Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about Russian History => People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich => Topic started by: AlexP on August 03, 2005, 10:38:17 PM

Title: Just A Serious Question
Post by: AlexP on August 03, 2005, 10:38:17 PM
This topic is fine....

But what about the firestorm that followed....

What about Lenin, Stalin, Dzherinsky, Beria, Sverdlov, Trotsky, my God, the 75 millions that perished during that time....is there any indictment big enough for them?  And why have they not been intellectually indicted herewith?

The question begs to be asked....and to be answered.

Where is their "mock trial" on this forum?

And if there is a mock trial, could we please conduct it under prevailing Russian rules of law?

Why is there a mock trial of the Emperor under American law?  He would not have been of the jurisdiction of American law, not even of the Hague Convention.

So while it may be a laudable intellectual exercise, would it not be a more laudable intellectual excercise to conduct it under the applicable laws of the Russian Civil and Criminal Code?  And which Russian Civil and Criminal Code?  The Imperial Code and Rescripts of 1917?  The Constitution of the ex-USSR and its Criminal Code?  The current Russian Civil and Criminal Code?

I would very much like to hear the thoughts of all of those who participated in this mock trial on these questions.

First, on the question of appropriate jurisdiction, intellectually or not.

Second, on the matter of which applicable national criminal code.

Third, on the matter considering the legal principle that heads of state may not be indicated or sued, a principle that is applied, currently, in the United States and in Great Britain.  In Imperial Russia, the monarch could not be object of an indictment.

If the monarch were a criminal to such a degree, either three things would have happened, and perhaps all of them :

1.  he would have been overthrown;
2.  he would have forfitted his life in the coup;
3.  if he did not forfit his life, he would exiled to a remote Siberian monastery.

Comments please.  Thanks.

Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Finelly on August 05, 2005, 02:12:54 AM
It's obvious that you are neither familiar with American jurisprudence, Canadian jurisprudence, or international law.  In addition, I believe you may be misconstruing an intellectual exercise as an actual mock trial.

Perhaps you had better leave this matter to us lawyers.
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: AlexP on August 05, 2005, 04:27:31 AM
Quote
It's obvious that you are neither familiar with American jurisprudence, Canadian jurisprudence, or international law.  In addition, I believe you may be misconstruing an intellectual exercise as an actual mock trial.

Perhaps you had better leave this matter to us lawyers.


Actually, you have not answered my question:

Should not this Board consider the evil dealing of all the bomb-throwing, Trotskite anarchists, Lenin, Stalin, Beria, Dherzhinsky and company and have an "intellectual exercise" with them?

When I think of lawyers, or at least of certain lawyers, I think of Moliere's satire of them, ma chere.

Have you read it?

Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 05, 2005, 05:28:49 AM
Quote

Should not this Board consider the evil dealing of all the bomb-throwing, Trotskite anarchists, Lenin, Stalin, Beria, Dherzhinsky and company and have an "intellectual exercise" with them?


This intellectual exercise was initiated because of the centennial anniversary of the January Uprising of 1905.

This theme was the only suggestion that came to pass and acted upon by those interested enough to come together to effect this process. Such an exercise provided an opportunity for us to use our combined legal skills and knowledge of Russian history in a unique manner.  

If you are keen to introduce a new exercise then perhaps the "judge" would care to entertain another "case". All you have to do is ask. ;)

Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Forum Admin on August 05, 2005, 09:14:32 AM
The main reason Alex that we are using modern jurisprudence is two fold. First, you are quite right that Imperial Law would render the whole point moot as the Emperor was exempt. Second, and far more importantly, no one here has remotely the knowledge of Imperial Jurisprudence to use it today.

This is an intellectual exercise, that basically asks "What result would be obtained if Nicholas were tried using todays laws and ideas". Certainly, ANY historical Russian figure can be similarly judged should anyone wish to participate.
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: AlexP on August 05, 2005, 09:48:24 AM
Dear Belochka,
Dear Forum Administrator,

Thank you very much for your kind answers.

I just was wondering "why" and each of your kind answers provided me with the reasoning I was seeking.

