Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about Russian History => People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich => Topic started by: Forum Admin on December 07, 2004, 11:25:53 AM

Title: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on December 07, 2004, 11:25:53 AM
INDICTMENT:
Based upon probable cause had and reviewed, the above named defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant 1" is to be charged with the capital crime of "Murder, in the First Degree".
Presence of Defendant 1 is waived and a Bill of Habeus Corpus shall not be obtained due the impossibility of the presence of Defendant 1 due to his death. Defendant 1 shall therefore be tried "in absentia".

Date of Offense:  9 January 1905
Location of Offense: Palace Square, St. Petersburg, Russia
Specifics: That on or about the above date, Defendant 1 did in fact knowingly and with malice aforethought cause the unlawful murder of at least 200 citizens of the State of Imperial Russia and substantial unlawful intentional bodily harm  to numerous others.

Prosecution will begin by:
1. Identifying each member of the Prosecution team (work this out yourselves privately) and who will serve as lead.
2. Identify first the "INTENT" of the Defendant that the crime occur. then
3. Identify MOTIVE for the Crime then
4. What acts the Defendant undertook to CAUSE the crime or identify WHY Defendant is directly responsible for the commission of the crime
5. What opportunity Defendant had to commit the crime.
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on March 19, 2005, 10:12:46 AM
19 March 2005.

Given the lack of prosecution of the single charge filed and the failure of further charges to be filed in the matter of People vs. Nicholas II Romanov, the charge in this matter is hereby dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Court has taken into account the unavoidable personal circumstances of the Prosecution team in this decision, and also takes into account the fact that there is no pressing issue requiring a "speedy trial" in the instant matter.  Therefore, my decision is to grant a Dismissal Without Prejudice which will allow the Prosecution team to re-file any charges they may wish to bring at a subsequent date.  This decision will not alter any rules, guidelines or other procedural matters, should a charge be filed subsequently, and they shall still be in force for any such subequent filings.

There being no further business before this Court, this dismissal without prejudice is so Ordered by the Court and this Court shall stand adjourned.

Robert Moshein
Acting Procedural Judge.
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on March 31, 2005, 08:41:23 AM
Your Honour Judge Rob and Counsel(s) for the Nicholas II Alexandrovich - the Defendant.  Might I formally raise the following pre trial legal arguments, for a decision by the learned judge.  If you think these issues should be dealt with elsewhere in one of the related threads please move it.  It will give me soem clarity about how much work i need to do to formally open the prosecution.

Richard

Opening Legal Arguments of the Prosecution in:
The People versus Nicholas II Alexandrovich

INDICTMENT:

‘Based upon probable cause had and reviewed, the above named defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant 1" is to be charged with the capital crime of "Murder, in the First Degree".
Presence of Defendant 1 is waived and a Bill of Habeus Corpus shall not be obtained due the impossibility of the presence of Defendant 1 due to his death. Defendant 1 shall therefore be tried "in absentia".

Date of Offense: 9 January 1905
Location of Offense: Palace Square, St. Petersburg, Russia
Specifics: That on or about the above date, Defendant 1 did in fact knowingly and with malice aforethought cause the unlawful murder of at least 200 citizens of the State of Imperial Russia and substantial unlawful intentional bodily harm to numerous others. ‘


Your Honour,

You have kindly indicated previously that we should be guided by the Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act 2000, c.24.  This is an Act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

I will return to the Canadian legislation throughout this opening argument, in particular it relates to the indictment(s) laid against the last and late Tsar of Russia, identified as Nicholas II Alexandrovich.

All states have a duty to enact and enforce legislation in respect of crimes against humanity.  Crimes against humanity are subject to universal jurisdiction.  This principle has been recognised under international law since the Judgement of the International Military Tribunal of Nuremburg, which declared that any state could have established courts with jurisdiction over the crimes of the Nuremburg Charter regardless where they had been committed.  The principles articulated in the Nuremburg Charter and the Judgement were recognised as international law principles by the UN general Assembly in 1946.  Moreover, there is growing support for the view that states may not harbour persons suspected of crimes against humanity, but instead that they must either exercise jurisdiction over persons in the territory suspected of crimes against humanity, no matter where such crimes took place, or extradite those persons to states able and willing to do so or surrender them to an international criminal court with jurisdiction over the crimes and the suspects.  

If you, your honour accepts that the case is made that the details in the indictment amounts to a crime(s) against humanity then you must consider for the purposes of this mock trial whether this is an international court capable of exercising jurisdiction over the suspect and the crimes.  I am emphatic under international and the Canadian legislation that this court DOES have jurisdiction over both the crimes alleged and the defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich.

Definition:

Crimes against humanity are inhumane acts that attack, not just the individual, but, by their very nature, humanity itself.  As the trial Chamber of the International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia declared in the Erdemovic case in 1996, crimes against humanity:

‘Are serious acts of violence which harm human beings by striking what is most essential to them: their life, liberty, physical welfare, health, and or dignity.  They are inhumane acts that by their very extent and gravity go beyond the limits tolerable to the international community, which must perforce demand their punishment.  But crimes against humanity also transcend the individual because when the individual is assaulted humanity comes under attack and is negated.  It is therefore the concept of humanity as victim which essentially characterises crimes against humanity.’

Section 4(3) of the Canadian Act defines crimes against humanity as:

‘means murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution or any other inhumane act or omission that is committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group and that, at the time and in the place of the commission, constitutes a crime against humanity according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.’

On the basis of the definition at Section 4(3) above and the definition of crimes against humanity set out in the ruling in the Eredmovic case that both murder and ‘serious acts of violence’ as outlined in Count 1 if the Indictment are ‘inhumane acts that by their very extent and gravity go beyond the limits tolerable to the international community, which must perforce demand their punishment.’

Whilst I rely presently only on the facts contained within Count I of the Indictment.  Whilst I will argue that in isolation the murder and grievous bodily harm caused to demonstrators and bystanders on 9 January 1905 in Palace Square St Petersburg and its environs is sufficient alone to be regarded as a crime against humanity.  If the court does not find the acts of murder and grievous bodily harm committed on 9 January sufficient on their own to be considered as crimes against humanity I will argue that other instances of inhumane acts, such as the pogroms against the Jews, carried out during Nicholas II’s reign identify a clear and even more serious pattern of inhumane crimes.

You, Your Honour are invited to rule, without further argument, that the crimes alleged in Count 1 of the Indictment do in fact amount to crimes against humanity and therefore are subject to universal legislation in relation to crimes against humanity and in particular the Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.


Richard Cullen
Prosector Count 1
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on March 31, 2005, 09:54:01 AM
Quote

If you, your honour accepts that the case is made that the details in the indictment amounts to a crime(s) against humanity then you must consider for the purposes of this mock trial whether this is an international court capable of exercising jurisdiction over the suspect and the crimes.  I am emphatic under international and the Canadian legislation that this court DOES have jurisdiction over both the crimes alleged and the defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich.

‘Whilst I rely presently only on the facts contained within Count I of the Indictment.  Whilst I will argue that in isolation the murder and grievous bodily harm caused to demonstrators and bystanders on 9 January 1905 in Palace Square St Petersburg and its environs is sufficient alone to be regarded as a crime against humanity.  If the court does not find the acts of murder and grievous bodily harm committed on 9 January sufficient on their own to be considered as crimes against humanity I will argue that other instances of inhumane acts, such as the pogroms against the Jews, carried out during Nicholas II’s reign identify a clear and even more serious pattern of inhumane crimes.

You, Your Honour are invited to rule, without further argument, that the crimes alleged in Count 1 of the Indictment do in fact amount to crimes against humanity and therefore are subject to universal legislation in relation to crimes against humanity and in particular the Canadian Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.


Richard Cullen
Prosector Count 1

To the Proscution:

Jurisdiction of this Court over both the Defendant(s) and Subject Matter is presumed.  You do not need to prove Jurisdiction on this or any other count. NOW, should you wish to bring charges against other persons than the immediate Imperial Family (ie: NAOTMAA) you must present some compelling evidence of jurisdiction.

This Court has in fact already ruled, by bringing the charge itself, that the ALLEGED crime, WOULD be a crime against humanity, should the Prosecution prove its case.

In future charges, should any be filed, this Court will decide as a matter of law if that charge would constitute a crime against humanity in deciding to hear the matter.  Should the Court find the charge fails to establish a possible crime against humanity, the Court will decline to hear the charge.

Extrinsic evidence outside the specific single charge now on file "may" be heard, however the Defense has the right to challenge the introduction of specific extrinsic matters as "immaterial" or "prejudicial" to the specific charge, just as in any Court of Law.  While the Court will use the Canadian protocol, specific trial procedure will be conducted under US rules.

The Prosecution will please submit a proposed time schedule for initial filing and arugument to the Court, so that this single charge may be re-opened for hearing, and the Jury so notified.

There being no further business before this Court, this Court stands adjourned.

Robert Moshein
Acting Procedural Judge.
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on March 31, 2005, 11:49:13 AM
Your Honour Judge Rob,

Thank you for your directions, we obviously use different terminology here in the UK - what is an initial filing - what information would you require?  I was going to provide all my evidence to the court in one block, plus my opening legal argument as to Nicholas II Alexandrovich's guilt.  I do intend to rely on crimes against humanity legislation to prove the case against him.  Once I am clear about what it is you need I can let you have a timescale by which I will be ready to open the prosecution case.  Obviously I will accommodate the needs of the defence team who have been extremely tolerant of the enforced adjournment we have suffered.

I believe that I will be the sole prosecutor for Count 1.  Pushkina was working on some of the other indictments and I have e-mailed her to see if she is willing to pick up where we left off.

Richard
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on March 31, 2005, 04:33:24 PM
Quote
INDICTMENT:

Date of Offense:  9 January 1905
Location of Offense: Palace Square, St. Petersburg, Russia
Specifics: That on or about the above date, Defendant 1 did in fact knowingly and with malice aforethought cause the unlawful murder of at least 200 citizens of the State of Imperial Russia and substantial unlawful intentional bodily harm  to numerous others.

Prosecution will begin by:
1. Identifying each member of the Prosecution team (work this out yourselves privately) and who will serve as lead.
2. Identify first the "INTENT" of the Defendant that the crime occur. then
3. Identify MOTIVE for the Crime then
4. What acts the Defendant undertook to CAUSE the crime or identify WHY Defendant is directly responsible for the commission of the crime
5. What opportunity Defendant had to commit the crime.


In addition, your initial filing shall be a statement of your case in general with specificity, without submitting the precise evidence or case law itself. After your initial filing, you shall then submit your evidence, "witness statements", etc. in support of your initial filing to Defense counsel pursuant to the process laid out earlier.

I hope this is clear. let me know if you need further clarification.

Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on April 04, 2005, 11:25:56 AM
Received and reviewed by the Court this 4th Day of April, 2005.
OPENING STATEMENT
For the prosecution:
Dr. Richard Cullen OStJ; MA; BA(Econ); Chartered FCIPD; CMgr FCMI


Your Honour:
  Murder is when a person causes the death of another person with an intention to kill them or to cause grievous bodily harm. This is the case unless the killing is justified, that is, through the withdrawal of treatment, when the defendant was acting in self-defence or trying to prevent a serious crime. If the homicide was committed through provocation towards the defendant or due to the defendant's diminished responsibility the defendant is not guilty of murder, but of voluntary manslaughter (Lacey and Wells, 1998).
  To prove murder in law the prosecution must prove:
(a) Mens rea,  (the mental side of making a decision to unlawfully kill and individual, and
(b) Actus reus (actually carrying out the physical act of killing someone)
There are two offences in english law of causing serious injury:
Wounding
The offence is committed when a person unlawfully and maliciously, either:
• wounds another person; or
• inflicts grievous bodily harm upon another person.
THE CULPABILITY OF NICHOLAS II ALEXANDROVICH
In legal terms I deal with this under two strands, either, of which I believe on its own shows the defendant’s culpability for the crimes committed as set out in Count 1 of the Indictment.
  My first strand is to pray in aid the Canadian legislation on Crimes Against Humanity under the protocol of which this trial is being conducted.

Section 5 (1) A military commander commits an indictable offence if
(a) the military commander
(1) fails to exercise control properly over a person under their effective command and control or effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 4 (crime against humanity as per indictment), or
(2) fails, after the coming into force of this section, to exercise control properly over a person under their effective command and control or effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 6 (crime against humanity etc)

(b) the military commander knows, or is criminally negligent in failing to know, that the person is about to commit or is committing such an offence; and
(c) the military commander subsequently
(1) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6, or
(2) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

Breach of responsibility by a superior
Section 5
(3) a superior commits an indictable offence if
(a) the superior
(1) fails to exercise control properly over a person under their effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 4 (crime against humanity as per indictment), or
(2) fails, after the coming into force of this section, to exercise control properly over a person under their effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 6 (crime against humanity etc)
(b) the superior knows, that the person is about to commit or is committing such an offence, or consciously disregards information that clearly indicates that such an offence is about to be committed or is being committed by the person
(c) the offence relates to activities for which the superior has effective authority and control; and
(d) the superior subsequently
(1) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6 or
(2) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

(4) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6, or
fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

My second strand is that of vicarious liability in short where an employer is legally responsible for the torts or crimes of his/her employees.

