EDICTUM CENSORUM: Censorial Nota against Consul Lucius Curtius Philo

The social and political heart of the respublica community

Moderators: Publius Iunius Brutus, Caeso Cispius Laevus, Titus Flavius Severus, Marcus Flavius Celsus, Lucius Aurelius Curio, Lucius Curtius Philo

EDICTUM CENSORUM: Censorial Nota against Consul Lucius Curtius Philo

Postby Publius Iunius Brutus » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:51 am

Image

EDICTUM CENSORUM: Censorial Nota against Consul Lucius Curtius Philo

I. According to LEX CURIATORUM: On the Censores, the following is issued against Consul L. Curtius Philo
a. A Nota Censorum is issued for breach of the Mos Maiorum. This breach is the following: Consul L. Curtius Philo has acted unprofessionaly by openly and blatantly insulting the members of another non-profit organization. This occurred while he was representing the Roman Republic in an official capacity. This act demonstrates a lack of temperance and tanishes the honor of the consular office.

b. The penalty for this breach is:
i. Public condemnation of the actions stated in I-a of this edict
ii. A fine of 80 denarii to be paid to the Senate.
iii. Loss of optimo iure status until this fined is paid.
iv. A link to this Nota is to be displayed on the public citizenship profile of L. Curtius Philo until the fine is paid.

II. This edict is effective immediately. It is only to be revoked once the denarii fine stated in section I-b-ii is paid in full. Alternatively, another Censor may revoke this Nota Censorum at their independent discretion.

Issued by Censor, P. Iunius Brutus
III Kal. Mart. L. Curtio L. Aurelio cos. MMDCCLXX a.u.c.
User avatar
Publius Iunius Brutus
Censor
Censor
Senator
Senator
Martis et Minervae Sacerdos
Martis et Minervae Sacerdos
Lictor Curiatus Magister
Lictor Curiatus Magister
Augur
Augur
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 5:54 am
Location: Nova Gallia

Re: EDICTUM CENSORUM: Censorial Nota against Consul Lucius Curtius Philo

Postby Lucius Curtius Philo » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:29 pm

Salvete!

I won't hide how I feel about this.

This edict is a mistake. We must speak plainly and bluntly with Nova Roma. They are not a normal Roman Organization. You must understand that Nova Roma is almost anti-CDR in their actions. The strength of the Republic is that many here do not know the crimes of Nova Roma. This is a good thing. It allows a healthy generation free of such hardship to build a new future. But a consequence of this is also ignorance on the past.

It is right and well to say all Roman organizations should work together. Of course they should. I love this idea and would lay my own well being aside to achieve such things. But Nova Roma has treated the Gods with blatant disrespect and hurt, shamed and hamilluated good just people for over ten years. So many good people are gone, never to return to living Romanitas because of this group. To not view Nova Roma as exceptional is an error. A large error.

Censor Brutus. You are my friend and commrade. I respect you. You were key in allowing the Republic to rise. You countered Nova Roma with the virtues and would not submit to tyrany and abuse of the CDR. Your past actions make it easy for me to look past this error. Together with the respect I have for the dignity of your elected position, the Censoria, I acknowledge the nota and will proceed as suggested.

I hope other people don't let this nota discourage them. Keep fighting, keep showing the truth to Nova Roma. Do not let Robert Woolwine or his supports get away with a single comment that distorts the truth. If I cannot stand up for those wronged, than the job falls to you, my fellow citizens. When elections come in a few months we will have a chance to debate our approach to this matter. I look forward to that day.

valete.
L. CURTIUS PHILO COS. SEN.
User avatar
Lucius Curtius Philo
Consul
Consul
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:52 am
Location: New York

Re: EDICTUM CENSORUM: Censorial Nota against Consul Lucius Curtius Philo

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:03 pm

Salvete honorabiles magistrati!

According to the Mos Maiorum - the real one of the ancient Roman Republic - an elected magistrate had immunity for the time he held an office. There is no precedent for a Consul being sanctioned by another magistrate. A Consul is supposed to be the highest magistrate to begin with.
It is within the potestas of a Consul to represent the Republic towards other organization and to choose the words he deems appropriate. He cannot be sanctioned for it.

I do not know the details of the incident and I am a big supporter of joining all Roman-themed organizations together. Therefore I have to admit that offending NR is certainly not helpful in this regard. But my personal opinion is irrelevant here.
It is simply against Roman traditions to subject a Consul to such a humiliating treatment by a Censor. I doubt that such a procedure is legal, especially without a trial, and if it is, then we have to check our leges, because then they are out of touch with Roman traditions and customs and have developed into something else.