As for Imperial Jurisprudence, I could open a topic on this Board, I would venture to say that there would be some really serious answers from at least 10 Forum members.

But it might be a boring topic for many, but given the question of succesion right, a discussion begininng with "la loi salique" might be helpful.
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Finelly on August 05, 2005, 11:28:24 AM
But of course, AlexP.  I love Moliere and his satire of attorneys is a classic.  

Unlike some people, I never take myself very seriously.  No need to.  My life speaks for itself.  :)
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: AlexP on August 05, 2005, 06:57:15 PM
Dear ForumAdmin,

Yes, I actually think that we could discuss Russian Imperial Law here.

Perhaps you might be kind enough to open a topic on it.  From reading the postings, here are the persons that I think would be helpful:

1.  Belochka -- Belochka, what do you think, would you be willing to contribute to forum on Russian Imperial law?

2.  Hikaru -- for sure, what do you think, I am sure that you could hel us with Russian Imperial Law?

3.  David Prithcard -- for sure, I am sure he could be of assistance on this subject.

4.  Mike, in Israel -- he seems to have a good grasp.

5.  Myself

6.  You

So, all of you above, would you be willing to help us getting a topic going on Russian Imperial Law.

A good place to start might be with the "krepostnaya prava".

I look forward to your thoughts.

Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Finelly on August 05, 2005, 11:10:47 PM
Do what you wish, but I suggest that an actual trial of NA using IMperial Law would be ridiculously complicated, given the regional differentialities of Imperial legal procedure, theory, and reality.
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 06, 2005, 12:35:47 AM
Hi Alex,

Since you appear so keen to initiate something new; may I suggest that you initiate a new thread in this section (FA to advise on the merits of this suggestion?  :)) which could be titled Russian Imperial Laws (excluding the Laws of Succession - which are discussed elsewhere on this forum).

It may be prudent to mention that very few would have access to specific primary documents (or copies)detailing the voluminous Imperial Ukazi, Prikazi and Manifesti that were enforced over the centuries.

Are the laws under consideration going to focus on military and/or administrative matters?

How each new law impacted on life and/or property may broaden the discussion and lead away from strict legalistic argument?  

To start proceedings perhaps it is may be more practical to restrict the scope of the discussion to the reign of  Nikolai II and/or Alexander III?  From the very little I understand in this area, not all Ukazi from previous reigns were formally published.

Perhaps if you initiate your thoughts we may be able to progress slowly? An explanation of krepostnaya prava would be a good start for those unfamiliar with these particular laws. What purpose did they serve, when were they enforced, by whom? etc. etc.

Just a few thoughts for your contemplation.  :)

BTW this was a interesting suggestion and if this discussion is initiated then I am confident there may be quite a few posters who may be interested in contributing.

Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: AlexP on August 06, 2005, 12:41:03 AM
Quote
Hi Alex,

Since you appear so keen to initiate something new; may I suggest that you initiate a new thread in this section (FA to advise on the merits of this suggestion?  :)) which could be titled Russian Imperial Laws (excluding the Laws of Succession - which are discussed elsewhere on this forum).

It may be prudent to mention that very few would have access to specific primary documents (or copies)detailing the voluminous Imperial Ukazi, Prikazi and Manifesti that were enforced over the centuries.

Are the laws under consideration going to focus on military and/or administrative matters?

How each new law impacted on life and/or property may broaden the discussion and lead away from strict legalistic argument?  

To start proceedings perhaps it is may be more practical to restrict the scope of the discussion to the reign of  Nikolai II and/or Alexander III?  From the very little I understand in this area, not all Ukazi from previous reigns were formally published.

Perhaps if you initiate your thoughts we may be able to progress slowly? An explanation of krepostnaya prava would be a good start for those unfamiliar with these particular laws. What purpose did they serve, when were they enforced, by whom? etc. etc.

Just a few thoughts for your contemplation.  :)

BTW this was a interesting suggestion and if this discussion is initiated then I am confident there may be quite a few posters who may be interested in contributing.




