Rcmp Full Document History

Mr. Dean Peroff Amsterdam & Peroff 35 Alvin Avenue Toronto Ontario Canada M4T 2A7

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

R.C.M.P. Complaint and Relevant Documents

Dear Dean,

This PDF documents represents the full breathe of documents in my possession and the actions I have tried to undertake while incarcerated here. It is as much as I could do in Canada and alone from a Bulgarian prison cell. More was needed and should have been done, but my family is not litigious or otherwise inclined to use the law. I have been pretty much alone in this. The documents appear in the order as they are listed below. Each item in this index is linked to the document and can be navigated using Adobe Acrobat version 5 or later. Now let me try to put things into their proper context. 1. the chronology of seeming unrelated events has proven significant. The accusatory “words” and “phrases” and “nature” of the alleged crimes inter alia fraud, forgery, and money laundering as they appear in the July 7th 1995 RCMP indictment of me also appear in other official documents and media reports. Some of these directly accredit the Canadian government. I think this will become apparent to anyone carefully reviewing these documents. Of great significance is the wording of the Bulgarian requests to Interpol and the international warrant itself and their similarity to the RCMP accusatory correspondences. 2. The allegations of my being inter alia convicted of sexual assault in Canada could come from nowhere else except a Canadian police source. There are also many many documents I do not have.

3. The beatings and integrations I endured while in arrest had one and only one theme, where was and how could I access the money I had stolen off to Canada. No other questions were asked. As I said I cannot prove the beatings, but it is a public fact mentioned in Bulgarian newspapers after I made the accusation before the trial court. Of course no one would investigate those accusations and my “word” was not enough. 4. I provide you with specific documents from the Canadian and US lawsuits that you might find relevant in explaining the enmity of the Bulgarian government and judiciary against me inter alai I am the only person to every have filed a civil claim against the State and a sitting justice and prosecutor before a foreign court prepared to award significant money damages. 5. Also, the Affidavit of the Bulgarian Embassy representative to Canada is significant as an admission of the RCMP have assisted with my arrest by Interpol and helped to facilitate my extradition from Germany. The circumstances not dissimilar to the ARAR incident but occurring some 5 years earlier. I believe the rest will be self explanatory. One final observation before closing, that I am not as “bad” as these RCMP reports makes me out. Frankly, reading them again makes me ready to “turn myself in” for rehabilitation! My only reply is that so far, where it matters, I have been acquitted of everything alleged by the RCMP. That of course does not undue the damage they caused to my reputation, never mind my property and the state of mind of my family. I make no apologies for having been something of a rogue during my life. And if you choose to proceed further with helping us then I will also tell you of my recruitment by a U.S. Government agency in the late 1970 and early ’80’s, the Saudi Royal family and an agency of Israel. My wife and family only know the Saudi part of this, and while this has no direct or indirect relevance to the events of the last 12 years it still may have indirectly caused the RCMP to wonder who the hell I was. I will discuss this with you only in person and ask you refrain from mentioning it to Tracy who has enough of an emotional burden as it is. While this may not be important you should still know about it. Finally, thank you again if for nothing more than looking into this. I sincerely believe there is enough substance to this that if noting else two things could in the least occur, among them is (1) the recovery of legal fees and costs associated with any litigation commenced against the RCMP, I do not believe they have a legitimate defense, at least not after my acquittal in Bulgaria on all the official charges made by them and of course the defamations and wrongful arrest resulting from those. And, (2) reaching a settlement with Bulgaria on all the civil actions with the result that I am repatriated to Canada. Of course my interpretation of the facts and law is biased, no matter how much I struggle towards the alternative and so maybe there is nothing here to interest you. I will pray that I am not so far wrong, Sincerely, Michael Kapoustin

TABLE OF DOCUMENT CONTENTS 1. February 23, 2001 affidavit of Bulgarian embassy plenipotentiary at Ottawa Canada under British Columbia Supreme Court civil case number S0004040 Kapoustin et al versus Republic of Bulgaria et al 2. January 25, 2001 clerks entry of default against Republic of Bulgaria et al Judge Emilia Mitkova, trial judge under the criminal case against me. Default issued under United States Federal District Court of Indiana in LifeChoice versus Bulgaria et al civil case number 3 00 C. V. 649RM – copy of original document. 3. March 16, 2001 Affidavit of plaintiffs’ Bulgarian attorney Mr. Anatol Lukov before the British Columbia Supreme Court number S0004040 Kapoustin et al versus Republic of Bulgaria et al – copy of original document. 4. February 23, 2001 defendant Bulgaria submit OUTLINE to Court under British Columbia Supreme Court civil case number S0004040 Kapoustin et al versus Republic of Bulgaria et al in a Defence motion for a hearing to determine jurisdiction and to dismiss the claim. The Motion was not heard – copy of an original document. 5. January 23, 2004 complaint has filed to the RCMP complaints division, amended, as delivered to Shirley Heafey commissioner. The amendments appear in the color red and are underlined – copy of original document. 6. July 07, 1995 Canadian RCMP indictment of the Applicant and incriminate him for the commission of inter alia frauds and money laundering in Bulgaria, Canada and elsewhere –English text. Note – there is no copy of the original English language text as faxed from the Canadian embassy in Vienna Austria to the Bulgarian ministry of interior police. 6a

The Original Bulgarian text

7. September 05, 1995 Sofia city prosecutors office advice of having received the aforesaid July 07, 1995 RCMP secret indictment and that it “contains data for fraud by Michael kapoustin other person’s”. The Prosecutors Office requests the ministry of interior police proceed to verify the Canadian data that seeks the prosecution of the Applicant – English text 7a

Copy of the Original Bulgarian Document

8. October 6 1995 report to the head of the economic police section of the ministry of interior police Sofia precipitated by the July 07, 1995 Canadian RCMP written indictment of the Applicant as well as from allegations made by the Bulgarian tax authorities. Those allegations also being precipitated by the Canadian authorities – English text

8a

Copy of the Original Bulgarian text

9. November 30, 1995 first request to the Sofia Bulgaria offices of Interpol also located as a section within the ministry of interior police, the same organization in contact with and having been contacted by the Canadian RCMP – English text 9a Copy of the Original Bulgarian Document 10. December 13, 1995 protocol of a meeting between the RCMP representative to the Canadian embassy Vienna and members of the Bulgarian ministry of interior police. The meeting discusses the arrest and prosecution of the Applicant and mutual cooperation between Canada and Bulgaria. Specifically the it identifies the areas of cooperation inter alia identifying the flow of money to Canada from Caribbean bank accounts – English text 10a

Copy of the Original Bulgarian Document

11. December 15, 1995 ORDER made by the prosecutors general for the Republican of Bulgaria and directing Bulgarian Interpol offices to issue, in fact demanding they issues, an international search for and arrest and ultimate extradited of the Applicant to the Republic of Bulgaria. Anecdotal evidence suggests that at first the representatives of Bulgarian Interpol refused the request for an international arrest warrant for the Applicant. This apparently because Interpol and the European Convention on Extradition requirements that such a request must be issued by a sitting judge – English text 11a

Copy of original Bulgarian document

12. February 7 1996 teletype from German Interpol requesting the arrest and detention of the Applicant at the Request of the Republic of Bulgaria – English text 12a

The Bulgarian text

12b

Copy of original German document

13. February 15, 1996 translation Bulgarian newspaper article in the “standard” daily and citing the desire of the government of Canada to also extradite the applicant – English text only 14. February 22nd 1996 translation of Bulgaria and newspaper article and again in “standard” daily citing the willingness of the Government of Canada to “hand over” the Applicant to Bulgarian authorities. This announcement is made to the media by the Prosecutors General for the Republican of Bulgaria after consultations with Canadian Government authorities – English text only 15. April 05, 1996 request to Interpol Sofia directed to Interpol for the Republic of Georgia and specifically identifying the Canadian company of the Applicant and the allegations as made in the July 07, 1995 indictment issued by the RCMP – English text

15a

Copy of original Bulgarian document

16. April 02, 1996 fax from the RCMP Canadian embassy to an unknown and unidentified Bulgarian agency – copy a of the original Canadian document 17. August, 1996 Canadian verbal note to the German government expressing concerns over the proposed extradition of the Applicant to Bulgaria -- copy of the original Canadian document 18. August 01, 1996 publication “continent” daily newspaper detailing an interview with the investigating police officer in the criminal case. During the interview the chief police investigator clearly makes numerous references to the Canadian sources and “police facts” in the indictment and other representations made by Canada concerning the alleged criminal activities of the applicant in Canada and elsewhere -- Copy of original Bulgarian newspaper article 18a

The English text

19. August 08, 1996 translation Bulgarian newspaper article in the “standard” daily and citing Government of Canada information that the applicant is the head of a powerful religious sect based on the Jewish mystical philosophy as found in the Kabala- English text only 20. August 23, 1996 translation Bulgarian newspaper article in the “standard” daily and citing Canadian government sources who confirmed they do not want their citizen, the Applicant, back and that the Applicant was involved in sexual crimes. The article discusses the funds allegedly in Canada and asserted by the RCMP to be the proceeds of crimes the Applicant has allegedly committed in Bulgaria and elsewhere – English text only 21. August 1996 verbal note issued by the Government of Canada to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and expressing concerns over the atmosphere being generated in Bulgaria as a consequence of Canadian police representations. It also confirms that there is no record in Canada of the Applicant ever having committed the crimes attributed to him by these Canadian sources and as is being distributed to the mass media by the Bulgarian Prosecutors General and the chief police investigator under the case -- copy a of the original Canadian document 22. August 21, 1996 letter issued by the department of foreign affairs and international trade Canada to Robert Kap the Applicant’s father and discussing the extradition and treatment of the Applicant -- copy a of the original Canadian document 23. August 23, 1996 fax by the RCMP to the Bulgarian ministry of interior police and allegedly presenting evidence of crimes committed by the Applicant in Canada together with his co-conspirators as identified in the July 07, 1995 secret indictment issued by the RCMP. It recalled that this document requests the arrest and prosecution of the applicant by Bulgarian authorities -- copy a of the original Canadian document

24. August 23, 1996 fax by the RCMP to the Bulgarian ministry of interior police and alleging there are Canada wide warrants of arrest against the applicant and also requesting again information From Bulgarian police authorities on the funds allegedly transferred to Canada from Bulgaria via the Caribbean bank accounts of the Applicant -- copy a of the original Canadian document 25. October 25, 1996 verbal note by the Government of Canada requesting a medical records of the recently extradited applicant -- copy a of the original Canadian document 26. May 23, 1997 report and a verbal note as issued to Bulgaria by Canadian Consular officers visiting the Applicant. Of significance here is the confirmation that the arrest warrant and criminal investigation of the applicant, according to Bulgarian authorities, dates back to July, 1995, the exact month and date of the secret Canadian indictment. This confirms that it was this Canadian indictment that finally precipitated the arrest and prosecution of the applicant -- copy a of the original Canadian document 27. July 1997 letter issued by the RCMP to an unknown Bulgarian Agency. I suspect that should be the “national investigative service” and not the “national prosecutor’s investigation agency”, no such animal. This letter and the Bulgarian language only “willing submission of evidence” that follows is proof of the RCMP providing what is alleged to be “evidence gathered in Canada” to Bulgarian authorities. This “collection” by the RCMP is done outside of the normal channels for doing so as is the means of its submission to the Bulgarian police investigator -- copy a of the original Canadian document. 27a

Copy of the original Bulgarian document –no translation available, however it’s apparent that document is signed by the RCMP representative.