Valete!
C. Florius Lupus
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Kenya

Re: EDICTUM CENSORUM: Censorial Nota against Consul Lucius Curtius Philo

Postby Lucius Curtius Philo » Tue Feb 28, 2017 1:38 pm

Gaius Florius Lupus wrote:Salvete honorabiles magistrati!

According to the Mos Maiorum - the real one of the ancient Roman Republic - an elected magistrate had immunity for the time he held an office. There is no precedent for a Consul being sanctioned by another magistrate. A Consul is supposed to be the highest magistrate to begin with.
It is within the potestas of a Consul to represent the Republic towards other organization and to choose the words he deems appropriate. He cannot be sanctioned for it.

I do not know the details of the incident and I am a big supporter of joining all Roman-themed organizations together. Therefore I have to admit that offending NR is certainly not helpful in this regard. But my personal opinion is irrelevant here.
It is simply against Roman traditions to subject a Consul to such a humiliating treatment by a Censor. I doubt that such a procedure is legal, especially without a trial, and if it is, then we have to check our leges, because then they are out of touch with Roman traditions and customs and have developed into something else.

Valete!
C. Florius Lupus



Salve,

Thanks for the support. I will assume you are giving me soft support.

The Nota is valid. Even in antiquity the authority of the Censores was limited but separate from other magistrates. The Consules were immune from the courts. But not Nota from Censores. I'm happy to report I am not the first consul who pissed off a Censor.

The catch is that Nota are not all powerful. They were things like fines and public finger waving for the most part. I'm okay with it. I will take it on the chin.

vale.
L. CURTIUS PHILO COS. SEN.
User avatar
Lucius Curtius Philo
Consul
Consul
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:52 am
Location: New York

Re: EDICTUM CENSORUM: Censorial Nota against Consul Lucius Curtius Philo

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:34 am

Salve Consul!

I stand corrected.
Apparently today I have learned something new about Roman legal procedures.
Indeed a nota censoria can be issued against sitting magistrates, since it is not a res iudicata (sentence after a trial). Censor Brutus acted within his potestas.
Still such a nota censoria requires the confirmation of our second Censor Severus in order to be valid. Until then it cannot take effect.

Valete!
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Kenya

Re: EDICTUM CENSORUM: Censorial Nota against Consul Lucius Curtius Philo

Postby Lucius Curtius Philo » Wed Mar 01, 2017 5:17 am

Salve,

Each Censor can act independently. They share the same powers. Nothing in our laws or the ancient tradition disallows our Censor from issuing this nota. Of course, if Censor Severus wants to cancel the nota nothing is stopping him. Such an annulment of the nota is well within his powers as Censor.

As I said earlier, I am ambivalent to the whole nota from a personal standpoint.

vale.
L. CURTIUS PHILO COS. SEN.
User avatar
Lucius Curtius Philo
Consul
Consul
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:52 am
Location: New York

Re: EDICTUM CENSORUM: Censorial Nota against Consul Lucius Curtius Philo

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:42 am

Well, this is not correct. Notae censoriae required both Censores to issue them together, especially in the case of a magistrate. I will try to find the Latin source
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Kenya

Re: EDICTUM CENSORUM: Censorial Nota against Consul Lucius Curtius Philo

Postby Lucius Curtius Philo » Wed Mar 01, 2017 1:40 pm

Salve,

A very good read is The Constitution of the Roman Republic (A. Lintott, 1999).

I know this book was used when devising the political framework of our modern Republic.

Lucky me I'm not downgraded. ;)

vale.

Image
L. CURTIUS PHILO COS. SEN.
User avatar
Lucius Curtius Philo
Consul
Consul
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:52 am
Location: New York

Re: EDICTUM CENSORUM: Censorial Nota against Consul Lucius Curtius Philo

Postby Gaius Florius Lupus » Wed Mar 01, 2017 2:11 pm

Gratias tibi, Consul.
So far I have not found a Latin source to prove the requirement of two Censores issuing a nota censuria conjointly. My assessment of the situation was based on the Wikipedia article, which states that all notae censoriae needed both Censors to agree. But Wikipedia is no evidence of course and I found no explicit statement by Livy (Ab Urbe Condita XXIV 18) regarding it, which was quoted by the article.

Why is this so important anyway?

