Senatus consultum ultimum on the policy for Competing Organizations and Nova Roman citizens

From NovaRoma
Jump to: navigation, search

SENATUS CONSULTUM ULTIMUM ON THE POLICY FOR COMPETING ORGANIZATIONS AND NOVA ROMAN CITIZENS


I. This Senatus consultum ultimum is issued by the Senate under the authority granted to it under section V.E of the Constitution of Nova Roma and under the constitutional authority of the Senate as the supreme policy-making authority for Nova Roma.

II. It is issued to address the need for a process to evaluate the degree of risk, if any, posed to Nova Roma by citizens who hold either office or membership in, or who have espoused support for, an organization that has been deemed to be a Competing Organization by the Senate. For an organization to be deemed as competing, the Senate usually has to be satisfied that among other prevailing circumstances, the principal actors in it are either openly hostile or ill disposed to Nova Roma and/or its Senate, and/or have a contentious and troubled history with Nova Roma as former citizens. The organization may, or may not, reflect this in its foundation or other documents, or alternatively evidence for such a conclusion can be ascertained from postings by those principal actors, or other officials, or members/supporters of the organization.

III. An organization may also be deemed competing on the grounds that while it may not be essentially hostile in nature to Nova Roma and/or its Senate, it maybe in direct competition as Nova Roma for the same demographic of actual or potential members. Clearly there is a potential risk to Nova Roma's internal stability and its governance, its electoral process and electoral results, and its financial and real assets, from citizens who may be in a state of conflict of interest between Nova Roma and the competing organization. This risk is especially great in respect of the Nova Roman Senate (Board of Directors), where there is a clear expectation that Senators are able to execute their fiduciary duties owed to Nova Roma, even though their service is voluntary, without the contamination of such a conflict of interest. As a general principle corporations do not, and cannot, tolerate such conflicts of interest.

IV. The purpose of this Senatus consultum ultimum is to establish a process for the evaluation of risk posed by citizens of Nova Roma who are, or who maybe, officials, or members/supporters of a Competing Organization, to provide a process for risk evaluation, verification, communication with the citizen, action priority and action selection recommendations, evaluation by the Senate, appeals process, and future remedies.. The process will provide Nova Roma with a method to minimize or remove risk, while at the same time affording citizens an opportunity to challenge the veracity of any evidence, mount appeals, and provide future remedies that can remove actions taken. This process does not, and will not, address the issue of whether an organization itself deserves in the view of the citizen, or others, to be deemed a Competing Organization. Determination of that is a separate and distinct process which already has occurred as a result of considered deliberation by the Senate, and been so ascertained.


V. PROCESS STAGES:

A. Information gathering / provision B. Information validation / rating C. Priority rating / Action recommendation D. Senate referral / action E. Appeal / remedies


VI. INFORMATION GATHERING / PROVISION

A. Information may come to the notice of a Nova Roman official(s) that a citizen is an official, or member/supporter of a Competing Organization. That information generally may be drawn from:

1. Posts made by that citizen in a public forum/social media, Nova Roman or otherwise 2. Information provided directly by the citizen to Nova Roma / Nova Roman official 3. Information provided to a Nova Roman official(s) by another citizen or by a third party (individual or corporate) 4. Anonymously provided

B. Once that information is in the possession of that Nova Roman official(s) he shall forward it to the consuls (if in office) and the Princeps senatus. That information will then be assigned by either the consuls or the Princeps senatus to the chair of the Senate Policy Committee (SPC) for investigation.