28. June 11, 1999 refusal of Canada foreign affairs to undertake any actions or steps towards clarifying what involvement the RCMP had in my arrest, prosecution, an extradition by Bulgarian authorities as based on the RCMP indictment or information given against the Applicant -- copy a of the original Canadian document 29. August 05, 1999 attempts by M. P. Bob Mills to secure information from Canadian police and the RCMP and to determine from this the character of the RCMP requests and alleged warrants against the Applicant and as might have been provided to Bulgarian authorities to secure the Applicant’s arrest and prosecution in Bulgaria. This request was refused -- copy a of the original Canadian document 30. December 15, 1999 reply of the Bulgarian ministry of justice and legal European integration advising the Bulgarian attorney for the Applicant that at no time has there been any formal exchange or cooperation between Bulgarian and Canadian authorities in a criminal investigation of the Applicant and that there exists no treaty for such cooperation. Significant is the fact that according

to the Bulgarian ministry for justice no link wiry was ever made by Canadian police – English text only 31. August 23, 2000 complaint by the Applicant after having first learned of the RCMP delivering documents and signing statements in secret before Bulgarian police investigators. All in the successful attempt to secretly secure the arres, prosecution and conviction of the Applicant by a Bulgarian criminal court -copy a of the original Canadian document 32. May 3, 2001 registered letter with return receipt addressed to the RCMP international liaison and confirming delivery of a Canadian statement of claim registered before the BC Supreme Court and naming him, RCMP police Sergeant Derek Doornbos, as a co-defendant - copy a of the original document 33. May 3, 2001 registered letter with return receipt addressed to the Canadian department for foreign affairs and requesting delivery of the Canadian statement of claim registered before the BC Supreme Court and naming him, RCMP police Sergeant Derek Doornbos, as a co-defendant. The request was refused-copy a of the original document 34. May 19, 2001 request to Canada’s Attorney General for legal aid - copy a of the original document 35. July 13, 2001 registered letter with return receipt addressed to the Canadian embassy at Vienna Austria and requesting they deliver the Canadian statement of claim registered before the BC Supreme Court and naming RCMP police Sergeant and liaison to the Embassy Derek Doornbos as a co-defendant. No reply was received -- copy a of the original document 36. July 17, 2001 reply of the Attorney General Canada to the applicants request for legal aid and an explanation of what the Canada wide warrants against him represent. The letter asserts that the warrants are for failure to appear before a court and that the request to clarify the nature of the allegations and legal aid is refused because the Attorney General for Canada interpreted such a request as asking for assistance before Bulgarian authorities and courts and not Canadian. Also, that any legal aid in Canada would only be available to Applicants on his arrival there and appearance before court -- copy a of the original document 37. July 18, 2001 Applicant faxes another request for legal aid directly to the ministry of the attorney general for the province of British Columbia -- copy a of the original document 38. July to 2001 Applicant faxes and repeats the same request again to the Attorney General for Canada -- copy a of the original document 39. September 12, 2001 reply to the Applicant’s request as to how to bring a civil claim against the Attorney General for Canada and before what court -- copy a of the original document 40. January 16, 2004 Applicant’s first complaint to the RCMP complaints commissioner Ms. Shirley Heafey-- copy a of the original document

41. February 16, 2004 initial reply to the Applicant’s complaint to RCMP complaints commissioner Ms. Shirley Heafey. The Commission refuses to review the Applicant’s complaint-- copy a of the original document 42. March 26, 2004 Applicant’s resubmission of the Complaint to the RCMP complaints commissioner Ms. Shirley Heafey, attention Glen Hansen -- copy a of the original document 43. May 14, 2004 applicant again writes to RCMP complaints commissioner Ms. Shirley Heafey, attention Glen Hansen -- copy a of the original document 44. May 14, 2004 Applicant again writes directly to RCMP complaints commissioner Ms. Shirley Heafey -- copy a of the original document 45. September 03, 2004 Applicant finally receives confirmation that his complaint has been accepted and forwarded by the Commissioner to the RCMP - copy a of the original document 46. October 08, 2004 Applicant makes additional requests and asks for more clarification from the Commission. No reply was received -- copy a of the original document 47. December 02, 2004 the RCMP writes the Applicant and issues a statement as to its conclusions subsequent to an investigation inter alia that those responsible have now retired and so the RCMP can do nothing. Apparently the only option is for the Applicant to pursue compensation directly from the RCMP -- copy a of the original document

FORM 60 (RULE 51)

Anatol-Vesel Lukanov No. 1 March 16th 2001

No. S004040 VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: KAPOUSTIN, et al PLAINTIFFS AND: THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA, et al DEFENDANTS AND: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT I, Anatol-Vesel Lukanov, a practicing attorney in the Republic of Bulgaria and advocate for the Plaintiffs in the Republic of Bulgaria DO MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1.

That the following is based upon my personal knowledge of certain facts and circumstances; where relevant I have made references to provisions of prevailing national law and enactment together with any pertinent legislation and international agreements and treaties to which the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria (the “Defendant”) is a contracting party; making referral only to common judicial practice and relevant decisions of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Cassation Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, Republic of Bulgaria (“Bulgaria”).

That, as a civil and criminal attorney licensed to practice law in Bulgaria, No 103/2001 of the Advocates Register I have made reference only to those national laws, decisions and treaties I believe to be meaningful to this, my Affidavit, as submitted by me for I:\Documents and Settings\MKapoustin\My Litigation\00_A1 KAPOUSTIN_CANADA\Civil Cases Canada\S004040 1 Kap\Affidavits\Lukanov\BC S004040 Affidavit Lukanov No.01.doc12/28/058:41 AM 2.

consideration by this Honorable Court; doing so in support of claims made by the Plaintiffs to this jurisdiction being the only one proper and right to ascertain if the Plaintiffs, being citizens and residents of British Columbia, Canada, are or are not entitled to the relief sought for the breeches of law and other acts of the Defendants as alleged by Plaintiffs to be connected to them in the Province of British Columbia (the “Province”). 3.

That, upon my best information and belief, after having closely examined all the materials available to me and relevant provisions of law, I do verily believe that the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court is proper since the particulars of the above entitled case and the facts to which I attest to, in this my Affidavit, lead me to believe that this Defendant is directly or vicariously responsible for the personal injury, property loss and breeches of contract or other the torts alleged in the Plaintiffs claim as having occurred in or otherwise somehow being connected to the Province.

4.

As to all other facts they are on my best information and belief based upon, inter alia, the investigations made by me, including a review of various court records and filings in various jurisdictions; my examination of official state documents of Canada as provided to me and those of agencies or instrumentalities, including political subdivisions of this Defendant; the personal records of the Plaintiffs; the corporate and court records of the Bulgarian registered company LifeChoice International AD and others; various published reports and news articles; my personal interviews with the Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin and such other persons as did provide information under oath, the nature of which I believe relevant; upon the foregoing I have prepared within the extremely short period of time consisting of 48 hours this, my affidavit, which does not include all issues brought up by the Plaintiffs and the documents available evidencing their claims.

5.

The responsibility of the Defendant may be sought on the territory of Bulgaria according to State's Responsibility for Injuries Caused to Citizens Act - State Gazette No 60 dated August 5, 1988. It concerns responsibility for the activities of state administration and of the investigative, prosecution and judicial authorities. But in view of the nature of the case and of the circumstance that the Plaintiffs reside in British Columbia and have judicial registrations there, it is only logical to submit their claims for injured commercial interests under the local legislation.

6.

According to the Code on Civil Procedure in effect on the territory of Bulgaria, the State is to be represented by the Minister of Finance - Article 18 § 3, which does not lead to arguments that the Supreme Court of British Columbia might not have jurisdiction over claims for injured rights and interests, by a foreign State, of citizens and legal entities in Canada as the Plaintiffs appear to be.

7.

That I have read the 23rd February 2001 Affidavit of Ms. Maya Dobreva (“Dobreva”) and can attest that there exists no document or other material fact known or discovered

I:\Documents and Settings\MKapoustin\My Litigation\00_A1 KAPOUSTIN_CANADA\Civil Cases Canada\S004040 Kap\Affidavits\Lukanov\BC S004040 Affidavit Lukanov No.01.doc12/28/058:41 AM

2

by me or known to the Plaintiffs as having been filed with this Honorable Court proving or otherwise establishing the legal right or authority of Ms. Dobreva, as Minister Plenipotentiary & Consul, Embassy Republic of Bulgaria, to retain an attorney or enter an appearance or to otherwise act or to engage others to act or make representation in any legal or other capacity in the Province for or on behalf of the Defendant as to material facts or contracts or applicable national and international laws which did bind this Defendant as a contracting party, making this Defendant subject to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. 8.

That I am unaware of any material fact or circumstance which would lead me to believe that Ms. Dobreva or Mr. Dimitar Tonchev, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Justice of the Defendant, as Respondent, to having any direct or specific personal knowledge of those events, acts, material contracts or other transactions as concluded by the Plaintiffs with this Defendant or certain of the Defendant’s political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities; each of the aforementioned being separate commercial activities or transactions of this Defendant with the Plaintiffs and having been effected among the parties, now litigants, between the period from August 1991 up to and including the end of December 1995; the breeches of contract and torts claimed against this Defendant are alleged to have occurred from 31 December 1994 up to and including 30th November 1998; these are the periods as known to me to be relied upon by the Plaintiffs in their claim which I, as their legal counsel in Bulgaria am familiar with and have, in part, briefly enumerated below .

9.

That I am further unaware of any material fact or circumstance which would lead me to believe, Ms. Dobreva or Mr. Dimitar Tonchev, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Justice of the Defendant, to having any direct or specific personal impressions or knowledge of those breaches of contract, torts or other acts of the Defendant or certain of the Defendant’s political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities that are alleged as having caused damage or loss of property, physical injury and other material and nonmaterial harm claimed to have been suffered by the Plaintiffs in the Province; the nature and cause of which the Plaintiffs rely upon as their grounds for the relief sought.

10. Setting aside the applicable legal questions of the right of Ms. Dobreva to participate or

give testimony in the above entitled proceedings on behalf of her employer, this Defendant; or her and Mr. Tonchev’s questionable personal knowledge of relevant material facts during the period from August 1991 up to December 1998, the following can be said. 11. That representations made by Ms. Dobreva are unrelated to the subject matter of the

Plaintiffs law suit as set before this Honorable Court; neither are they pertinent to the subject of this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction over the Defendants in civil or commercial matters which are the substance of Plaintiffs claims. The issue before this Honorable Court is one of commercial activities conducted by this Defendant in the Province, as effected with residents of the Province, the Plaintiffs; this Honorable I:\Documents and Settings\MKapoustin\My Litigation\00_A1 KAPOUSTIN_CANADA\Civil Cases Canada\S004040 Kap\Affidavits\Lukanov\BC S004040 Affidavit Lukanov No.01.doc12/28/058:41 AM

3

Court asked to consider if this Defendant's alleged breeches of conduct; transfers of title upon property without any guarantees for repayment of the funds invested by the Plaintiffs; materially untrue or false commercial representations or other tortious conducts in the province or outside the province but having a direct or vicarious affect upon residents or others in the Province; or alternatively relating to commercial activities to be completed in or connected to property in the Province to which the Plaintiffs have or claim to have lawful title or rights. 12. Upon my best information and from the materials available to me it is apparent the

Plaintiffs have not claimed anywhere in their allegations that the judicial proceeding in Bulgaria cited by Ms Dobreva is the causus for the claims made by them or the relief sought; Plaintiffs' claims against this Defendant arise from acts organized by it of the kind as carried on by private persons, de jure gestionis, in connection with commercial activities and certain material contracts and transactions as entered into by this Defendant, through different State authorities, institutes and ministries, in the Province with the Plaintiffs who allege that breaches of contract and other torts of the Defendant resulted in the injuries and damages being claimed. 13. That Ms. Dobreva’s assertion of Plaintiffs reliance upon official acts arising out of

government activities, de jure imperii, does not represent the truth and is not reflected in either the originating process as served upon this Defendant. or any subsequent pleadings or argument set before this Honorable Court. 14. I am unable to determine upon what representations of the Plaintiffs or other material

facts Ms. Dobreva is able to conclude, under oath as if fact or alluding to it as such, that the law suit commenced by Plaintiffs in the Province is on account of or as a result of a penal judicial proceeding initiated on the 4th of December 1998 against one of the Plaintiffs presently in Bulgaria. 15. My client Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin was arrested at the request of the Defendant on

February 7, 1996 in the Federal Republic of Germany. The penal proceedings against him started on October 26, 1995. 16. I am unable to determine upon what material representations of the Plaintiffs in their

Statement of Claim or other material facts Ms. Dobreva is able to conclude that the Plaintiffs have at any time claimed or otherwise alluded to challenge a sovereign right to governmental activities and jurisdiction of any state to commence the referenced by Ms. Dobreva penal judicial proceeding; or the right of its judiciary to effect, on behalf of a sovereign state, any acts which conform to the principles of natural law, international conventions and the national law of a sovereign state; as long as those acts are lawful and conform to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they were performed.

