Land Fraud

At one time, the Nova Roma website said:

"In April, 2003 the Senate of Nova Roma approved the purchase of a 10-acre ranch in Texas, USA. (Nova Roma's America Austroccidentalis Provincia.) This land is a symbol of Nova Roma's dedication to our future goal of a larger world capital. It is also is a confirmation of Nova Roma's existence as a viable organization with practical real world objectives."

What is the truth behind this claim? All mention of this land, the so-called "ager publicus" has been removed from the Nova Roma website. Does the secret history of the "ager publicus" support the idea that Nova Roma is "viable" and has "practical" objectives?

At the end of 2000, Patricia Cassia, acting as financial officer, proposed to create a "Land Fund, a long-term investment which will eventually become the foundation of a land purchase." This was created and $200 was put in it, presumably either from the general account or from private donations. By 2005, the fund was claimed to hold $600.

On June 30, 2001, Marcus Cassius Julianus, Patricia Cassia's husband, posted this:

Salvete,

Yeah, I know I'm dreamin'... but I just ran across a 26 acre Island for sale, with a sort of Roman name no less. Check out Eagle Island at:

http://www.islandforsale.com/eagle.htm

It's for sale for $79,000 in Canadian dollars. That's $52,158.99 in US dollars, far less than the sale price for a single family home... even a used trailor on a half-acre lot, at least in the area where I'm living!

Lessee... that price divided among 800 citizens would be $65.19 per person. Well, I'M in! (Hell, I'd be in for a few hundred bucks.) Say, any of our Canadian Citizens care to arrange a down payment and financing?

Sure, the NR website says we're looking for 108 acres, but hey, what a place to build a Roman fort and hoist a flag...

Valete,

Marcus Cassius Julianus
Consul

Soon (July 1st, 2001) he added:

I truly believe the immediate benefits would be huge. We'd suddenly cease to be a "cyber only organization", to something so committed to Rome we own real world property. Some pictures of real land up on the website would be wonderful for attracting new Citizens!

Frankly, I'd accept any kind of land, anyWHERE, for promotional reasons. Even an acre somewhere, with a monument and a flag sitting on it, says more than a cyber-presence only. Admittedly an island is ideal since it gives defined "borders". Yet I'd take a vacant lot in "East Overshoe" if we could get it without ruining the treasury. At least it would be a start.

The Nova Roma "senate" then published this in November 2003:

"The land acquired by Nova Roma in Culberson County, Texas, USA is hereby designated ager publicus (public land) of the variety ager arcifinius (unsurveyed land). Its maintenance and administration shall be the responsibility of the Senate, which may delegate authority to undertake everyday maintenance to individual senators as it pleases."

In a nutshell, M. Cassius Julianus (William Bradford) bought “land” in Texas (“ager publicus”) that wound up being a very small interest (1/40th) in a large parcel of useless desert. The price paid and the source of the funds cannot be clearly determined, but for some years Nova Roma paid the property tax on the entire parcel. The photos that used to be on the website were just some random west Texas land and had no connection to the “land in Texas” or “ager publicus” at all. The solution was to force Cassius to take ownership of the land and dispose of it somehow. All mention of the land was removed from the website.

The Fort Worth Star Telegram carried an article about this common scam.

About five years later, the entire scam began to unravel. The truth began to come out when Patricia Cassia was forced to hand over Nova Roma's financial records.

Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:52 pm
--- In SenatusRomanus@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" wrote:

M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Consul: T. Iulio Sabino Consuli collegae, Praetoribus, Tribunibus Plebis, Senatoribus Patribus Mátribusque Conscriptís, viris clarissimis et castissimae mulieribus, omnibus quibusque in senatu senteniam dicere licet: salutem plurimam dicit:

In reporting to the Senate on the matter with the ager publici I had referred to my notes. I have since learned that my notes contained an error. The unreported savings account to which I referred earlier M. Cassius opened two years prior than first report. It therefore has nothing to do with the land purchase. It apparently did not contain the money that was missing without explanation from the Land Fund in 2003.

