Exhibit D

EXHIBIT “D” TO:

SUPREME CASSATION PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA Prosecutor N. Kolev Your Ref: 11838/99

COPY:

EMBASSY OF CANADA CONSULAR AFFAIRS MR. J. BELL BUCHAREST, ROMANIA

COPY:

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AND LEGAL EURO - NTEGRATION REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

APPEAL Michael Kapoustin - Citizen of Canada Ruling by the SCP According to Article 182 para (2) Penal Process Code The Appellant extends his compliments to SCP Proscecutor Kolev for his letter of 23.03.2000 whereto was attached a copy of his ruling dated 16.03.2000 upon the subject matter of the Petitioner’s criminal complaint as filed on 06.12.99.

Part I - the Appeal It is appealed SCP Kolev reconsider his decision as set down in his Ruling. This is merited and incumbent under the instance upon the grounds of new facts, circumstances and materials previously not available the SCP which objectively and evidentially establish that: - The statutory period set down under Article 80 para (1) point 5 PC had been preserved by the Appellant according to the allegations as qualified by him under Article 284 para 1 PC - There is new evidence of another crime alleged to have been committed by the said investigator S. Georgiev which is qualified as prosecutable under article 286 para (2) in conjunction with Article 287a items 3 and 4 of the PC and 282 para (3) PC 1

-

There is new evidence of crimes alleged to have been affected by the said investigator S. Georgiev and others which are qualified under Chapter Fourteen Section III of the PC in conjunction in whole or in part, with the Article 116 para (1) item 2, 5 and 6 PC, or in the alternative Articles 122 para (2) or 123 para (2) or 124 para (1) PC. In instances where death has not resulted the allegation would qualify under Article 128 para (2) PC. This allegation involves 145 known victims in the United States and an unknown number of victims within Bulgaria and elsewhere.

-

The acts alleged and documented, if proven true, are of such a character as to demand that SCP Kolev petition, the Supreme Judicial Council under Article 132 para (2) of the Constitution of RB, to lift the immunity of investigator Georgiev and other perpetrators in order that they might be investigated and possibly proscecuted.

A pronouncement upon this Appeal by SCP Kolev is requested within the three day statutory period designated under Article 183 para (2) PPC. Part II - Pleadings The decision by SCP Kolev not to investigate or prosecute investigator Stefcho Georgiev under Article 284 para (1) PC and 282 para (3) PC is wrong. In that the conditions under Article 21 para (1) item 3 PPC in conjunction to Article 80 para (1) PC are not present, and therefore cannot be applied. The following facts under the case are in evidence and must prevail in the instance. Documental evidence and facts establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the Appellant had signaled the MPPO within the statutory period documented under Article 80 para (1) PC. It is inexplicable and beyond the competence of the Appellant to ascertain the motives of representatives of the MPPO in not acting upon the Appellant's complaints as lodged by him and as incumbent upon them according to law. The Appellant will permit SCP Kolev to, himself, determine the grounds for denying the Appellant the protection of his rights under law. The complaint as filed by the Appellant on 06.12.99 under SCP Ref. No 11838/99 is upon the same subject matter as signaled to the MPPO on 09.07.96, 25.07.96, 08.08.96, 19.08.96, 21.08.96 and 14.09.96 by the Appellant and the governments of Canada and the FDRG. The statutory period has been preserved.

2

Furthermore new crimes have been discovered and the alleged criminal misconduct of investigator Georgiev and others have lead to serious consequences to the Appellant and the loss of life of other victims. These consequences represent serious breaches of national and international law by the accused S. Georgiev and others. They further represent, in the immediate instance, circumstances which make a fair trial impossible. The acts as evidenced here qualify as serious crimes according to the penal code of the RB. They have been affected by an official of the Bulgarian State in pursuit of his official duties. The crimes in evidence were only possible to affect because of the official character and power to the perpetrator S. Georgiev and others. In his capacity and authority as a police investigator Georgiev did secure the physical coercion and torture of the Appellant to conceal as well as effect crimes committed by the investigator and others he sought to protect. The investigator did further mislead the judiciaries of two countries and guided witnesses, providing evidence to them, in order to obtain depositions and investigative materials and conclusions favorable to him as an investigator under the case. The allegations are grounded upon the following: A. -

The Appellant has filed a formal complaint of official misconduct against the said investigator S. Georgiev on the 8th and 19th of August 1996. This was affected within a week of the offence as alleged and evidenced by the August 1st, 1996 "Continent" newspaper article. The Appellant makes reference to Exhibit No 1 as attached.