I:\Documents and Settings\MKapoustin\My Litigation\00_A1 KAPOUSTIN_CANADA\Civil Cases Canada\S004040 Kap\Affidavits\Lukanov\BC S004040 Affidavit Lukanov No.01.doc12/28/058:41 AM

4

17. Furthermore that it is apparent to me that the Plaintiffs law suit does not rely upon or

relate to any lawful conduct of this Defendant from 4th December 1998 to the present in the court case in Bulgaria as referenced in the written declarations of Ms. Dobreva. 18. Up to date there is no effective conviction in force in Bulgaria for a crime of general

character against Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin. 19. Plaintiffs' claims are for activities of this Defendant from June 1991 up to and

including November 1998. 20. That upon my best information and belief and as is apparent to me from the material

facts set before me, the Plaintiffs are seeking to exercise the sovereign right and jurisdiction of courts of the Province and Canada and seek only their lawful right to have adjudicated for them, as lawful resource users and citizens of the Province, their claims for relief; and to do so before a Canadian court with competent jurisdiction in commercial matters and property or personal injury claims that are in someway connected to the Province and its residents; Plaintiffs asking this Honorable Court to assess upon the merit of their facts the claims made by them; this Honorable Court applying those provisions of Canadian law, enactment or international law as applicable in the instance case and giving it sovereign right and jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Plaintiffs claims. 21. By incoming reference No M-94-000082 from February 17, 1994 my client Plaintiff

Michael Kapoustin has registered with the Ministry of Finance of Bulgaria foreign investment made by him in the form of 7,500 shares with par value 100 BGL each amounting to the total sum of 750,000 BGL (seven hundred and fifty thousand BGL). 22. It can be seen from a decision under companies registration case No 15249/93 of the

Sofia City Court, Corporations Department that the corporate registered capital of LifeChoice International - AD ("LCIAD") amounts to 2,000,000,000 (two billion) old BGL which represents the equivalent at the time of about $ 74,000,000 USD (seventy four million USD). Up to date the corporation has not been declared bankrupt nor insolvent, neither wound-up. 23. On April 28, 1994 a special trust account was open with the Canadian law firm

McCandless, Morrison and Verdicchio for the purposes of financing of all initial expenses to be made in Canada and the USA connected with transferring the securities of the Bulgarian investors in compliance with local legislation. We have available a bank document for the amount of $ 65,000 USD (sixty five thousand USD). 24. I have examined 19,630 documents attached to Applications for Submitting of

Depositary Receipts and Withdrawal of Deposited Securities belonging to 6,217 Bulgarian investors. These documents were addressed to the above mentioned Canadian law firm McCandless, Morrison and Verdicchio at 1603-1106 Alberni Street, I:\Documents and Settings\MKapoustin\My Litigation\00_A1 KAPOUSTIN_CANADA\Civil Cases Canada\S004040 Kap\Affidavits\Lukanov\BC S004040 Affidavit Lukanov No.01.doc12/28/058:41 AM

5

Vancouver B.C., V6E 3Z3 and together with the envelopes with LifeChoice International - AD ("LCIAD") stamp, as a sender, were seized by the National Investigative Service from the offices of LCIAD in Sofia. Up to date neither prosecution nor the court have released documents to the company, thus making it impossible for them to complete realization of this project in the Province. All these envelopes with documents are at the disposal of the Sofia City Court to date. 25. On June 30, 1993 LifeChoice Pharmaceuticals Joint Venture, Plovdiv, Bulgaria [a joint

venture with Electronic and Magnetic Products owned by the State of Bulgaria, fully financed and principally owned by LifeChoice Pharmaceuticals Inc., Canada, a British Columbia corporation] bought active substance Respivax from the National Center for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Bulgaria ("NCIPD") for the amount of $ 20,000 USD (twenty thousand USD). I have available bank documents from the transaction. 26. I have available a contract approved by Ministry of Health, Bulgaria to effect clinical

tests of Bulgarian citizens, HIV/AIDS patients. The total value of the medicines, consumables supplied to the Hospital for Infectious Diseases in Sofia, Bulgaria and other amounts paid by LCIAD is $ 300,000 USD (three hundred thousand USD). No results and reports from the research carried out, being property of LCIAD, have ever been delivered to their legal representatives. 27. I have available a contract from September 29, 1994 for carrying out of scientific

experiments for the period of time from November 10, 1994 until December 10, 1995 under a program for scientific research about the effect of Factor - R upon 60 patients subject to certain risks as a result of exercising of certain professions and of persons who have undergone chemotherapy and surgical removal of metastases. To the National Center for Radiobiology and Protection from Radiation were paid sums under the said contract. I have available bank documents for the amount of $ 20,000 USD (twenty thousand USD). Although the amount was paid, the results were not submitted to LCIAD up to date. 28. I have available documentation for the import of AZT tablets. There is an approval

from the Ministry of Health, Bulgaria, permitting a shipment from Canada to be delivered to the agencies of the Ministry of Health. The total value of the quantities agreed upon amounts to about $ 130,000 USD (one hundred thirty thousand USD). 29. There is no illegal embezzlement of substantial sums of money from over 4,700

Bulgarian citizens, as Ms. Dobreva alleges in her affidavit. I have available decisions of the Sofia Regional Court, Sofia City Court, Sofia Appeal Court, Supreme Cassation Court and Supreme Administrative Court and all these decisions recognize the relationships which existed between LCIAD and the separate Bulgarian investors as contractual ones. There are perfect contracts, which the State in the face of the Ministry of Finance has even taxed. The number pointed out by Ms. Dobreva is not supported I:\Documents and Settings\MKapoustin\My Litigation\00_A1 KAPOUSTIN_CANADA\Civil Cases Canada\S004040 Kap\Affidavits\Lukanov\BC S004040 Affidavit Lukanov No.01.doc12/28/058:41 AM

6

by written documents, there is no list of these persons and I state that she is not in a position to submit one. 30. The allegation that my client Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin absconded abroad is not true

either. According to a letter from the Direction of People's Police, Passports Department, my client had permission to stay in Bulgaria up to September 29, 1995. The penal proceedings against him were initiated, as cited before, on October 27, 1995 at the time when he was not in Bulgaria. 31. My client, Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin, was never subpoenaed at the official addresses

of his offices in Sofia, at addresses in Greece known such as Kavala, 14-V, "Plio" Str. And Kavala, 16, "Yadras" Str. Neither at his address in Canada, Vancouver, Alberni Str. 1166 and phone numbers 662-37-71 and 669-98-28. Although addresses and telephone numbers in Austin, Texas and St. John, Antigua were known, my client was never subpoenaed there either. There is a Treaty for Legal Assistance on Civil and Penal Matters between Bulgaria and Greece promulgated in State Gazette No 49/1980. There is no duly formed and served subpoena to my client in compliance with this treaty. 32. The allegation that Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin started a pyramid scheme in Bulgaria is

not true, because I have available bank documents and statements from bank accounts certifying unequivocally that the sums invested by different Bulgarian citizens do not cover the expenses of the company for consumables, electricity, water, rents, etc. for the period of time June 1993 - April 1994 in the bank account of LCIAD for BGL, not taking into consideration the funds in foreign currency, were 16,900,566.85 BGL (sixteen million nine hundred thousand five hundred sixty six BGL 85 stotinki), approximate equivalent of $ 422,514 USD (taking into consideration the considerable deviations in the exchange rate during this period of time), before the initiation of collecting investments from Bulgarian citizens through distribution of Redeemable Depositary Receipts (RDR). 33. I have available a written statement dated October 29, 1997 from which it can be seen

that property of LCIAD, seized by the National Investigative Service, Bulgaria, was missing. Between the missing assets enumerated were two jeeps, a briefcase containing programs for a simulator that costs $ 60,000 USD (sixty thousand). There is no evaluation for the jeeps missing. 34. According to seizure order No 7171 from March 20, 1996 property was seized,

consisting of installation for processing of waste oils belonging to LCIAD. It can be seen from a letter with ref. No 6600328 of MDB - Tzarimir dated August 26, 1997 the funds for security of the site were withheld and the assets were depleted. 35. I have available an Act for State Property No 001047 dated July 27, 1998 by which the

ground floor of a building consisting of 580 square meters together with offices of 57 I:\Documents and Settings\MKapoustin\My Litigation\00_A1 KAPOUSTIN_CANADA\Civil Cases Canada\S004040 Kap\Affidavits\Lukanov\BC S004040 Affidavit Lukanov No.01.doc12/28/058:41 AM

7

square meters and a separate premise of 35 square meters, second level at 3, "Krakra" Str., Sofia from the Ministry of Health title was transferred to the State. The new owner in the person of the new District Manager of Sofia did not guarantee the existing contract for rent, which LCIAD had concluded for this site. In this site considerable funds were invested for its improvement but they were never reimbursed to LCIAD. By an Order No 011003 from April 15th, 1999 issued by the District Manager of Sofia the Regional Union of the Social-Democratic Party was lodged in the same premises. 36. I have information at my disposal which was received unofficially in Bulgaria from

separate Interpol officers but this information submitted by persons like John Imof, Derek A. Doornbos has no official character and in most of the instances represents fax messages without any certifications or official legalization. The documentation necessary for the extradition was not duly formed in compliance with the Interpol Constitution. 37. On December 13, 1995 a meeting was held between Derek A. Doornbos, Anatoli

Kossev, an employee in Department International Relations of the Ministry of Home Affairs who participated in thirteen interrogations of my client Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin as a translator, Roumen Andreev, deputy chief of the National Investigative Service, Miroslav Genov, Central Service for Fight against Organized Crime and investigator Stefcho Georgiev. Mr. Doornbos submitted his business card to these persons and a fax number for them to pose questions to the Canadian economic police in Vancouver and the Canadian economic police, through the Central Service for Fight against Organized Crime and the National Investigative Service to give responses. This meeting was documented in a memo available to me. I have at my disposal the phone number given by Mr. Doornbos - 531-38-3555 and an address in Vienna. At the said meeting it was specified that it was of mutual interest to establish the criminal activities of the Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin in his large scale financial frauds and the transfers to Canadian and Caribbean banks of millions of USD from East and West Europe. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting the allegations made. On the contrary, evidence exists which fully rebuts them. 38. The assertion in paragraph 4 of Ms. Dobreva's affidavit that Plaintiff Michael

Kapoustin became the reason for delaying of the case in Bulgaria is not true. Changes of defence counsels were due to the voluminous evidential material. Only the last session under the case continued from January 15, 2001 until March 7, 2001. Although originally the session was set down for the period of time from January 15, 2001 until February 28, 2001 the defence attended in the court-room in order to complete the process and did not seek new adjournment of the case. In fact three defense counsels have really worked under the case. The circumstance that the fourth one fell ill and at present is not in a position to exercise her profession as a lawyer yet cannot be charged with the Plaintiff to his disadvantage. The evidence under the case was collected in more than 90,000 pages which means that the new lawyer, when entering the case, would need time to get familiar with the materials. Furthermore, when examining the I:\Documents and Settings\MKapoustin\My Litigation\00_A1 KAPOUSTIN_CANADA\Civil Cases Canada\S004040 Kap\Affidavits\Lukanov\BC S004040 Affidavit Lukanov No.01.doc12/28/058:41 AM

8

case, it can be established that after the fourth attorney fell ill, the third one, who had previously withdrawn since the court obstructed him to exercise his functions as defence counsel and had advised about this the Ministry of Justice and the Sofia Bar, continued his work. This shows that at no times the Plaintiff aimed at deliberately delaying the proceedings but he only exercised his procedural rights for defence. The fact that the court rejected more than 120 requests of the defence for collecting of evidence, which prove the Plaintiff innocent, does not show delay of the process due to his fault. 39. The complaint filed with the European Court of Human Rights refers to the Plaintiff's

rights for defence violated by investigator Stefcho Georgiev. Concerning this violation there is an official opinion from the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office of Bulgaria that investigator Stefcho Georgiev cannot be held criminally liable because the statutory period has expired. 40. This Affidavit is not notarized since according to the Bulgarian Advocacy Law a

lawyer, within the scope of his/her job, may himself/herself certify transcripts of documents submitted to him/her in connection with and for the proceedings under the case and under this case they have the force of officially certified documents. Therefore, in case notarization is necessary according to Canadian legislation I will do this after the direction of the Honorable Court.

