Kapoustin V Bulgarian National Tv_statement Of Claim

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Civil Action No.

MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN

Plaintiff, v. BULGARIAN NATIONAL TELEVISION INC. KEVORK KIVORKIAN MARTIN KARBOVSKY

Defendants

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Jurisdiction And Venue 1.

This Court has original jurisdiction in personam according to 28 USC Section 1331 and is pursuant to 28 USC Section 1332(a) in that the Plaintiff is an alien admitted to the United States as a permanent resident and whose permanent domicile is the United States.

2.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC Section 1391 (d) and pursuant to 28 USC Section 1391(a)(3).

3.

The first Defendant Bulgarian National television Inc. (hereinafter “BNTV”) is a Bulgarian licensed and registered national radio and broadcasting commercial corporation whose shares are wholly owned by the sovereign state of the Republic of Bulgaria having a principle place of business and incorporation the City of Sofia, the Republic of Bulgaria. The Defendant broadcasts its’ programming into the Unites States of America via satellite and the internet.

4.

The second Defendant Kevork Kevorkian (hereinafter “Kevorkian”) is employed by the first Defendant as a producer, moderator and host of the first Defendant’s weekly live hour long news program Every Sunday. Defendant Kevorkian is a resident of Bulgaria.

5.

The third Defendant Martin Karbovski (hereinafter “Karbovski”) is employed by the first Defendant as a producer and co-host of the first Defendant’s weekly live hour long news program Every Sunday. The Defendant Karbovski is a resident of Bulgaria.

6.

The Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin, as a permanent resident alien of the United States has suffered material and temporal loss in the United States and elsewhere, this a direct result of

19305851.doc

Page 1 of 11

the Defendant’s broadcasting of an anti-Semitic public statement attacking the character and integrity of Plaintiff and all the Jewish people and the Defendant broadcasting what are untrue and slanderously false statements imputing to the Plaintiff guilt for the commission of a crime against citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria, something the Defendant knew the Plaintiff had been fully acquitted for by a Bulgarian criminal court of law. Facts 7.

On December 16th 2003, a newspaper article appeared in the Edmonton Sun and other newspapers throughout Canadian and was reproduced in Romania, Greece, France and Belgium, England and the United States as well as other parts of Western Europe. It also appeared on the internet. The subject matter and title of the article concerned the Plaintiff and other foreign citizens incarcerated in Bulgaria’s notorious Sofia Federal Penitentiary “Selling..[his] Organs to Raise Cash” and posited to the reader the question “is Innocence Enough?” References in this article are made to the Plaintiff, a citizen of Canada, and other non-Bulgarian nationals also inmates at the Sofia Federal Penitentiary and complaining of having “Exhausted [of] legal avenues, and more importantly money, [Kapoustin is] now proposing [he] and several other inmates -- from Poland, Romania, Nigeria and America -- put their organs up for auction. Offered to the wealthy and the sick, [Kapoustin -raised in Toronto] -- says the money would help speed up the process for him and the other foreigners. He hopes even the lunacy of the suggestion will make someone listen”.

8.

On or about the 17th of December of 2003, and as a result of the December 16 th 2003 newspaper article appearing in a Canadian newspaper, the Edmonton Sun, the Defendant decided to approach the Warden for the City of Sofia Bulgaria Federal Penitentiary and request he obtain the Plaintiff’s agreement to a live television interview at the prison on the Defendant’s weekly television news magazine program entitled “Every Sunday”. The topic of the interview was to be reasons why the Plaintiff and some 30 other non-Bulgarian offenders had become so desperate and frustrated as to publicly solicit potential buyers for their transplantable organs.

9.

The interest of the Defendant in broadcasting a television report on the Plaintiff originally stems not from the Edmonton Sun article of December 16th 2003 but from events in Bulgaria that date back to mid-1994 and when Bulgarian prosecutors and police authorities first used the words “pharaoh” and “pyramid”, these words are associated in Bulgarian society with immoral and criminal behavior and are used only with the intend of publicly imputing to an individual or company the commission of a criminal offense.