Although I strongly support efforts to bring together NR and our Republic and therefore side with our Censor Brutus on this issue, it is not my personal opinion about this particular incident, which is relevant, neither is the incident itself.
The real issue at stake is the question: Who has supreme authority in our Republic, the corporation or the institutions of the Res Publica?
While the Consul is an elected magistrate of the Res Publica, a Censor is essentially an office of the corporation. He was elected by the Board of Directors (Comitia Curiata), not the citizens.
The primacy of the corporation over the republic was what brougjt the downfall of Nova Roma. This is why we have to be extremely cautious here. As it it may be known, I totally oppose the entire idea of a corporation and I have done so from the beginning. This corporation concept is a blueprint how to repeat the fate of Nova Roma.

This is what this issue is about, not Brutus vs. Philo, not about the incident in question. The issue is, whether we can allow a corporation officer (Censor) to reprimand our highest magistrate (Consul) who was elected by the citizens of the Republic or not.
For me the Res Publica must always have the last word, not the corporation. The immunity of the Consuls must be sacred and beyond the reach of the corporation.
Today it is only about a censorial edict, but already this must be made as difficult as possible for the corporation. The influence of the CC must be kept to an absolute minimum. Otherwise we will one day have a real big issue and then we might see the CC taking over the Republic after having eroded the Roman traditions with corporative by-laws. This is exactly what happened in NR, which is now ruled by the CFO and the Board of Directors.
If next year our Censors might be elected by the Comitia Centuriata instead of the Comitia Curiata, which is nothing but the BoD of the corporation, then a similar situation would be far less alarming than it is at the moment.

These are the issues to be considered here, which I wanted to highlight with this post.
Valete Quirites!
User avatar
Gaius Florius Lupus
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:33 am
Location: Kenya

Re: EDICTUM CENSORUM: Censorial Nota against Consul Lucius Curtius Philo

Postby Gaius Curtius Philo » Wed Mar 01, 2017 3:10 pm

Gaius Florius Lupus wrote:Gratias tibi, Consul.
So far I have not found a Latin source to prove the requirement of two Censores issuing a nota censuria conjointly. My assessment of the situation was based on the Wikipedia article, which states that all notae censoriae needed both Censors to agree. But Wikipedia is no evidence of course and I found no explicit statement by Livy (Ab Urbe Condita XXIV 18) regarding it, which was quoted by the article.

Why is this so important anyway?

Although I strongly support efforts to bring together NR and our Republic and therefore side with our Censor Brutus on this issue, it is not my personal opinion about this particular incident, which is relevant, neither is the incident itself.
The real issue at stake is the question: Who has supreme authority in our Republic, the corporation or the institutions of the Res Publica?
While the Consul is an elected magistrate of the Res Publica, a Censor is essentially an office of the corporation. He was elected by the Board of Directors (Comitia Curiata), not the citizens.
The primacy of the corporation over the republic was what brougjt the downfall of Nova Roma. This is why we have to be extremely cautious here. As it it may be known, I totally oppose the entire idea of a corporation and I have done so from the beginning. This corporation concept is a blueprint how to repeat the fate of Nova Roma.

This is what this issue is about, not Brutus vs. Philo, not about the incident in question. The issue is, whether we can allow a corporation officer (Censor) to reprimand our highest magistrate (Consul) who was elected by the citizens of the Republic or not.
For me the Res Publica must always have the last word, not the corporation. The immunity of the Consuls must be sacred and beyond the reach of the corporation.
Today it is only about a censorial edict, but already this must be made as difficult as possible for the corporation. The influence of the CC must be kept to an absolute minimum. Otherwise we will one day have a real big issue and then we might see the CC taking over the Republic after having eroded the Roman traditions with corporative by-laws. This is exactly what happened in NR, which is now ruled by the CFO and the Board of Directors.
If next year our Censors might be elected by the Comitia Centuriata instead of the Comitia Curiata, which is nothing but the BoD of the corporation, then a similar situation would be far less alarming than it is at the moment.

These are the issues to be considered here, which I wanted to highlight with this post.
Valete Quirites!


The Censores were actually voted by the People in open elections. The most open we ever had actually, because Denarii were not counted at the time. The post was at first jointed as Consul-Censor for the first year, because of its exceptionality, but it was never the less voted on fairly by the People. So this is something of a mute point and a non issue you are speaking of my friend lol
"Ignis aurum probat" - Seneca
C. Curtius L. f. Vot. Philo Aurelianus
User avatar
Gaius Curtius Philo
Propraetor
Propraetor
Senator
Senator
Feroniae Sacerdos
Feroniae Sacerdos
Lictor Curiatus Magister
Lictor Curiatus Magister
 
Posts: 1398
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 3:56 pm
Location: Praia Grande, São Paulo, Brazil

Next

Return to Main Forum