_______________________ Anatol-Vesel Lukanov Attorney at Law

For the veracity of translation: Marianna Radoulova Sworn translator

I:\Documents and Settings\MKapoustin\My Litigation\00_A1 KAPOUSTIN_CANADA\Civil Cases Canada\S004040 Kap\Affidavits\Lukanov\BC S004040 Affidavit Lukanov No.01.doc12/28/058:41 AM

9

CHAPTER I

THE COMPLAINT

Attention: Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP Shirley Heafey Commissioner 60 Queen Street, 3rd Floor Ottawa, Ontario Canada Against: Royal Canadian Mounted Police Staff Sgt. Derek A. DOORNBOS International Affairs Liaison Formerly RCMP Liaison Embassy of Canada Vienna Austria (Hereinafter “DOORNBOS”) Complainant: Michael Kapoustin 51 years of age Canadian national Sofia Central Prison 13th division 21 General Stoletov Street Sofia 1309 Bulgaria (Hereinafter “KAPOUSTIN”)

Table of Authorities European Conventions European Convention on Extradition (“ECE”).......................................................................................................7, 8

Statutes (Provincial) Protection of Privacy Act [R.S.B.C. 1996].....................................................................................27, 31 Bulgarian Criminal Code......................................................................................................................................8, 20 Bulgarian Criminal Code of Procedure ..........................................................................................................8, 16, 30 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ........................................................................................................passim Consolidated Federal and Provincial Privacy Act(s) [R.S.C. 1985, R.S.B.C. 1996] ..........................................27, 31 Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons .....................................................................................................8 Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act", chapter M-13.6 (R.S. 1985, c30 (4th supp.)) 1988, c.37 ..16, 28

Cases USA v. Arllard (1991), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 159 at p. 522 .........................................................................................27, 31

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 1 of 38

The Complainant, KAPOUSTIN, is a Canadian citizen and alleges the following upon personal knowledge as to himself and to his acts and as to all others upon information and belief based on, inter alia, the investigation made by him and through his attorneys, including inquires by them to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Canada and Ministry of Justice, Republic of Bulgaria and a review of filings of the Sofia City District Court, Sofia, Bulgaria under criminal case No c.c.c.c 1403/98 as well as published and televised reports and news articles. Derek A. Doornbos is employed by the RCMP, an a R.C.M.P. S. Sgt and Command Liaison Officer to another agency and instrumentality of the Government of Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade or “DFAIT”. During the period complained of Doornbos was assigned as R.C.M.P. liaison to the Embassy of Canada in Vienna, Austria. Doornbos is the principal author of the malicious prosecutions of KAPOUSTIN and the offensive correspondence detailed in the COMPLAINT as delivered to Bulgarian government agencies, police and prosecution officials and appearing in the international media between May 1995 and August 1998. Doornbos is directly responsible for having caused the unlawful arrest and prosecution of KAPOUSTIN in Bulgaria and the unlawful seizure of property belonging to the Bulgarian company owned buy KAPOUSTIN and other citizens of Canada and any subsequent injuries the result thereof. Doornbos is responsible for accessing and collecting police information and data derived in Canada and delivered to Bulgaria police and prosecution officials concerning KAPOUSTIN and others. This includes but is not limited to what has been set out below under the SECTION A “FACTS”. From the period of April 1995 to the present there is no evidence to suggest that the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada or the Minister of Foreign Affairs Canada has in any way been aware of Doornbos’ conduct in Bulgaria, his intent or his purpose in seeking the arrest and prosecution of KAPOUSTIN by Bulgarian prosecutors and the seizure of all property of the company LIFECHOICE by Bulgarian police and prosecution officials.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 2 of 38

The subject and sole intent of the investigations conducted by Doornbos in Bulgaria and the R.C.M.P. request for the Bulgarian Government to arrest and prosecute KAPOUSTIN, a citizen of Canada, is the indictment and conviction of KAPOUSTIN by Bulgarian authorities on the criminal charges of fraud and misappropriation raised in the R.C.M.P. written “INFORMATION” and indictment of KAPOUSTIN. The sole purpose of which was to aid in an unrelated R.C.M.P. criminal investigation being conducted in Canada. DOORNBOS and the R.C.M.P. sought the arrest, prosecution and eventual conviction of a Canadian citizen by foreign police and prosecutors. KAPOUSTIN was to be arrested and prosecuted in Bulgarian as a means for the R.C.M.P. to collect facts and data on the proceeds of crime important to another investigation conducted in Canada. The intent of the R.C.M.P. to have KAPOUSTIN indicted outside of Canada on charges of fraud and misappropriation is clearly set out in the July 7th 1995 R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION sworn out and delivered by Doornbos to Bulgarian police and prosecution officials. Doornbos and the R.C.M.P. had actively arranged KAPOUTSIN to be arrested and prosecuted in Bulgaria as means to make it “relatively easy” to for the R.C.M.P. to “obtain in Canada” a court order allowing the seize of important documents and cash in excess of “16,000,000 dollars” identified by the R.C.M.P. to be in banks of Canada and to be part of the proceeds of criminal fraud committed by KAPOUSTIN in Bulgaria. This is according to the sworn “INFORMATION” and the official R.C.M.P. indictment of KAPOUSTIN before Bulgarian police and prosecution officials. There no indication that the actions of Doornbos are in any way controlled, directed, ordered or otherwise condoned by a court of Canada. The conduct of Doornbos is in breach of the Canada’s laws and the Charter rights of KAPOUSTIN and his family. The swearing of the July 7th 1995 “INFORMATION” prepared and delivered by DOORNBOS to Bulgarian authorities is done without the knowledge, consent or order of his immediate superiors and therefore violates the principles and procedures of Canadian law under the “Mutual Legal Assistance In Criminal Matters Act”, Chapter M – 13.6 (RS 1985, c. 30 (4th supp.)) 1988, c. 37, assented to 28 July. This according to oral and written representations made to KAPOUSTIN and his family by DFAIT. The July 7th 1995 “INFORMATION” is an unlawful Canadian criminal indictment of KAPOUSTIN.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 3 of 38

The official act of Doornbos swearing out evidence against a citizen of Canada, KAPOUSTIN, before a foreign criminal court and the correspondence of DOORNBOS both preceding and subsequent to the “INFORMATION” and the arrest and prosecution of KAPOUSTIN are jointly and severally a breach of Canadian law and Canada’s Charter and other rights of KAPOUSTIN. The actions of DOORNBOS are therefore unlawful. Despite repeated oral and written notices by KAPOUSTIN to responsible supervisory bodies of the R.C.M.P., no action or effort was or has been undertaken to interpret in a manner consistent with prevailing international and Canadian law the lawfulness or unlawful and damaging consequences of DOORNBOS premeditated and calculated misconducts and misdeeds that are in obvious in breach of the laws of Canada. At all times DOORNBOS acted in his own interests, and not his constitutional responsibility to KAPOUSTIN and his family, all citizens of Canada. During the intervening years of May 1994 to August 1998 DOORNBOS exploited the facilities, ways and means available to him and at his disposal as a government employee of Canada. DOORNBOS used these facilities and his authority to intentionally and unlawfully cause injury and harm to KAPOUSTIN and his family. The R.C.M.P. and DOORNBOS ruthlessly pursued their own agenda without regard for the laws of Canada or the natural rights of KAPOUSTIN and the members of his family as citizens of Canada. These rights, protection and obligation of the Crown are enshrined in the principles of the Charter. According to the principles of international law, the R.C.M.P. violated the fundamental and legal rights of KAPOUSTIN. Much of the acts and transactions of DOORNBOS as complained of here to the Commission are such as give rise to a prima facie case having a genus of an attempted extortion committed against KAPOUTSIN and his family in Canada. During the Complaint period there is no reasonable or lawful justification or excuse for DOORNBOS to have the police and prosecution officials of a foreign state, Bulgaria, use threats, accusations, menaces, drugs and violence to secure information from KAPOUSTIN concerning a criminal investigation and the proceeds of crime in Canada.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 4 of 38

DOORNBOS falsely accused and indicted KAPOUSTIN for crimes he had not committed. KAPOUSTIN, as a result, was unlawfully deprived of his liberty and summarily and repeatedly beaten by Bulgarian Ministry of Interior police during the investigative periods of 1996 and 1997. These “secret commissions” and “threats, accusations, menaces or violence” are committed by DOORNBOS in a collective agreement with Bulgarian police and prosecution officials to share “any reward advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration”. DOORNBOS provided reports to Bulgarian police and prosecution officials that are knowingly “false or erroneous or defective in material particulars and was intended to mislead” Bulgarian authorities and the public. Such actions run foul of Canadian law. This conduct proliferates in the written record of DOORNBOS in his correspondence with Bulgarian authorities. The intent of DOORNBOS defamation and criminal indictment of KAPOUSTIN was selfreward, advancement and the enrichment of others without regard to the harm and consequences to KAPOUSTIN or his family who have suffered as a result. The facts show that the malicious indictment of KAPOUSTIN and the offensive words first spoken by DOORNBOS occurred on May 15th 1996 in Sofia, Bulgaria at a meeting between Bulgarian police officials and DOORNBOS to discuss the arrest and prosecution of KAPOUSTIN and seizure of his companies’ assets and property in Bulgaria and Canada. The Doornbos slanders and indictment of KAPOUSTIN are directly connected to his performance of official duties as a Crown Servant for the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada. The malicious indictment, the actionable and offensive words are each reduced to writing on July 7th 1995 and publicly reproduced by Bulgarian authorities in the mass media on July 8th 1995 and again on August 1st 1996. DOORNBOS and the Crown have indicted KAPOUSTIN before Bulgarian authorities and the public as an international criminal, a convicted pedophile and pseudo-religious cult leader. The Bulgarian and international media immediately repeated all or part of this malicious R.C.M.P. indictment of KAPOUSTIN and its injuriously offensive words are directly attributed to the “Canadian authorities”.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 5 of 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I SECTION A Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five SECTION B

THE COMPLAINT ........................................................................................................ 1 THE FACTS................................................................................................................... 7 Arrest and Extradition of KAPOUSTIN ..................................................................... 7 Bulgarian Information as Provided to Interpol ........................................................... 8 R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” Released to Mass Media ............................................. 9 Government of Canada Denials ................................................................................ 15 R.C.M.P. Contacts and Exchanges in Bulgaria......................................................... 15 Applicants Earlier Complaints...................................................................................... 28 1. April 1st 2000 Complaint as filed with Office of Canada's Prime Minister .......... 28 2. June 23rd 2000 Civil Action against DOORNBOS and other filed in British Columbia Supreme Court....................................................................................................... 28 3. May 3rd 2001 Refusal of Embassy of Canada to serve complaint to R.C.M.P. and DOORNBOS......................................................................................................... 28 4. May 3rd 2001 Complaint to R.C.M.P. against DOORNBOS and Cover Letter ... 28 5. May 3rd 2001 Complaint to General Director of DFAIT Mr. Gar Pardy.............. 28 6. May 19th 2001 Complaint to Attorney General of British Columbia ................... 28 7. May 19th 2001 Complaint to the Honourable Anne McLellan the Minister of Justice Canada................................................................................................................... 28 8. May 21st 2001 Complaint and Request to the Attorney General of British Columbia for Legal Aid............................................................................................................... 28 9. May 27th 2001 Letter to DOORNBOS ................................................................. 28 SECTION C Legal Grounds .............................................................................................................. 28 Part Six For Earlier Complaints.............................................................................................. 28 SECTION D NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT............................................................................... 32 Part Seven –The Allegations....................................................................................................... 32

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 6 of 38

SECTION A

THE FACTS

The representations made here are factually accurate and complete in as far as is possible from the documents available to this Writer. Part One

Arrest and Extradition of KAPOUSTIN

1.

On 7 February 1996, KAPOUSTIN was in transit at Frankfurt International Airport to his family in Kavala, Republic of Greece.

2.

KAPOUSTIN was placed under arrested by airport police during the passport verification process.

3.

The arrest of KAPOUSTIN was at the request of German Interpol.

4.

Kapoustin was remanded in police custody in accordance with Article 16§1 of the European Convention on Extradition (“ECE”).

5.

On 2 September1996, the 56th day of his hunger strike, KAPOUSTIN was nonambulatory. To be extradited it was necessary that KAPOUSTIN be physically carried from his prison hospital bed by German police and transported to Frankfurt International airport. On the same day KAPOUSTIN was extradited to the Republic of Bulgaria.

6.

Bulgarian extradition documents alleged that KAPOUSTIN was to face trial in Bulgaria on the accusations and charges embodied in the 28 November 1995 and 12 February 1996 Order(s) of Detention [warrants of arrest] issued by one police investigator S. Georgiev of the Bulgarian National Investigative Service (“NIS”) and authorized by the supervising prosecutor M. Stoyanov of the Sofia District Attorney’s (Prosecutor’s) Office (“SCPO”). Extradition documents presented to German police, prosecution and judicial authorities charge KAPOUSTIN with common fraud, documental fraud, tax evasion and embezzlement of PUBLIC property. The Bulgarian documents were presented to comply with Article 12§2(a) of the same European Convention on Extradition (“ECE”).

7.

All charges in the Bulgarian extradition request are later dropped or KAPOUSTIN acquitted. The facts or dispositive of an amended charge of embezzlement is altered from misappropriation of funds belonging to the Bulgarian public to misappropriation of private property belonging to the Bulgarian company owned by KAPOUTSIN, “LIFECHOICE”.