10. The word “pharaoh”, when applied by the Defendant or any other member of the Bulgarian media to the Plaintiff or any other businessman is understood to be a derogatory term intended to mean an individual who is without any sense or morality and is a hateful and detestable human being praying on the greed of the innocent. 11. The word “pyramid”, when applied by the Defendant or any other member of the Bulgarian media to the Plaintiff’s company or any other company is intended to be understood to be a derogatory term intended to impute deceptive practices and criminal activity on the part of a company and its management and as having no real commercial activity other than affecting a massive fraud on the Bulgarian people. 12. In early to mid-1995, the label “pyramid” was officially endorsed by the Parliament for the Republic of Bulgaria and the Prosecutors General as a legal description to be publicly relied 19305851.doc

Page 2 of 11

on by members of the Bulgarian Parliament, its Council of Ministers and the Office of the President when making reference to the Plaintiff’s company or any Bulgarian or foreign company identified by the Prosecutors General for Bulgaria as dealing in the sale or trading of private investment contracts or securities in Bulgaria and whose revenues and profits relying on speculation in unofficial Bulgarian currency and commodities markets as a means to securing profits. 13. It was on or about October 1995 that the Defendant did in earnest first publicly broadcast and apply the defamatory label of “pharaoh” to the Plaintiff and the defamatory label of “pyramid” to his beleaguered Bulgarian corporation, “LifeChoice International Inc”.. The newsworthy nature of the Defendant’s interest to report on the Plaintiff and his company arose from the Plaintiff’s then legal and public status as the only U.S. based and nonresident foreign investor in Bulgaria to be accused by Bulgarian prosecution authorities of organizing and operating in Europe and Canada an international pseudo-religious cult based on the Jewish secret mystical practice known as the Kabala. Bulgarian prosecutors and police authorities first claimed that the Plaintiff financed this cult and its activities by the defrauding of thousands of Bulgarian, Greek, Georgian and Canadian citizens through the Plaintiff’s “pyramid structures” and then laundered the proceeds of his crimes into the accounts of Canadian banks through the Caribbean. The damages from any libels or slanders damaging Plaintiff as nationally and internationally broadcast by the first Defendant BNTV between October 1995 and August 2002 could not manifest themselves until after the Plaintiff had first been cleared of any such wrong doing. And then the defamations could only become actionable against the first Defendant BNTV or others if the defamatory words of “pharaoh” and “pyramid” were applied to Plaintiff after his acquittal on the charges and allegations of his having defrauded thousands of Bulgarian citizens. 14. On December 21st 2003, the planned date of the Defendants’ planed live broadcast, all the Defendants knew that the Plaintiff and his Bulgarian company had on August 16 th 2002, been cleared on all criminal counts alleging the defrauding of some 4,700 Bulgarian citizens. And as a result the defamatory labels of “pharaoh” could no longer be legitimately applied by the Defendants when describing the Plaintiff and the label of “pyramid” could not legitimately be applied by the Defendants to the Plaintiff’s beleaguered Bulgarian corporation. And this notwithstanding that the Plaintiff was convicted for another offense unrelated to the so called Bulgarian “Pyramids” and was sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment. The crime was the Plaintiff’s affecting six (6) separate and otherwise lawful international bank transfers from the bank accounts of the Plaintiff’s private company to the account of a company domiciled in the United States. The transferred funds, according to the criminal trial Court, had been lawfully acquired by the Plaintiff’s company and were not the proceeds of a crime. According to the same trial court, the incriminating aspects of these transfers could be found in the Bulgaria prosecutions’ assertions that the transferred funds was never repatriated from the United Stated to bank accounts of the Company in Bulgaria. The Plaintiff to this day publicly maintains his innocence and insists that his actions did not constitute a crime under Bulgarian law or under the internationally accepted norms for what constitutes an unlawful misappropriation of funds wholly owned and lawfully acquired by a private and closely held and managed corporation. The Plaintiff publicly insists that his arrest, prosecution and conviction and 7 year and 7 month investigation and trial were politically motivated. It more convenient for Bulgarian authorities to publicly place 19305851.doc