VII. INFORMATION VALIDATION / RATING

A. The chair of the SPC will then assign the investigation as he/she sees fit to either the whole SPC, or to a working group of Senators within it. The chair will also ensure that the citizen is informed of the investigation, using the citizen's most recent email address on record. The citizen will be informed that information has been obtained that they are an official, or member, or supporter of a Competing Organization and asked to confirm or deny that assertion, and also asked if he/she wishes to comment, or provide further information. The inquiry will not be delayed waiting for a response from the citizen. The Senators who are assigned to the matter shall take all necessary and practicable steps to validate the sources of the information. If possible in cases of doubt as to authenticity they should directly communicate with the source to validate. As a general rule hearsay evidence is not evidence, unless the source is determined to be reliable and is prepared to go on record and participate in any future proceedings that may be taken against the citizen. Documentary evidence from a reliable source is required. Anonymously provided information must be verifiable and validated by other means before it can be accepted. This will be assessed on a case by case basis. A person offering to provide information may wish his/her identity kept confidential before they transmit the information, and if the Senators assigned ascertain from the person that they can verify the information from a documentary source, public or otherwise, or from another person who does not request confidentiality, that request will be honored. This will be assessed on a case by case basis.

B. After the validation process has been completed, Senators assigned will rate the information as:

1. Certainly true 2. Likely true 3. Possibly true 4. Unlikely to be true 5. Untrue

C. Certainly true rating guideline

Senators assigned will rate information as this if it comes from a verifiable public source. They will also rate it as such when they believe from the information to hand, that it is beyond all reasonable doubt certain to be true.

D. Likely true rating guideline

Senators assigned will rate information as this if there is no degree of certainty, but there is reasonable, or probable, cause, that it maybe true. Senators will take into account the reliability of the source.

E. Possibly true rating guideline

Senators assigned will rate information as this if it is not likely true, but there remains the possibility that it is true, as it is conceivable that it could be from the information to hand and the circumstances, and actions/posts of the citizen. Senators will take into account the reliability of the source.

F. Unlikely to be true rating guideline

Senators assigned will rate information as this if on the basis of the information available it is not possibly true, but there remains some degree of uncertainty or doubt that does not allow them to rate it as false. Senators will take into account the reliability of the source.

G. Untrue rating guideline

Senators assigned will rate information as this if it is self-evidently false, or where their investigations have led them to conclude it is so. Senators will take into account the reliability, or unreliability, of the source. Information maybe provided/obtained in good faith under the initial belief the information is true, but where upon subsequent investigation it is found to be factually untrue. Senators will also consider whether such information was deliberately provided knowing it was false, and if they believe so they shall refer the matter to the praetors for their consideration of an investigation into possible Code of Conduct violations by the source under the Lex Cornelia poenalis.


VIII. PRIORITY RATING / ACTION RECOMMENDATION

A. Senators assigned will then determine the priority response rating as either:

1. Immediate 2. Regular 3. Deferred 4. Nil

B. Immediate priority response rating guidelines

Senators assigned will apply this rating when a citizen is posting, or otherwise circulating, within Nova Roma, material/posts that are deemed to cause an "imminent and clear danger" to Nova Roma and/or the Senate, or when the continued very presence of the citizen within Nova Roma, with or without any posting, itself represents an "imminent and clear danger" to Nova Roma and/or the Senate given the citizen's position in the Competing organization and/or Nova Roma and past behavior and likely future behavior based on the evidence available. Aggravating factors will include, but not be limited to, attempts to suborn members away from Nova Roma, posting factually incorrect propaganda on behalf of the Competing Organization, engaging in defamation towards Nova Roma and/or its officials. Often such a citizen maybe a principal actor within a Competing Organization, or a high official or otherwise influential person with it. Persistent support of a Competing Organization may also qualify as deserving this response. Generally this would be a high risk to Nova Roma.

C. Regular priority response rating guidelines

Senators assigned will apply this rating when there is no immediate risk to Nova Roma but the citizen has continuously indicated his support for a Competing Organization and/or is an official/member of that organization. Generally this would be a medium risk to Nova Roma.

D. Deferred priority response rating guidelines

Senators assigned will apply this rating when there is no immediate risk to Nova Roma and:

1. They consider a more detailed investigation is required by the SPC 2. They consider that the matter should be referred to the praetors to investigate possible Code of Conduct violations by the citizen under the Lex Cornelia poenalis

Generally this will be a medium to low risk to Nova Roma, but it has potential to be higher or lower on the scale of risk, depending on the results of any investigation.