8.

A Bulgaria criminal court of appeal acquits KAPOUSTIN of any fraud and for misappropriation of public funds.

9.

KAPOUSTIN is the REINDICTED by the same Bulgarian criminal court of appeal and sentenced to 17 years of hard time. The factual circumstances and allegations represented in the Bulgarian extradition request and those found in the conviction are not the same.

10.

KAPOUSTIN has served more than 8 years of his 17 year sentence. He is waiting more than one year for the Government of Bulgarian, Ministry of Justice, to approve a

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 7 of 38

Corrections Canada request for his transfer to a prison in Canada. The transfer request is made according the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. The Government of Bulgaria has provided no official reason for not agreeing to the transfer of KAPOUSTIN under the Convention. 11.

KAPOUSTIN, according to Article 70 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code and is eligible for parole in Bulgaria on July 7th 2004. Part Two

Bulgarian Information as Provided to Interpol

12.

On 30 November 1995 Bulgarian NIS investigator Georgiev directed a request to Bulgarian Interpol. The request is predicated on Article 133 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code of Procedure. Interpol is asked to issue an international arrest warrant for KAPOUSTIN with the objective to extradite him to Bulgarian.

13.

Bulgarian authorities do not secure a bench warrant from a Bulgarian criminal court or judge. The 28 November 1995 police warrant is approved by a deputy Sofia District Attorney and raises a criminal charge alleging the embezzlement of public funds. The criminal charge is qualified under Article 203 para (1) of the Bulgarian Criminal Code.

14.

The data appearing in the international arrest warrant and provided to Interpol is relevant to the Complaint before the commission and reads: "We dispose of the following established and concrete data: … [Sic]; Some data [unidentified] exists that MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN has developed his “Pyramidal structures” in the territory of five countries – Canada, USA, Bulgaria, Greece and Georgia; … [Sic] …; We dispose of data that MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN and his wife TRACY KAPOUSTIN live at present in Greece in the town of Kavala in an apartment on 14-B,Plio St. he has bought a villa on 16,Yadras St. Being an executive director (Chief Executive Officer) of Life Choice Int. AD in Sofia his last address in Sofia is Sofia, 96-A, Rakovska St., first floor. He has offices in Sofia on 16,Knyaz Battenberg St., entrance V, fl. 6, apt. 27 as well as on 3,Krakra St. – premises of the National Institute of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases. Such an office he has got in Plovdiv on 52, Ruski Blvd. The investigation under inv. case 195/95 as per the schedule of the National Investigation Service is being carried out in the absence of the accused MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN at present by virtue of article 217a and under the conditions of article 268 par.3 and 4 of CCP [Criminal Code of Procedure] of Bulgarian Republic. We received data from the Central Service for Fight against Organized Delinquency, their ref. 3233/July 17th, 1995 [the R.C.M.P. INFORMATION subject to this complaint] that the Canadian police in Vancouver are interested in the international malfeasant activities of M. Kapoustin and his subsidiary companies, some of them have been registered in the commercial register of British Columbia province since 1991, and in the following persons [Canadian citizens]: KARIN UTE BERGSON, born on July 15th, 1942 DONALD MAXWELL, born on Oct. 23rd, 1950 RADKA K. MILANOVA, born on Jan.1st, 1954, living in Vancouver, Canada ARTHUR L. MORRISON, born on Jan. 12th, 1935

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 8 of 38

MARY SLOAN, born on may 5th, 1947 IVON SHEARING, born on April 12th 1928 – an associate of KAPOUSTIN and MAXWELL in their questionable operations at the Vancouver stock exchange in Canada. At present SHEARING is the manager of a pseudo-religious organization called “CABALISTIC PHILOSOPHY”. It was found out that in 1994 only 16 million USD had been transferred to several bank accounts of SHEARING. Most of the transfers came from Western Europe. Other accounts of SHEARING with local banks in Vancouver are being credited with amounts of about 100.000 USD per day. Most probably large-scale “money laundering” operations are going on. The Canadian source of this information supposes that it is most likely that a considerable part of these amounts come namely from the funds accumulated in Bulgaria by KAPOUSTIN through the large-scale financial frauds carried out by his pyramidal structure “LIFE CHOICE”. The transfers are affected through Caribbean banks. Further to the aforesaid we ask for your assistance before Interpol for arranging of bilateral meetings with the Canadian competent authorities aiming at conveying information of mutual interest to both parties. At the end we ask you for urgent and active search of the accused MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN through the structures of Interpol throughout the world. There are data that the latter has circumvented Bulgarian and Canadian Tax Legislation by cash transfers of large amounts in USD and DM. A conclusion should be drawn that through the ”pyramidal structure” of Life Choice and by registering of “dead souls” as clients of the latter large amounts of “dirty money have been laundered”. ([], and emphasis mine]

Part Three 15.

R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” Released to Mass Media

On 1 August 1996 particulars of the Applicant’s case and R.C.M.P. co-operation were made public by supervising police investigator [sledovatel] and arresting officer, S. Georgiev and Sofia District Attorney Prosecutor Nestor Nestorov. This occurred while KAPOUSTIN was still remanded to a German prison hospital awaiting his extradition.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 9 of 38

16.

The most significant of the hundreds of press and electronic media releases is the article published by the Bulgarian national daily “Continent” [“Kontinent”]. The headline reads: “KAPOUSTIN IS AN INTERNATIONAL SWINDLER Insists the chief of the Economical Department of the National Investigation Service, Mr. Stefcho Georgiev.”

17.

Sofia District Attorney Nestorov confirms to journalists that the governments of Canada and Bulgaria are mutually interest in criminally charging KAPOUSTIN. The English translation of the press announcement reads: “Mr. Nestorov said ‘that Canada and Bulgaria will struggle [as to] which country is going to bring action against him [KAPOUSTIN]’” ([], and emphasis mine]

18.

In the same interview, police investigator Georgiev confirms to journalists that his investigative conclusions and the charges against KAPOUSTIN are due to data and facts provided by authorities of the Government Canada.

19.

Georgiev is quoted by journalists as having confirming that the R.C.M.P. provided him police data on KAPOUSTIN. The English translation of the relevant parts of this interview and the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” reads: "[Sic]… [KAPOUTSTIN is] a well known fraud for Interpol according to the Canadian Government” “[Sic]… [KAPOUTSTIN] effected sexual offences against minors [infants, child abuses] according information from the Canadian authorities”… ([] inserted by translator. “[Sic]… [and was] already deceiving others in Georgia” "[Sic]… [KAPOUTSTIN has charges in Canada that] "are old and unclear" "[Sic]… [KAPOUTSTIN] did not form LifeChoice [in Canada] and didn’t dare to lie to people that insolently [in Canada]” "[Sic]… Kapoustin should be responsible for over 18,000,000 USD, which he managed to steal away from Bulgaria" [and that according to Canadian authorities the is money stolen from Bulgaria citizens] “[KAPOUSTIN sent to Canada through] the Caribbean islands” ([], and emphasis mine]

20.

KAPOUSTIN and his family in Canada submitted a request that the Government of Canada immediately clarify if the Bulgarian public statement of Canadian government (R.C.M.P.) involvement was true. KAPOUSTIN and his family sought to immediately learn what official of the Government of Canada was responsible for having uttered the maliciously injurious lies that KAPOUSTIN was according to Canadian authorities among other things a convicted child molester.

21.

These slander and libels alleged to have come from Canadian (R.C.M.P.) sources reappeared in, but are not limited to, the following Bulgarian media: x

May 17-23, 1995, Newspaper "Nosten Zhivot" (Night Life)

x

June 7, 1995, Newspaper "Trud"

x

June 19-25, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 10 of 38

x

June 26, 1995, Newspaper "Trud"

x

July 8, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

July 13, 1995, Newspaper "Continent"

x

July 14, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

July 18, 1995, Newspaper "Pari" (Money)

x

July 19, 1995, Newspaper "Cash" No 19

x

July 20, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

July 24, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

July 24-30, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"

x

July 31, 1995, Newspaper "Continent"

x

August 1, 1995, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

October 15, 1995, Newspaper "Weekly Standard"

x

December 5, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

December 8, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

December 18, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

December 23, 1995, Newspaper "Pari" (Money)

x

Newspaper "Nedelen Novinar" ?

x

July 8, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

July 13, 1995, Newspaper "Continent"

x

July 14,1995, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

July 18, 1995, Newspaper "Pari" (Money)

x

July 19, 1995, Newspaper "Cash" No 29

x

July 20, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

July 24, 1995, Newspaper "Business Trud"

x

July 24-30, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"

x

July 31, 1995, Newspaper "Continent"

x

August 1, 1995, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

August 8, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"

x

September 5, 1995, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

October 15, 1995, Newspaper "Weekly Standard"

x

December 5, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

December 18, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

December 23, 1995, Newspaper "Pari" (Money)

x

February 14, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"

x

February 15, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"

x

February 22, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 11 of 38

x

February 24, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"

x

June 25-27, 1996, Newspaper "Cash" No 25

x

July 22, 1996, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

July 31, 1996, Newspaper "Continent"

x

August 1, 1996, Newspaper "Continent"

x

August 8, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"

x

August 21, 1996, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

August 21, 1996, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

August 21, 1996, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

August 22, 1996, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

August 23, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"

x

November 11, 1996, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

November 23, 1996, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

February 23-March 1, 1998, Newspaper "Banker"

x

May 25-31, 1998, Newspaper "Banker"

x

December 7-13, 1998, Newspaper "Banker"

x

March 5, 1999, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

March 5, 1999, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

March 26, 1999, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

April 14, 1999, Newspaper "Duma" (Word)

x

April 16, 1999, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

April 17, 1999, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

April 17, 1999, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

May 3-9, 1999, Newspaper "Banker"

x

September 8, 1999, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

October 18-24, 1999, Newspaper "Banker"

x

December 15, 1999, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

December 16, 1999, Newspaper "Cash"

x

January 11, 2000, Newspaper "Monitor"

x

January 11, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

x

January 11, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

January 12, 2000, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

January 12, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

x

January 12, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"

x

January 12, 2000, Newspaper "Monitor"

x

January 12, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 12 of 38

x

January 15, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

January 15, 2000, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

January 18, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

January 18, 2000, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

January 18, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

x

January 18, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

January 18, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

January 25, 2000, "Democracia" (Democracy)

x

February 29, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

x

March, 3, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

x

March 17, 2000, Newspaper "Cash", No. 11

x

April 8, 2000, Newspaper "Monitor"

x

April 11, 2000, Newspaper "Monitor"

x

April 11, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"

x

April 11, 2000, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

April 11, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

April 11, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

x

April 11, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"

x

April 25, 2000, Newspaper "Monitor"

x

April 25, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

June 6, 2000, Newspaper "Duma" (Word)

x

June 6, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

July 4, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

July 4, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"

x

July 4, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

July 6, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"

x

July 7, 2000, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

July 7, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"

x

July 7, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

Sept. 5, 2000, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

September 5, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

September 5, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

x

September 5, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"

x

September 8, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

September 8, 2000, Newspaper "Monitor"

x

September 8, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 13 of 38

x

September 8, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

September 9, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

September 26, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

x

September 26, 2000, "Democracia" (Democracy)

x

September 26, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

September 2000, Magazine "Society and Law", No. 3

x

October 24, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"

x

October 24, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

October 24, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

October 24, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

x

October 24, 2000, Newspaper "Monitor"

x

November 22, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

November 22, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

November 24, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

December 6, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

December 22, Newspaper "Cash", No. 51

x

January 6-12, 2001, Newspaper "Banker", No. 1

x

January 13-19, 2001, Newspaper "Capital"

x

January 9, 2001, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

January 14, 2001, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

January 16, 2001, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

January 16, 2001, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

x

January 16, 2001, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

January 18, 2001, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

x

January 18, 2001, Newspaper "Standard"

x

January 20-26, 2001, Newspaper "Banker", No. 3

x

February 3-9, 2001, Newspaper "Banker", No. 5

x

February 17, 2001, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

March 14, 2001, Newspaper "Monitor"

x

March 14, 2001, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

March 14, 2001, Newspaper "Standard"

x

March 14, 2001, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

x

March 14, 2001, Newspaper "Novinar"

x

March 14, 2001, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

x

March 16, 2001, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)

x

March 16, 2001, Newspaper "Cash", No. 11

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 14 of 38

x

March 17-23, 2001, Newspaper "Capital"

x

March 17-23, 2001, Newspaper "Banker", No. 11

Part Four 22.