-

The Appellant did file the said complaints by way of Canadian and FDRG ministries of foreign affairs to the MPPO of the BR. Through the respective governments diplomatic notes the Ministry of Foreign Affairs RB was notified to advise the MPPO of the alleged therein violations as committed by the investigator under the case. The Investigator being responsible for the arrest of the Appellant by Interpol. Concerns were conveyed by the respective governments of Canada and the FDRG as to the motives and truthful character of allegations made by the said investigator S. Georgiev. Reference is made to Exhibit No 2 as provided here.

-

The Interpol section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police contacted Bulgarian authorities on August 21st, 1996 concerning the public slander of the Appellant by the said S. Georgiev. Wherein Canadian police authorities stated that the August 1st, 1996 “Continent” articles’ allegations as well as other articles appearing prior to and after the date, were untrue, misleading and false. In their so doing the "RCMP" did ground the Appellant’s claims of 3

criminal misconduct on the part of supervising investigator S. Georgiev. Your attention is drawn to Exhibit No3, page 2, last paragraph. -

Subsequent to the Appellant’s extradition to the RB on 07.09.96, he did undertake to and did file, with the Government of Canada, from the hospital facilities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs RB, a written protest where on page 3, paragraph 3 and 4 thereof he cited that no action had been undertaken concerning the malfeasance of the investigator under the case, S. Georgiev, towards the Appellant. The SCP is referred to Exhibit No 4 as attached.

-

This Sept. 17, 1996 letter was the last such letter the Appellant was able to smuggle out from arrest without fear of the intervention of the investigator and the beatings which this Appellant would later be subjected to once moved under the exclusive physical control of the investigator herein accused.

-

SCP attention is further drawn to Exhibit No 5 as provided here and appearing on page 56 file volume 44 of cccc1403/98. The document issued by the MPPO, Ref. No. 5274.96.111 on 17.10.96 establishes that on 09.07.96 and 26.07.96 the Appellant has signaled MPPO Proscecutor Topourov that he, as the accused under arrest in Frankfurt, Germany, had good reason to believe that investigator S. Georgiev was misrepresenting the facts, releasing false and misleading information to the mass media and harboured ill will. Furthermore, there exists new evidence of other crimes and official misconduct qualified under penal Articles 282 para (3) and 286 para (2).

-

There exists under the official court record of 14.01.2000, of cccc1403/98 evidence that the said Georgiev, in order to falsely accuse and incriminate the Appellant did distribute company financial documents as officially seized and possessed by him as investigator under the case and this to numerous persons, in large quantities, with the objective to utilize the said documents to incriminate the Appellant. These documents, identified under the case as "Gold Certificates" were given to witnesses interrogated by investigator S. Georgiev and in contact with him. The said "Gold Certificates" have been expressed under case cccc1403/98 as the evidence establishing the amount for which the Appellant should be incriminated under the instance and as representative of the fraud alleged under the case.

-

This act, as expressed above, in conjunction with those acts further cited, do collectively by their nature and their intended purpose, express a premeditated plan to falsely accuse and imprison the Appellant. Consequently each instance of misrepresentation by the said investigator S. Georgiev before a judicial authority of Bulgaria and the FDRG qualifies as a prosecutable offence under Article 286 para (2) PC.

-

The suppositions of criminal misconduct and ulterior motives of the supervising investigator under the case are as well grounded upon official 4

documents offered by him to the FDRG, which contained untrue and misleading statements. The most outstanding of which was the representation of the supervising investigator to the FDGR of being a "judge" ("untersuchungsrichter") and "chief judge" ("hauptuntersuchungsricher") of the "Sofia City Investigative Court". This and other bluntly untrue representations were affected to facilitate the Appellant’s arrest and extradition by the FDRG. -

This successful official deception of the FDRG by S. Georgiev, a police investigator, in collusion with others, is documented in the rulings of the FDRG and their diplomatic notes wherein references to "Judge Georgiev" and his "orders of detention" proliferate.

-

The deception as evidenced in these documents was knowingly instituted, with forethought, by the investigator as accused, in order that he might circumvent the requirements of international law as incumbent under Article 12 para 2 item (a) of the ECE in conjunction with Article 25 ECE. Wherein it is clearly cited that a signature of a "judge" upon an order of arrest or detention is incumbent upon members nations of the European Council and obligatory according to the superceding law of the ECHR under Article 5 para1 abstract (b).

-

The said S. Georgiev misrepresented to the FDRG his legal and judicial competence as legislated under international treaties in order to secure an arrest and extradition which he was not authorized under the ECE or ECHR to affect.

-

This act, as cited above, is qualified as a prosecutable offence under 282 para (3) PC in that he misrepresented and exceeded his legal authority. B.

-

The consequences of criminal misconduct as alleged herein against the person of the Appellant are grave. But the crimes evidenced constitute not only crimes against justice but crimes against humanity, for which there exists no statutory limit for proscecution.

