act. According to the by-laws, this act in this case was called an “edictum”.
2. The text of Varro’s edict does not contain any mention of the word “notice” or its derivatives.
3. Varro issued an edict on October 6, so his decision as a magistrate took place on October 6. Thus, a formalized decision (act) was issued on October 06, and this was not preceded by any notification. The notification must precede the decision, however, Varro makes a decision already on October 6, that is, on the day of publication of his official act, and there is no notification before this event.
4. The contained reference to October 20 is not essential, with the same success, it was possible to indicate both October 18 and 27. The fact is that the decision to remove him from the Senate was legally made on October 6. It’s like you go to court on October 06, and on the same day the judge issues an order that you will be declared the loser on October 20.
5. Varro’s edict does not contain an alternative solution, in other words, on October 06, Varro already made a non-controversial and categorical decision to remove Crassus and Celsus. This is also obvious, since there is no legal clause, for example: “this edict does not apply to the specified person who will meet the requirements.” Thus, even if Crassus and Celsus complied with the requirements, they would have to wait for Varro to issue a new edict to amend this edict. This suggests that Varro did not expect that someone would read his edict, because everyone knows that after the failure from the College of Pontiffs (where Varro is a member), the Sarmatians left the forum altogether, therefore, apparently, the notifications are normal and did not go.
6. The duty of a citizen to visit this forum is not fixed anywhere, so no one has the duty to study and read the content posted and posted on the forum. It directly follows from this that posting on this forum a topic with an impersonal name (not containing the names of Crassus or Celsus) is not a form of proper notification, since it does not provide reliable reporting of the necessary information to the addressee. In other words, if a citizen has no obligation to familiarize himself with the forum, then no one has the right to believe that posting information on this forum will essentially be a notification to someone about something.
7. And finally, in principle, why this situation touched exactly Sarmatians (answer: because of the practice of double standards and prejudice, especially in relation to Crassus, who has already suffered twice because of this attitude). This is by the way for information, Bestia, who spoke about the form of notification, and Hemina, who argued that everything is according to the law (although she is a Tribune):
And so, this is how the procedure for removing Senators was carried out last year:
Everything was done according to the law, you can observe how the same Varro first creates a topic for information – not an edict, but a separate topic, which has the essence of a notification. And only then an edict is issued to remove the Senators.
From this it follows that Varro not only knew, he also performed part of this procedure, in particular notification, in practice. Don’t you think this is strange? The most interesting thing is that he normally notified everyone and did not immediately make a decision (issued an edict) when there were non-Sarmatians on the list of those to be deleted. But this year, only Sarmatians were on the list for removal, so Varro, apparently, decided not to bother, violated the procedure he knew and executed before, and secretly removed Sarmatians from the Senate. From our side, from the side of Sarmatians, it looks exactly like this, and this is another nail in the coffin of relations between Sarmatia and RR.
And now a couple more claims that are real and indicate a violation of the procedure, however, are petty, although I just wanted such remarkable people as our tribune or quaestor, the next time, before they say that the law is not violated, learn first disassemble the material and delve into the essence of the problem. So:
1. The date of publication of the act in our part of the world is October 06. The removal was supposed to occur at the time of the onset of October 20, that is, 00:01 October 20. The problem is that there are only 14 days between these two points in time, so the 15 day time limit is violated.
2. The law clearly states that “Any senator at risk of losing their position … must be notified
… by the Censores.” Thus, both Censors must implement the notification, but as we can see, in our case only one Censor is in effect, which even did not produce the notification.
To sum up: the law was violated because the procedure was not followed. The rights and legitimate interests of the Sarmats were violated, Celsus and Crassus were illegally deprived of their Senatorial status.
P.S. A small digression from the topic:
I double checked this with the praetors.
It sounds pretty damn strange, because we only have two praetors, and I am one of them … and you probably have not contacted me … do we have deceitful praetors who are misleading you with their advice?
By the way, the funny thing is that the other praetor with whom you consulted is the same praetor who, in violation of the law, came up with some non-existent qualification rules for candidates for pontiffs, because of which Crassus did not receive a pontificate, and the Republic did not receive the only one in the world of the correct object of Sacra Public. That is, this same praetor who violated the rights and legitimate interests of Crassus, and then did not even bear any responsibility for this. It’s so nice when the person who violated his rights and legitimate interests within six months advises you about the violation of Crassus’s rights and legitimate interests. By the way, it was this person who, by his mistake, launched a chain of events, which led to the fact that the Sarmatians were simply scored on RR.November 1, 2021 at 6:34 pm #41956
Let’s not muddle the waters due to fishing for loopholes, our Republic deserves better. The lex is very explicit. If the required criteria are not met by September 1st than the senators are to be removed. The fact that I even issued the edict with an advanced notice was generous. I also waited even beyond the 20th to apply it. To be even more lenient would require me to be in direct contempt to the law. I’m already skirting this line as is by waiting until October to issue the warning. Ignoring the September 1st requirement to pay tax and acquire the needed denarii. Then to wait even beyond the additional deadline to apply the ramifications of not being compliant.