I do not suggest that ‘vicarious liability’ has been used before against a monarch or an autocrat.  There is some interesting American law around the vicarious liability of organisations that performed work for dictators or draconian governments.

Broadly vicarious liability which is sometimes referred to as imputed liability refers to attaching responsibility to someone for damages or harm that was caused by another person either in a negligence lawsuit or criminal prosecution.  Therefore an employer is vicariously liable for damages to an injured person if an employee causes injury through negligent acts while in the scope of employment (doing work for an employer).  The employer does not have to be present at the time of the negligent act or even be aware of it at the time of its commission.

To avoid vicarious liability, an employer must demonstrate either that the employee was not negligent in that the employee was reasonably careful or that the employee was acting in his own right rather than on the employer’s business.
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on April 04, 2005, 11:28:51 AM
(cont.)
THE FACTS

In late 1904 and the first week of January 1905 (first three weeks Julian Calendar)  there was growing discontent amongst workers in St Petersburg and elsewhere that related to the poor conditions suffered by many.  Strikes spread across the city.  The Sino-Russo war was unpopular and going against the Russians.  Tsar Nicholas II was an autocrat and much of poorer Russian society was repressed and abused.  Workings conditions were poor.  

In 1903 Father George Gapon had formed the Assembly of Russian Workers, these group was supported by the police as it diverted attention from more radical revolutionary groups.  1904 had been a bad year for Russian workers.  Prices of essential goods rose so quickly that real wages declined by 20%.  When four members of the Assembly of Russian Workers were dismissed at the Putilov Iron Works, Gapon called for industrial action.  Over the next few days over 110,000 workers in St Petersburg went out on strike.  On 8 January the city had no electricity.

Gapon decided to make a personal appeal to the Tsar.  He drew up a petition outlining the workers’ sufferings and demands.  The summary the petition called for:

Measures against the ignorance of the Russian people and against its lack of rights.

• Immediate freedom and return home for a those who have suffered for their political and religious convictions, for strike activity, and for peasant disorders
• Immediate proclamation of the freedom and inviolability of the person, of freedom of speech and of the press, of freedom of assembly, and of freedom of conscience in matters of religion
• Universal and compulsory education at state expense
• Accountability of government ministers to the people and a guarantee of lawful administration
• Equality of all before the law without exception
• Separation of church and state.

Measures against the poverty of the people

• Abolition of indirect taxes and their replacement by a direct, progressive income tax
• Abolition of redemption payments, cheap credit, and the gradual transfer of land to the people
• Naval Ministry contracts should be filled in Russia, not abroad
• Termination of the war according to the will of the people.

Measures against the oppression of labour by capital

• Abolition of the office of factory inspector
• Establishment in factories and plants of permanent commissions elected by the workers, which jointly with the administration investigate all complaints coming from individual workers.  A worker cannot be fired except by the resolution of this commission.
• Freedom for producer-consumer cooperatives and workers trade unions
• An eight hour working day and regulation of overtime work
• Freedom for labour to struggle with capital
• Wage regulation
• Guaranteed participation of representatives of the working class in drafting a law on state insurance for workers.

The petition ranges for improved conditions to workers to demands for new freedoms and greater power to the workers.  It to some extent sums up the ills of Russian society at the time.

Over 100,000 people signed Gapon’s petition.  Gapon organised a peaceful demonstration for 9 January 1905 at the conclusion of which he hoped to hand the petition to the Tsar at the Winter Palace.

On 8 January Gapon wrote to the Tsar in the following terms:

“The people believe in thee. They have made up their minds to gather at the Winter Palace tomorrow at 2.00pm to lay their needs before thee.  Do not fear anything.  Stand tomorrow before the party and accept our humblest petition.  I, the representative of the working men and my comrades, guarantee the inviolability of thy person.’

The Tsar removed to Tsarskoe Selo on 8 January

The city authorities attempted to ban the peaceful demonstration.  Posters announcing the ban were pulled down.

On Sunday 9 January striking workers, their families, including children and others assembled at six points across the city.  Some of them were clutching icons, some of the Tsar, they were singing hymns.  The processions proceeded towards the Winter Palace without interference.  Gendarmes, many mounted were held in reserve out of sight.  

The Winter Palace and its environs including Palace Square were policed and protected by the Preobrazhensky Regiment and Cossack cavalry.

Surfeit it to say that as demonstration moved into Palace Square that the soldiers fired warning shots into the air, then without further warning fired live ammunition directly into which at this time was a peaceful demonstration.  Cossacks and mounted Gendarmes cantered into the crowd with sabres drawn.

The following is the evidence of George Gapon:

‘A cry of alarm arose as the Cossacks came down up us, with their swords drawn.  Our front ranks broke before them, opening to right and left, and down the lane the soldiers drove their horses, striking on both sides.  I saw the swords lifted and falling, the men, women and children dropping to the earth like logs of wood, while moans, curses and shouts filled the air.

Again we started forward, with solemn resolution and rising rage in our hearts.  The Cossacks turned their horses and began to cut their way through the crowd from the rear.  They passed through the whole column and galloped back towards the Narva gate, where – the infantry opened their ranks and let them through – they again formed lines.

We were not more than thirty yards from the soldiers, being separated from them only by the bridge over the Tarakanovsky Canal, which here masks the border of the city, when suddenly without warning and without a moment’s delay, was heard the crack of many rifle shots.  Vasiliev, with whom I was walking hand in hand, suddenly left hold of my arm and sank upon the snow.  One of the workmen who had carried the banners also fell.

An old man named Lavrentiev, who was carrying the Tsar’s portrait, had been one of the first victims.  Another old man caught the portrait as it fell from his hands and carried it till he too was killed by the next volley.  With his last gasp the old man said ‘I may die, but I will see the Tsar.’

Both the blacksmiths who had guarded me were killed, as well as all these who were carrying the icons and banners.’

Witness: Alexandra Kollontai

‘The unusual bright January sunshine, trusting, expectant faces, the fateful signal from the troops drawn up round the palace, pools of blood on the white snow, the whips, the whooping of the gendarmes, the dead the injured, children shot'

Witness: the correspondent for the London Times

‘At 2 o’clock the order was given to fire.  Men, women, and children fell at each volley, and were carried away in ambulances, sledges and carts’.

Witness: the corespondent of the Paris Le Matin

‘The soldiers without any summons to disperse, shoot down the unfortunate people as if they were playing at bloodshed.

There had been no disturbances to speak of.  The whole crowd is unarmed and has not uttered a single threat.

As I proceeded, there were everywhere troops and Cossacks.  Successive discharges of musketry shoot down on all sides the terrorised mob.  The soldiers aim at the people’s heads and the victims are frightfully disfigured.  A woman falls almost at my side.  A little farther on I slip on a piece of human brain.  Before me is a child of eight years whose face is no longer human.  Its mother is kneeling over its corpse.  The wounded, as they drag themselves along, leave streams of blood on the snow.’

For the purposes of this trial we assume that around 100 people were killed  by the military and Gendarmes with many hundreds more brutally injured either by shot, sabre, whip or truncheon.  Estimates of those killed range from 100 up to 1,000.

Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on April 04, 2005, 11:30:30 AM
(cont)
EVIDENCE OF MURDER AND GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM

It is clear that a peaceful demonstration, although banned by the city authorities, converged on Palace Square in the afternoon of 9 January 1905.  That soldiers on foot fired at the crowd as it advanced towards the Winter Palace carrying religious icons and singing hymns.  Without provocation the foot soldiers opened fire on the demonstrators, with or without warning shots and the cavalry charged the crowds.

The four eye witness accounts above show clear evidence of:

Murder in that soldiers aimed firearms directly at the heads of demonstrators and opened fire.  We have several pieces of evidence showing that individuals died as a result of their injuries received.

We also have evidence of others being very seriously injured and crawling away in the snow.

It is not necessary to show that any individual gave the order to fire or to charge the mounted Cossacks into the group just that death and injury occurred as a result.

At the time that the Cossacks charged and the foot soldiers opened fire the demonstrators offered no threat, it was a peaceful demonstration with women and children participating in it.  The purpose was to present a petition to the Tsar.

We know that the Tsar was at Tsarskeo Selo so the military could not suggest they were protecting the Tsar.  There is no evidence of provocation or that the troops were acting in self defence.  Their acts of violence and murder were gratuitous.  Individuals by aiming guns at individuals, or firing recklessly into a densely packed crowd knew that the consequences of such action would be death or grievous bodily harm.  They clearly had the mens rea and actus reus to commit each and every offence of death and injury or were reckless as to whether death or injury was caused.

The murder and grievous injury continued to be applied to the public after the demonstration had broken up in and around the environs of Palace Square.

It is impossible for the defence team to in any realistic fashion to justify the actions of the military on that day.

THE TSAR WAS NOT THERE BUT IS NEVERTHELESS GUILTY OF MURDER, GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM AS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.

The prosecution accepts that the Tsar was in Tsarskeo Selo have departed the Winter Palace the day before the demonstration.  However we do know from his own diary that many officials visited him on 8 January at Tsarskeo Selo to brief him on the arrangements for the demonstration these included:

Count Fredericks a Minister of the Court and
Sviatapolk-Mirsky, the Minister of the Interior.

Nicholas states that; ‘Mirsky came in the evening with a report of the measures taken.’

The Prosecution strongly expresses the view that the Defendant did not need to be Palace square or even within the city limits of St Petersburg at the time of the demonstration or the massacre.

Nicholas II Alexandrovich was an autocrat the definition from the Collins English dictionary is:

‘A ruler who possesses absolute and unrestricted authority.’

Autocracy is defined as:

‘Government by an individual with unrestricted authority’.

As such he was the Supreme Commander of the Russian Military this was evidenced by his taking direct command of the Russian forces during World War I and his headed paper at this time was headed ‘Supreme Headquarters’.

He had it in his gift to appoint and dismiss Ministers at will.  Effectively he ruled the country through his Ministerial appointees.

As such he was in charge of the Military and the actions of the police, but in particular the Okhrana who were ‘his’ secret police.

He therefore falls within the jurisdiction of both the following sections of the Canadian legislation as a military commander, he was the Supreme Commander and as the ‘Superior’

Section 5 (1) A military commander commits an indictable offence if

(c) the military commander

(3) fails to exercise control properly over a person under their effective command and control or effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 4 (crime against humanity as per indictment), or
(4) fails, after the coming into force of this section, to exercise control properly over a person under their effective command and control or effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 6 (crime against humanity etc)

(d) the military commander knows, or is criminally negligent in failing to know, that the person is about to commit or is committing such an offence; and

(c) the military commander subsequently

(5) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6, or
(6) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

Breach of responsibility by a superior

Section 5

(7) a superior commits an indictable offence if

(e) the superior

(3) fails to exercise control properly over a person under their effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 4 (crime against humanity as per indictment), or
(4) fails, after the coming into force of this section, to exercise control properly over a person under their effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 6 (crime against humanity etc)

(f) the superior knows, that the person is about to commit or is committing such an offence, or consciously disregards information that clearly indicates that such an offence is about to be committed or is being committed by the person
(g) the offence relates to activities for which the superior has effective authority and control; and

(h) the superior subsequently

(3) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6 or
(4) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

(8) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6, or
fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

The Tsar did have effective command and control over the Military and Gendarmes, he was briefed as to the arrangements by his Interior Minister the evening before the demonstration.  It is sufficient that a person commits an offence mentioned in the Act whilst under the command of the Military Commander.  Murder and grievous bodily harm against the civil population which the demonstrators were are crimes against humanity.

He was negligent if he did not issue instructions that no force than was reasonably necessary should have been used against peaceful demonstrators.

An individual Military Commander does not have to be present to commit an offence.  In fact in many crimes against humanity the military commander will be further removed from the scene of the crime than the Tsar was from Palace Square in Tsarskeo Selo.

As the autocrat he also failed to refer the matter for investigation.

He clearly commits the same offence as a Superior and again fails to have the matter investigated.

His callousness to the whole vent is summed up in his diary entry 9 January

‘A painful day.  There have been serious disorders in St Petersburg because workmen wanted to come up to the Winter Palace.  Troops had to open fire in several places in the city; there were many killed and wounded.  God how painful and sad.’

No remorse, no investigation ‘ they wanted to come up to the Palace’ they were massacred and mutilated for ‘wanting to come up to the palace’ not for rioting or for armed insurrection, but for wanting to come up to the palace!

I also support his by saying as the autocrat, the Supreme Commander he also have vicarious liability for the actions of his police and military.
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on April 04, 2005, 11:37:18 AM
(cont)
CONCLUSION

People were murdered and maimed on 9 January 1905 in or around the environs of Palace Square, St Petersburg.  They were shot and assaulted by soldiers, gendarmes and police under the Supreme Command of the defendant.