-

The Appellant is only one highly visible public victim of the said investigator S. Georgiev and other perpetrators. The crimes alleged in fact involve numerous victims. The modus operandi and the available corpus delicti of the acts alleged to have been affected on 145 American citizens, and 36 Bulgarian citizens are materially in evidence and are qualified as prosecutable offences according to Penal Code, Chapter Fourteen, Section III. Each act is individually prosecutable under Articles 116 para (1) items 2, 5 and 6 or the alternative supposition under Articles 122 para (2) or 124 para (1) of the PC. 5

-

-

The individual instances of each act, where death has not resulted as a consequence of the act, the act is still proscecutable according to Article 128 para (2) PC. The said investigator S. Georgiev and other perpetrators are directly responsible for the suffering and death of those victims named in Exhibit 6 as attached hereto as has been provided to the European Court of Human Rights and the Attorney General of the State of Texas. The circumstances of the crimes alleged together with the classification of the victims yet to be identified under the instance are cited therein and presently under consideration by these judicial authorities.

The aforestated facts as alleged and substantiated under the case of Kapoustin, et al vs the Republic of Bulgaria, Defendant, as submitted to the jurisdiction of the court of Human Rights Strasbourg (Ref. No PN6650), and the civil action affected in the United States under Article 1605 (a) subparagraph 5 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, make any decision of the SCP under Article 70 in conjunction with Article 132 para (1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria meritless. It is incumbant upon the SCP to consider the merits of a request under Article 132 para (2) CRB to the Supreme Judicial Council to lift the immunity of the said Georgiev and others potentially responsible for the criminal misconduct as alleged. And to immediately institute an in-depth investigation. C. The SCP Kolev is further reminded that from 07.09.96 until or about 21.08.98 the Appellant was under the severe physical coercion and threat of the herein accused investigator S. Georgiev, his associates and colleagues at the "Nassar" facilities of the National Investigative Service at 42, “G.M. Dimitrov” Blvd, Sofia. During which time: -

All contacts and correspondence with attorneys and visiting diplomats were monitored. This circumstance made impossible any complaints by the Appellant against the investigator, S. Georgiev, since he had the Appellant under his physical control.

-

The Appellant has been subjected, on the order of Georgiev and others, to repeated beatings and drugging during the period of his physical coercion under the direction of Georgiev. There was no question that any comlpaints undertaken by the Appellant against Georgiev and others would result in additional beatings and torment.

-

These circumstances an adequate deterrent under the instance to pre-empt the Appellant from undertaking any legal action during the period of his physical coercion at the order of S. Georgiev.

6

-

The Government of Canada had requested, as had the Appellant, repeatedly, a physical examination by Canadian doctors in that there was substantial cause for concern for the health and well being of the Appellant. The requests are well documented at the ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs of the RB. These requests were rejected. Had they been honored, the Appellant’s beating, torture and drugging would have been apparent from these examinations. Exhibit 7 demonstrates this undertaking of the Government of Canada as early as October, 25, 1996. Several weeks after the beatings and torture began.

-

The degree of physical and psychological coercion affected against the Appellant was severe and was employed by investigator S. Georgiev in order to ensure the Appellant’s silence concerning the crimes committed by the investigator and other perpetrators as alleged herein.

-

Investigator S. Georgiev sought to further force the Appellant’s co-operation in locating and collecting substantial sums of money believed to be in the Appellant’s care or alternatively his control. Beating, druggings and starvation were instituted to disorient and subdue the Appellant in order to secure the sought after sums of money. It is apparent, under the circumstances, that the Appellant has been, during his detention under the direct order of the said S. Georgiev, incapable of lodging any further complaints against either the investigator or others without risking his physical safety and life under the case.

Such circumstances clearly mitigate the issue of statutory limits as incumbent and considered under Article 80 para (1) PC. This is grounded in that the crimes committed against the person of the Appellant and others were still in progress up to including August 1998. This being the instance under the case makes the period, in which to report the crimes not effectively expiring until August 2000. An investigation must be instituted in that all the requested conditions are prevalent according to Articles 187, 188 and 199-192a of the PPC. Should the SCP elect the alternative, as has been the practice, then any verdict of guilty in case cccc 1403/98 will be grounded upon evidence fabricated and altered during the investigation by the supervising investigator S. Georgiev. More disturbing the SCP will be condoning these crimes alleged under Chapter Fourteen, Section III of the Penal Code should it refuse to institute a perliminary investigation upon the matter of a crime against humanity. Wherein not only will the SCP and Republic of Bulgaria be endorsing violations of the Appellant’s right to fair trial under Article 6 para (1) of the ECHR. But the SCP refusal to investigate will, de facto, grant the right to its officials to violate the right to life and property without torment with impunity against citizens of other nations. 7

Respectfully submitted this twenty-fourth day of April 2000. Michael Kapoustin

8