E. Nil priority response rating guidelines

Senators assigned will apply this rating when there is no likelihood of risk to Nova Roma.

F. Action recomendation

1. In order to ensure consistency of actions recommended and that subsequently may be applied, Senators assigned will use the grid below to determine the course of action to be recommended based on the combination of the information rating and the priority rating. Cross-referencing the deduced information rating and risk will, at the intersection of the two, produce a number that represents a recommended action. This recommended action grid is a guide for the Senate but the Senate may add, or remove, suggested courses of action from any final determination of sanctions to imposed on a citizen under a SCU, in order that specific circumstances pertaining to the citizen are adequately addressed.

SCU COCITGrid.png

1 = Immediate Senate action
2 = Censorial action
3 = Regular Senate action
4 = Praetorial investigation
5 = SPC further inquiries
6 = SPC monitor
7 = No further action

2. Immediate Senate action (1)

As per the authority below requires immediate action, or as soon as possible, to allow the Senate to discuss possible sanctions in order to protect Nova Roma, including moderation of posts on official Nova Roman forums to prevent an "imminent and clear danger" to Nova Roma, up to and including banishment. In cases of banishment the Senate will use the Lex Cornelia poenalis to determine the appropriate length of banishment, based on the specific type of conduct of the citizen, or to determine lesser sanctions if the Senate deems appropriate. This level of action recommendation can also include Censorial action (2) and/or Regular Senate action (3) level actions.

3. Censorial action (2)

As per the authority below the implementation of a nota against the citizen, as well as Regular Senate action (3).

4. Regular Senate action (3)

As per the authority below this will comprise the removal of the citizen from all offices, whether elected or appointed, within all Nova Roman official bodies / institutions and the removal of all honorary titles. The CFO will refund any tax paid in the tax year that the action is taken against the citizen, less any arrears that maybe owing. The citizen's Census Points are reduced to zero and the citizen shall be moved to the capite censi and the urban tribes. A citizen may not candidate for elected office/position and/or be appointed to any office/position in any Nova Roman institution/body/group.

5. Praetorial investigation (4)

The chair of the SPC will refer the matter to the praetors for further investigation and possible praetorial action for any Code of Conduct violation disclosed, as per the Lex Cornelia poenalis.

6. SPC further inquiries (5)

The matter will be retained by the SPC for further inquiries. The citizen maybe contacted in the course of those inquiries. In the case of untrue but deferred, Senators may pursue further inquiries if they consider that while the specific information provided is untrue, there are circumstances that warrant further investigation. This maybe downgraded to either SPC monitor (6) or No Further Action (7), or upgraded to any level above appropriate, based on the inquiry result.

7. SPC monitor (6)

The matter will be retained by the SPC for a period of three months, to be re-assessed if new information becomes available, and if no such information becomes available after three months it shall be treated as No Further Action and closed.

8. No Further Action (7)

The matter is closed with no sanctions and no further action to be taken.


IX. SENATE REFERRAL / ACTION

A.

1. Where a matter has been determined to be requiring Immediate Senate action (1), Censorial action (2) or Regular Senate action (3), the chair of the SPC will first ensure that the citizen is informed by email of the results of the investigation, together with the recommended action. The chair of the SPC may inform the consuls and censors that an investigation against the citizen has commenced. While the matter is subject to such an investigation (action recommendation 1 - 6 inclusive) or Senate deliberations of the matter, the citizen is not eligible to be accepted as a candidate for any elected office/position, and the censors and/or consuls shall not accept any such candidature from the citizen during the period of retention by the SPC or during any Praetorial investigation or any Senate deliberation of the investigation results. A citizen shall not be appointed to any Nova Roman office/position during the period of retention by the SPC or during any Praetorial investigation or any Senate deliberation of the investigation results. Any such candidature/election/appointment is automatically void. Magistrates and officials of Nova Roma who have been duly empowered to appoint persons to positions must, before making such appointments, contact the chair of the SPC to ensure there is no investigation/Senate deliberation being conducted in respect of a citizen they propose to appoint. If the chair of the SPC informs them that there is an investigation/Senate deliberation the appointment must not be made and any offers to so appoint made to the citizen shall be cancelled. If the chair of the SPC informs them that there is no investigation/Senate deliberation the appointment may proceed. The determination of whether any Praetorial investigation is in progress should be made by contacting the praetors. Any factual error in communicating whether an investigation by way of either SPC, Praetorial or Senate deliberation, shall not validate such a candidature/election/appointme nt. When a matter is referred for Praetorial investigation, the period between transfer from the SPC until acceptance by the Praetor(s), as per section VI.c.i of the Lex Cornelia poenalis, shall still be classified as an SPC investigation. Any factual error made in communicating whether an investigation, by way of either SPC/Praetorial investigation or Senate deliberation, is in progress shall not validate such a candidature/election/appointme nt.