Government of Canada Denials

On 9 August 1996, Canada’s Embassy to the FRG, Bonn, issued a statement to the governments of Germany and Bulgaria. In part the “Note Verbal” to the German Foreign Ministry reads: “… [Sic] … The Canadian Embassy would also like to draw to the attention of the Foreign Ministry an article that was published in the Bulgarian newspaper Kontinent on 01 August 1996 which quotes the Chief of the Economic Crimes department of the National Investigation Department, Mr. Stefcho Georgiev, as stating that Michael Kapoustin ‘committed sexual assaults against minors, according to information received from the Canadian authorities’. This statement is not substantiated. The department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada has consulted Canadian and International police authorities, and confirm there are no records of this nature in Canada regarding Mr. Kapoustin. Considering the above, the Canadian Embassy again expresses its concern with the climate that is being created in Bulgaria by the authorities in anticipation of extradition, and asks the German authorities to confirm that they are satisfied that Mr. Kapoustin would receive fair and equitable treatment within the Bulgarian legal process, were he to be extradited. … [Sic] …” ([], and emphasis mine]

Part Five

R.C.M.P. Contacts and Exchanges in Bulgaria

23.

On May 15, 1995, in Sofia, Bulgaria, R.C.M.P. Staff Sgt. Doornbos met with Bulgarian Ministry of Interior official Mr. Miroslav Genov. The need to pre-arrange such a meeting suggests earlier contacts between the R.C.M.P. and the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior.

24.

The Complainant has no document to prove or to suggest that the R.C.M.P. was requested by the Bulgarian Government to send its representative to Sofia, Bulgaria. It is therefore concluded that the R.C.M.P. initiated contact with officers of the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior.

25.

Anecdotal evidence suggests the R.C.M.P. was first to initiated the contact with the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior, and it is the R.C.M.P. and Doornbos who suggested to Bulgarian police and prosecution officials that the activities of KAPOUTSIN and his company in Bulgaria are part of a criminal organization operating internationally out of Canada.

26.

There is no evidence to suggest that before May 15th 1995 Bulgarian police or prosecution authorities had any reason to suspect KAPOUSTIN of criminal misconduct in Bulgaria. This conclusion is supported by the fact that from September 1994 to April 1995 the Office of the Solicitor General [Main Public Prosecutor] of the Republic of Bulgaria and inspectors of the Bulgarian National Bank conducted joint and separate investigations of KAPOUSTIN and his Bulgarian company LIFECHOICE. No illegal or irregular activity was found. Additionally, the Bulgarian Ministry of Finance concluded that each

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 15 of 38

Depositary Receipt transaction between LIFECHOICE and a Bulgarian citizen in Bulgaria is subject to Value Added Tax. Usually, foreign governments do not impose taxes on activities they consider to be criminal in character. 27.

Official Bulgarian documents, Bulgarian press articles and press statements made by some members of the Bulgarian parliament and appearing immediately after May 15th 1995 all act to jointly and severally confirm that the R.C.M.P. (Doornbos) acted FIRST to provide to Bulgarian authorities the Canadian police allegations and “police facts” announced in the cited August 1st 1996 interviews with Sofia District Attorney Nestorov and Investigator Georgiev.

28.

It unclear what exactly is the “AGREEMENT” reached on May 15th 1995 between the R.C.M.P. and the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior.

29.

According to the cited August 9th 1996 Verbal Note [see §22] issued to the Government of Germany by Canada Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Canada is unaware of any R.C.M.P. involvement or the May 15th 1995 “AGREEMENT”. This suggests that there is a violation of Canadian law arising from this “Agreement from May 15, 1995” and that any preceding or subsequent acts by the R.C.M.P. and DOORNBOS are therefore unlawful.

30.

The Republic of Bulgaria is not a “signatory” to the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act", chapter M-13.6 (R.S. 1985, c30 (4th supp.)) 1988, c.37 or a party to any other treaty with Canada for the exchange of police information or police assistance in a criminal matter.

31.

Mr. Miroslav Genov is identified by the R.C.M.P. and Doornbos as being responsible for the May 15, 1995 “AGREEMENT” with the Government of Canada.

32.

Mr. Genov is not an official of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Bulgaria and therefore does not have authority to enter into an agreement with Canada.

33.

The Bulgarian Ministry of Interior, the Minister, who employs Mr. Genov, is not a legally competent Bulgarian government authority under Article 464 para (2) of the Bulgarian Criminal Code of Procedure.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 16 of 38

34.

Neither Mr. Genov nor the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior have legal competence or jurisdiction to submit international requests or to implement international requests for legal assistance in criminal matters with the R.C.M.P. or any agency or department of the Government of Canada.

35.

From 1995 to December 2000 there is no “administrative arrangement” concerning KAPOUSTIN between the governments of Canada and Bulgaria.

36.

On June 13th, 1995 the R.C.M.P. faxes a request to the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior requesting a criminal background check on 4 (four) Bulgarian citizens and business associates of KAPOUSTIN. They are Dr. Ph.D. MD. NENKOV, Dr. Ph.D. MD. PETRUNOV, Mr. NINOV B.S. and corporate attorney and 25% shareholder in LIFECHOICE Ms. POPOVA.

37.

On 7 July 1995, in compliance with an agreement dated 15 May 1995, the R.C.M.P. has command liaison officer, S. Sgt. Derek A. Doornbos, Embassy of Canada, Vienna, Austria, provide in writing and swear to an “INFORMATION” before Mr. Levicharov of the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior and the Director of [the] Central Service for [the] Fight Against Organized Delinquency [Centralna slujba za borba s organiziranata prestapnost – CSBOP].

38.

The “INFORMATION” presents what are alleged to be R.C.M.P. investigative conclusions and a prosecutable criminal charge of misappropriation (fraud). The English translations of alleged police data and conclusions in the parts relevant to the Complaint before the Commissioner read: “… [Sic]… The latter [Ivon Shearing] is a partner of MAXWELL and a former accomplice of KAPOUSTIN to his questionable operations [unidentified] at the Vancouver stock exchange [British Columbia, Canada]…[sic]…It was established that last year [1994] 4 million and 12 million USD had been transferred to several bank accounts [in Canada] of [Ivon] SHEARING …[sic]…It was established as well that other accounts of SHEARING had been credited with amounts of about 100,000 USD per day” “… [Sic]… It is considered [by the R.C.M.P.] as well that most probably a considerable part of these amounts come from the funds [cash] accumulated in Bulgaria by KAPOUSTIN through large-scale financial frauds carried out by his pyramidal structure “LIFECHOICE” [LCIAD] “Besides this it is established that the transfers go through banks in the Caribbean Island.” ([ ] and emphasis Mine)

39.

The R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” is a request that Bulgaria prosecution indict and officials prosecute KAPOUSTIN “Can a criminal prosecution of any character at all [nakazatelno proizvodstvo ot kakavto I da bilo harakter] be started against Kapoustin or Life Choice [LCIAD]?”

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 17 of 38

40.

The R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” sets out in clear and certain terms an agreement that if Bulgarian police and prosecutors comply with the R.C.M.P. request to arrest and prosecute KAPOUSTIN, the R.C.M.P. could then immediately obtain a warrant in Canada to search and seize the property and cash of KAPOUSTIN and the other Canadian citizens named in the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION”. The English translation of text relevant to the complaint before the Commissioner reads: “Now each piece of information or even only supposition [by Bulgaria] whatsoever about eventual breach of Bulgarian Law by Kapoustin [Applicant] connected with LifeChoice that your service [CSBOP] could submit [to Canada], is of special importance for the investigation in Vancouver [Ivon Shearing]. In this instance our service [RCMP] in Vancouver would be able to obtain search warrants of the office premises and houses of the aforesaid subjects. In this situation we [the R.C.M.P.] consider there is every possibility we can successfully conduct a large scale joint investigation as a result of which the assets [16,000,000 USD] of SHEARING & Co [Applicant] in Canada will be confiscated and it would be comparatively easy [for the R.C.M.P.] to prove in front of the [Canadian] court that these are proceeds from criminal activities [of KAPOUSTIN in Bulgaria]. … [Sic] Can a criminal prosecution of any character at all [nakazatelno proizvodstvo ot kakavto I da bilo harakter] be started against Kapoustin or Life Choice [LCIAD]?” ([ ] and emphasis mine)

41.

The R.C.M.P. “INFORMATTION” also requests Mr. Levicharov and the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior NSBOP to obtain data and facts from KAPOUSTIN. Translated from the Bulgarian it reads: “Have you any additional data or operational information in what direction the funds obtained by LifeChoice [LCIAD] are being transferred out of Bulgaria?” ([ ] and emphasis mine)

42.

The above is significant in that the question asked by the R.C.M.P. [see §41] is repeated to KAPOUSTIN during his repeated beatings by Bulgarian Ministry of Interior officers. The beatings and interrogations on the question of the money located in banks of Canada was a frequent routine that occurred from September 18th 1996 and ended on or about August 1997.

43.

This physical and mental torture involved KAPUSTIN being beaten about the shoulders, back, buttocks and legs. The sound of the blows was muffled through blankets and effected by hard, yet flexible, plastic or rubber clubs.

44.

Each beating incident involved 4-6 masked individuals one of whom repeatedly interrogated KAPOUSTIN in poor English concerning funds purported to be ensconced in Canada with criminal associates identified to the Government of Bulgaria by agencies of the Government of Canada.

45.

Subsequent to these beatings KAPOUSTIN was kept in isolation for days, often weeks, without any contact except the investigator supervising the case. A beating might last as little as 5 minutes with the longest being approximately 10 minutes.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 18 of 38

46.

During the 1996 and 1997 episodes of abuse KAPOUSTIN was repeatedly given, without his knowledge, psychotropic drugs to disorient and deprive him of sleep. This induced moods of extreme depression, helplessness and hallucinations.

47.

Subsequent to these episodes KAPOUSTIN would again be interrogated upon the subject matter of the funds in Canada and his returning those funds to the Republic of Bulgaria.

48.

Each time KAPOUSTIN denied having any knowledge of the funds he encountered assurances by his interrogators that the information was accurate and provided by Canadian authorities who sought together with Bulgaria the return of these funds.

49.

Bulgarian interrogators were certain KAPOUSTIN was lying and therefore extended their beatings. Their investigation of KAPOUSTIN continued for more than 4 years before committing KAPOUSTIN to trial. There was no judicial supervision prior to trial.

50.

The Government of Bulgaria and Bulgarian citizens continue to this day to believe that there are funds in Canada as represented to them by the DOORNBOS “INFORMATION”. Bulgarian authorities and citizens persistently demand that KAPOUSTIN forward to Bulgaria the money in Canada. There is documented evidence that the Bulgarian Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Mario Dimitrov and the Bulgarian Solicitor General Filchev are maintaining before Canada Foreign Affairs that KAPOUSTIN does in deed have DOORNBOS “millions” as cited in the “INFORMATION” and that KAPOUSTIN must pay this money to the State of Bulgaria and Bulgarian citizens before any transfer to a prison of Canada or his release on parole. This notwithstanding his acquittal on the allegation found in the DOORNBOS “INFORMATION”.

51.

The R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” was translated from English and presented to the Ministry of Interior by a Mr. A. Kosev, “KMC” [phonetic], Ministry of Interior [Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti].

52.

On 17 July 1995, the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior Ref. ʋ 3233, the Minister agreeded to accept the sworn R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” provided by DOORNBOS. KAPOUSTIN and his company LIFECHOICE would be prosecuted solely on the data and other “police facts and conclusions” made by the R.C.M.P. in the sworn “INFORMATION”. At the order of “M”, as countersigned “MV”, the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior, Central Service For [the] Fight Against Organized Crime [CSBOP] ordered Bulgarian prosecutors to “Take legal Action” or “Open a prosecution case” against KAPOUSTIN [Da se zavede delo].

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 19 of 38

53.

On 7 September 1995 Prosecutor Mindova of the Sofia District Attorney’s Office provided the Sofia Department of the Bulgarian Ministry of Interior Economic Police Sector 02 material containing data for fraud [in Bulgaria] as provided from the Canadian Embassy, Vienna, Austria through the offices of the Bulgarian Solicitor General [Main Public Prosecutor].

54.