The eye witness evidence of murder and grievous bodily harm are clear and emphatic.  Men, women and children were massacred during a peaceful demonstration to present a petition to their Tsar.  A Tsar who was absent from the Winter Palace, a Tsar who had been briefed as to the arrangements for the demonstration.

They sang hymns and carried religious icons, including icons of the Tsar.  They were fired on indiscriminately by soldiers on foot and charged by sabre wielding Cossacks on horses.  Some died where they fell, others crawled away grievous injured in the snow leaving trails of blood behind them.

The witness saw soldiers take aim and fire at the heads of the demonstrators, they were murdered and butchered.

There can be no suggestion of a defence; they were not provoked they did not act in self defence, they were not protecting the Tsar or the Imperial family.  They committed murder and inflicted grievous bodily harm on the civil population of St Petersburg – thus they committed crimes against humanity.

The defendant as the ‘Military Commander’, the ‘Superior’ in the Canadian legislation as the supreme autocrat had effective control over the military on that day.  As such under the crimes against humanity legislation he is as guilty of the offences of murder and grievous bodily harm as the soldiers who fired the shots that killed and wielded the sabres that maimed.

He short he has committed grievous crimes of inhumanity against his own civil community.  I therefore conclude there can be only one verdict – Nicholas II Alexandrovich is guilty as charged.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard Cullen
for the Prosecution.

-----
The Court has redacted the Prosecution's opening statement by removing the legal arguments supporting the existence of legal grounds to support a charge of murder, grievous bodily harm.  The Court finds the legal analysis provided to be sufficient to establish these charges as a matter of law.

The Court further finds:
Where both a wound and grievous bodily harm have been inflicted, discretion should be used in choosing which more appropriately reflects the true nature of the offence. The prosecution must prove that either the defendant intended, or actually foresaw, that the act might cause some harm. It is not necessary to prove that the defendant either intended or foresaw that the unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described. It is enough that the defendant foresaw some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.

Robert Moshein
Acting Procedural Judge
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on April 04, 2005, 02:13:33 PM
Acting Procedural Judge, Your Honour Judge Rob,

Thank you for posting all of the above opening statement.  Where do we go next?

Richard
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on April 04, 2005, 02:33:58 PM
Mr. Prosecutor,
Please PM the Defense counsel and request an email address for you to begin to send the evidence for their review, as per my instructions.

Defense will now have two calendar weeks from today to file thier own initial filing/opening statement in rebuttal to yours.

Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 07, 2005, 01:00:11 AM
Quote
Mr. Prosecutor,
Please PM the Defense counsel and request an email address for you to begin to send the evidence for their review, as per my instructions.

Defense will now have two calendar weeks from today to file thier own initial filing/opening statement in rebuttal to yours.



Lisa Davidson for the Defense, Your Honor.

Upon conferring with our first chair, the Defense hereby respectfully requests that you confer with me/us regarding the due date for our initial filing/opening statement. The reason is, the Defense waited for many months for filings by the Prosecution. During this time, we heard nothing at all from the members of the Prosecution. The first thing we heard was what you posted last week, and we read it this week.

We believe our client, HIM The Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich, is as entitled as any defendant to fair representation. We would like adequate time to prepare for this stage of the trial.

Respectfully,

Lisa Davidson
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on April 07, 2005, 11:26:57 AM
Please send me an estimate of the time you will require,  I am certain the Prosecution will have no objection to any reasonable period you request, given the circumstances.

Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on April 08, 2005, 02:59:05 AM
Your Honour

No problems here with an adjournment after the sympathetic approach the defence took to my domestic problems

Richard
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on April 08, 2005, 09:21:54 AM
Thank you Mr. Prosecutor, for your kind cooperation.

To be technical, we will not adjourn, we will permit a continuance for the response by the Defense.  When the Court is advised of a date agreeable to the Defense team, it shall be published here.
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on April 08, 2005, 10:11:48 PM
Your Honor,

In order to rebut the Prosecution Team's points in their Opening Statement we will be seeking a Continuance.

I will confer with my Defense Team regarding a suitable date.

The Defense Team will get back to your Honor with a more suitable date.

Thank you for your consideration.

Margarita  
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on April 10, 2005, 12:19:14 AM
Your Honor,

The Defense Team seeks a Continuance for no earlier than May 9.

We wait for your further instructions.

Thank you.

The Defense Team  :) :) :)

Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on April 10, 2005, 11:42:44 AM
The Court grants a continuance for the reply by the Defense until no later than Monday May 16, or earlier should they be prepared.
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on April 10, 2005, 07:24:47 PM
Thank you your Honor!

The Defense Team  :) :) :)
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on May 06, 2005, 10:59:37 AM
    DEFENSE OPENING STATEMENT

Team for the Defense:

Margarita Nelipa
Lisa Davidson
James Hogland

If the Court Pleases, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury.
This is a case of extraordinary magnitude. Some may contend that historically this case has little relevance today. The question whether our client had done anything to justify his being consigned as a criminal is a matter of interest for us today, but it should interest all of humanity. The Defense Team shall establish before you that the Defendant Nicholas Alexandrovich was a kind and compassionate Emperor who adored the Russian people, his family and above all revered his faith. He faithfully lived under the Laws which governed his Empire. The Defense maintains that Nicholas Alexandrovich has never committed an offence against his people and is entitled to be discharged without reservation.
Nicholas Alexandrovich sincerely believed that he served the Russian Empire in good faith, for the common good, and under that personal belief, whether right or wrong, according to the laws of Imperial Russia he is not guilty of any crime. This principle will be maintained with a clarity and force that shall leave no doubt upon the mind of the Court or upon your minds as members of the jury. By maintaining this proposition here, then the only question which, in our judgment, can come before you today is a question of fact, and that is, whether or not Nicholas Alexandrovich acted in good faith, believing that he did indeed have that right to act as a monarch of his people.

When Nicholas became Emperor in 1894 he was committed to administering his sovereignty in a manner so as to preserve and maintain political, social and economic order. This was his right. Nicholas clearly understood that he was the guardian answerable only to God, an understanding which was reinforced by his oath at the time of his coronation.

Few figures in history have been so misunderstood and maligned as Nicholas Alexandrovich, the last Emperor of Imperial Russia. On March 13, 1881, when Nicholas was only thirteen years of age, a tragic event occurred which shook the sensitive soul of the youth. This was the assassination of his beloved grandfather, Emperor Alexander II, the "Tsar-Liberator," who was responsible for freeing the serfs in Russia. Since that day, the activity of hateful revolutionaries was to plague Nicholas and his family throughout their lives, and ultimately he, his wife and children all fell under the fire of revolution.

From that day, the revolutionary movement became a conscious concern for Imperial Russia. As this trial proceeds, we shall demonstrate that because of this unprecedented and tragic event, the government enacted laws in 1881 designed to facilitate the declaration of martial law in emergency situations. It was this power which was used to stem the tide of unprecedented revolutionary fervor in January 1905.

By the dawn of the 20th century, assassinations became more pronounced, marking the beginning of a new level of social unrest and political agitation. Revolutionary intent was designed to hurt the Russian government. The first victim to this new revolution was Nicholas’s Minister of the Interior; Dmitrii Sipiagin in April 1902. Within two years, his successor, Vyacheslav Plehve was brutally assassinated when a bomb was hurled into the minister’s carriage shredding him to bits. Both these men represented the Imperial government and for that privilege they were sacrificed. Dozens of government officials were assassinated during this period, including the Governor-General of the Russian Grand Duchy of Finland.

The year 1904 was a portentous one for the Emperor. Russia went to war against Japan. Russia was now forced to contend with not just internal security matters, but with National Security. All industry swung into the war effort, including the manufacture of war materiel by the Putilov Iron Factory located on the outskirts of St. Petersburg. It was the largest industrial plant in the Empire employing thousands of workers.

We shall demonstrate that there was good reason why the Emperor chose to reside outside of his capital. On the eve of the January uprising, a single preceding event caused attending dignitaries to believe that an attempt was made on the Emperor’s life. We shall provide witnesses who will attest to this fact. From that moment on, Ladies and Gentlemen; it would be unreasonable for any of you to presume that the Emperor’s life was anything other than endangered. A contingency especially heightened with the War against Japan.

The upheaval of 1905 was the start of an illegal campaign of disorders all over the Empire. We shall provide evidence that the disruption contravened not only internal security, but the upheaval was also a deliberate attempt to usurp the authority of the Russian monarch. It also impeded the Russian war effort. A reasonable person would have the expectation that war with any foreign power would cause Russia to be on full alert against all foreign insurgents who could attack Russia’s sovereignty at any moment.

With the war in the background, Russia was experiencing a situation it had never confronted in all hundreds of years of the Romanov Dynasty. Imagine, Ladies and Gentlemen, what it was like to live in St. Petersburg. Rampant assassinations were occurring on public streets while political unrest was increasing by the day attempting to disrupt life in the city. In the first week following the New Year celebrations, the Emperor was facing strikes by worker elements that brought the War industry to a grinding halt. Such reckless abandonment of duty to the State during war time was an unconscionable act. We have evidence which will clearly demonstrate that by their own actions the revolutionaries were compromising Russia against her global enemies. This insidious intervention by the Social Democrats ensured that Imperial Russia became more vulnerable than at any time in her history.  
The Prosecutor assumes that Nicholas Alexandrovich was culpable by an act of omission and failed to prevent the unforeseeable events that transpired on Sunday 9 January, 1905. We have evidence which will show that the Emperor took comfort in the knowledge, after his Minister came to see him on the eve with assurances that everything was under control in the city.  We believe it is erroneous for the Prosecution to suggest despite the implied trust and positive assurances given, the DEFENDANT could be held in any way responsible for unpredictable events. Such a proposition to us is absurd, and we believe it will be equally absurd to your judgment.
We firmly believe Nicholas Alexandrovich acted according to his God given right as the anointed Emperor of Imperial Russia abiding by the Laws inherited under his care and protection. He acted in good faith. If he made a mistake, it is not a reason for damning his name, and by extension the entire Russian dynasty, as a criminal against humanity because of a mistaken error of judgment committed by those he trusted. He acknowledged he made mistakes during his reign, like any human being, but he does not deserve to be vilified because of his failure to control events which were unpredictable and without precedent.
Ladies and Gentlemen, may we remind you that Father Gapon must not be viewed as the innocent, caring individual which history has portrayed. In fact in real life the picture is quite the opposite. He was not the benevolent priest which so many of you have been led to believe. We have evidence which will show that Gapon was not only a revolutionary who went against the Church’s doctrinal teachings that he claimed to represent, but by his sheer arrogance, he organized the demonstration knowing that blood would be spilt. He chose to fight against his own Sovereign and used his ‘flock’ whose interests he claimed to enfold so dearly. With malice and aforethought Gapon ensured that the march would go ahead, knowing it was illegal. We shall show the Court that his decisions precipitated all the unfortunate consequences which ensued that Sunday.
Father Gapon tested government authority to the very core. It was by his own civil disobedience when Russia was at war, that the DEFENDANT and the Russian State were held to ransom on that Sunday. We shall present evidence that the purported reason that precipitated the Sunday Uprising was absent on that day. The illegal march went beyond workers grievances.
Who amongst you, Ladies and Gentlemen, are aware that there was only one dismissed worker about whom the events of the day continued to spiral towards the abyss?  One single worker - not hundreds, not thousands, only ONE who refused to attend work. You may ask: why did this insubordinate worker refuse to attend to his paid employment? It was not because of any specific grievance that he held against his employer, but it was because he preferred to be politically indoctrinated on work time. We contend that but for Gapon’s reckless and complete irreverence, using his priestly cassock as his shield, he ensured that his revolutionary cause would receive global publicity, irrespective of the human consequences. Gapon knew there would be bloody consequences!
The Defense will show that on the eve of the uprising all workers “swore to die for a just cause”! Ladies and Gentlemen how can such oaths be seen as anything other than revolutionary? The Defense finds it abhorrent that Gapon would permit blood be spilt upon the stone. On this one fact alone, you should clearly identify that our DEFENDANT is innocent.  
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on May 06, 2005, 11:01:08 AM
(cont)
When we reveal our evidence, it will become more than apparent to you that Nicholas Alexandrovich cannot be blamed for the events of that day. The Defense maintains that Nicholas Alexandrovich never committed an offence against his people, the Russian people for whom he genuinely had a deep affection, as much as he loved his God. It is because of his connection with his own people that the DEFENDANT is entitled to be found innocent.
We understand that there is a natural human sentiment when a life is lost, especially when women and children are involved. However we must go all beyond that sentimentality and look at the hard evidence and understand that had it not been for Father Gapon’s own illegal actions, his own persistence to continue the march at all costs, no human lives would have been lost that day.
Russia’s population was 135 million when Nicholas Alexandrovich ascended to power. In 1905, there were only a few thousand seditious elements who chose to go against the law of the land at the very time when national unity was vital to fight a foreign enemy. The illegal uprising was a single isolated event which only occurred in only one city within the vast Russian Empire.  
To sustain the autocracy inviolate, any opposition that spoke or acted against the regime or coerced others to unite for the purpose of change was a violation of the rule of law. The Defense believes that Russia had the legal right to defend its own authority. This authority had been accepted for almost three hundred years. From the first day the House of Romanov began to govern, their authority had been accepted without reserve by the Russian people.
Nicholas Alexandrovich did not foresee a massacre. He was not apprised of what might happen when the illegal procession was prevented from reaching its destination. The DEFENDANT, unable to foresee such an event, must be seen to be innocent of any crime against his own people.
Russia was the scene of violent unprecedented revolutionary activities, activities which to Russia’s own detriment were part of the growing tide against its monarch and all innocent law abiding citizens. Despite the enactment of the 1881 Emergency Protocol, not one person, not the Ministers, not the DEFENDANT himself could have ever foreseen those tragic events. Our DEFENDANT was advised by his own ministers that there was nothing critical that required his attention, and that there was ample legal authority to handle the situation. It was this advice upon which Nicholas Alexandrovich relied, in trust and in good faith. We believe that it is abhorrent that the Defendant should be held to account because he trusted his advisers with his heart and by his faith in God.
The Defense would like to point out that elsewhere in St. Petersburg, life went on as usual. Citizens were seen strolling in the Summer Garden, while young children skated nearby. All the other cities within Imperial Russia were enjoying their day off. What happened in a small sector of St. Petersburg was an isolated, unexpected event which had unforeseeable consequences against a group of largely unknown persons who were perceived to have directly and without cause threatened the very essence of the autocratic rule of the Emperor, threatened Russia’s standing within the international community at a time when Russia was at war and required the support of its own citizens.      
Before closing we would like to remind you, Ladies and Gentlemen, that we are not placing absolutism on trial here. That is a matter for constitutionalists to discuss. We ask you to be cautious and evaluate the facts for yourselves. To do that fairly, we ask you to remove from your minds the emotionally charged Soviet propaganda film produced by Sergei Eisenstein under Comrade Lenin’s behest. The Defense contends that Lenin used that visual propaganda to obscure the real facts of this case in order to justify his revolutionary agenda.
The general impression the Soviets have instilled into the public mind was that the total number killed or injured was high, and that authorities deliberately harmed the marchers without provocation. Official figures were considerably lower than portrayed by the Soviet propagandists who had their own agenda to fulfill. Ladies and Gentleman, the Defense has evidence which will prove that it was the marchers themselves who provoked the military by their verbal and physical taunts. It was they, in the absence of their leader, who failed to listen to multiple warnings and refused to disperse peacefully.
Just as the White House, the Capitol and all other government buildings around Washington require protection from insurgency, similarly, all public buildings in the center of St. Petersburg including the Winter Palace and Admiralty buildings were equally deemed to be under threat on that day. It is reasonable to believe that the DEFENDANT had every right to protect his city, just as the U.S. President does today. Each has similar expectations for military protection when there is a perceived threat. For this belief the Defense contends that the DEFENDANT had the right to enforce that protection. For that expectation we ask that you support that same belief.
We will show that our DEFENDANT, through his humanitarianism, as a good will gesture donated a considerable amount of money to assist the victim families. Such graciousness and personal support was not unique, for Nicholas Alexandrovich did exactly the same just a few years before for the victim families who died as a result of an uncontrollable crowd at Khodynskoe Pole during his Coronation celebrations. Such a humanitarian sentiment must be judged on its merits.  
On the following Sunday all Orthodox Churches proclaimed the following:
“Fear God, and Honor the Tsar. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained by God.”  
We implore you to be careful and remind you that the Russian Emperor was ordained by God, and only answerable to Him. The Emperor believed that he had a bond with God, and through this unification with God, a bond with his people. This is the very essence of Russian autocracy. His coronation sealed that unbreakable union and this is what the DEFENDANT firmly believed. To judge him you judge God.  