Thank you for your kind words.  When I originally raised the suggestion, I was roundly criticized.  See the previous posts.

Yes, I will reflect on your suggestions.

A good place to start might be with "krepostnaya prava".  We could have an original more restrictive posting on this subject, see what kind of response we get and than branch.

First, define "kreposntnaya prava" in simple English so that all could  understand.

Then, taking your suggestion broaden it away from a strict, regimented legal interpretation to a more general interpretation of how it so affected Imperial Russia in an every-day way.

As well, yes, the Laws of Succession have been covered elsewhere, you are right.

My suggestions.

Again, Belochka, thank you very much.
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 06, 2005, 12:55:44 AM
Quote
Do what you wish, but I suggest that an actual trial of NA using IMperial Law would be ridiculously complicated.


There were no Imperial Laws to cover this contingency. Nikolai was immune; but he could be protected by laws that were enforced and deemed necessary for his benefit.  
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: AlexP on August 06, 2005, 01:35:14 AM
Quote

There were no Imperial Laws to cover this contingency. Nikolai was immune; but he could be protected by laws that were enforced and deemed necessary for his benefit.  


Belochka,

Agromnoe vam cpacibo.

Pa ckolko dzec ya stradaiouc.

All of the best.  Let me know what you think of my suggestion in the previos posting.

Greetings from Shanghai,

A.A.
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 06, 2005, 03:18:11 AM
Blagodaryu vas (you're welcome)  :D

"First, define "kreposntnaya prava" in simple English so that all could  understand."

- an excellent beginning!  :)


Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: AlexP on August 06, 2005, 03:48:29 AM
Quote
Blagodaryu vas (you're welcome)  :D

"First, define "kreposntnaya prava" in simple English so that all could  understand."

- an excellent beginning!  :)





I am not sure that I could provide a sufficiently good English translation for all to understand.  Maybe we could work on this collectively? (excuse me for that word in a Romanov forum).

Regards from Shanghai,

A.A.
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Georgiy on August 08, 2005, 07:28:25 PM
Quote
Maybe we could work on this collectively? (excuse me for that word in a Romanov forum).


That was a good one! I almost laughed out loud. (Please excuse a frivolous post on a serious topic.)
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: AlexP on August 08, 2005, 08:54:57 PM
Quote

That was a good one! I almost laughed out loud. (Please excuse a frivolous post on a serious topic.)


Glad you caught it, Grisha.... ;)
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 09, 2005, 05:50:01 AM
Quote

That was a good one! I almost laughed out loud. (Please excuse a frivolous post on a serious topic.)


It appears we all know what we are discussing here. Now to define the Law into simple English ...

Who shalll begin this task?  ???
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Richard_Cullen on August 09, 2005, 09:53:49 AM
Hello all,

Sorry I haven't been around for a while but now I am back I find this topic very interesting.  A very close friend of mine is the Rector of the MVD University in St Petersburgh.  He is an expert on Russian law and I might be able to convince him to contribute to any debate - but I cannot promise.

From my perspective as the prosecutor, I accept fully that Nicholas could not have been prosecuted using the law that existed up until his abdication.  Trotsky also expounded that view.

The challenge of the exercise in my mind is to allow those of us who are participating in the exercise to understand more of the history that surrounded Nicholas II's reign.  Hopefully those who read the theme will also be able to have a better understanding of the history of the period.

Whereas I am a monarchist - a constitutional one - I should add, I think Nicholas was a poor Tsar.  I have really enjoyed putting the prosecution case together.  Of course no absolute leader, monarch or dictator could be found guilty under the laws that existed at the time of their 'alleged crimes' as they determine the law.  That is why 'crimes against humanity' legislation is so important.

History judged Nicholas and his family severely - regicide on a grand scale and without the decency of a trial even a show one.

I look forward to a debate on the laws of the time but I am now champing at the bit to resume the prosectuion.

Richard Cullen
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 09, 2005, 10:59:39 PM
Welcome back Richard!

The Defense Team is ready. ;)

Margarita
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Finelly on August 10, 2005, 12:10:53 AM
WOO HOO!