Page 3 of 11

responsibility on a non-Bulgarian western “Jew” and “profiteer” for the collapse of the Bulgarian economy and currency between 1995 and 1997 and not the Bulgarian government officials and other Bulgarian similarly charged. 15. On December 18th 2003, the Plaintiff advised the prison Warden the he agreed to the interview solely on the prison Warden’s assurances to the Plaintiff that the Defendants had promised that its interview of the Plaintiff would be limited to a discussion of the objective and subjective reasons leading to the desperate act of the Plaintiff and the other foreign offenders who issued a public declaration of their willingness to sell organs and so secure their transfers from Bulgaria to prisons in their own countries. The Plaintiff, his family and the other non-Bulgarian offenders were each lead to believe by the prison Warden that the Defendants interview of the Plaintiff would provide a platform for their grievances and to speak out against the Bulgarian government’s policies of direct and indirect discrimination as practiced only against non-Bulgarian offenders and also the inhumane and terrible conditions of their imprisonment. 16. On Sunday December 21st 2003, at approximately 5 pm, television engineers and producers employed by the Defendant arrived at the Sofia Bulgaria Federal Penitentiary to setup their cameras and other equipment in a room designated for the interview of the Plaintiff. On the same day, at around 5:30 pm, the Plaintiff was informed by a prison guard that he had 5 minutes to prepare before being escorted from his cell to the room where the interview was to be conducted. 17. Sunday, December 21st 2003 was the 26th day of the month of Kislev of the Jewish calendar and 2nd Day of the Jewish festival of Hanukkah. As a result, the Plaintiff would wear to the interview the Jewish Kippa or Yarmulke. This done in observance of the Plaintiff’s Jewish ethnic origin, his faith, religious conviction and the festival of Hanukkah. 18. Shortly before 6:30 p.m. the Plaintiff was joined by the third Defendant Martin Karbovski, who would be conducting the interview of the Plaintiff. The two were later joined via a live electronic link by the second Defendant Kevork Kevorkian, the principle interviewer and moderator for the Defendant’s news program “Every Sunday”. 19. The Defendant’s program Every Sunday and its interview of the Plaintiff would air live from the Sofia Bulgaria Federal Penitentiary at exactly 6:30 pm Bulgarian time or approximately 8:30 am east coast standard time in the United States. The program would be recorded and be repeated everyday at different times during the following week. 20. The December 21st 2003 the program begins with a broadcasting in writing of the following words in the programs opening title, that “Kapoustin…[the Plaintiff] selling off the organs of the Pharaoh”. The words are defamatory and nothing more than a deliberate and malicious attempt by the first Defendant to immediately assassinate what little credibility, honor and dignity is left to the Plaintiff after the nearly 8 years of false criminal accusations of his being a fraud or “pharaoh” and before finally being acquitted by a court of law. From the initial moment of its broadcast the first Defendant wanted it to be understood by the ordinary citizens viewing its’ program that the Plaintiff deserved the derogatory label of “pharaoh” for having defrauded thousands of the Defendants Bulgarian viewers. Ordinary men and women could infer no other meaning from these first words appearing as the title of first Defendant’s broadcast except their natural and ordinary meaning to a member of Bulgarian society inter alia, that the Plaintiff was a fraud and a detestable criminal 19305851.doc

Page 4 of 11

deserving of their enmity and to be reviled. Ordinary viewers did not and could not be expected to know that the Plaintiff had been acquitted of all such criminal charges and allegations by a Bulgarian criminal court and so did not in all fairness fairly deserve the derogatory and defamatory label of a “Pharaoh” whose “organs” are being sold off. 21. During the television interview of the Plaintiff, the first Defendant’s senior moderator, and second Defendant, was to be one Kevork Kevorkian who did a few seconds after the appearance of defamatory title and speaking in the background of a live image of the Plaintiff uttered the following slanderous words and made the following untrue statement as if fact when he described the Plaintiff as the “…the chief of the collapsed pyramid LifeChoice”. These words are intentionally untruthfully and spoken maliciously with the intent of creating the false impression that the Plaintiff’s Bulgarian “LifeChoice” has ceased to exist, something the Defendants knew to not be true. It was also intended to impute to the Defendants viewers that the same company had been to be a criminal organization responsible for defrauding Bulgarian citizens, one of the so called “pyramid structure”, something the Defendants also knew not to be true. 22. Again ordinary men and women viewing the program of the Defendants and hearing the slanderous words spoken by second Defendant Kevorkian could infer no other meaning from these words except their natural and ordinary meaning in Bulgarian society as imputing to the Plaintiff leadership of a failed criminal activity or “pyramid” that has “collapsed”. Ordinary viewers did not know and could not know that despite the 10 years of the Plaintiff’s imprisonment his company still remained in good standing as a registered commercial enterprise with the Sofia City corporate registry, had assets that exceed its liabilities and had been determined by a criminal court of law to be a legitimate commercial enterprise and not a “pyramid”, and paradoxically the sole victim of the crime for which the Plaintiff had finally been convicted. 23. This reliance by the Defendants on the words “pharaoh” and “pyramid” when describing the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s company clearly had no purpose or relevance to the public protest of the Plaintiff and other foreign citizens as reported by the Edmonton Sun on December 16th, 2003. It became apparent from the outset that the Defendants intent was only to expose the Plaintiff to further public ridicule and to inflame an already unreasonable and unfounded public hatred and contempt for the Plaintiff as had been previously incited by Bulgarian authorities when wrongly accusing the Plaintiff for the commission of a massive fraud. 24. It became immediately apparent that as employees of a Bulgarian state controlled enterprise the second Defendant Kevorkian and third Defendant Karbovski had set the tone and direction of the interview to discredit the Plaintiff and thereby also discredit his complaints and those of other of other foreign citizens in Bulgarian prisons that they are victims of corrupt practices and discrimination practiced by the Bulgarian state, the sole shareholder of the first Defendant BNTV. 25. The Defendants intend when using the slanderous words “pharaoh” and “pyramid” to describe the Plaintiff and his company was only to divert the public attention from the reasons for the desperate acts undertaken by him and the other foreign citizens and their legitimate attempt to draw attention to the suffering and inhumanity of the Bulgarian state. The quoted words are slander because the words were accusations imputing the commission of a criminal offense for which he had been fully acquitted for by a Bulgarian 19305851.doc