We the Defense feel confident that after hearing all the evidence of this case, you will have only one true path to follow, and that is to bring not just a verdict of not guilty, but clearly state that the DEFENDANT Nicholas Alexandrovich is innocent.
Finally, we would like to leave you with this thought Ladies and Gentlemen:
“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them”.
Galileo Galileo
Italian astronomer & physicist (1564 - 1642)  
Thank you.
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on May 06, 2005, 11:04:22 AM
DEFENSE CHALLENGES to the Prosecution’s Opening Statements

The Defense challenges errors in the Prosecution’s interpretation of the law, disputes the facts that have been presented to the Court and challenges the credibility of their witnesses.
Considerations tendered by the Defense
1.   Defense Team acknowledges that we have received the Prosecution’s Opening Statement.

The Defense respectfully wishes to point out that there is apparent confusion by the Prosecution to correctly specify the sections within the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act 2000, c. 24. We wish to advise that Section 5 (1) (a) (i) does not mean Section 5 (1) (a) (1) and so forth. We bring this to the Court’s attention, in the interests of adhering to the correct identification of pertinent sections of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act 2000, c. 24. Our intent is to minimize future misidentification of sub-sections which are to be used in the Court when it is in session.

The Defense seeks the Court to clear up the Prosecution’s conflicting statements, concerning the number of persons who died. Indictment # 1 claims at least 200 persons were killed, whereas the Prosecution’s Opening Statement claims that “for the purposes of this Trial we assume that around 100 were killed”.
The Prosecution used the term “murder in the first degree”. This is not defined in Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act 2000, c. 24.


LEGAL ELEMENTS tendered by the DEFENSE against the Prosecutorial Opening Statement

The Defense challenges the Prosecution’s charge that the DEFENDANT was guilty of an offence against a crime against Humanity as specified under the Act Section 4 (1) (b) and Section 4 (3).

The Defense challenges that an inhumane act or omission of an act was committed by the DEFENDANT as specified under Section 4 (3).

The Defense challenges that the march comprised a civilian population or any identifiable group as specified under Section 4 (3).

The Defense challenges the Prosecution claim that Nicholas Alexandrovich was a “Military Commander.”
We contend that the Prosecution has confused their claim, by the facts as they stood in 1905. We seek the Court to strike out this claim; based on the fact that Nicholas Alexandrovich was not the “Military Commander” of Imperial Russia in 1905.
The Defense seeks to point out to the Court that Section 5(1) can not be used concurrently with Section 5 (2) of the Act. The two sections are mutually exclusive of each other.
Section 5(1) (a), (b) and (c) do not apply.
We therefore seek the Court to strike out this section in its entirety.
The Defense accepts Section 5 (2) (a), (b), (c) for the purpose of this Trial; whereby the DEFENDANT may be considered to be a “Superior” pursuant to the Act, which defines a Superior to mean “a person in authority, other than a military commander.”
4. Pursuant to the SCHEDULE
Provisions of Rome Statute Article 7. Crimes against Humanity
Article 7 (1) states that “For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systemic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
The Defense challenges the application of  Article 7 (1) and (2) that the DEFENDANT is guilty of an act of murder by committing a crime against humanity as either part of a widespread or systemic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack;
On the grounds that:
The actions were NOT widespread.  The indictment refers to events at Palace Square, a single location in one metropolitan city. The definition in Article  7 (2) (a) states that “attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph (1) against any civilian population, pursuant to or in the furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such an attack.  The actions referred to were not multiple.
The uprising was NOT a systemic attack directed against any civilian population. The definition “systemic” implies that there was a continuous long-term conflict, which does not apply to the Uprising on Palace Square. The definition also implies there was an overall plan or strategy.  This does not apply as the military response was to a single occasion generated by the occurrence of an unpredictable set of actions by uncontrollable elements. The uprising was dispelled within minutes on Palace Square, never to be repeated at that location.  The definition in Article 7 (2) (a) quoted above refers to acts ‘pursuant to or in the furtherance of a State or organizational policy’.  There was no such policy.
The action was NOT an attack.  The action was a military response to parties directly challenging civil liberties of the city and the government of the day.
The DEFENDANT had NO knowledge that there were any widespread or systemic attacks directed against any civilian population. The Defense contends that the DEFENDANT was not aware of the facts before the uprising took place. The DEFENDANT was not aware of any facts while the Uprising was taking place, and could not be held accountable for facts of which he had no knowledge.  In brief, he was not there and had left full control to the governor of St. Petersburg.
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on May 06, 2005, 11:06:16 AM
(cont)
murder.
The prosecution has alleged murder.  This requires premeditation.  For the reasons stated above, premeditation was not possible in this circumstance.
The Crime against humanity by the act of murder Pursuant to Article 7 (1) and (2) do not apply to the DEFENDANT.
We therefore seek the Court to strike out this offense against the DEFENDANT.  
Vicarious Liability.
The Prosecution has introduced the Tort of Vicarious Liability of an employer.
The Prosecution has introduced the Tort of Vicarious Liability of a Monarch.  
This is irrelevant to crimes against humanity, which is under the criminal code.  Vicarious liability lies under Tort law, being part of the Civil Code.

The Defense is compelled to seek your Honor’s discretion in throwing out this notion from the list of charges against our DEFENDANT.
CHALLENGES by the DEFENSE concerning STATEMENTS of FACTS tendered by the Prosecution
The Defense will challenge the location of the alleged offence in the manner specified in the Prosecution’s Opening Statement. We have clear evidence which will prove that the Prosecution has confused the events which took place in separate and distinct locations during the course of the day. There is no connection to Palace Square and Father Gapon.

Based on evidence that Father Gapon was not present at the location specified by the Prosecution,

We seek the Court’s discretion to dismiss this Trial without cause.
We challenge the Prosecution’s claim that the Manifesto was a petition that only outlined worker’s grievances.
2.1 The Defense will show that the petition was a document which Father Gapon had lost complete control of. It was not a petition which expressed Father Gapon’s origin intentions. The Defense will show that the document was modified in subsequent days by persons who held allegiances to illegal revolutionary associations.
2.2 It was not a petition in any sense of the ordinary meaning, upon which the Prosecution relies. The Defense will offer proof that the document was not a Statement of Claims, but was in fact a seditious political statement, that went far beyond a plea for improved factory worker’s conditions.
2.3 The Manifesto did not represent the workers real intentions. The Defense has evidence that will show that many of the aggrieved workers had no knowledge of the true nature of the final document, based on the fact that the majority of workers were illiterate and uninformed as to what they sighted with their own eyes.
              3. The Defense challenges the Manifesto Document in its entirety on the grounds:
3.1 That the manifesto was NOT in the hands of Gapon on that Sunday as claimed by the Prosecution. The Defense has proof that the document was never in possession of Father Gapon that afternoon on Palace Square as claimed by the Prosecution. By reason provided at (1).
3.2 That the Manifesto tendered to the Court by the Prosecution was not devised by Father Gapon in January, 1905. The Defense will provide evidence that there was a Document already in existence in March 1904, almost one year BEFORE the workers went on strike!
3.3 That there were not 100,000 aggrieved workers who signed the document. The Defense contends that there is lack of proof that all signatories were genuine aggrieved workers. The Defense challenges the veracity of all the “X’s” placed upon the petition. The Defense believes there is reasonable doubt in verifying that each “X”’ represents an identifiable aggrieved worker. The Defense also contends that it would not be unreasonable to believe revolutionary zeal would exaggerate the actual and real number of aggrieved workers.
4. The Defense challenges the legality of the march on the grounds that under Martial Law, the participants were engaged in the activity of Illegal Assembly in a public place, which prevented the area from being enjoyed for the purpose intended. The Defense will show that the marchers prevented by their illegal action, the freedom of movement expected to be enjoyed by citizens of St. Petersburg.
5. The Defense challenges the Prosecution’s belief that the march only comprised striking workers and their families. The Defense has proof that there were an indeterminate number of persons of unknown origin and nationality who also participated in the march.
6. The Defense challenges the Prosecution’s claim that the demonstrators offered no threat. We have proof that the there were elements within the crowd who did cause actual and real threat to the military personnel who were in attendance at the barricades. The Defense will tender evidence of the existence of a group of marchers who were armed and that their presence was a real and actual threat to the Government authorities. We shall demonstrate that the march was perceived to be a threat against National Security by virtue of it contravening the Martial Law by reason of Illegal Assembly and Disturbing the Peace.
7. The Defense challenges the Prosecution’s claim that there was no provocation. The Defense has proof that there was indeed physical and verbal provocation made by elements within the crowd before any defensive shots rang out into the air as a warning to desist and disperse.
8. The Defense challenges the Prosecution’s claim that the Government authority participated in acts of violence and that any deaths that resulted by their actions was gratuitous on the grounds that this statement cannot be held to be true. The Defense has proof that this statement is fanciful and without proof.  The Defense will show that the authorities were entitled to protect the City, it public buildings and its law-abiding citizens from insurgency. We have evidence which will prove that the military were acting on direct and defined orders, according to the Law on Extraordinary Measures 1881.  These emergency protocols enabled the Russian government to possess the legal capacity to declare its own Martial Law as it saw fit to protect National interests.
9. The Defense challenges the Prosecution’s claim that murder and grievous injury resulted after the demonstration “broke up”. The Defense will provide evidence that persons unknown continued their illegal actions against the Civic Preservation of Peace and were engaged in willful and malicious destruction of government property and rampant vandalism, and that in so doing they continued their unlawful assembly and including the continual direct challenge to government authority to declare and close a disaster area by their refusal to disburse.
10. The Defense challenges the Prosecution’s claim that as a Superior the DEFENDANT failed to have the matter investigated. The Defense does have evidence which contradicts this misguided assertion. We have evidence which will prove that the St. Petersburg officials charged with maintaining security did in fact meet that same evening to investigate the day’s events. Furthermore the Defense will explain that our DEFENDENDNT took the first step in punishing the person whom the DEFENDANT held responsible for the unpredictable events that transpired that day, by relieving the city governor of his duties. We shall show that a similar tactic has been applied in April of 2005 by the US Government following its investigation into the Prisoner abuse Affair in Iraq.
11. The Defense will argue that the center of St. Petersburg maintained all public services without interruption. It is erroneous for the Prosecution to paint a distorted darkened image of the true facts.
12. For the purposes of this trial the Defense challenges the Prosecution’s contention that 100 were killed. The Defense has evidence which presents the actual number of deaths that occurred on Palace Square was significantly less, and not all of whom died in the line of fire. We contend that the Prosecution has confused the different events during the course of the day.
13. The Defense challenges the Prosecution’s claim that the military fired the first shot. We have evidence that there were revolutionary elements among the marchers who were armed. We shall argue that the first shot came from the crowd, and the military acted in self defense, as they were trained to do so.
The Defense will demonstrate that the Government acted according to standard legally prescribed procedures of the day – measures which were held in place to deter any illegal acts by those who chose to take the law into their own hands. These procedures were not manifestly unlawful. We contend that any form of illegal dissent against the autocracy only opened the door to massive disorder on a grand scale. As a consequence of that illegal dissent all events which occurred on Sunday, 1905 were unpredictable and unforeseeable.
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on May 06, 2005, 11:07:48 AM
CHALLENGES by the DEFENSE of WITNESSES tendered by the Prosecution
The Defense challenges the Prosecution’s witness Father Georgii Apollonovich Gapon
On the grounds that Father Gapon was not present on Palace Square on Sunday, 9 January, 1905.
The Defense challenges the Prosecution’s witness Madame Alexandra Kollontai
On the grounds:
2.1 The person was not a member of any aggrieved family directly affected by the strike.  The Prosecution has portrayed that the march comprised workers and their families.
2.2 It would be unjust for the Court to accept any statements tendered by this witness due to her illegal association with Revolutionary elements, and that she is a member of an illegal political organization contrary to Russian Law.
2.3 The witnesses is considered by the Defense to be hostile and prejudiced against the Imperial Russian State and prejudiced against the DEFENDANT.
We seek the Court to strike this witness from the Court.
3. The defense challenges the alleged eyewitness reports of both correspondents from the London Times and the Paris Le Matin,
On the grounds:
3.1 They are a mystery to this Court. They have not been identified by name. The Defense cannot verify their credentials. We have evidence that the French correspondent never left his Hotel room. There is also evidence available that the London Times derived their material from French sources!
3.2 That exaggerated allegations tendered by these unknown persons are highly prejudicial against our DEFENDANT. The statements tendered to the Court have the sole function of eliciting maximum emotional sympathy. The Defense has evidence that the foreign press of the day not only exaggerated all the details of the events which took place on that Sunday, but this was specifically done to maximize political propaganda against the Russian State.
We seek the Court to strike these alleged witnesses from the Court.
The Defense reserves the right to produce its own set of witnesses to support the DEFENDANT’S claim of innocence.


Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on May 08, 2005, 07:14:14 AM
Your Honour Judge Rob

Do you intend to rule on the defence's submissions much of which falls into the English sayng of 'Red herrings' and fails to address the fundamental spirit of the prosecution's case?

I am not around for the next couple of weeks on a course starting tomorrow in bath then running a major conference the week after.

Where do we go from here - I will be in Kenya from 15 June to 5 July?  How do we present evidence facts etc, for the prosecution I really don't want to reiterate the much of the opening statement, it might get boring for people?

Regards

Richard
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on May 08, 2005, 09:39:51 AM
Your Honor,

The Defense is more than happy to accommodate the Prosecution. :)

With my own work commitments I would be more than pleased to re-convene in several weeks as Mr Cullen suggests.

I will be unavailable from July 2 to 16 (flying to the Tropics)! ;D

Margarita Nelipa
(First Counsel)
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on May 08, 2005, 11:40:50 AM
I will rule on the appropriate questions.  I am not home in Austin again until the 12th, so I intend to research and write my decision after I get back.  It will probably be in a week.
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on May 08, 2005, 07:39:08 PM
Thank you your Honor!

:) :) :)

We wish to advise the Court that our submission appears to have lost all its formatting, including spacing between paragraphs, during the translation of the DOCUMENT from WORD to this forum.

Please note that:

"murder.

The prosecution has alleged murder.  This requires premeditation."

SHOULD READ:

(a) murder  


We apologise to the Court that our submission may be difficult to read.

Thank you,

Margarita

(First Counsel)

Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on May 12, 2005, 10:09:44 AM
Judge Rob,

Thank you for your indication.  Realistically I may not be able to produce too much until after my return from Kenya so maybe we recess for the summer? My work pressure is very high at the moment and I don't have much free time to commit to this work, much though I would like to.

I just want to address a couple of issues for your consideration:

The prosecution has never used the term 'murder in the first degree'.  It does not exist in English law and we have murder or manslaughter.  I believe the indictment in which murder in the first degree is mentioned was prepared by Your Honour?

I would submit that the prosecution does not need to use only one sub section of the Act, the defendant in this case can be either the military commander or the responsible person.  It is for the jury to decide upon the evidence.

From my reading of the defence submission there is a mixture of old Russian law and modern day legislation being used.  I thought you had already ruled that Russian law at the time was not appropriate or applicable to this case.

It is wrong for teh defence to suggest that teh defendant was not the supreme head of the military at the time.  He was as an autocrat.

If the defence are right in their submission about the defendant's accountability for the deaths in palace square then NO PERSON could ever be convicted under crimes against humanity legislation unless they were present at the secne of the atrocity.

The demonstrators represented the community I do not have to specify which community other than they were or had amongst them a substantial number of Russian people.

The number of dead cannot be accurately recorded, one death would in my submission be sufficient.

Just for your consideration, hope you have a good break

Richard





Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on June 09, 2005, 03:06:54 PM
Memorandum in Response to Prosecution's Requests:

Mr. Prosecutor,

The charge was written with US criminal law definitions in mind for a specific reason.  Murder in the 1st degree encompasses lesser degrees of murder and thus permits the jury to find a lesser included offense if they so desire, such as voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.

The Prosecution is free to use whatever sections of the act you believe applicable.  The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why it applies.

Russian law is not controlling in this case. However, I will permit the introduction of Imperial Russian Law in the matter for the limited purpose of demonstrating intent ( or lack thereof) and the state of mind of the Defendant, as I believe it may be salient to those issues.

It is proper to "suggest" that the Defendant was not head of the Armed Forces. They have the burden of proof for that statement. You are free to introduce rebuttal evidence to challenge their statement.

The Defense has the burden of proof of their other statements as well and you are free to rebut.

Unless Defense has objections, we shall stand in recess until further notice from the Prosecution.

Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on June 10, 2005, 06:31:53 AM
Your Honor,

The Defense Team has no objection to recess until mid July.

Thank you for your consideration,

Margarita

(First Counsel for the Defense) ;D
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on August 23, 2005, 08:04:35 AM
Acting Presiding Judge, Counsel for the Defence.

I have previously asserted that the defendant was the defacto head of the Russian Armed Forces (Army and Navy) and as such they were under his 'direct' command.  Whether he chose to directly exercise this power or not is immaterial on a day to day basis however as the Supreme Autocrat he had power, in a non constitutional monarchy, to direct all organs of Government and to appoint and discharge Ministers as he saw fit.

I would refer you to more recent history with the following:

Eric Osterberg prosecutor Serb war trials: ‘It would be justified to say that the higher up the chain of command we go, the higher the degree of responsibility for the atrocities, which were ultimately executed by the common soldier on the ground’  This logic explains why the international court opened a special hearing against Karadzic and Mladic in 1996 and charged them with genocide, crimes against humanity, and the massacres in Srebrenica.

A defence that a president/dictator/absolute monarch of a country could not be found guilty of crimes against humanity on the basis that he or she was 'too far removed from the chain of command' is clealry unsustainable and would result in it being impossible to prosecute such a person.

The defendant's control of the army through his relatives was absolute and although he only 'directly' took command of the Army on the Esatern front in 1915 does not infer he was not for all intents and purposes the 'Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces' on Bloody Sunday.  the President of the USA is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces as Queen Elizabeth II in the UK.

The Tsar could use the army as he saw fit.  In fact his control of the police, militia and armed forces is to be found in the October Manifesto (The words WE and OUR and the royal we and our and mean Nicholas Alexandrovich)

Manifesto of October 17, 1905
We, Nicholas II, By the Grace of God Emperor and Autocrat of all Russia, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Finland, etc., proclaim to all Our loyal subjects:
Rioting and disturbances in the capitals [i.e. St. Petersburg and the old capital, Moscow] and in many localities of Our Empire fill Our heart with great and heavy grief.  The well-being of the Russian Sovereign is inseparable from the well-being of the nation, and the nation's sorrow is his sorrow.  The disturbances that have taken place may cause grave tension in the nation and may threaten the integrity and unity of Our state.  
By the great vow of service as tsar We are obliged to use every resource of wisdom and of Our authority to bring a speedy end to unrest that is dangerous to Our state.  We have ordered the responsible authorities to take measures to terminate direct manifestations of disorder, lawlessness, and violence and to protect peaceful people who quietly seek to fulfill their duties.  To carry out successfully the general measures that we have conceived to restore peace to the life of the state, We believe that it is essential to coordinate activities at the highest level of government.  
We require the government dutifully to execute our unshakeable will:
(1.) To grant to the population the essential foundations of civil freedom, based on the principles of genuine inviolability of the person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association.  
(2.) Without postponing the scheduled elections to the State Duma, to admit to participation in the duma (insofar as possible in the short time that remains before it is scheduled to convene) of all those classes of the population that now are completely deprived of voting rights; and to leave the further development of a general statute on elections to the future legislative order.  
(3.) To establish as an unbreakable rule that no law shall take effect without confirmation by the State Duma and that the elected representatives of the people shall be guaranteed the opportunity to participate in the supervision of the legality of the actions of Our appointed officials.  
We summon all loyal sons of Russia to remember their duties toward their country, to assist in terminating the unprecedented unrest now prevailing, and together with Us to make every effort to restore peace and tranquility to Our native land.  
Given at Peterhof the 17th of October in the 1905th year of Our Lord and of Our reign the eleventh.

Nicholas

So here we have Nicholas 'ordering the responsible authorities' - army, militia, police to quell disorder.

This is my first arm of argument on the specific issue of the Tsar's accountability.  I look forward to the Defence team's response.  We must all recall we are dealing with the law as it exists now, now on the basis of the defendant's immunities under Imperial Law.  2005 law not the law of 1905.


Richard




Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on September 24, 2005, 08:46:23 PM
In the Matter of: PEOPLE vs. NICHOLAS  AlEXANDROVICH

If it pleases the Court,

The Prosecution has submitted their claim that the DEFENDANT Nikolai (Nicholas) Alexandrovich was referred to as the Commander in Chief (CiC) of the armed forces on Bloody Sunday. For the purpose of this exercise the use of an American Military Command structure is inappropriate in the Russian Imperial scenario.

We are faced with the definitions as they pertained to Imperial Russia in 1905. The term komandir was used to identify the numerous spheres of command within Russia whether they were the commanding officers of the Police Department, the Gendarmerie or designated high-ranking personnel within the military forces.

The Defense would like to point out that the Prosecution’s use of the term “Commander in Chief” in the Russian sense does not fall under the ambit of Section 5 (4) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Act 2000, c 24. This section states that a Military Commander is defined under the terms of this Act as:

… a person effectively acting as a military commander” AND,
is a person who “commands … with a degree of control of authority
[/u].”

By Imperial Decree, the first arm of the Emergency Statute of August 1881 (Polozhenie ob Okhrane) [Lauchlan, Russian Hide and Seek” p 66-67] the Cherezvychainaya Okhrana (Extraordinary Security) Law provided that Martial Law could be declared when Russian sovereignty was threatened. Only the Emperor with his cabinet could approve Martial Law, which necessitated the appointment of a Superior Commander (Pipes, “Russia under the Old Regime” p 306).  

The second arm of this emergency measure Usilennaya Okhrana (Re-enforced Security) enables the Governor-General with concurrence of the Minister of Internal Affairs, to arbitrarily declare emergency security measures without Imperial decree [Ascher, "The Revolution of 1905", Vol I, p 110, Pipes, pp 305-7].