2. The chair of the SPC will invite the citizen to prepare a written submission for the attention of the Senate either confirming or denying the information, or disputing the recommendations. The citizen may cite mitigating circumstances or any other commentary he/she wishes to make on the matter. The citizen is not under any obligation or compulsion to comment if he/she chooses not to do so but in the absence of any submission/comment by the citizen, the Senate may attach extra weight to the inference that the citizen is an official or member or supporter of the Competing Organization. The citizen may consider, if he/she confirms the information, communicating his/her intention to resolve the conflict of interest by resigning from either the Competing Organization or from Nova Roma. If the citizens states his intention to resign from the Competing Organization then those parts of section X.B which are pertinent to this stage of the process must be followed.. In the event that he/she resigns from Nova Roma or renounces his/her citizenship, the proceedings may still continue regardless.

3. The citizen should be invited to send such a reply, if he/she wishes to do so, to the Princeps senatus, or he/she may provide such a reply to a Senator of Nova Roma.

4. The chair of the SPC will review the investigation, may return it to the assigned Senators for clarification or further investigation, and generally act as the manager and supervisor of the application of the investigation process. Upon the chair being satisfied with the submitted investigation he/she will then prepare a report on the results of the inquiry and post it to the Senate list. If there is more than one inquiry being conducted by the SPC then chair may elect to group more than one inquiry together to save Senate time, dependent on when those inquiries will be brought to a conclusion. Such a decision is at the discretion of the chair of the SPC.

B. Upon receipt of that post the Princeps senatus shall wait fourteen days to allow the citizen to be afforded the opportunity to reply if he/she wishes to do so. Any Senator who receives such a reply directly from the citizen, shall forthwith and with no delay post it to the Senate list. If the citizen replies in less than fourteen days, or in the case of no reply after the fourteen days have elapsed, the Princeps senatus shall summon the Senate into Formal Session, which shall be a closed session for any item referred under this Senatus consultum ultimum, as per the conditions for closed session as set out in the SENATUS CONSULTUM DE RATIONE SENATUS MMDCCLXV.

C.

1. The Senate shall be able to question the chair of the SPC, or the Senators who conducted the inquiry. The recommended course of action can be altered during the debate period based upon the expressed views of Senators. The presiding magistrate shall put the matter to a vote, which to be enacted shall require a simple majority.

2. The chair of the SPC will prepare a draft Senatus consultum ultimum (SCU) to be voted upon and it shall include the actions to be taken against the citizen. In cases where Censorial action (2) is recommended the required action shall be included in the SCU to be voted upon and shall contain an instruction to the censors to place a nota against the citizen. If there is an apparent majority of Senators during the debate period in favor of referral back to the SPC for further inquiries to be made in respect of the citizen, the Princeps senatus may elect to direct the chair of the SPC to either add an alternative motion to the Senatus consultum ultimum reflecting that option, or he may withdraw the item prior to the voting period and direct the chair of the SPC to re-assign it for further inquiries. The Senatus consultum ultimum may contain a date before which the remedy process cannot be requested by the citizen but on or after the date may so request. If the citizen resigns/renounces his/her citizenship prior to that date, then the Senate on any subsequent approval that citizen's re-application for citizenship shall determine, if it so wishes, a new date before which the remedy process cannot be requested in respect of any actions that were in force at the time of the resignation/renunciation .