Page 5 of 11

criminal court of law and is therefore a crime that the Defendants knew the Plaintiff did not commit. 26. The slanderous defamations inflicted by the Defendants on the Plaintiff did not end with their untrue and contemptibly malicious attempt at discrediting the Plaintiff and the other foreign citizens imprisoned with as anything but reasonable human beings with families and a conscience but proceeded far beyond what is acceptable in a civilized and democratic European society. The Defendants interview of the Plaintiff and its program “Every Sunday” deteriorated into a pathetic but no less damaging parody of the racial hatred and fascism that characterized the official policies and politics of the Bulgarian State before 1945. 27. The Plaintiff and the third Defendant Martin Karbovski communicated through interpreters and first exchanged the following words; Karbovski turning to the Plaintiff “interesting hat you have” [A reference to the Plaintiff’s Jewish scull cap Kippa] The Plaintiff answers “Ah, thank you” Karbovski “What kind of hat is that?” Kapoustin “It’s a Jewish Yarmulke, I’m Jewish” Karbovski “You’re Jewish are you?” Kapoustin Yes I am Karbovski “I was wondering how you managed to cheat1 so many people” 28. The phrase “What kind of hat is that?” although cloaked as a question by the third Defendant Karbovski is clearly only rhetorical in nature. The third Defendant Karbovski knows what the Plaintiff’s “hat” represents and admits as much when several minutes later explains that he had “performed the part of a Jew”. Clearly, the third Defendant’s Karbovski’s only reason for his question was a malicious one and solely intended instead to draw the attention of millions of the Defendants viewers to the Plaintiff’s “hat” and the visual significance of that “hat” in establishing that the “pharaoh”, the Plaintiff, is a Jew. There is no defense for the rhetorical nature of the statement that follows this question. 29. It was by way of an explanation that the third Defendant Karbovski spoke the slanderous and racially motivated words “how you managed to cheat so many people”. Clearly the Defendants wanted their millions of viewers to know that its because “You’re [the Plaintiff] Jewish” that “you managed to cheat so many people”. These slanderous and hateful words are spoken with a smirk but intended to incite enmity not only against the Plaintiff but against all Jews. These words, when taken according to their natural meaning and taken up in their proper context convey not a fair comment but instead communicates to millions of television viewers anti-Semitism and incites race hate. The Defendants imputation with the slanderous is that Jews are better than at cheating, defrauding hoodwinking, and swindling 1