The Commander of the St. Petersburg Military District, Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, who was also the Emperor’s uncle, was nominally to be in charge of the military forces on Sunday (Harcave, “The Russian Revolution of 1905”, p 209). The Grand Duke appointed General Prince Vasil’chikov – the Commander of the Guard Corps, to act on his behalf, and to provide a dominant role in the military operation. As senior Commander General Prince Vasil’chikov’s own orders flowed down to the middle level operational commanders on the field stationed around the city perimeter and in the Winter Palace Square (Sablinsky, p 210).

If we apply the two elements of the modern legal definition of Military Commander from the Crimes Against Humanity and War Act, we can identify that there was only ONE

[Page 2 to follow]
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on September 24, 2005, 08:49:38 PM
person who held that effective position of Military Commander, and who was able to direct command and control of all units on Sunday 9 January 1905.

Accountability may be defined as answering for the result of one's actions or omissions. In this case accountability was represented by a hierarchy of individual commanders who took decisions within their linked functional formations and units.

It is vital to appreciate that the notion of command, discipline, and leadership are the very essence of the military system. At the head of that system stands the commander, the officer from whom all authority radiates. Traditionally, “command” is defined as the legal authority to issue orders and to compel obedience. The obedience of subordinates is a vital component of command. Ideally command must be clear in law, organization and execution. However, being a concept devised by humans, it is subject to human frailty.    

What we have is a clearly defined linkage system militarily referred to as the chain-of-command. In this case, that chain-of-command started with the Grand Duke Vladimir and flowed downwards to General Prince Vasil’chikov, who was empowered with the authority to make effective decisions on behalf of his operational superior. All his decisions had to be a product of his personal critical analysis of the circumstances in which the decisions would be made in accordance to military custom. It was his duty to command and direct subordinate unit officers who were compelled to obey orders and give effect to those orders, and not to prejudice the orders given down the line of authority. Decisions remained with General Prince Vasil’chikov was the man responsible for the military while Martial Law was in place.  Ultimately his actions depended on his courage to make that decision and his integrity in taking responsibility for that decision.

Failure to quell revolutionary fervor necessitated that the Emperor place St. Petersburg under Martial Law, in order to preserve the prestige of the Crown and the nation. Its implementation for the purpose of gaining control was the Emperor’s right as Head of State (Harcave, p 118).  

In 1905, in Imperial Russia there was no other effective mechanism in the struggle against revolutionary insurrection, except the Emergency Statute, which was signed into law by Alexander III after the assassination of Alexander II in 1881 (Pipes p 305).

Taking an administrative approach, there was a clear delegation of responsibility to carry out whatever measures were considered necessary to maintain order in the capital city.

Now let us look at the course of events as they unfolded which will illustrate who was accountable for the events of Sunday, 9 January.

On Friday, 7 January 1905, an Imperial Decree placed St. Petersburg under the military authority of the Guard Corps Commander General Prince Vasil’chikov (Sablinsky, “The Road to Bloody Sunday”, p 205). It was his duty to co-ordinate the plan of action against the impending illegal march of demonstrators who according to Okhrana intelligence, intended to transform the march into an armed uprising (Harcave, p 84). The use of

[Page 3 to follow]
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on September 24, 2005, 08:53:37 PM
military forces was co-ordinated with the assistance of the Minister of War (Sablinsky, p 206) General Victor Victorovich. Sakharov [Harclave, “Memoirs of Count Witte” p 384], one day later on Saturday.

As the Chief of Staff of the St. Petersburg Military District, it was the duty of General Meshetich to inform the St. Petersburg Governor, General Fullon that an Imperial Decree had been issued declaring Martial Law in the city.
[Ref: http://tradicia.soborspb.ru/histori/rus/3.htm ]

The city authorities met and agreed to divide the city into eight distinct military sectors, each under the authority of a military supervisor of mid-level rank (Major-General) paired with a senior ranking police officer (Sablinsky, p 205).

The next day, on Saturday, 8 January, the Minister of War, General Sakharov with the co-operation of the Minister of Interior, Prince P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirski, assigned the required troops. By nightfall, a meeting was called in the presence of the Governor of St. Petersburg, General Fullon, to discuss logistics for controlling the march on Sunday.

Not one person at that meeting considered that there was to be blood spilt on the stones the next day. Based on Okhrana surveillance reports the conferees: Prince P. D. Svyatopolk-Mirski, Minister of Justice - N. V. Muravyev, Minister of Finance - V. N. Kokovtsov, General Prince S. I. Vasil’chikov, General Meshetich, the Chief of Gendarmes - General K. N. Rydzevsky and the Director of Police General A. A. Lopukhin; [Ref: http://tradicia.soborspb.ru/histori/rus/3.htm ] all had recalled the Khodynskoe Field catastrophe, and believed that revolutionary agitation would not be permitted to develop.

Results of that conference were reported by the Minister of the Interior, General Prince P. Svyatopolk-Mirski and General Lopukhin, in the absence of military personnel. Both these individuals specifically traveled to Tsarskoe Selo later that evening to inform the DEFENDANT Nikolai Alexandrovich that “everything was under control” in St. Petersburg and the safety of the Emperor was assured. [Ref:http://orthodox.etel.ru/2003/32/nikolaj.shtml]

The St. Petersburg authorities believed that the city administration in conjunction with the police and gendarmes had full control of the city without deploying the military forces. Believing their collective assurances, the Emperor exercised his Imperial Will and revoked the decree of Martial Law [Ref: http://orthodox.etel.ru/2003/32/nikolaj.shtml].
 
Abraham Ascher (“Russia in Disarray” p 110) correctly noted that in the case of civil disturbances, the ultimate decision was placed at the full discretion of the authority in St. Petersburg, a power that was invested under the operation of the Emergency Statute of August 1881.

But Ladies and Gentlemen, who was that authority?

[Page 4 to follow]
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on September 24, 2005, 08:59:13 PM
Despite the fact that the military authorization had been rescinded by the Emperor just hours before Sunday dawned, it is not for us here to explain why that intelligence was not transmitted down through the accepted military chain-of-command pathway to General Prince Vasil’chikov. For this Court it is only necessary to appreciate that it was the Emperor’s Will (intent) that only ministerial authorization was to be employed, guided under the shield of the second arm of the Emergency Statute of 1881 - Usilennaya Okhrana (Re-enforced Security).

Thus the DEFENSE can confirm that the Emperor trusted that the Governor of St. Petersburg together with the Minister on Internal Affairs would act by mutual consensus and not in concert with the military forces.

General Vasil’chikov, unaware of any change to his original orders met with lower ranking regimental officers to finalize logistics for Sunday (Sablinsky, p 209). With the dawning of Sunday, Vasil’chikov had still not been informed that Martial Law was no longer to be enforced. Therefore the military infrastructure maintained their key positions around the city on full alert. No dispersal of the military units had occurred, which is what the DEFENDANT expected to have occurred the previous evening.

In Tsarskoe Selo, the Emperor went about his duties on Sunday – traditionally the Orthodox day of resurrection; calmly believing that Martial Law was no longer in place and peace had finally enveloped his capital city.

Nikolai’s diary entry for January 8 clearly illustrates his peace of mind:

The workers are so far behaving peacefully … Mirski came in the evening with a report on proposed measures.” [Dnevnik Imperatora Nikolaya II, (Russian Language) pp 208-9]  

It is patently obvious that Nikolai had NO intention of using military force against the Russian people on that Sunday.

Ladies and gentlemen, how could any reasonable person honestly believe that the DEFENDANT Nikolai Alexandrovich could be held accountable under these set of peculiar circumstances – circumstances that were entirely beyond his direct control and knowledge?


_____________________________________________


Now let us turn to two precedents from history where fatal suppressions of civil disturbances led to no convictions of commanders on the ground, let alone the Head of State.

In 1970, in the United States, Kent State University experienced a vigorous civil disturbance on its campus. The Governor of Ohio sent in the National Guard to restore order. The guardsmen opened fire on a crowd of protesters, that resulted in loss of four lives and numerous wounded. All the victims died as a result of bullets being fired by the

[Page 5 to follow]
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on September 24, 2005, 09:14:05 PM
Ohio National Guard, within a 400 feet range, amidst the cloud of tear gas. The question arose as to who was accountable for that tragedy. Criminal trials in both Federal and State court were either dismissed or ended in acquittals. Governor Rhodes insisted that the demonstrators’ behavior, and not the Guardsmen, was responsible for the tragedy. [Ref: http://www.vw.cc.va.us/vwhansd/HIS122/KentState.html].

Many decades earlier in 1919, under the protection of Martial Law, fifty British troops under General Reginald Dyer’s command, deliberately opened fire on an unarmed crowd of 10,000 at Amritsar, India. This scene was dramatically depicted in the 1982 Lord Attenborough film “Gandhi.” General Dyer followed the orders of Sir Michael O' Dwyer, the Lt. Governor of Punjab, to stop any mass meetings. As a result of this command, 379 were killed, and 1,200 were left wounded inside the Sikh temple complex. Returning as a hero, senior British officers applauded General Dyer’s suppression of another Indian Mutiny. Despite the English Prime Minister’s protestations, the British Parliament cleared Dyer’s name following an inquiry, while The House of Lords passed a measure commending his ruthless action. [Ref: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Amritsar_Massacre]

Following the International Law guidelines [Ref: http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2005/command.htm] the modern doctrine of command responsibility can be defined as the responsibility of commanders for war crimes committed by subordinate members of their armed forces or other persons subject to their control.

Article 7(3) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) states that:

…the fact that the crimes were committed by a subordinate does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators.”

In other words, the DEFENDANT Nikolai Alexandrovich did not possess information of this nature, which would have warned him of the risk of whether crimes were committed or were about to be committed by his subordinates.

The DEFENSE contends that there was no transference of criminal responsibility upwards to suggest that Nikolai Alexandrovich could be liable for acts to which had no actual knowledge, nor was there a perception of immoral disregard of the action of his subordinates amounting to acquiescence, either by acts of commission or omission. Furthermore, the doctrine of “criminal responsibility” applies to a theater of war, which did not apply to St. Petersburg on Sunday 9 January, 1905.
 
Nikolai Alexandrovich cannot be held to account for the revolutionary uprising in St. Petersburg that cold Sunday afternoon. An event that moved as rapidly as any fire on the dry prairies.

_____________________________________________



[Page 6 to follow]
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on September 24, 2005, 09:22:05 PM
2. The DEFENSE completely rejects the Prosecution’s use of the Serbian War Trial on indictment by the ICTY in 1995; on the grounds that this particular case dealt with “crimes in time of war”.

The term “War Crime” originated from the 1907 Hague Convention preamble, which codified the customary law of armed conflict. It is timely here to remind the Court that it was the DEFENDANT Nikolai Alexandrovich, who proposed that all nations come together and meet in order to cut down on their military forces and submit to general arbitration on international disputes. The Hague Peace Conference was convened on our DEFENDANT’S initiative in the Netherlands, on May 18, 1899, and served as the precedent for the later League of Nations and United Nations. [Ref: http://www.worldfederalistscanada.org/hague.html]

The concept of “War crimes” is a recent notion. Prior to WWII the horrors of war were considered to be the nature of war. WWII revealed the mass murder or mistreatment of millions of civilians and prisoners of war in Germany and Japan. The allied powers were forced to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes. These trials are the only precedents which The Hague hears. [Ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1420133.stm].

War crimes extend to genocide (the most severe category) and mass murder, whereby there are grave breaches of the Geneva Convention (1949) in relation to the protection of civilian persons in time of war.

Today, these crimes are embodied in Human Rights Law convening as from 2001, as the International Criminal Court based in The Hague, which is a permanent court authorized by the United Nations.

Significantly, to date, the only former Heads of State or Heads of Government that have been charged with war crimes are Karl Dönitz of Germany, ex prime minister Hideki Tojo of Japan and former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. [Ref: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/War_crime]

In the first of many Hague Press Releases, the following, dated 8 July 1996, [Ref: http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p098-e.htm ] stated that:

Prosecutor Harmon had placed the two accused Radovan Karadzik (President of Republika Srpska) and Ratko Mladic (Commander of the Bosnian Serb Army) firmly in control of the Bosnian Serb forces. Harmon further asserted that:

"Dr. Karadzic had complete authority and control over all the official Bosnian Serb forces in time of war. He created a unified command for the Bosnian Serb Army and police. This meant that information about all aspects of the conflict flowed directly up and down the chain of command.”


[Page 7 to follow]
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on September 24, 2005, 09:28:29 PM
How that Chain of Command operated was illustrated by the following Hague Press Release (11 July, 1996): [Ref: http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p099-e.htm]

The Trial Chamber noted that Karadzic and Mladic exercised their power in order to plan, instigate the execution of the war crimes. Their offences were committed in accordance with a political program and military organization.

It found that:

"Radovan Karadzic’s central role in the political and military preparation of the take-over by the Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina. … His actions and statements demonstrate not only that he was abreast of his subordinate's doings, but also, notably, that he endorsed their behavior, that he participated … in the planning of the policy of ethnic cleansing … and that he himself was in a position to order the Bosnian Serbs' operations which led to the commission of prohibited acts.”