3. If the citizen submits an email in reply, which contains new information that clearly make the proceedings unnecessary, the chair of the SPC shall withdraw such item from consideration by the Senate. Any actions taken shall remain valid and in force until such time as the citizen, either through the processes of Appeal or Remedy, satisfies the Senate that those actions should be removed.

4. Any changes in the official Nova Roman name of the citizen, or issuance of a new citizen number, shall not affect any actions in force against the citizen under his/her old official name and/or citizen number if applicable and shall be applied to the citizen under his/her new name and/or citizen number.

5. Any citizen that attempts to evade actions placed against him/her by a successful fraudulent re-application for citizenship, shall upon discovery, have his/her new citizenship identity dealt with immediately under the terms of the Senatus Consultum on the Process of Dealing with Misinformation/Falsehoods in Citizenship Applications, and then under his/her original and true identity be subject to banishment from Nova Roma for a term of 99 years. Such banishment will be ratified by the Senate in Formal Session presided over by the Princeps senatus, and shall be enacted in a Senatus consultum ultimum.

6. The only lawful method of subsequently superseding, amending or repealing the Senatus consultum ultimum issued in respect of a citizen(s) must be by way of a Senatus consultum ultimum, that must achieve an extraordinary majority before it can be enacted. Any other method or attempt shall be illegal and forbidden. The Princeps senatus may at his/her discretion replace the requirement above for an extraordinary majority with a requirement for a special majority, or a simple majority.

D. If action is required against a citizen who is also a Senator under the terms of the Senatus consultum on conflicts of interest, that may take priority over the process herein, or it may be taken during or after this process, if appropriate and applicable. If it does take priority, once concluded this process may be proceeded with against that citizen.


X. APPEAL / REMEDIES / RECANTING

A. Appeal

1. If the Senate enacts sanctions against the citizen, the citizen may still appeal the decision if he/she has not previously contacted the Senate up to seven days after the enactment of the sanctions.

2. The appeal process will only be allowed to proceed if the citizen presents compelling new evidence that was previously unavailable which would support his/her contention he/she was not a member and/or supporter of a Competing Organization. The appeal process will be conducted by the Princeps senatus. The process will consist of a review of such new evidence, and if the Princeps senatus considers that the evidence or information is, to him/her, so compelling and that it is Certainly True (using the guidelines above) he/she shall summon the Senate into Formal Session at the first available opportunity.

3. Following from the summoning of the Senate at section X.A.2, the Princeps senatus shall place such new information before the Senate with a recommendation to reverse and cancel the actions taken against the citizen, which shall itself be enacted by simple majority vote in the form of a Senatus consultum ultimum. If the Senate votes against reversal and cancellation then the appeal shall fail, the actions remain in place and the Princeps senatus shall inform the citizen. This Senatus consultum ultimum authorizing reversal and cancellation of actions shall include a condition that it is conditional upon the citizen taking the oath satisfactorily within a specified number of days from the enactment of the Senatus consultum ultimum. Should the citizen fail to take oath satisfactorily the Senatus consultum ultimum shall be void and shall be considered rescinded.

B. Remedies

If actions against the citizen are duly authorized and imposed, the citizen may subsequently elect to request the removal of such actions. In order to request this the citizen must be prepared to:

1. Resign from the Competing Organization, and forward such written proof of the resignation as may be available to him/her.

2. Swear an oath, or affirm to the oath, that he/she has so resigned. The oath shall be taken on the Nova Roman Main List (Forum) or such other official public forum (except the Senate list due to Senate rules restrictions) as maybe selected by the consuls or the Princeps senatus. The oath shall be in the form prescribed below.

3. Thereafter for the continuation of the remedy process, those processes at X.A.2 and X.A.3 above shall be followed, and for the purpose of the remedy process only, the use of the word "appeal" in those sections shall be considered to be overridden and the word "remedy" substituted instead.