The Bulgarian “Измама” means deceive, take in; (с користна цел) cheat, defraud, swindle, take in, dupe, fool; hoodwink; (надхитрям) outwit; 19305851.doc Page 6 of 11

and the Plaintiff being a Jew finally clears up the Defendants confusion or “wonder” of how is was that the Plaintiff “managed to cheat so many people”. 30. By these slanderous words the Defendants meant and were understood by millions of television viewers to mean, that not only is the Plaintiff without any sense or morality and a hateful and detestable human being his being Jewish explains he is without any sense or morality and this is true because Jews according to the Defendants make the best cheats and swindlers. 31. At 23 minutes and 11 seconds into the interview the third Defendant Karbovski further inflames viewer contempt against the Plaintiff and all Jews when further aggravating the injury already done by asking the Plaintiff the purely rhetoric question of “Come on aren’t Bulgarians something like financial idiots?”. These slanderous words, while appearing to insult the Bulgarian people, are in fact nothing more than a poorly veiled and distorted attempt at massaging the Defendants earlier anti-Semitic and race related statement and so justify a lesser defamatory meaning to the Defendants earlier defamatory imputation concerning all Jews, and because the Plaintiff is a Jew, as the explanation for how he, the Plaintiff, “managed to cheat so many people”. And according to the Defendants, as a Jew the Plaintiff must surely think that all “Bulgarians are financial idiots”. 32. From the context of the interview it becomes apparent that the Defendants sole intention with the interview of the Plaintiff had nothing to do with the legitimate reasons for his actions as reported in the international media on December 16th 2003 and that of the other foreign citizens incarcerated at the Sofia Federal Penitentiary but was in fact nothing more than the most egregious and deliberate of character assassinations calculated to damage and discredit the Plaintiff and all foreign citizens detained in Bulgaria and intended to cause the Plaintiff and his family further anguish and emotional trauma and by making them the further subject of ridicule by ordinary members of society who will form their opinions from the distorted, race related and xenophobic opinions of the Defendant. The ordinary television viewer unable to make the fine distinctions between the crimes alleged by the Defendants and attributed to the Plaintiff and the actual acts themselves and findings of fact and law as determined by the courts. 33. The statements and the interview conducted by the Defendant contained not a single idea or opinion or a scarp of information of any value whatsoever and is malicious in the extreme falsely suggesting that the Plaintiff has committed a crime against a whole society and not against a single private commercial enterprise having one shareholder. 34. The Defendants calculated their interview so as to engender the maximum amount of hatred and contempt towards the Plaintiff and in fact all Jews and to invite the Defendants viewers to join in the Defendants poorly veiled contempt towards Jews and the characterization of Jews as a people without sense or morality and hateful and detestable human beings by praying those who are “financial idiots”. 35. These words of the Defendants together with “pharaoh” and “pyramid” are devoid of any truth and did not communicate to the Defendants millions of television a scintilla of information or ideas of any value whatsoever except the not so subtle attempt to expose the Plaintiff and all Jews to racial hatred, contempt and further public ridicule. The Defendants intended to and did injured not only the reputation and integrity of Plaintiff but of all the 19305851.doc

Page 7 of 11

Jewish people, the slanderous and racially motivated words had only the intention to do harm and nothing in the words of the Defendants could suggest otherwise. 36. It is later in the interview that the third Defendant Karbovski goes on to suggest that the Plaintiff’s and other prisoners attempt at selling their organs is a reasonable act and “at least…a solution for your problem”. The third Defendant Karbovski then goes on to again slander the Plaintiff again when again imputes a crime to the Plaintiff for which the Defendants know the Plaintiff is acquitted and proceeds to directly blame the Plaintiff for those “…people who received problems because of the collapse of your pyramid” and that they “don’t even have that solution” of selling their organs. 37. The third Defendant Karbovski goes on to say to the Plaintiff that “It seems you want to get out faster because you have hidden it [the stolen money] somewhere and you now want to use it.” And that if he, the third Defendant Karbovski, had stolen and hidden “2 or 3 million dollars somewhere”, something he insists to his viewers the Plaintiff has done, he “would go ahead and sell a kidney” and “then to go to the place where I hid the money, it comes out that way sometimes”. 38. When the Defendants are asked by the Plaintiff if they consider the Plaintiff’s transfer to a prison in Canada or his possible parole after more than 8 years in a Bulgarian prison as “faster”, the third Defendant Karbovski replies with the words “You’ve got 11 and a half left!” From these words and the immediately preceding exchange of words and the Defendants unsupportable assertions of the Plaintiff having caused “people…problems because of the collapse of your pyramid” and that the Plaintiff had “hidden” money in the millions of dollars and was only seeking a “faster” way out of prison are clearly slanderous words and defamatory assertions whose malicious intend is to aggravate the existing public enmity towards the Plaintiff by maintaining in a delusion in the public mind of the Plaintiff’s guilt and criminal responsibility for an act the Defendants known the Plaintiff was acquitted for. The sole purpose of the interview was to foreclose any possibility of the Plaintiff securing his transfer to a prison in Canada near his wife and small son and also ruin any chance of the Plaintiff’s later parole or attempts at a rehabilitation of his public reputation or pursuit of a livelihood. 39. The interview of the Plaintiff is a deliberately false and vicious verbal attack on a person with no public persona and a wholly unjustified attack upon the character and reputation of the Jewish people and was not done in the public interest, but is the alternative, an act to harm the public interest by continuing a falsehood intended to deliberately manipulate people of good faith to perceive the Plaintiff as the perpetrator of a massive fraud and intentionally precipitated the perpetuation of a slanderous anti-Semitic anecdote that Jews are better swindlers than Gentiles. Neither of these acts of the Defendants works towards the creating of a community committed to equality, liberty and human dignity and therefore the interview cannot have be said to have been in the public’s interest. 40. And while these assaults by the Defendants on the Plaintiff did not involve acts pf physical violence, the motivation behind the assault is still the same and it did involve a violent assault in front of millions of television viewers and could result in nothing else but injury to the Plaintiff, his family and the Jewish people. An injury that will have far more lasting and serious affects that that of the physical injury of being beaten and bruised. The motivation for this assault on the Plaintiff and Jews is the same whether the violence is to the flesh and bone or to the integrity of one individual’s reputation or the reputation of a 19305851.doc

