To the Prosecution:
My intention would be to open with issues that support both Count 1 of the indictment but will be applicable to further counts that may be laid. These issues are around the acceptance that Nicholas II ruled as an autocrat; be was de facto the Supreme Commander of the Russian Armed Services; that the Okhrana were the Tsar's Secret Police and Intelligence Service; that the concept of vicarious liability applies to an autocrat.
Once you can establish to the satisfaction of the Court any issue in the first charge which may be applicable to any subsequent charge(s), you may simply request the Court take Judicial Notice of the previously established issue you wish to raise. The Defense, of course, may attempt to rebut or prevent the notice being taken by raising appropriate issues.
2. Imperial Russian Law will not be controlling for any issue raised in the charges. The controlling law will be the Canadian Protocol, and any further law of Crimes against Humanity either side suggests to be relevant. However, nothing prevents either side from asking the Court and Jury to consider Imperial Russian Law as it may relate to the actions of any defendant(s) as an indication of guilt, innocence or culpability, on a case by case basis.
3. I would suggest that case law be submitted privately to the Court for consideration, again using the Canadian protocols for guidance. Please cite only the case, court, date and relevant points of law. Should I require the full case, I will request it. Guidance about consideration by the jury will be made via a ruling in open court. "Vicarious liability" of an absolute monarch, Mr. Prosecutor, must be established as a matter of law by you as part of the trial process. You may argue any nation's law you wish, however, it must also be demonstrated why this court should consider any point of law over any other (ie: in the US, you may raise California law in a Texas court to prove a point, but must demonstrate why it should be accepted in the instant matter).
4. Re: evidentiary submissions. In order to prevent prejudice to the jury, Evidence to be submitted will FIRST be proffered to opposing counsel by private email. Opposing counsel may accept or object to inclusion of the specific evidence. Agreed evidence will be submitted via email to the Court, for inclusion in the record for the Jury. Dispute over evidence will be resolved privately via email to the court. One motion from each side (sent also to opposing counsel) then one rebuttal each side, same format. Then a ruling from the Court.
5. Historical evidence may be considered. this is simply evidence like any other and shall be treated as in 4 supra. Reliabilty of the source may be challenged by opposing counsel.
6.We have a minimal jury. I would actually like to see a few more jurors if possible. Counsel will have to accept the word of the Court that jurors have been "vetted" by the Court and no preemptory challenge to a juror shall be considered. I want jurors to be totally anonymous save to the Court.
So ruled this 31st day of March, 2005
Robert Moshein
Acting Procedural Judge.