<sorry>

<sitting down demurely, hands in lap, waiting for the trial to continue......>
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Forum Admin on August 10, 2005, 10:12:00 AM
May I suggest the following?
We will continue the trial as planned using modern law.  Perhaps those who are skilled enough in Imperial Law would start a separate thread to "Comment" on the trial using Imperial Russian Law for their own conclusions?
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 12, 2005, 02:32:49 AM
Quote
May I suggest the following?
We will continue the trial as planned using modern law.  Perhaps those who are skilled enough in Imperial Law would start a separate thread to "Comment" on the trial using Imperial Russian Law for their own conclusions?


Perfect solution!  ;D
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Richard_Cullen on August 12, 2005, 05:44:13 AM
Hi,

I fully support the suggestion, although I am not sure we would get anywhere under Imperial Law.  Trotsky was of that view as well!  Of course this highlights why 'crimes against humanity' legisaltion is so important.  It is its ability to override the laws of an individual country that may have laws that protect dictators and absolute monarchs.

I am happy to restrat proceedings now - although there is ONLY me on the prosecution side.  So it may take me some time to research responses etc.

I think where we are is that the Defence needs to respond to your last set of directions is that correct?

Richard

Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 12, 2005, 07:38:03 AM
Quote
Hi,
I think where we are is that the Defence needs to respond to your last set of directions is that correct?

Richard


The Defense has already submitted its rebuttal Opening Statement including our challenges.

I am unaware that there were further matters??? because the Court is still in recess.

Margarita
(First Chair for the Defense)


Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Forum Admin on August 12, 2005, 01:08:43 PM
Mr. Prosecutor,
The Court is standing in recess until you may provide us with a date at which you yourself wish to resume trial. The Defense and Court granted your request for recess until you could return. If you may review the file online, the Defense has presented their opening argument. You had written a memo about their response, and I ruled accordingly. We now await the Prosecution to request trial resume and your next steps.

FA
Acting Judge
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Richard_Cullen on August 19, 2005, 07:09:25 AM
Rob et al,

I am back but I need to be sure exactly how you wish me to proceed.  Obviously we don't have live witnesses and might the trial not descend into me reiterating the facts in the opening argument but adding more detail.

Clearly all I can rely on are the extracts of eveidence that are found on the web and in books.  Or would you wish me to call witnesses - if they gave testimony and the defence cross examined them, I would be replying to that cross examination?

I hope I am not being stupid here but I have some difficulty in understanding how we proceed.  It really can only be a statement of the evidence available - can't it?

I will move forward however you wish on this but might we not be in a situation where I call 'x' as a witness who says this and that happened and then the prosecution calls 'y' who contradicts what 'x' says.  The problem it seems to me having read so much around the events of 'Bloody Sunday' as part of this exercise that none of us know what really happened.  We base our arguments, however objective they might be, on what is on both sides I would suggest tainted evidence.  For the citizens - enhanced by revolutionary fervour - for the Tsar - the defensive mechanisms of an autocracy.

So in short I am looking for some advice how I might realistic proceed and so that all of us who are participating in this (Judge, prosecutor (and there is only one of me) and the defence obtain the most learning from it - and we provide an interesting debate for all the other Alexander Palace members interested in the topic.

I personally have learnt so much - but how we expose that learning in the 'trial' is another question. If we had live witnesses I have no doubt I could prove my case, because I would be able to paint a live picture for the jury and then to challenge the defence's version of accounts.  At present if questioned my witnesses, because it would be answering would have to either say 'I don't know' or 'I disagree' to challenges from the prosecution because if 'they' - my witnesses change their evidence my case is lost.

Hope no one sees this as negative because I want this to be a success just finding a route through it is shrouded in fog at the moment.

If I don't get back to you quickly after a posting please feel free to e-mail me at home.

