Author Topic: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)  (Read 47220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #15 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.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4437
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #16 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  


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4437
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #17 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  :) :) :)



Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #18 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.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4437
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2005, 07:24:47 PM »
Thank you your Honor!

The Defense Team  :) :) :)


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #20 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.  

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #21 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.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #22 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.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #23 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.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #24 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.



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 #25 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
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 Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4437
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #26 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)


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4640
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #27 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.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4437
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #28 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)



Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

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 #29 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





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