I do not wish to give the wrong impression. Trying to cover the situation in a matter of fact manner, trying to put the facts into some understandable order, I know can lead to an erroneous impression. So let me clarify my opinion of the situation.

Patricia Cassia mistakenly included other documents in with those she sent to Quaestrix Iunia. Among them were the personal bank statements of the Cassii. The Senate does not need to know the details in those statements. Many Senators are already aware that the Cassii were facing financial difficulties, and their bank statements indicate how extensive this may have been. So as I reported earlier some things that the Cassii sent, and the way they have behaved since in not cooperating with the Senate, could lead to suspicions. However there is no evidence that the Cassii did anything criminally wrong. There is no evidence that they actually commingled funds or that they took funds from Nova Roma. If anything, their bank statements show that they did not take Nova Roma funds even when they were facing their own financial difficulties.

On the other hand, the record provided on Nova Roma finances goes hand in hand with the record of their personal finances to show that the Cassii were inept when it came to finances. They were irresponsible in not reporting to the Senate and to magistrates; they could even be said to have been negligent in mismanaging Nova Roma's finances and our financial records. They recklessly rushed into the land purchase, naively but I believe also innocently. Suspicious in not reporting certain accounts, and then, too, not providing other financial records. So, inept, incompetent, irresponsible, naive, and at times reckless, maybe. That would be my opinion of their actions, but nothing criminal.

None the less they have placed Nova Roma, Inc. into a difficult position. Our current magistrates and the Senate as our Board of Directors are responsible for keeping accurate financial records. Even moreso is this true with a not-for-profit organization such as Nova Roma. Negligence and ineptness are no excuses in macronational law. Every one of the Budgets we have posted are in fact inaccurate because they were based on misleading information provided by the Cassii. Further, without the full record and all of the documents needed, we cannot now reconstruct what the Budgets ought to have been. So long as Patricia Cassia will not or cannot provide all of the documentation, we cannot conduct a full audit as is now required in such a situation.

I have attempted through different channels to get the Cassii to provide us with information so as to disprove any suspicions about their conduct in managing Nova Roma's finances. They have not done so. Personally I do not believe that the Cassii were intentionally involved in any wrong doing; there is no evidence to support such suspicions. If anything, some blame might rest with the Senate for neglecting its responsibility to better oversee the Cassii in their duties. And that is exactly how macronational authorities will view our actions in this matter. So now it is a question, a very serious question, of what we as the Board of Directors must do to protect the interests of Nova Roma?

This resulted in a discussion of the risk that this mismanagement might expose Nova Roma to:

Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:58 am
--- In SenatusRomanus@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

Salvete Conscript Fathers

“ So now it is a question, a very serious question, of what we as the Board of Directors must do to protect the interests of Nova Roma? “

Before we answer our Consuls very important question we need to have some questions answered first.

1. What are our state of Maine legal requirements in terms of budgets and record keeping?

2. What are our federal legal requirements in terms of budgets and record keeping?

3. Can we recreate any or even some of our former reports using information from former Consuls and or Senators of long standing who may have information in their Computers?

4. If we can not recreate these missing reports what penalties will we face from the State of Maine?

5. If we can not recreate these missing reports what penalties will we face from the federal government?

6. Can we. given everything that has happened, keep our non-profit status?

7 If we can not recreate these missing reports can we adopt as the Board of Directors of Nova Roma a new year “one” as a benchmark for Nova Roman finances.

8. Is a budget an internal tool or an external record or both?

Valete

Tiberius Galerius Paulinus

Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:05 am

--- In SenatusRomanus@yahoogroups.com, "Gaius Popillius" wrote:

Salvete Senatores,

From a practical standpoint, I do not believe we are in danger of any repurcussions from Maine or the Federal Government.