(See attached document quoting lex)
Then after all of this, these former senatores still remain non compliant with the requirements to sit in the senate as of today.
There is no argument here. There is certainly no prejudice either… To assume so is disingenuous.
Both these former senators are returned to the rank list and eligible to sit in the senate if they regain their qualifications (pay tax / obtained needed denarii) and are next to be appointed and selected by a censor.
Attachments:November 1, 2021 at 8:04 pm #41958
Titus Flavius SeverusDenarii: 𐆖 1,430.25PatriciusSarmatia
It makes no sense to hide behind the interests of the Republic when the rights and interests of specific people are affected.
I think that if you asked politely, at least one of the two senators would leave his post altogether.
I read your post, however, I do not see that you reflect all my arguments, because if at least one of them is correct, it turns out that the procedure is violated, that is, you are wrong.
There is no need to talk about generosity and disregard for the law under a plausible pretext. You disregarded the law when you did not publish a notice of possible exclusion from the Senate of Celsus and Crassus on August 15, 2021. You yourself made a mistake in the performance of your duties. This is the first of a series of violations that led us to this situation.
Last year, you posted a notification on August 7th. Thus, it is obvious that now you are the one who missed the notification deadline, although this was not observed last year.
The funny thing is that the first paragraph says:
I. Senators are to be immediately removed by the censores if:
but the second point reads as follows:
II. Senators are to be removed by the censores on September 1st if:
It follows from this that in both points, senators are removed by both Censors, and secondly, by the Censors themselves, that is, by their decision. That is, it does not happen by itself, for the implementation of the norm, a timely decision of the censors is necessary, which is formalized by an edict. But there was no such timely decision, the terms were violated (missed) directly by you. The problem with this situation is that taking into account the need for 15 days notice, it turns out that if you did not notify the senator on August 15, then in any case you cannot remove the senator from the Senate, since in all cases you are breaking the law. Thus, if you the Censor did not notify Celsus and Brutus before August 15, you in any case cannot remove them without breaking the procedure. But here the point is that it is you who must comply with the procedure and the deadline, no one else. That is, you yourself broke the law by not removing the people of their Senate on September 01. And if you did not do it on September 1, then later you could no longer do it legally, in principle, you would always break the law, over and over again. But you did not accept, and you covered up your violation of the law with a violation of the law in relation to two Sarmatians. I’m not even talking about the fact that in violation of the provisions of the law, you made this decision without a colleague, that is, again formally violated the provisions of the law.
Varro, you made a mistake. Procedure violated. Violation of the procedure entails the inconsistency (invalidity) of the result. I do not appreciate your motives. I am stating a fact. I am not unfounded, I have given you enough reasons. In your last post, you do not consider my arguments, you argue your point of view with your motives, but this does not justify the fact that the law is violated. Worst of all, the magistrates twice violated the law against Crassus.
What you are writing now, I have already met in Nova Roma, when they tried to answer me, to my claims regarding their violation of their own law. And here I cannot but agree, the Republic is becoming like Nova Roma in this sense. Problems are pointed out to you, you try not to notice it. People come who take some kind of magistracy, and write that everything is according to the law, without even understanding the essence of the issue, and when you point them out to problems, they try not to notice anything or to transfer everything to another channel.
We could possibly still understand what is happening, but the very fact that you have already carried out such a procedure, and now violated it, simply causes bewilderment. You yourself give ground to talk about bias. Naturally, questions will arise, why did you change the procedure yourself, did not do everything like last year? Why did this happen exactly this year, when there were only Sarmatians, and not in the past, when there was someone else? Either you did it with malicious intent, or just tried to “cover up” your mistake, you missed the deadline?
Regarding your reasons why these two did not correct their status … firstly, I think it is worth asking them themselves, and not me, and secondly, why should they do this now? It is your actions, as a magistrate, that violated their rights and legitimate interests, and not vice versa, therefore, it is you who must correct the situation, not they. Thirdly, we all remember the situation with Crassus’s pontificate, when he was not allowed before the elections under a far-fetched pretext, he even fulfilled an illegal demand, and what was the point? No, everything went down the drain.
The fact that you made a mistake that entails a violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens is obvious. You made a mistake, and you should correct it.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.