As Chief of Staff of the Bosnian Serb Army:

"Ratko Mladic had full control over his generals and …was often personally involved in the operational decisions of the various corps.”
 
Now that we have explained the nature of the Indictment against Karadzik and Mladic, it can be very clearly seen that the ICTY precedents are NOT relevant to the DEFENDANT.  

Unlike the war criminals Karadzic and Mladic, who gloated in the death of innocents, the DEFENDANT was so completely overwhelmed by the turn of events that Sunday he expressed the following harrowing entry in his diary during the evening of 9 January:

A wretched day! In St. Petersburg there were serious disorders as a result of the desire of the workers to approach the Winter Palace. Troops were compelled to fire in different parts of the city; many were killed and wounded. God, how painful and wretched! ” [Dnevnik Imperatora Nikolaya II, (Russian Language) p 209] Translation and emphasis by Margarita Nelipa

It would be a deplorable travesty of justice to place the DEFENDANT into the same immoral category as the Yugoslav war criminals.

The DEFENDANT had no knowledge or involvement in what was transpiring on Sunday 9 January 1905.

The DEFENDANT had the reasonable expectation in believing that the Russian citizens would uphold the laws of the land peacefully.

None of the elements of a War Crime can be applied to the DEFENDANT Nikolai Alexandrovich.


_____________________________________________



[Page 8 to follow]
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on September 24, 2005, 09:36:39 PM
3. The defense CHALLENGES the Prosecution’s introduction of the October Manifesto, 1905 on the grounds that the events of 9 January 1905 occurred well before the Manifesto was ever contemplated.

The Uprising did not alter the course of government policy in any way. Count Witte, as Chairman of the Council of Ministers stated in his February 12 interview:

 "…it was a passing phenomenon." (Ascher,Vol I, p 103).

Only after the conclusion of the war with Japan, was the October Manifesto offered to the people, under pressure of revolutionary turmoil and continuing civil disobedience and under the co-ordination of ministerial policy in spring of 1905 (Lieven, Nicholas II, “Twilight of the Empire,” p 148).

_____________________________________________


[Page 9 to follow]
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on September 24, 2005, 09:47:10 PM
To conclude this phase of the proceedings, the DEFENSE would like to remind you that the English King (George V) was never held to account for what transpired in India in 1919, nor was the U.S. President (Nixon) held to account for the events of Kent State University in 1970.

We are all aware that Nikolai Alexandrovich assumed the role of Supreme Military Commander of the military forces on 23 August 1915 (Mul’tatuli, P. “God Shall Bless My Decision” [in Russian] Part II, Ch 1) one year after the announcement of World War I, by dismissing Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich.

His Imperial WILL was formalized by Imperial Ukase submitted to the Senate and published in the journal “Niva”, # 36, 1915, p 681. (Mul’tatuli, Part III, Ch 2). The Ukase (translated by Margarita Nelipa), voiced the following:

"Ukase (to the) Governing Senate.

Have assumed for Myself (the) Supreme Command of the Armed Forces in the field, All Gracious duty (of) Our General-Adjutant, General of the Infantry His Imperial Highness Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich shall be vice regent (of) Our Caucasus (region), Commander-in-Chief (of) the Caucasian army and forces under (the) authority (of the) Caucasus ataman shall be enjoined with Our General-Adjutant
." NIKOLAI

Accompanying the formal Imperial declaration, a Prikaz was issued simultaneously on the same day, 23 August, 1915 to the military forces [Spiridovich, “Great War and February Revolution 1914-17 (in Russian), Part I, Ch 12, p 159]. It declared (translation by Margarita Nelipa):

"Prikaz Army and Navy. 23 August 1915.

From this date I have assumed for myself command (of) all armed land and naval forces, within the operative theatre of war….
" NIKOLAI

In Grand Duke Kirill’s own words, the “concentration of ALL command in one person.” (G.D. Kirill “My Life in Russia’s Service” p 201); now lay squarely in the Emperor’s own hands. Nikolai’s action necessitated that there was a complete change of the elite General command at Stavka (Headquarters). This decision was expressed in Nikolai’s telegram to the Tsaritsa transmitted on 23 August [Spridovich, p 159] (translated by Margarita Nelipa) which stated:

" … Meeting went extremely well and simply. He will depart day after tomorrow, but the change (in leadership) occurred today. Now everything is done…"
   
From that day, the Imperial forces became aware that it was their Emperor who became the Supreme Commander of the Military (Mul’tatuli, Part II, Ch 2).

Such a historically documented event contradicts the Prosecution’s erroneous presumption that the DEFENDANT Nikolai Alexandrovich could have been a military commander in 1905.

Why then, Ladies and Gentlemen, must the DEFENDANT Nikolai Alexandrovich who was the Head of his State, be considered to be the Supreme Commander of an event that occurred a decade before on Sunday, 9 January 1905?

The prosecutor has failed to convince that the definition of Military Commander applies to the DEFENDANT Nikolai Alexandrovich on January 9 1905.

Furthermore the Prosecution has failed to convince that the DEFENDANT was accountable for the uprising of January 9 1905.

The DEFENSE contends that the Prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against the DEFENDANT.


Margarita Nelipa - First Chair for the Defense

Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on September 25, 2005, 10:19:01 AM
The Court thanks the Defense. Prosecution may have one rebuttal if they so wish, to be followed by one follow-up response from the Defense, on this issue before moving forward.

FA
Acting Judge
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on October 04, 2005, 02:43:16 AM
Your Honour Acting Judge, Counsel for the Defence

Soory i haven't had chance to get onto the site over the last week or so.  I will consider the defence's submission and then respond

Richard
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on October 04, 2005, 04:50:02 AM
Welcome back Richard.  ;D
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on October 06, 2005, 09:48:27 AM
The general public will refrain from public comment in this thread. This thread is strictly and solely for partipants in the trial. Period.

Rob  Moshein
Acting Judge
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on October 08, 2005, 09:19:11 PM
The Court wishes to take a brief moment and congratulate the chief Prosecutor Mr. Cullen for the airing of the television program(me) about his investigation into the Rasputin murder (aired this evening, 8 October in the US on Discovery Channel). We are indeed honored to have him here participating with us.
(We thought Mr. Cullen was a bit taller...;D )

Rob Moshein
Acting Judge
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on October 08, 2005, 09:41:00 PM
The Defense also extends congratulations to the Prosecutor on this recent personal accomplishment! :D

Hopefully the program will appear in Australia soon?  ???

Margarita

Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on October 12, 2005, 02:31:04 PM
Your Honour Acting Presiding Judge and Leading Counsel for the defence thank you for your kind comments.  How you assessed my height previously is a matter of some interest, mind you I am taller than the last Tsar, Rasputin, Felix etc.  A giant amongst men. 5'9.5"

However back to the theme:

On behalf of the prosecution on this limb only of our argument, because even if the court rejects this limb there are a number of others set out in my opening statement as to the Tsar culpability, I have to say that the defence have failed to address the fundamental issue of the defendant's control over the Army.  He was at the time the de facto head of the armed forces of Russia.

The defence must remember that we are trying the defendant under 'Crimes Against Humanity' legislation which overrides the laws of an individual country. Neither is it reasonable to rely on the precedent of law as it existed in Imperial Russia at the time.

The prosecution does not disagree that General Dyer committed a crime against humanity at Amritsar.  I cannot comment on the American case but if the killings were unlawful ie not in self defence then those who fired the bullets that killed, and their commanders should have faced trial in a court of law.  Whether it was a crime against humanity i cannot comment.  Of course we are not having a mock trial in respect of Dyer as this case is about the Tsar of Russia and not a British Army General.

Nor is it right to consider the position of King George V who was a constitutional monarch and therefore only technically the head of the armed services.  he could not commit the army to a course of action without Parliament's approval.

The defendant in this case and we must focus on the this defendant was an AUTOCRATIC ruler, he could appoint and dismiss Ministers as he frequently did, without recourse to anyone else.

There was no Parliament he could declare war without the agreement of Ministers because if he didn't like their advice he could sack them.

It is clutching at straws for the defence, and I do have sympathy with them tryng to defend this serial abuser of human rights and perpetrator of crimes against humanity by suggesting that the obvious powers he uses in his October Manifesto are not relevant because they post date Bloody Sunday.  This has to be, by any reasonable measure nonsense, this man had the power to direct the police, the gendarmerie, the army and the navy to do his bidding.

It is a ruse to say that he only took personal control of the armed forces during World War 1.  He took operational control away from others far more competent because he thought that was waht was required of him.  he had always exercised control over the armed forces.

Hos power was such that he could have stopped Russia's involvemnt in the war altogether.  He was the complete autocrat and by his total controlled every organ of state especially those engaged in the security of the country.

He was paranoid about revolution, baout dying and he was prepared to do everything in his power to prevent a revolution in 1905, before and after.

He had persoanl briefings, he knew exactly what to expect.

This is the preliminary to examining the actual offences that took place in and around Palace Square on that fateful day.  The defendant, and this is all you have to be satisfied about at this tage, was the head of the army and the police on duty that day.  he knew what the arrangemnets were and you must find in favour of the prosecution.  We can then move on to the evidnce, you are finding him guilty of nothing you are just saying he commanded the army and police on that day.

We the prosecution have then to prove the crimes against humanity

I thank you and know you will come to what is the only right and just decision that the defendant was to all intents and purposes as the complete authocrat the de facto head of the troops on duty in St Petersburg that day and from his briefings must have known what the contingencies were.

Richard Cullen
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on October 12, 2005, 03:59:03 PM
Quote
Your Honour Acting Presiding Judge and Leading Counsel for the defence thank you for your kind comments.  How you assessed my height previously is a matter of some interest, mind you I am taller than the last Tsar, Rasputin, Felix etc.  A giant amongst men. 5'9.5"


The Court admits a presumption pre-existing with respect to the Prosecutor's height, as a result of too much BBC-America programming. Inspector Japp in the David Suchet "Poirot" series, and all of the other Scotland Yard Chief Inspectors all seem to be well over 6 foot, so our mind's eye simply pictured Prosecutor Cullen as a taller man...  ;D Although your Presiding Judge is himself another giant amongst men at 5'10.

Thank you Mr. Prosecutor for your rebuttal. The Defense will have the last rebuttal on this specific issue, and then the Prosecution will proceed with other allegations.

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on October 12, 2005, 09:56:53 PM
Quote
Thank you Mr. Prosecutor for your rebuttal. The Defense will have the last rebuttal on this specific issue, and then the Prosecution will proceed with other allegations.

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge


Thank you your Honor,

The Defense will submit their Rebuttal to the Court by Sunday 30 October, if that is acceptable to this Court?

The First Chair for the Defense

Margarita Nelipa

Quote
Although your Presiding Judge is himself another giant amongst men at 5'10.


The First Chair for the Defense is a also a "giant" amongst men - she stands at  5'4"!  ;D
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on October 13, 2005, 09:47:21 AM
The Court shall stand in recess until 30 October at which time the Defense shall present final rebuttal on this first issue.

Please post any "housekeeping issues" which might arise in the interim on the other thread.

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on October 13, 2005, 10:20:20 PM
Thank you Your Honor.

Margarita for the DEFENSE
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on October 25, 2005, 09:44:57 PM
In the matter of: People vs. Nicholas Alexandrovich

If it pleases the Court,


The Prosecutor has declared that the DEFENSE has failed to address the “fundamental issue” of Nikolai (also known as Nicholas) Alexandrovich’s control of the Imperial armed forces. This is patently false. Any member of this Court can distinguish the facts as we have clearly presented from the fiction our learned Prosecutor is trying to allege.

Had the Prosecutor paid attention to our argument, he would have noticed that we did apply Section 5(4) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Act 2000, c 24, an exercise which the Prosecutor has failed to acknowledge.

The DEFENSE has tendered evidence to this Court to confirm the indisputable fact that Section 5 (4) does not apply to the DEFENDANT Nikolai Alexandrovich. He was not a military commander prior to 23 August, 1915. That supreme position, as our indisputable evidence has indicated, was held by Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, from the beginning of Russia’s mobilization in World War I in 1914. The Grand Duke had full and unfettered responsibility for the operative Imperial military forces at Stavka and including all army business; until the date of his dismissal. Let us not forget that the only reason the Grand Duke was dismissed from duty was because of his ineffective and deficient command, evidenced by the constant defeats and massive loss of life in the theater of war.

At no time was there a collaborative liaison between the DEFENDANT and the Supreme Military Commander. Prior to 23 August 1915, the DEFENDANT played no active part in the operative decisions at Stavka.

We have clearly demonstrated that Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich was the Commander of the St. Petersburg District on the 9 January, 1905. He was personally in charge for all outcomes as a direct consequence of his personal Orders.

Since Grand Duke Vladimir exercised his own unfettered authority in January 1905, he chose to delegate his authority down to General Prince Vasil’chikov on the day Martial Law was declared in St. Petersburg. It is unsustainable for the Prosecution therefore to presume that the position of military commander was held by the DEFENDANT and General Prince Vasil’chikov simultaneously on 9 January, 1905.

