Author Topic: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)  (Read 60143 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #45 on: October 06, 2005, 09:48:27 AM »
The general public will refrain from public comment in this thread. This thread is strictly and solely for partipants in the trial. Period.

Rob  Moshein
Acting Judge

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #46 on: October 08, 2005, 09:19:11 PM »
The Court wishes to take a brief moment and congratulate the chief Prosecutor Mr. Cullen for the airing of the television program(me) about his investigation into the Rasputin murder (aired this evening, 8 October in the US on Discovery Channel). We are indeed honored to have him here participating with us.
(We thought Mr. Cullen was a bit taller...;D )

Rob Moshein
Acting Judge
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by admin »

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #47 on: October 08, 2005, 09:41:00 PM »
The Defense also extends congratulations to the Prosecutor on this recent personal accomplishment! :D

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

Margarita



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 #48 on: October 12, 2005, 02:31:04 PM »
Your Honour Acting Presiding Judge and Leading Counsel for the defence thank you for your kind comments.  How you assessed my height previously is a matter of some interest, mind you I am taller than the last Tsar, Rasputin, Felix etc.  A giant amongst men. 5'9.5"

However back to the theme:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We the prosecution have then to prove the crimes against humanity

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

Richard Cullen
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 slumberís chain hath bound me,
Sad memíry brings the light
Of other days around me.

Thomas Moore 1815

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #49 on: October 12, 2005, 03:59:03 PM »
Quote
Your Honour Acting Presiding Judge and Leading Counsel for the defence thank you for your kind comments. †How you assessed my height previously is a matter of some interest, mind you I am taller than the last Tsar, Rasputin, Felix etc. †A giant amongst men. 5'9.5"


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

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

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #50 on: October 12, 2005, 09:56:53 PM »
Quote
Thank you Mr. Prosecutor for your rebuttal. The Defense will have the last rebuttal on this specific issue, and then the Prosecution will proceed with other allegations.

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge


Thank you your Honor,

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

The First Chair for the Defense

Margarita Nelipa

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


The First Chair for the Defense is a also a "giant" amongst men - she stands at  5'4"!  ;D


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #51 on: October 13, 2005, 09:47:21 AM »
The Court shall stand in recess until 30 October at which time the Defense shall present final rebuttal on this first issue.

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

Rob Moshein
Presiding Judge

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #52 on: October 13, 2005, 10:20:20 PM »
Thank you Your Honor.

Margarita for the DEFENSE


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #53 on: October 25, 2005, 09:44:57 PM »
In the matter of: People vs. Nicholas Alexandrovich

If it pleases the Court,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 2 to follow ... † † †
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #54 on: October 25, 2005, 09:51:58 PM »
Page 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

† † † † † † 2. Military forces under the command of General Prince Vasilíchikov would be withdrawn immediately.

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

Page 3 to follow ...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #55 on: October 25, 2005, 10:01:25 PM »
Page 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The DEFENSE rests.

Margarita Nelipa for the DEFENSE. † †

† †
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #56 on: October 26, 2005, 09:06:09 AM »
Thank you.  The Photograph shall be labelled Defense Ex. 1. The Prosecution will now proceed with any further factual issues it wishes to present.

FA
Presiding Judge

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #57 on: October 26, 2005, 09:54:07 AM »
DEFENSE EXHIBIT # 1

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




[Ref: Russkaya Golgofa by V. V. Kuznetsov, (2003), Neva Publ. St. Petersburg]


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 #58 on: October 29, 2005, 02:19:05 AM »
Acting Presiding Judge and Counsel for the defence

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

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

Richard
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 slumberís chain hath bound me,
Sad memíry brings the light
Of other days around me.

Thomas Moore 1815

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich (COUNT 1)
« Reply #59 on: October 29, 2005, 03:24:54 AM »
The DEFENSE has no problems with this request from the Prosecution.

Have a wonderful vacation and a safe return Richard!  

All the best,

Margarita Nelipa  


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/