Richard

Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Forum Admin on August 19, 2005, 10:30:24 AM
certainly there can be no "witnesses" they are all dead and gone. You should  produce your evidence, citing your sources. The defense may then challenge or obect (specifically please) and then you may rebut. What I suggest for simplicity sake is that you not produce everything all at once. Perhaps one source at a time or one "theory" at a time and then we move on until you rest. The same then goes for Defense. If either side has questions or suggestions, feel free to voice them.
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 20, 2005, 01:38:03 AM
Quote
What I suggest for simplicity sake is that you not produce everything all at once. Perhaps one source at a time or one "theory" at a time and then we move on until you rest.


The Defense has no objection with your "Honor's" suggestion.

To be fair, the Defense understands that the Prosecution is working alone on this case.

For that reason we are willing to accommodate the Prosecution; whereby the Prosecution submits one "theory" at a time. That way both the Defense and Prosecution can allot their time to this "trial" with more comfort and enjoyment.

Margarita for the Defense
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Richard_Cullen on August 23, 2005, 05:54:07 AM
Acting Presiding Judge and leading Counsel for the Defence:

Thanks very much I will try and get my first submission in later this week or certainly over the Bank Holiday weekend.  I will try and deal with the Tsar's responsibility for the armed forces as the Head of State and hopefully also get one of the 'live' witnesses on record.

Richard
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 23, 2005, 06:09:53 AM
Hi Richard,

Thank you for notifying the Defense of your position.

Regards,

Margarita for the Defense Team
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Richard_Cullen on August 23, 2005, 06:14:57 AM
Presiding Judge (as FA) and Counsel for the Defence

A bit of help required - does anyone know where I can find the Coronation oath of the Romanovs - clealry there must be one.  I have searched the AP site to no avail and bits and pieces may be found at various locations on the web.  But does anyone have the full text?

Richard
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 23, 2005, 11:10:24 PM
Your Honor,

If the Court pleases, may we hear your ruling regarding the Challenges the Defense has submitted to the Court?

Thank you Your Honor

Margarita
First Chair for the Defense.
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 26, 2005, 11:23:22 PM
Thank you Rob for allowing me the opportunity to participate with this hypothetical exercise.

I have enjoyed what we were attempting to achieve here, for the benefit of all.

I must now step aside and allow others to continue should they wish to continue.

My active participation not just on this thread, but on this forum has been rich and rewarding.

I wish to particulary thank James H. for his generous and continuing support and enthusiasm as a an active member of the Defense Team.

Also, I wish to further thank Richard for being such a gracious and worthy opponent.  

To Rob and Bob I thank you both for enabling such a magnificent and diverse resource to reach out into the world. I have the utmost respect for you both.

I sincerely wish you the very best in your continuing endeavors.

Belochka
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: James1941 on August 27, 2005, 03:06:03 PM
Dear Sirs:

I must now inform you that I am withdrawing as the secondary member of the Defense team.
With the resignation of Belochka as the primary member and leader of the team I do not feel I am qualified to carry on the defense alone. I have neither the training nor ability to do adequate justice to such an endeavor.
My work has been to support with research and suggestions.
This will enable the court to appoint a new defense team to carry on this most worthwhile exercise. I hope that will be the case.
I am sorry that events have made it necessary for Belochka to withdraw, and I hope she be back with us soon. I have had a most interesting and enjoyable time working with her. She has been magnificent in keeping our team going. Her work for our defense project has been nothing but professional and superb.
I most heartily second her remarks to Richard. It has been a richly rewarding experience matching wits with his prosecution of the case. Thank you for all you have done to make this exercise a success.
I also express my thanks to the Rob and Bob for making this possible. Your support has been generous and very much appreciated.
I look forward to seeing the outcome of this case.
I remain respectfully your,
James Hogland
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 28, 2005, 10:48:20 PM
With much encouragment from a few I have re-assessed my former decision, and have decided that it is best for everyone who has actively and enthusiastically participated with the "Trial", that I must continue as First Chair for the Defense.

It would be an honor if James H. shall continue to support me in the same gracious manner as he always demonstrated.

Thank you,

Belochka  :)



Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Forum Admin on August 29, 2005, 09:01:42 AM
Belochka,
The Court is most pleased that you have reconsidered and are willing to continue.