Probably the worst thing we could do is draw attention to ourselves by taking some formal action. When fraud is not present (i.e. a clear intent> to decieve the tax authorities), the statute of limitations (and the requirements for record keeping) only go back 3 years.

We should remove all mention of the ager publicus and allow the "land" to revert to the State of Texas for non-payment of taxes.

Valete,

Laenas

More information gradually came to light:

Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:58 pm
--- In SenatusRomanus@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" wrote:

M. Moravius con. K. Fabio Quintiliano Censorio Senatoribus Patribus Mátribusque Conscriptís SPD:

--- In SenatusRomanus@yahoogroups.com, Christer Edling wrote:

I have one question to the Consul Maior at the moment. do You still think that any money disappeared from one account that could be payment for the official cost of the land? Have anyone else have access to that account?

We don't know; we cannot know for certain, because the records were so poorly kept. In the first place all our separate Funds were kept in one bank account. At best, that was poor management. My understanding is that each of our designated Funds should have separate bank accounts in order to prevent commingling of Funds.

In examining the Budgets of past years there appears to have been a withdrawal of $525.00 USD from the Land Fund in 2003. This occurred between the time of the Senate vote on accepting the land, Nov. 2003, and when Patricia Cassia then reported to the new Consules of 2004 on what each Fund contained. And I did not find anything in the Budgets to indicate the expense, nor did I find any authorization from the Senate on a distribution from the Land Fund. But without the actual bank statements from that time, I cannot know for certain that money was indeed withdrawn from the NR checking account, or if the money in the account was mysteriously reallocated but remained in the account. The records sent by Patricia Cassia to Quaestrix Iunia are incomplete. We cannot reconstruct with certainty was occurred in the past.

With the passbook savings account, M. Cassius opened the account on 2 May 2001 using NR's tax ID number. I don't know where the money came from. There is no record of the account in the information provided by Patricia over the years. I had thought that this savings account may have been where the missing Land Fund money was deposited. That may still be true, but we are certain now that the missing money was not used to open the account. Almost $900, in a low interest account, where did the money come from? From what Fund? What was its intended purpose? Who authorized opening a new account? Why would M. Cassius have access to NR accounts, or authority to use NR's tax ID number to open an account? There seems to me to be something improper about this, though I continue to assume that it was an innocent action. Without the bank records we don't know more than that it existed.

As far as I can tell, Patricia never reported the passbook savings account. She may not have known of its existence. In that case then only M. Cassius had access to the savings account. He should not have had access to NR's checking account as he was not a financial officer. Both did their personal banking and business banking at the same bank, but I wouldn't know their relationship and whether both would therefore have had access to both of NR's accounts.

The conduct of the Cassii, and their continued refusal to respond to questions, is suspicious. Nothing more. Let us not jump to any conclusions by making assumptions that could prove wrong later.

Sat Jun 21, 2008 11:32 pm http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SenatusRomanus/message/12516
--- In SenatusRomanus@yahoogroups.com, "M. Lucretius Agricola" wrote:

Salvete

I just scanned the ML archives starting from the execution date of the deed (25 Apr 2003) and going forward about 2 months and I found no mention of this transaction. In that time both P. Cassia and M. Cassius posted messages, some on matters financial and some on the Roman Days event.

I was surprised to see no mention of the land in this time frame.

optime valete

Agricola

--- In SenatusRomanus@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" wrote:

In the absence of M. Cassius perhaps you could answer some questions since you were a member of the Senate at the time. What did M. Cassius lead you to believe Nova Roma was receiving? Did he tell you it was ten acres of land in Texas? Did he tell you it would cost $500? Did he say that he would purchase the land with his own money in his own name on condition that Nova Roma would reimburse him? Did the Senate ever vote to reimburse M. Cassius for his "gift"? If you need your memory refreshed I suggest that you look into the archives beginning with message # 5660 of 24 April 2003.