It is apparent from this document that the arrest and prosecution of KAPOUSTIN in Bulgarian is the direct result of the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION”. This is supported by the fact that the 7 September 1995 letter of Deputy Sofia District Attorney Mindova instructs police investigators to act on the charges and police facts in the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION”. The English translation of the letter reads: “Herewith enclosed we send you a translation from English language of a material sent [the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION] to MPPO [Solicitor General] of RB [Republic of Bulgaria] by the Central Service for Fight against Organized Delinquency – MHA [Bulgarian Ministry of Interior] according to information from the Canadian Embassy in the Republic of Austria [Doornbos]concerning the activities of company Life Choice Int. AD. This material contains data for fraud by Michael Kapoustin and other persons. To be attached to the correspondence and verified. We send you a letter from the Finance Ministry – Sofia Tax Administration as well to be attached to the correspondence. Enclosure: as per text” ([ ] and emphasis mine)

55.

On October 29th 1995, the National Investigative Service, Investigator Georgiev, began the “OFFICIAL” criminal investigation of KAPOUSTIN and his company based on the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” of July 7th 1995. As a result, all the offices of KAPOUSTIN where seized and closed, as was all the property and bank accounts of his Company LIFECHOICE.

56.

On 28 November 1995, police investigator (sledovatel) S. Georgiev brought a charge of embezzlement qualified according to Article 203§1 of the Bulgarian Criminal Code. In English the accusation against KAPOUSTIN reads: " I Stefcho Georgiev, prosecution investigator upon the National Prosecution Investigation Service, Sofia, today 27th day of November 1995, in the city of Sofia and with referring to the evidences pertinent to the criminal case registered under file number 195/1995 in the register of the National Prosecution Investigation Service, have established that the person being investigated, named MIHAIL KAPOUSTIN, born November 06, 1952, in Canada, address Sofia, 96-A Rakovska" street., fl. 1 - central office, has committed criminal offences (offences to be specified - where, when and how each of them has been perpetrated). In his official capacity of executive director of the company LifeChoice International Share Holding Company [LCIAD] and with the conditions of constantly perpetrated crime, for the period of time April 1, 1993 till August 1, 1995, has embezzled the corporate money as placed in his care and running under the said capacity of him, and has misused of this money for his own or of another personal benefit, this embezzlement in the sum of more than USD 5 million. Having an especially great value and representing an especially aggravated case. The committed offence is found under Article 203, § 1 ref. Article 26,§ 1 of the Penal [Criminal] Code.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 20 of 38

and with considering the degree of the danger to society of the offences committed, the personality of the perpetrator, the possibility of his non-attendance and other facts: the great degree of the danger to society - damaged in the amount of more than 5 million. USD were thousands of Bulgarian citizens - investors of the LifeChoice International Share Holding Company [LCIAD], Sofia and in compliance with the prescriptions of the p.5 of the Directions Letter of the District Attorney of Sofia [Sofia City Prosecutor's Office - phonetic SGP - Sofiiska Gradska Prokuratura] according to Articles 146 - 148, 152, 207, 209, 212,of the Penal Procedure Code [Criminal Procedure Code (CPC)] HAVE RULED: 1. To bring a charge against MIHAIL KAPOUSTIN as accused for the criminal offences stated herewith as per Article 203, § 1, ref. Article 201, ref. Article 26 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Republic of Bulgaria. 2. … [Sic]

57.

On 30 November 1995 NIS investigator Georgiev brought his request to Interpol [see above §12]. The Commissioner is requested to closely examine the data and facts presented to Interpol on November 30th 1995; repeated again in the international warrant of February 7th 1996 [see above §3] and the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” of July 7th 1995 [see above §37].

58.

NCB Interpol refused the November 30th 1995 request of NIS investigator Georgiev

59.

On 15 December 1995, Bulgaria’s Deputy Solicitor General Prosecutor Doichev presented a second request to the Head of NCB Interpol Sofia, a Mr. Hristov. This “request” was actually an “ORDER” and directed Interpol Sofia to issue an International Arrest Warrant for KAPOUSTIN. Interpol representatives were to give no consideration to the merits or quality of facts or compliance with international law. Interpol NCB Sofia was to abnegate its independence, if any, as part of an international organization. The English translation of the “ORDER” reads: "I ORDER: "NCB "INTERPOL" - MHA to inform the bureaus of "INTERPOL" of the member countries in order to trace (discover) MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN. After finding him the latter to be detained (arrested) because of the crime committed by him in the Republic of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian party to be notified about this in order to send the necessary procedural documents to extradite MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN to the Republic of Bulgaria. "You are requested to notify the Main Public Prosecutor's Office after effecting the actions in connection with my order.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 21 of 38

60.

On 13 December 1995, in Sofia, the R.C.M.P. (Doornbos) held a tactical meeting with Bulgaria police and prosecution officials to discuss KAPOUSTIN. This occurred immediately after Bulgarian authorities issued national and international arrest warrants and confirmed to the R.C.M.P. that the Bulgarian Government had agreed with the R.C.M.P. request to arrest and prosecute KAPOUSTIN on the charges and facts found in the “INFORMATION”.

61.

KAPOUSTIN would be prosecuted according to the R.C.M.P. request under Bulgarian criminal law. It was agreed that Bulgarian police and prosecution officials would collect from KAPOUSTIN and his company LIFECHOICE the information requested by DOORNBOS.

62.

In attendance on December 13th 1995 at the offices of A. Alexandrov were, inter alio, Anatolii Kosev - department of “International Relations”, Bulgarian Ministry of Interior; Miroslav Genov, Central Service for [the] Fight Against Organized Delinquency; Roumen Andreev, deputy chief, National Investigative Service and police investigator [sledovatel] S. Georgiev and DOORNBOS.

63.

A Memorandum of this tactical meeting was directed to Mr. Rashkov, Head of the National Investigative Service. The English translations of parts relevant to the complaint before the Commission read: Mr. Rashkov, … [Sic]… … [Sic] … … [Sic] … During the conversations held in an operative order we specified that it is of mutual interest for the Bulgarian and Canadian authorities to establish the entire criminal activity of Michael Kapoustin in his large scale financial frauds and the incoming to Canadian and Caribbean banks of millions of USD from East and West Europe. Mr. Doornbos submitted a visiting card and the fax message on which we could ask our questions to the Canadian Economic Police in Vancouver and they would send a response on what they had done in an operative order through CSFAOD or NIS. … [Sic] … ([ ] and emphasis mine)

64.

On 1 April 1996, the R.C.M.P. faxed Bulgarian police and prosecution officials. This correspondence occurred subsequent to the arrest of KAPOUSTIN in Germany. The fax was sent by R.C.M.P. Command Liaison Attaché, S. Sgt. Doornbos from the Embassy of Canada, Vienna Austria to Mr. Roumen Andreev, Deputy Director of the National [Prosecution] Investigative Service. The fax reads: “You will recall that we met in December [13th]1995 in the office of Mr. Stefan Gueorgiev Deputy Chief of the Economic Division. I am aware that Kapoustin has been arrested on your behalf in Germany some weeks ago. I am advised by the police in Sofia that the case of Kapoustin now falls entirely within your jurisdiction. Could you advise please if your further investigation had determined [the where, how or end destination of the money which Kapoustin defrauded from [Bulgarian investors]

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 22 of 38

Were you able to identify offshore banking institutions, account numbers [illegible?] I am asking this as it is a very real possibility, as suggested in December that some of the funds may have been eventually transferred to Canada. If you have any information in this regard please advise. If not we will close our file with respect to Kapoustin and LifeChoice.” ([ ] and emphasis Applicant’s)

65.

On 1 August 1996, the particulars of R.C.M.P. involvement in the arrest and prosecution KAPOUSTIN became public in the mass media [see above §15].

66.

The R.C.M.P. and Doornbos are the obvious source of “information from the Canadian authorities” referenced in the August 1st 1996 interviews.

67.

On or about 9 August 1996, the Government of Canada, Embassy to the FDRG, Bonn, issued its “Note Verbal” [see above §22].

68.

On 14 August 1996, R.C.M.P. Command Liaison, S. Sgt. D. A. Doornbos replied to a 31 July 1996 faxed inquiry from Bulgarian Ministry of Interior Officer Colonel D. Vangelov the Director of “CSCOC [acronym unknown]”. The R.C.M.P. faxed reply concerned a Bulgarian request for an investigation in Canada of the company “International Pharmaceutical Suppliers [Inc.]”. The relevant parts of the R.C.M.P. fax reads: “Further to your fax 389/31.07.96 I passed the information therein onto our Proceeds of Crime Unit in Vancouver. … The firm … is not/not known in police indices in Canada … [sic] … For any criminal traces of this company in Texas inquiries would have to be made by your prosecutors’ office with USA authorities. Aside from the Canada wide criminal warrants [unidentified] of arrest for Kapoustin [Applicant] Vancouver POC [Proceeds of Crime] has confirmed that several civil lawsuits have also been filed against Kapoustin [Applicant], LifeChoice and Don Maxwell in the courts in British Columbia. Could you please pass this information to Mr. Stefan Georgiev [Georgiev] of the National Prosecution Investigative Bureau [agency unknown] and ask him to please advise us when or if any information is found regarding Kapoustin [Applicant] having transferred monies to Canada.” ([ ] and emphasis Applicant’s)

69.

On 23 August 1996, R.C.M.P. Command Liaison S. Sgt. Doornbos provided Colonel D. Vangelov, Director, Central Service for Combating Organized Crime (CSCOC) (CSBOP) a 6 page investigative police report and conclusions prepared by R.C.M.P. S. Sgt. Vander Graff (Acting) Officer in Charge, Proceeds of Crime Section, Vancouver, British Columbia. Relevant parts of the faxed investigative report reads: “Re: Michael Kapoustin [Applicant As noted … [sic] … the purpose of receiving civil files to determine information contained in them may be relevant to the criminal investigations in Canada and Bulgaria with respect to Kapoustin, et al [others, underlined]. … [sic] … … [sic]… … [sic] … Detective Desmarais has not approached Don Maxwell and requested an interview as yet. Maxwell was obviously very involved in the LifeChoice [Canada] business as well as other business ventures involving Kapoustin until their apparent ‘falling

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 23 of 38

out’. Maxwell also is likely in possession of information with respect to the Kabalarian funds transfer [Ivon Shearing] which, as you know, was the original precipitator of the Vancouver PCS [Proceeds of Crime Section] investigation. At present, there does not appear to be a substantial likelihood of charges [against KAPOUSTIN] arising from the Kabalarian [Canadian] side of the investigation however to properly complete the investigation Maxwell should be interviewed. The Def. Desmarais is prepared to conduct the interview of Maxwell and direct whatever questions the Bulgarian authorities may have to Maxwell, however because of the volume of material in the civil court registry as well as the complicated nature of the Bulgarian fraud investigation, some consideration should be given to a Bulgarian investigator attending Vancouver …[sic]” ([ ] and emphasis Applicant’s)

70.

In the 23 August 1996 fax RCMP Command Liaison, S. Sgt. Doornbos requests that Col. D. Vangelov forward a message to police investigator S. Georgiev. That faxed message reads: “The attached message (page 2 thru 7) was received from the Vancouver RCMP Proceeds of Crime Unit. There is some information therein that may be useful for Mr. Stefan GUEORGIEV [Georgiev] of the National Prosecution Investigation Bureau [no such agency, obviously the National Investigative Service] with respect to Kapoustin and companies and accounts that he had in the Caribbean. Could this be passed to Mr. GUEORGIEV [Georgiev] and ask that he in turn pass any comments he may have on to me directly. I am still very much interested in any indication he has that any of Kapoustin gains [transfers] from the fraud in Bulgaria ended up in Canada.” ([ ] and emphasis Applicant’s)

71.

On September 2nd 1996, KAPOUSTIN was extradited to Bulgaria [see above §5]. KAPOUSTIN was hospitalized in Bulgaria from September 2 to September 16th 1996.

72.

On September 16th 1996, KAPOUSTIN was removed to a high security solitary confinement remand facility operated by the Bulgarian National Investigative Services.

73.

On September 18th 1996, the beatings and interrogation of KAPOUSTIN commenced.

74.

Central to Bulgarian police employing physical (beatings) and psychological coercion (isolation and sense deprivation) [See Experiances in Bulgarian Arrest] was their desire to provide the R.C.M.P. with the data and facts repeatedly requested by Doornbos concerning the bank accounts and transfers of funds made by KAPOUSTIN to Canada and the Caribbean. This enquiry is repeated again and again by DOORNBOS and the R.C.M.P. Vancouver Proceeds of Crime Unit communications to Bulgarian police and prosecution officials [See above §§41, 52, 60, 64, 68, 69, and 70; See Index “transfers”]

75.

The repeated and intense requests by DOORNBOS for the information concerning bank transfers made by KAPOUSTIN from Bulgaria to Canada is what precipitated the beatings and torture of KAPOUSTIN.

76.