To answer your question of the 23rd, which I confess I missed reading, I ruled earlier on the Prosecution's requests, over in the trial thread. We await the Prosecution's production of their allegations and evidence supporting.
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 29, 2005, 09:37:03 PM
Thank you your Honor,

I am pleased to be back!

Belochka  :D
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Richard_Cullen on August 30, 2005, 03:03:13 AM
I am awfully pleased to have you back - this would be a less happy place and less intellectually challenging place without you.
As an aside I have actually posted in the the trial pages what I think should be thye first argument namely what was the defendant's standing as the Commander in Chief of the Russian military, police etc.

I think this comes before we start to discuss which sub section of the act he can be said to have breached.

There is some really interesting bits and pieces around this - the October Manifesto etc - which i have quoted by the coronation oath could be important but I can't find a full copy anywhere?

So maybe we could have a trial within a trial on his role of Commander in Chief first.  This allows me the bite size chunks of work I can carry out.

I also agree that this site is a tremendously enriching experience and I have met friends and colleagues who have the same interests and enthusiasms as me around Russian history

Richard



Richard
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Forum Admin on August 30, 2005, 09:19:03 AM
Richard,
There is no "trial within a trial" on that question. You submit your evidence to support your contention, and the trier of fact (the jury) will make that determination, it will simply be a preliminary determination to support subsequent questions of fact to be determined (ie: potential responsibility as C in C).
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on August 30, 2005, 09:12:44 PM
Quote
I am awfully pleased to have you back - this would be a less happy place and less intellectually challenging place without you.

Richard


Thank you Richard, for your generous words of encouragement.

Belochka  :)
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on September 04, 2005, 01:38:01 AM
Quote
Presiding Judge (as FA) and Counsel for the Defence

A bit of help required - does anyone know where I can find the Coronation oath of the Romanovs - But does anyone have the full text?

Richard


Yes Richard, as a private individual and not as the Defense, I will be pleased to offer you assistance.

I have the text in Church Slavonic and and will personally translate the Declaration for the benefit of this Court.

Nikolai's solemn verbal Declaration (whilst on his knees dressed in full regalia) was not an Oath, but a prayer.

The prayer declared the Emperor's union with the people.

As soon as I complete my translation later this evening, I will post the English version here ...

Margarita  :)


Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on September 04, 2005, 11:26:57 PM
Richard,

While I was attempting to translate the Prayer into English, it was brought to my attention that a more worthy translation existed. This translation far better reflects the spiritual tenor of the words expressed by Nikolai, than I could ever hope to attempt.

The Coronation Prayer has been provided by the Russian Orthodox Church in Dallas Tx, with thanks.
_____________________________________________

"O Lord God of our fathers, and King of kings,
Who created all things by Thy word, and by Thy wisdom has made man,
that he should walk uprightly and rule righteously over Thy world;
Thou has chosen me as Tsar and judge over Thy people.
I acknowledge Thine unsearchable purpose towards me, and bow in thankfulness before Thy Majesty.
Do Thou, my Lord and Governor, fit me for the work to which Thou hast sent me;
teach me and guide me in this great service.
May there be with me the wisdom which belongs to Thy throne;
send it from Thy Holy Heaven, that I may know what is well-pleasing in Thy sight, and what is right according to Thy commandment.
May my heart be in Thine hand, to accomplish all that is to the profit of the people committed to my charge,
and to Thy glory, that so in the day of Thy Judgement I may give Thee account of my stewardship without blame;
through the grace and mercy of Thy Son, Who was once crucified for us,
to Whom be all honour and glory with Thee and the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, unto the ages of ages.
Amen."


Declared by Emperor Nikolai Aleksandrovich
Tuesday, 14 May, 1896, Moscow

Title: Coronation Prayer
Post by: Richard_Cullen on September 08, 2005, 10:12:34 AM
Thanks very much for this, I am awaiting some more information about the Tsar's role as CiC but maybe we could proceed with the defence response to the piece I posted a couple of weeks ago about his role as CiC and see how we go from there.