We do not dispute the historic fact that as Head of State the Emperor had the capacity to declare war against Japan in 1904, but what we do dispute is that he was the military commander in the St. Petersburg District.

The prosecutor has attempted to show that Nikolai was the de facto military commander. We have clearly shown that the de jure position was held by another in 1905. If anyone wanted to demonstrate that a person had de facto control – they must show that they were making real decisions that were implemented.

Page 2 to follow ...      
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on October 25, 2005, 09:51:58 PM
Page 2.

The Prosecution has failed to clarify this vital point, and therefore they have failed in his burden to prove that Nikolai Alexandrovich was a military commander before 1915 under the terms expressed in Section 5(4) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Act.

Law reflects the political and social bias of nations. Imperial Russia adhered to codes which limited the arbitrariness of the government reliance upon mere tradition. While the majority of St. Petersburg’s citizens abided to Imperial laws, a number of hot rebels chose to test those laws.

Declaration and revocation of Martial Law is an executive action not a military one. The Emperor was compelled to implement that special law as a security measure, and equally he had the authority to revoke that law when he saw fit to do so. Therefore we are compelled to acknowledge that Declaration as legitimate and just; under the unusual contextual circumstances in which it was exercised in January 1905. That operation of that Law goes to the very core as to what the Emperor’s executive position was during those final critical hours before Sunday dawned.

We have offered direct evidence that the Prosecution’s presumption only serves to mislead the Court. It is obviously difficult for the Prosecution to admit the historic fact that the DEFENDANT had the legitimate right to implement and revoke Martial Law, not as a Commander, but as Head of State.

The Emperor relied on the advice given by his trusted appointed personnel. He firmly believed that their collective knowledge was sufficient, and in that knowledge the Emperor was assured that the St. Petersburg commander had effective control of the city precinct.

For the Prosecution to suggest that the DEFENDANT “knew exactly what to expect” is
misleading and historically inaccurate. We have provided evidence that Nikolai had three expectations following his meeting late Saturday evening:

            1. His revocation of Martial Law would be effective immediately.

            2. Military forces under the command of General Prince Vasil’chikov would be withdrawn immediately.

            3. All citizens of St. Petersburg would respect Imperial Law and their Emperor and not create revolutionary mischief on Sunday morning.

Page 3 to follow ...
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on October 25, 2005, 10:01:25 PM
Page 3

The DEFENSE wishes to ask two simple questions of the Court:

1. Was Nikolai Alexandrovich effectively acting as a military commander on Sunday 9 January?

2. Did Nikolai Alexandrovich directly command the St. Petersburg District on Sunday 9 January?

If as any reasonable observers would – they would answer NO to both questions.

Then the only fair result that can be reached is that Nikolai Alexandrovich was not a military commander as defined by Section 5(4) of the Act.

We would also like to remind the Court, that had the Emperor been proffered a more realistic brief by the Minister of Police and the Minister of Interior; the Emperor would have, just a he did in August, 1915, taken matters into his own hands.

It is spectacularly obvious that the Prosecution’s has failed to present contradictory evidence or any evidence that would cast doubt on the credibility of the testimony we the DEFENSE have tendered to this Court. Their glaring omission clearly indicates that there is not one piece of evidence to support the Prosecution’s misguided allegation that Nikolai Alexandrovich was a Military Commander of the St. Petersburg District in 1905.

If the Russian military and the Russian nation understood that the Emperor became Supreme Commander in August 1915, then how presumptuous can it be for the Prosecution to allege otherwise one century later!  

What emerges Ladies and Gentlemen instead, is as a false portrayal from the Prosecution of biased statements and an unconscionable over-reaching attitude to confuse the Court. Let us provide the Court with just one example of such confusion. We simply ask - what is the relationship between commanding a military operation in January and the October Manifesto? Absolutely none! That legislative document was never envisaged in January. It is the Prosecution who is left standing in the cold clutching at his few sinewy straws.

The Prosecution has failed to withstand scrutiny on matters of fact and including the legal issues. It will suffice for us to say that there are inherent weaknesses in the Prosecution’s claims.

There is nothing in the Prosecution’s Indictment or any of their subsequent statements that has not already been rebutted in the DEFENSE statements.

The DEFENSE rests.

Margarita Nelipa for the DEFENSE.    

   
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on October 26, 2005, 09:06:09 AM
Thank you.  The Photograph shall be labelled Defense Ex. 1. The Prosecution will now proceed with any further factual issues it wishes to present.

FA
Presiding Judge
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on October 26, 2005, 09:54:07 AM
DEFENSE EXHIBIT # 1

The Emperor of Imperial Russia as Supreme Commander in November, 1916.


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v676/sadbear/NikolaiIIasSupremeCommander.jpg)

[Ref: Russkaya Golgofa by V. V. Kuznetsov, (2003), Neva Publ. St. Petersburg]
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on October 29, 2005, 02:19:05 AM
Acting Presiding Judge and Counsel for the defence

I ask the court's indulgence to respond when i return from my holidays in Egypt.

I'll be back on 8 November, until then TTFN

Richard
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on October 29, 2005, 03:24:54 AM
The DEFENSE has no problems with this request from the Prosecution.

Have a wonderful vacation and a safe return Richard!  

All the best,

Margarita Nelipa  
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on October 29, 2005, 10:05:38 AM
The Court wishes the Mr. Prosecutor a safe and enjoyable vacation/holiday. This Court shall stand in recess until Nov. 8.

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on December 01, 2005, 06:39:24 AM
Acting Presiding Judge Rob and esteemed counsel for the defence.

Sorry I have not been back beforehand but after our holidays my eldest daughter was taken seriously ill and it has somewhat disrupted normal life.

I have nothing factual to add to my submissions and it is my firm belief that there is no realistic defence to the fact that the Tsar was in de facto command of the Army, that he was briefed about the events pre and post and could have made directions for troops and police not to enagge the peaceful demonstrators.

I am therefore content for this issue to proceed to the jury for thier decision

Richard
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on December 01, 2005, 08:58:41 AM
Thank you Mr. Prosecutor.

Please proceed with your next issue at your leisure as this first issue is now closed and shall be submitted to the jury as Charge 1. The Court shall stand in further recess until submission of Charge 2 by the Prosecution.

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge.
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on December 01, 2005, 06:37:03 PM

I would like to extend to your Honor, to Richard, and all members of the Jury best wishes for the coming holidays.  Have a safe and joyous New New!

Richard, I sincerely hope the very best for your family at this time. My thoughts are with you.

Margarita Nelipa
For the Defense
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on December 28, 2005, 02:36:26 AM
Your Honour Acting presiding Judge Rob and learned senior Counsel for the defence Margarita I hope you and your families, partners, friends or whoever is close to you had an excellent Christmas and will have the most enjoyable and prosperpous of New Year ever.  It has been a pleasure working with you and learning from you over the last twelve months or so.

Rob and Margaita, I need to check out how we proceed from here with the trial.  Is it intended I should now submit evidence of further crimes against humanity - the pogroms against the Jews, repression after the 1905 Revolution etc?

This research was initially being taken on by others who now no longer participate in the prosecution and I will have to carry out some detailed personal research to put together a meaningful case.

For me there is a considerable challenge, as you know I work full time and also have many other outside interests mainly around management issues and leadership.  I am also going to be under substantial pressure form my editor to turn my book on leadership into a reality for publication next year so I won't have much free time.

Rob do you think we might consider asking for an assistant prosecutor(s) from the members who has particular knowledge of the pogroms and or the represssions?  I know this might be difficult as most of the members from my limited knowledge tend to be supportes of the IF.  I don't think it is necessary to be against the IF (I am not) to be on the prosecution team, just that the person accurately relates the facts and demonstrates the Tsar's level of personal knowledge of what was happening. It is a stimulating and I think very educational process we are undertaking.

If we can't find someone it may be sometime before I have the time to take this strand forward in any meaningful way.  fondest regards to you both as ever.

Richard
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Richard_Cullen on January 29, 2006, 02:39:25 PM
Your Honour Acting Presiding Judge (Rob)

The prosecution believes that we should put Count 1 of the indictment to the jury for a decision and that I then after due consideration move on to the 2nd Count which will relate to the pogroms against the Jews.

This allows us to keep the jury engaged and for learned counsel for the defence and me to have sufficient time to prepare the 2nd Count as we both seem to be on our own now.

Respectfully submitted

Richard
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Belochka on January 29, 2006, 06:21:59 PM
Your Honor,

I concur with the learned counsel for the Prosecution.

Richard and I both have discussed this matter privately and we both believe that we are ready to receive the jury's decision on Count # 1.

I also agree that if the Prosecution wishes to summit  a new Count against Nikolai Alexandrovich, I am prepared to offer a defense, one issue at a time.

This year I will be engaged with researching and writing a book with my Russian based co-author, which will necessitate a trip to Russia in July and August 2006.

Thank you for your consideration,

Margarita Nelipa
Counsel for the Defense
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on May 29, 2006, 12:46:28 PM
Counsel for the Defence, with concurrence from the Prosecution,  has agreed to waive Defendant's right to a Trial by Jury.  Therefore, the Court will now review the evidence and render its Verdict.

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge
Title: Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
Post by: Forum Admin on May 29, 2006, 02:08:59 PM
VERDICT IN RE PEOPLE V NICHOLAS II ALEXANDROVICH

The Court as Trier of Fact does make the following FINDINGS OF FACT:

1.  Emperor Nicholas II on the date in question Sunday 9 January 1905 (Bloody Sunday) was the ultimate authority in the Military Chain of Command with respect to the St. Petersburg Military District.  While actual authority had been delegated to Grand Duke Vladimir and thence by Ukaze to General Prince Vasil'chikov, such delegation of authority does not sui generis remove the Defendant from culpability for the actions of subordinates.  The Ukaze granting such authority itself provides the evidence that Defendant did ultimately possess such authority in the first place.  Further evidence is provided by the subsequent "assumption of all military control" during World War I.  This act is seen by the Court as the ultimate military authority merely removing the a priori delegation of such authority to others and subsequently resuming direct control and authority for himself.  We reject Defense counsel's assertion that because Defendant did not himself somehow assume "actual" military authority until 23 August 1914 that he somehow was not a superior authority to those to whom Defendant had delegated that authority.  We refer Defense counsel to the Nuremburg trials for crimes against humanity where this same defense ("I wasn't actually in charge, a subordinate was...") was rejected on numerous occasions.

2.  Prosecution states: to prove murder in law the prosecution must prove:
(a) Mens rea,  (the mental side of making a decision to unlawfully kill and individual,


This Court finds no evidence presented that Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich did in fact have Mens Rea to unlawfully kill any individual or group of individuals.  We find no evidence submitted to substantiate any notion that Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich personally ordered his subordinates to "Shoot to Kill" during the period of Martial Law declared, nor specifically on Bloody Sunday.

3. This Court finds that Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich did not fail to exercise control properly over any person under his effective command and control or his effective authority and control, which led to the events in question.  Rather, both sides have provided evidence that Defendant received regular reports and information of events, and was in fact under the genuine knowledge and belief that his subordinates were performing their duties properly.  There was no evidence introduced that it was somehow forseeable that Defendant should have known of or expected a failure in the regular and routine lines of communication to him from subordinates.

4.  Since Defendant was in reality mistaken in his perceived knowledge and belief about the performance of the duties by subordinates, was Defendant Nicholas II criminally negligent in failing to know that his subordinates were about to commit, or were committing offenses?  There is no evidence introduced to indicate that Defendant had done anything less than he could reasonably be expected to do.  He received regular reports, satisfied himself reasonably that peace had been restored to St. Petersburg.  The cancellation of Martial Law is telling evidence that Defendant was in fact genuinely satisfied that St. Petersburg was again peaceful and unrest was quelled.  The actions of Gapon and the demonstrators were obviously unforseeable at the time.  Had Gapon telegraphed the Defendant in advance to request an audience, this may have been different, but Defendant could not reasonably know what was to occur.  We find no evidence of criminal negligence on the part of Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich.

5. Did Defendant breach his responsibility as a Superior? The law cited by the Prosecution states:
a superior commits an indictable offence if
(d) the superior subsequently
(1) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6 or
(2) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.


The evidence clearly demonstrates that Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich did nothing whatsoever after the events of Bloody Sunday with respect to the subsequent investigation of the actual events to determine the causes thereof; that Defendant did nothing to take any reasonable measure to prevent further commission of the offenses; nor did Defendant take any measures whatsoever to prosecute those actually responsible for the offenses of Bloody Sunday.

Therefore, the Court finds and rules in this matter as follows:

As to Count I of the indictment, the charge of  the Capital Crime of "Murder in the First Degree, for the events of Sunday 9 January 1905 in Palace Square, St. Petersburg Russia,
the Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich is NOT GUILTY.

As to the lesser-included Crime of "Breach of Responsibility as a Superior", for the events of Sunday 9 January 1905 in Palace Square, St. Petersburg Russia,
 the Defendant Nicholas II Alexandrovich is GUILTY.


29 May 2006

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge