Author Topic: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)  (Read 47678 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by admin »

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #1 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by admin »

Offline Richard_Cullen

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Sad memory brings the light. Thomas Moore 1815
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #2 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
I feel like one
Who treads alone
Some banquet-hall deserted,
Whose lights are fled,
Whose garlands dead,
And all, but he, departed!
Refrain:
Thus, in the stilly night,
Ere slumber’s chain hath bound me,
Sad mem’ry brings the light
Of other days around me.

Thomas Moore 1815

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #3 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.

Offline Richard_Cullen

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Sad memory brings the light. Thomas Moore 1815
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #4 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
I feel like one
Who treads alone
Some banquet-hall deserted,
Whose lights are fled,
Whose garlands dead,
And all, but he, departed!
Refrain:
Thus, in the stilly night,
Ere slumber’s chain hath bound me,
Sad mem’ry brings the light
Of other days around me.

Thomas Moore 1815

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #5 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.


Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #6 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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by admin »

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #7 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.


Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #8 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.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #9 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

Offline Richard_Cullen

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Sad memory brings the light. Thomas Moore 1815
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #10 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
I feel like one
Who treads alone
Some banquet-hall deserted,
Whose lights are fled,
Whose garlands dead,
And all, but he, departed!
Refrain:
Thus, in the stilly night,
Ere slumber’s chain hath bound me,
Sad mem’ry brings the light
Of other days around me.

Thomas Moore 1815

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #11 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.


Offline LisaDavidson

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2650
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #12 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

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4643
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #13 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.


Offline Richard_Cullen

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Sad memory brings the light. Thomas Moore 1815
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #14 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
I feel like one
Who treads alone
Some banquet-hall deserted,
Whose lights are fled,
Whose garlands dead,
And all, but he, departed!
Refrain:
Thus, in the stilly night,
Ere slumber’s chain hath bound me,
Sad mem’ry brings the light
Of other days around me.

Thomas Moore 1815