Then please compare your recollections to what the deed actually says:

http://onlineera.com/nr/financials/corp/land/culbersondeed.pdf

STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF CULBERSON
WARRANTY DEED

Grantor. MARK C. TRIMBLE. a Sing)o;Man, of Nc:wark, New Castle

County. Delaware. for $10.00 and

other good and valuable consideration. GRANTS AND CONVEYS to:
NOVA ROMA; a 501 C3 nonprofit organization. As Grantee. Whose mailing
address is:

896 Burn Mill Road
P.O. Box 1897
Wells. Maine O4O9O

an undivided one-fortieth (1/40) interest in that certain tract or parcel of real property located in CULBERSON COU)NTY. TEXAS. described as follows:

GEO NO. 01465-00300 PARCEL 40, SUBDIVISION GREEN VALLEY ACRES UNIT 20
10 ACRES MORE OR LESS

That facts look to me as though M. Cassius bought a 1/40th interest in 10 acres of land in Nova Roma's name, without authorization, for a mere $10.00 USD. Do you find this to be hearsay?

Finally, they tried to forget the whole affair:

Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:05 am
--- In SenatusRomanus@yahoogroups.com, "marcushoratius" wrote:

M. Moravius Piscinus Horatianus Consul: T. Iulio Sabino Consuli collegae, Praetoribus, Tribunibus Plebis, Senatoribus Patribus > Mátribusque Conscriptís salutem plurimam dicit:

Reference: Item V.

The Senate hereby revokes the senatus consultum of 26 November MMDCCLVI to classify the land in Texas as ager publicus.

For the Senate's information. Quaestrix E. Iunia has spoken with Judge Molinar of Culberson County, Texas. The County will not accept our interest in Green Acres Valley, not even as a gift.

If we sell our interest there shall be fees for the transfer of the title. Judge Molinar said he knows of someone who might be interested and we shall look further into this.

it appears to me that Nova Roma's name was wrongfully placed on the deed of sale, rather than gifted to us. However, to otherwise dispose ourselves from the title now could actually cost us more. I shall have to look into what either option would cost us, but my understanding at the moment is a transfer of title fee of $150 plus other fees. it depends somewhat on who we could get to handle this for us.

The best option, possibly, is that a local buyer would agree to pay the fees and handle the transfer. Remember, though, that the deed says we paid only $10. A buyer may be reluctant to pay up to $200 in transfer fees on a property costing $10.

The remaining option is to not pay the property tax, and thus Culberson County would eventually confiscate the land. This is probably the most expensive option to us in the long run. It would remain on our record that we defaulted on our taxes, and as a public record it would be available to anyone rating us as a charity to which to contribute, or if we would some day wish to apply for a line of credit. Besides being against the Roman virtues we seek to uphold, this would not only be an unethical option for us, in my humble opion, but I think that it could prove in the end to be a very costly option.

The cheapest thing to do for now is to continue paying the property tax, but as that is already done for this year, and our account is now up to date, we have time to investigate our options further. I am now looking for someone to act on my behalf in this matter.

The next step however is to remove from our own records this classification of our "undivided 1/40 interest" in ten acres or less of desert as ager publicus. We have to disavow it from ourselves before we can justify disposing ourselves of the land.

Valete optime

The final solution was to transfer the land back to Bradford.

Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:52 am
--- In SenatusRomanus@yahoogroups.com, M•IVL•SEVERVS wrote:

Salvete,

I, L----- G------ E------, Co-President, Nova Roma, Inc. authorize T----- P. G--------, Secretary, to act on behalf of the corporation for the specific purpose of transferring Nova Roma's interest in a parcel of property in Culberson County, Texas, to William Bradford.

Valete,
M. IVL. SEVERVS
CONSVL. NOVÆ ROMÆ

SENATOR
CONSVL•PROVINCIÆ•MEXICO

And so the "ager publicus" disappeared. The final words will be a quote from the above: "inept, incompetent, irresponsible, naive, and at times reckless".