Page 8 of 11

whole nation of peoples. The Defendants intended their television interview as a tool intended only to inflict an injury that would cause the greatest and most severe pain. Their maliciously slanderous statements and distortions of the facts contained no truth, no honest belief except for Defendants thinly veiled racial slurs against the Jewish people, and conveyed no valid opinion except the Defendants expression of contempt of the most malicious kind and calculated to destroy the humanity of the Plaintiff, the other inmates and the credibility of their complaints against inhumane conditions and treatment at the Sofia Federal Penitentiary and to represent before millions of viewers the anecdote that the Jewish people are better “swindlers”. 41. The work of numerous study groups shows that racism, anti-Semitism and recently xenophobia are current and present evils in not only in the formerly totalitarian state of Bulgaria but is a rising phenomena in the United States and Europe. These remains cancerous growths that are still very much alive and make vulnerable the Plaintiff and others like him who belong to such a minority and made him susceptible to injure from the deliberate and injurious lies as those perpetrated during the Defendants interview of the Plaintiff and from the Defendants intentional reliance on injurious false statements disguised as fact or authentic research and malicious racist anecdotes used to spur on nationalist, racial and religious hatred and intolerance towards the Plaintiff, Jews and all things “foreign”. 42. The first Defendant BNTV made no retraction or sufficient public apology and did not exert any effort to mitigate the damages resulting from the racist remarks and public insults made against the Plaintiff and the Jewish people by the third Defendant Karbovski. Instead, the first Defendant BNTV acted to aggravate the damages already caused by the one live interview of December 21st 2003 and repeatedly re-broadcast a recording of this interview and the defamations by satellite and cable for the next 7 (seven) days. And did so without any consideration for the injury it would cause to the Plaintiff and his family who hoped in time to regain the good will of reasonable and fair people or to the dignity of the Jewish people whose suffering an loss of human life at the hands of the Bulgarian state is historic fact. WHEREFORE AS THE PLAINTIFF HAS SUFFERED SERIOUS INJURY AS A RESULT OF THE DEFENDANTS WRONGFUL ACTS FOR WHICH THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS FULL COMPENSATION FOR THAT SUFFERING AND LOSS SUSTAINED BOTH AS PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY LOSS FOR AN ATTACK ON HIS REPUTATION AND DIGNITY AND THE REPUTATION AND DIGNITY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND SEEKS A JOINT AND SEVERAL JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS FOR TE SUM OF TEN MILLION DOLLARS plus pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Plaintiff Consents to United States Magistrate Judge under Title 28, U.S.C. Section 636 (c). Place of trial: District of Columbia Dated at the City of Washington in the District of Columbia on ……….. January 2006.

19305851.doc

Page 9 of 11

Robert Kap On behalf of and as Agent for the Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin Address for service: Chicago, Illinois

19305851.doc

Page 10 of 11

19305851.doc

Page 11 of 11