I am surprised that there are so few visitors to this theme - but there you go.

Hope you are well

Richard
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on September 08, 2005, 09:32:16 PM
Richard,

I am delighted that I was able to asssist you.  :D

Margarita

Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on September 08, 2005, 09:44:17 PM
Quote
You should  produce your evidence, citing your sources. The defense may then challenge or obect (specifically please) and then you may rebut.


Your Honor,

The Defense requests that the Prosecution provides references to the Court which appear to be missing in the Prosecution's Statement as submitted to this Court on 23 August.

Thank you your Honor,

The Defense Team  :) :) :)
Title: Re: Coronation Prayer
Post by: Belochka on September 08, 2005, 10:07:47 PM
Quote
Thanks very much for this, I am awaiting some more information about the Tsar's role as CiC but maybe we could proceed with the defence response to the piece I posted a couple of weeks ago about his role as CiC and see how we go from there.

Richard


Your Honor,

The Defense has an expectation that the Court is presented with a completed Statement by the Prosecution, in the matter of Nikolai's purported role as CiC.

The Defense submits that it is unreasonable for the Prosecution to expect that a partial submission to the Court is to be deemed sufficient in order for the Defense to respond fairly and adequately.

The Defense contends that all Statements submitted to this Court should be complete at the time of submission.

We seek your Honor's ruling on this matter please.

Thank you,

The Defense Team  :) :) :)    
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Forum Admin on September 09, 2005, 09:59:16 AM
I see nothing in the August 23 statement that it is "incomplete".  The only valid record for my review are the official statements presented to the open court IN the trial thread itself.  It is up to counsel for both sides to indicate in their trial statements whether or not they are completed with that issue, the court is in no position to decide otherwise nor require differently.

As the record there indicates, the Prosecution has RESTED on this specific issue, and therefor the Defense may proceed in the usual manner.

Acting Judge
FA
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on September 09, 2005, 11:48:48 PM
Thank you your Honor,

The Defense is preparing their next Statement. We hope to file our next document with the Court by 25 September.

Margarita for The Defense
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on September 21, 2005, 10:40:59 PM
Quote
Thank you your Honor,

The Defense is preparing their next Statement. We hope to file our next document with the Court by 25 September.

Margarita for The Defense


Your Honor,

The DEFENSE wishes to advise the Court that we are on target to submit our Rebuttal on the date advised.

Margarita for the Defense
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on September 24, 2005, 01:20:49 AM
The Defense wishes to advise that the Rebuttal of the Prosecution's case has been filed with the Court today.

Margarita Nelipa
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Richard_Cullen on September 24, 2005, 02:15:34 PM
I look forward to reading it with interest.

Richard
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on September 24, 2005, 08:28:55 PM
The DEFENSE shall post their REBUTTAL on the appropriate thread today.

Please bear with me as it will take time to complete the task.  ;)

Margarita
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on October 23, 2005, 01:10:01 AM
The DEFENSE wishes to advise the Court that the Final Rebuttal on this issue will be filed in the next few days.

Margarita Nelipa for the DEFENSE  ;D  
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 23, 2005, 01:21:03 PM
Eddieboy wishes to call a halt to this trial and demand Nicholas and his familys exile forthwithe. Is that allowed?
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Forum Admin on October 23, 2005, 03:11:09 PM
Ummmmm, that would be a little difficult, seeing as they are DEAD.
;D
The trial is "in absentia" so to speak. Thus no Motion for a Writ of Habeus Corpus permitted, which would be a whole lot creepy in this case.
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Eddie_uk on October 24, 2005, 04:10:54 AM
lol, sorry i back tracked about 80 years  ;D
Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on October 25, 2005, 02:18:17 AM
The DEFENSE wishes to advise this Court that the Final REBUTTAL has been filed today.

Margarita Nelipa for the DEFENSE

;D

Title: Re: Just A Serious Question
Post by: Belochka on October 25, 2005, 10:35:22 PM
The DEFENSE has presented their REBUTTAL today.

Margarita Nelipa  ;D