4. Once the Senate has approved the reversal and cancellation of actions and subsequent to that the citizen has taken the oath satisfactorily, then the Princeps senatus is empowered by the authority of this Senatus consultum ultimum to take the necessary steps to have removed such actions as the Senate has authorized to be removed, either directly or by instructing the magistrate or official responsible for administering those actions to so remove them. Some actions may be considered necessary by the Senate to be left in place, and in that case the citizen will reflect his/her knowledge this may occur in his/her oath, in the form as below.

5. A citizen who has been banished cannot seek remedy until the expiration of his/her period of banishment, and then only if he/she is once again accepted for Nova Roman citizenship, and can only seek remedies against such sanctions that remain in place, not against the banishment itself.

C. Recanting

1. If a citizen is found to have recanted, by word or deed, on his undertaking to resign prior to X.B.4 being concluded then the remedy process is cancelled.

2. If a citizen who recanted and where X.B.4 is concluded, is found to have subsequently rejoined the original Competing Organization, or joined another organization so listed as a Competing Organization, as an official and/or member, or is found to be still a supporter of that original Competing Organization or any other so listed, then the chair of the SPC shall repeat the process as though it were a new matter, but he/she shall override any grid recommendation and mark it as requiring Immediate Senate action (1), with a recommendation for banishment based on breaking his/her oath by these actions and reneging on undertakings he/she gave in that oath.

XI. FORM OF THE OATH

A. The form of the oath for citizens to swear during the appeal process or the remedy process is:


"I, [enter the citizen's full official Nova Roman name and citizen number here] do hereby solemnly swear that:

{ I have resigned all offices and membership held in [enter name of Competing Organization] }*

{ I have resigned as a member of [enter name of Competing Organization] }*

{ I have ceased my support, both in public and in private, of [enter name of Competing Organization] }*

I further swear that I understand, and am aware of, the right of the Senate to retain some, or all, of the sanctions imposed against me if it considers those necessary.

I further swear to accept the authority of the Senate, magistrates, officials (whether appointed or elected), the current Nova Roman Constitution, all Senatus consulta ultima, leges, Senatus consulta, decreta and edicta that are in force.

I further swear that I am not a member or supporter of any Competing Organization as listed at http://novaroma.org/nr/Competing_Organizations, and that I have viewed this link and that I am aware of which organizations are deemed Competing Organizations therein.

I further swear that I will refrain from joining or supporting any other Competing Organizations listed at the above link, or any other future Competing Organizations.

I further swear that at the time of swearing and/or the time of sending this, I did not engage in any religious rite, or religiously recognized or personal practice, or possess, hold, or otherwise rely on any device or method, that would invalidate this oath.

I swear that all of the above is true on my honor as a citizen of Nova Roma, and in the presence of the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman people, and I understand that in the event I am found to have subsequently broken, or revoked or forsworn this oath, or swore falsely herein, that I will be subject of an immediate recommendation to the Senate for my banishment from Nova Roma.

Signed [enter the citizen's full official Nova Roman name and citizen number here]


B. The Princeps senatus shall, after the Senate approves by way of Senatus consultum ultimum reversal and cancellation of actions, prepare the oath, deleting such parts indicated by * as do not apply, and transmit it to the citizen to the most recent email address on record for the citizen.

C. The citizen shall then post the oath without additions, deletions or changes, in the form provided to him/her, to the specified official list. Any such additions, deletions or changes shall invalidate the oath and the recanting process shall be cancelled as null and void. All actions initially taken against the citizen will remain in place.

D. A citizen who takes the oath of his/her own initiative prior to, or during, the course of an investigation or Senate hearing on the matter concerning his/her membership of a Competing Organization shall not negate or invalidate such processes. The oath can only be taken as per the process herein and with the prior consent of the Senate. Any oath taken on the initiative of the citizen alone shall have no meaning, affect on, or relevance to the process described herein.


XII. FAILURE TO ACT

Any failure or refusal by a member of the Senate, or a magistrate, to discharge a duty required under this Senatus consultum ultimum shall constitute CONTEMPT OF THE SENATE for the purposes of the SENATUS CONSULTUM DE RATIONE SENATUS MMDCCLXV.


XIII. AUTHORITY

A. The Senate directs and authorizes the placement of all actions required by Senatus consultum ultimum against a citizen under this process herein. In the event a magistrate fails, or refuses, to impose the action(s) required by the Senate under a Senatus consultum ultimum against a citizen, then in addition to the consequences for the magistrate under section XII above and possible Code of Conduct violations under the Lex Cornelia poenalis, then the actions required to be placed shall be deemed by authority of this Senatus consultum ultimum to be placed regardless, as if they had been issued by the magistrate failing or refusing to place those actions. Such deemed actions placed shall have the same legal force and effect as if they had been placed by the magistrate required to place them.

B. Should a citizen resign from Nova Roma, or renounce his/her citizenship, during the course of an investigation or Senate hearing process under this process, or resign/renounce after the conclusion of such while actions authorized herein remain in force, then the Senate may proceed to place such actions as it deems appropriate as though the citizen had not resigned/renounced, and any such actions imposed by this process will remain in place until such time as the resigned/renounced citizen should re-apply for citizenship and be approved by the Senate for citizenship, being a member or supporter/former member or supporter of a Competing Organization. Upon regaining citizenship those actions originally placed by this process shall remain fully in force, unless rescinded or amended by the Senate at the time of granting citizenship, until such time as they are removed by the remedy process. Any term of banishment will still have to expire before re-application for citizenship can be commenced, but lesser actions imposed under this process equally remain in force during the period of banishment, and are unaffected by the expiry of the term of banishment.

C. In cases where the Competing Organization was not declared as such by the Senate when the act of being an official or member or supporter was first occasioned, or first evidenced, then sections I.A.3.a or b of the Nova Roman Constitution shall protect the citizen from the imposition of any actions under this process, but shall not preclude any investigation being conducted. The exception to that protection is that the protection shall not apply if it can be demonstrated that the subsequently declared Competing Organization was at the time the citizen became, and/or was at the time the information can be dated to, either:

1. An organization established or operating within Nova Roma, which was illegal and/or forbidden under, either explicitly or where such could be reasonably deduced from, the provisions of, the extant Nova Roman Constitution, or under the provisions of other extant legislation

and/or

2. An organization, operating either within or outside of Nova Roma, such that a reasonable person would conclude that the pursuit of the organization's objectives would result in officials or members or supporters who were Nova Roman citizens violating the extant Code of Conduct of the Lex Cornelia poenalis within Nova Roma

3. The Senate deems section XIII.C.1 and XIII.C.2 above are sustained because in considering whether section I.A.3 of the Nova Roman Constitution protects the actions of a citizen, in this case herein those actions being membership of, or support for, an organization that was subsequently deemed a Competing Organization, the general purpose of section I.A.3 being to protect Nova Roman citizens from retroactive state imposed penalties cannot extend protection to membership or support of an organization that was in itself inherently illegal in structure and/or purpose, or where such would have resulted in, or caused, illegality to be occasioned within Nova Roma under extant provisions of the Constitution and/or legislation, as the actions of taking membership or expressing support were acts that were already inherently subject to penalty under the Code of Conduct of the Lex Cornelia poenalis.

4. The Senate deems that section XIII.C.3 is sustained if a reasonable person would conclude that pursuing or supporting the function(s) and/or mission(s) and/or purpose(s) of such an organization would have inevitably necessitated the occasioning, or commissioning, of extant Code of Conduct violation(s) within Nova Roma by citizens who were its officials or members or supporters in pursuit of that common purpose.

5. The Senate deems that as a consequence of XIII.C.4 the action of taking membership or expressing support for such an organization was therefore an action that was subject to penalty at the time, as pursuit by a citizen of an illegal common purpose, or a common purpose that would inevitably result in illegality within Nova Roma, as evidenced by the action of taking membership or expressing support for that organization, would have caused the citizen by necessity to violate the Code of Conduct..

6. The Senate deems that as a consequence of XIII.C.5 the subsequent imposition of sanctions for membership of, or support for, a Competing Organization is not subject to the protection afforded a citizen under section I.A.3, notwithstanding that the sanctions are imposed as a result of the organization being subsequently deemed a Competing Organization, because the very illegal nature of the organization, or the illegal actions occasioned by membership or support, were in part, or in whole, the reason the Senate deemed it to be a Competing Organization, and that the sanctions are just a subsequent and further consequence of that already existing illegality and associated penalty.

7.

a. In cases of membership or support for such an organization operating within Nova Roma that was subsequently deemed a Competing Organization after the citizen took membership in it, or expressed support for it, any Senatus consultum ultimum imposing the sanction of action(s) against that citizen must contain the following endorsement, to clarify that section I.A.3 of the Nova Roman Constitution does not afford protection to that citizen:

"The Competing Organization [enter the name of the organization] operating within Nova Roma was at the time the citizen(s) herein undertook the actions of taking membership in it, or expressing support for it, an illegal organization within Nova Roma as the Senate has concluded that a reasonable person would have concluded that at the time of the execution of those action(s) of the citizen(s) that the pursuit of a common illegal purpose of that organization would have inevitably necessitated the occasioning, or commissioning, of extant Code of Conduct violation(s) by citizens who were its official(s) or member(s) or supporter(s), and that illegal common purpose can therefore be applied to both the organization and also to its officials, members and supporters. The Senate deems therefore that the protections afforded by section I.A.3 of the Nova Roman Constitution do not extend to the sanctions taken against the citizen(s) herein as the actions of membership or support were already actions subject to penalty under the extant Code of Conduct of the Lex Cornelia poenalis."

b. In cases of membership or support for such an organization operating outside of Nova Roma that was subsequently deemed a Competing Organization after the citizen took membership in it, or expressed support for it, any Senatus consultum ultimum imposing the sanction of action(s) against that citizen must contain the following endorsement, to clarify that section I.A.3 of the Nova Roman Constitution does not afford protection to that citizen:

"The Competing Organization [enter the name of the organization] operating outside of Nova Roma was at the time the citizen(s) herein undertook the actions of taking membership in it, or expressing support for it, an organization that the Senate has determined a reasonable person would have concluded that at the time of the execution of those action(s) of the citizen(s) an organization where the pursuit of its common purpose(s) would have inevitably necessitated the occasioning, or commissioning, of extant Code of Conduct violation(s) within Nova Roma by citizens who were its official(s) or member(s) or supporter(s), and that common purpose can therefore be applied to both the organization and also to its officials, members and supporters. The Senate deems therefore that the protections afforded by section I.A.3 of the Nova Roman Constitution do not extend to the sanctions taken against the citizen(s) herein as the actions of membership or support were already actions subject to penalty under the extant Code of Conduct of the Lex Cornelia poenalis."

8. The Senate deems that section I.A.3 of the Nova Roman Constitution does not protect a person who at the time was not a citizen of Nova Roma, even if that person subsequently becomes a citizen, because section I.A.3 is deemed to protect only actions committed by a citizen, subject to all the limitations on that protection described above and regardless of whether the organization was established or operating within Nova Roma or not.


XIV. Upon enactment of this Senatus consultum ultimium:

A. The only lawful method of subsequently superseding, amending or repealing this Senatus consultum ultimum must be by way of a Senatus consultum ultimum, that must achieve an extraordinary majority before it can be enacted. Any other method or attempt shall be illegal and forbidden. The Princeps senatus may at his/her discretion replace the requirement above for an extraordinary majority with a requirement for a special majority, or a simple majority.

B. No other Senatus consultum ultimum shall be enacted where the proposed content of which conflicts, negates, overrides, limits or otherwise affects in a negative manner the contents and/or purposes of all or any part of this Senatus consultum ultimum, whether directly or indirectly other than by the method at specified at section XIV.A of this Senatus consultum ultimum.

V. This Senatus consultum ultimum shall terminate on the 31st December 2022, unless it shall be terminated earlier under the process described at section XIV.A of this Senatus consultum ultimum.

Personal tools