Bulgaria police and prosecution officials proved anxious to obtain the information from KAPOUSTIN. This information was requested by the Government of Canada on what we

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 24 of 38

know to be the following dates; May 15, July 7, September 7 and December 13 of 1995 and again on April 1, August 14 and August 23 of 1996 and lastly on July 2 1997. 77.

On July 2nd 1997, R.C.M.P. Command Liaison, S. Sgt. DOORNBOS provided to Bulgaria police and prosecution officials a copy of a British Columbia Civil Action where KAPOUSTIN is representing several corporate plaintiffs. This document was provided in response to a 25 June 1997 telephone call and 26 June 1997 fax from Bulgarian police and prosecutors to DOORNBOS. In a fax message of the same date the DOORNBOS ends his letter with a request to the Bulgarian authorities that reads: “Subject: Michael KAPOUSTIN (Kapoustin) et al … [Sic] … I am still awaiting in writing, confirmation, information and a Rogatory Request promised by Mr. Stefan GUEORGIEV [Georgiev] regarding funds that Kapoustin transferred [transfer] to Canada, specifically to the law office of McCandless, Morrison & Verdicchio. Please advise this regard.” ([ ] and emphasis Applicant’s)

78.

The beatings and isolation of KAPOUSTIN is common knowledge to Bulgarians familiar with the interrogation techniques of the Bulgarian National Investigative Service and Bulgarian Ministry of Interior Treatment of Detainees and Conditions in Bulgaria.

79.

On November 1st 1996, the Embassy of Canada to Bucharest, Romania, received a formal request to assist Bulgarian “investors” and the alleged “victims”. The request shows concerned over the physical safety and health of KAPOUSTIN and asks the Government of Canada to arrange a visit with KAPOUSTIN. Bulgarian police and prosecution officials refuse KAPOUSTIN all visitors. The letter is signed by 16 Bulgarian citizens and reads: “We are writing you on the occasion of the detention of the Canadian citizen Mr. Mihail Kapoustin. We are investors in “LifeChoice International” – AD, Bulgaria, whose executive director Mihail Kapoustin is. We are sincerely concern[ed] about his health condition. We think that his detention causes serious damages to the activities of the company and our interests. We are asking for your help in obtaining a permission to visit Mr. Mihail Kapoustin, as so far, regardless our repeating requests to the appropriate authorities, we have no[t] received any answer.” ([ ] and emphasis Applicant’s)

80.

On 15 May 1997 the Canadian Government presented Bulgarian Minister of Foreign Affairs a diplomatic note protesting. inter alia, the legal maximum period [according to the Bulgarian Criminal Code of Procedure] that KAPOUSTIN can remain in remand will expire on 1 June 1997; concerns that detention of KAPOUSTIN will be further extended; the investigation’s already considerable length of more than 2 years; that arrest warrants date back to 17 July 1995; the investigation was conducted as well during Applicant’s detention in the FRG plus nine (9) months since KAPOUSTIN was extradited; that 26 months to investigate was adequate time to fix the final charges and order trial or alternatively release KAPOUSTIN pending same; further investigation and

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 25 of 38

detention amounts to punishment without trial; all others similarly charged to KAPOUSTIN in other cases are released and therefore the KAPOUSTIN should be released on bail [security] pending trial. 81.

On 23 May 1997 Canada Foreign Affairs received a case note (Note sur le cas) concerning the Applicant’s arrest/detention, the relevant parts read: “Consul and HonCon visited subj 15 May. Subj appeared to be in good physical condition but was mentally distressed as a result of his continued detention and lack of news concerning setting of trial date. Legal counsel has advised him that trial date (if there is to be one) may take another one or two years. It proved impossible to obtain any corroborating info from investigator’s office. Corruption abounds within the prosecutor’s office according to local news reports. Investigator Georgiev has been removed from office with a replacement to be named in coming weeks. Whether this will or will not delay proceedings remains to be seen. Legal counsel advises they are having access problems as a result of a more rigorous application of existing law; they will pursue matter of access with prosecutor’s office. Subj. also complained that since consul’s last visit 18 March he had been denied access to exercise facility on a regular basis. Temporary investigator/replacement (deputy?) stated that the problem would be resolved. HonCon has been asked to follow up on a regular basis during the period June/September and will forward reports via cons/[illegible] Bucst. Subj. has requested CANADA advise him as to what steps/process may be used to hasten investigation and trial. According to him and his legal counsel Bulgaria has already been taken to the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg for a case of illegal detention. Court decision approx. 2 months was in favor of the plaintiff against Bulgaria. Subj wishes to follow same route and legal counsel stated they may file suit in July. Subj has also requested German authorities be advised that he is not being tried for offences for which he was extradited and has asked for Germany to assist with having case more speedily brought to trial. Subj has requested that you keep Mr. Kap informed of all measures taken. Diplo note which follows was presented to MFA 15 May. Ambassador Duguay will pursue matter with MFA and Prosecutor during visit scheduled for 11 – 13 June. … [sic] …” ([ ] and emphasis Applicant’s)

82.

On July 2, 1997, DOORNBOS personally appears in Sofia, Bulgaria to give evidence against KAPOUSTIN. DOORNBOS appears with court certified documents collected by the R.C.M.P. in Canada and to be used in an effort to secure the conviction of KAPOUSTIN by a Bulgarian criminal court. This occurs more than two years from the initial R.C.M.P. contact and request that KAPOUSTIN be prosecuted by Bulgarian police and prosecution authorities.

83.

DOORNBOS swears to and personally delivers in Sofia, Bulgaria evidence against KAPOUSTIN before Bulgarian “magistrate” [investigator] R. Kirov. This done without the implementation or administration of the either Canada’s Solicitor General and Minister of Justice or Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. The evidence DOORNBOS has collected in Canada is done without supervision by a competent court of Canada. According to DOORNBOS this document might help convict KAPOUTSIN.

84.

The 7 July 1995 R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” and investigative conclusions prove a formal request and charge provided by the Government of Canada to the Government of

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 26 of 38

Bulgaria. This “INFORMATION” and the related correspondence qualify the suppositions and unverified conclusions of DOORNBOS to the elevated status of “official police facts” and “investigative conclusions” of the R.C.M.P. 85.

On 25 July 2000, the family of the KAPOUSTIN brought civil action in British Columbia Supreme Court civil Action No, S004040, and Vancouver Registry against RCMP Command Liaison S. Sgt. DOORNBOS and others.

86.

The claim, inter alia, alleges that Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Consolidated Federal and Provincial Privacy Act(s) [R.S.C. 1985, R.S.B.C. 1996] have been breached by DOORNBOS. No action against the Government of Canada appeared possible on account that at the time KAPOUSTIN believed DOORNBOS had acted alone.

87.

The lawsuit was brought immediately after KAPOUSTIN learned of the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” and other exchanges between the R.C.M.P. and police and prosecution officials of the Republic of Bulgaria. Paragraphs 41 and 42 of the KAPOUSTIN Statement of Claim read: §41 “The Plaintiffs have not asserted that the Claim falls within the purview of Section 32 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”). Had the Plaintiffs so elected they would allege breaches of s. 15 (1) which triggered “a situation that is simply unacceptable” [ see USA v. Arllard (1991), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 159 at p. 522] under s. 12 of the Charter, the acts in question and consequences thereof offending the Canadian sense of what is fair, right and just under s. 11 (a) and (d), s. 9, s. 8 and s. 7 of the Charter in relationship to the nature of the cause and considerations of comity and security, and after having granted due latitude and having maintained a perspective for the reasonable requirements of law enforcement as demonstrately justifiable in a free and democratic society. The breaches of Charter rights arise from the violations of law pleaded herein. This court, in such instance, would have competent jurisdiction in this district over the subject matter of this claim pursuant to s. 24 (1) of the Charter. Plaintiffs would then claim that the officials, agencies and instrumentalities of the Government of Canada did violate the law promulgated under the (Provincial) Protection of Privacy Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter 165, Section 15 (h), S. 30 and S. 28 in conjunction with S. 22 (1); the (Federal) Privacy Act [R.S.C. 1985] Section 8 (1) and further re-allege that the acts and transactions of, inter alia, preparation of false, misleading and slanderous materials; the sending abroad of same; causing the public distribution and publication of information protected by law and the preparation and delivery abroad of official reports and documents was adequate proof of common law torts of privacy, defamation and slander as having occurred in this Court’s district. §42 Plaintiffs would further allege that violations of law and the Charter arise from acts affected by a foreign state, its agents, agencies and instrumentalities against the person and property of citizens of Canada, in Canada and abroad, the conduct of said agents, agencies and instrumentalities, directly and vicariously causing, inter alia, threats, accusations, menaces and violence without reasonable justification or excuse; cruel and unusual treatment and punishment; deprivation of security of person and right to life; discrimination on account of national or ethnic origin and religion; disclosures of information to the public harmful to the individual and a violation of the right to privacy; threats to safety, mental and physical health; disclosures of information to the public resulting in undue financial loss and burden; disclosures of information to the public which were knowingly inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable, thus damaging unfairly the reputation of the person(s) referred to therein and having been compiled and identified as a part of a

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 27 of 38

Canadian investigation into a possible violation of law in Canada; disclosures of information to the public which inaccurately, unreliably and slanderously indicated untrue sexual orientation, religious belief or association of the person(s) named therein and Plaintiffs would claim vicarious liability on the part of the Government of Canada for its participation in aiding and abetting the violations of law alleged and for having subjected to cruel and unusual treatment the Plaintiffs. In one instance the liberty and security of person is denied in an alleged violation of fundamental and civil rights apparently with the direct participation of a peace officer and diplomat of Canada.” ([ ] and emphasis Applicant’s)

SECTION B

SECTION C Part Six

Applicants Earlier Complaints 1.

April 1st 2000 Complaint as filed with Office of Canada's Prime Minister

2.

June 23rd 2000 Civil Action against DOORNBOS and other filed in British Columbia Supreme Court

3.

May 3rd 2001 Refusal of Embassy of Canada to serve complaint to R.C.M.P. and DOORNBOS

4.

May 3rd 2001 Complaint to R.C.M.P. against DOORNBOS and Cover Letter

5.

May 3rd 2001 Complaint to General Director of DFAIT Mr. Gar Pardy

6.

May 19th 2001 Complaint to Attorney General of British Columbia

7.

May 19th 2001 Complaint to the Honourable Anne McLellan the Minister of Justice Canada

8.

May 21st 2001 Complaint and Request to the Attorney General of British Columbia for Legal Aid

9.

May 27th 2001 Letter to DOORNBOS

Legal Grounds For Earlier Complaints

88.

Complaints at the level of the federal government are proper since jurisdiction over the interpretation of the subject matter of this Complaint is awarded to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (the “Minister") under Article I para (1) of the "Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act", chapter M-13.6 (R.S. 1985, c30 (4th supp.)) 1988, c.37 assented to 28 July (hereinafter the "Act") wherein under the Minister is designated as the "competent authority" to effect provisions of the Act.

89.

The Complaints asserted that provisions of the Act have been unlawfully effected by an authority and Crown Servant not competent to do so.

90.

The venue of the complaint, the Office of Minister, is proper under Article 7 para (1) of the Act. The Minister embodies the legal competence to assess the lawfulness of actions effected by agents or agencies of Canada under provisions provided for and the conditions considered by the Act.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 28 of 38

91.

The complaints asserted the Minister, as Attorney General, had proper jurisdiction and venue to ascertain the penal or administrative liability, if any, of DOORNBOS and possibly others alleged to be responsible for the acts set out above in the SECTION “FACTS” and give rise to the complaint cause of allegations that Canadian law and the Charter rights of KAPOUSTIN have been violated by an unlawful and unauthorized implementation and administration of the Act and by the slander and deep humiliation of KAPOUSTIN and his family through a malicious indictment, offensive words and misdeeds of the a Crown Servant, DOORNBOS .

92.

The complaints made are said to be violations of Canada’s basic law and are within the purview of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

93.

The Attorney General of Canada has venue in that the rights of the individual as provided for and protected in the Charter cover those actions by a Crown Servant, including police activity and investigation, as conducted or affected by them through the agencies of or directly by them in a foreign state. The consequences of such activity by a Crown Servant having a direct and far reaching impact upon a citizen of Canada’s rights identified under the Charter. Such actions are subject to review by the Minister.

94.

The Attorney General of Canada as the competent authority must assess if DOORNBOS did commit prosecutable acts against the person of KAPOUSTIN and against justice by successfully denying KAPOUSTIN his right to due process and law while DOORNBOS was in pursuit of a Canadian criminal investigation outside of Canada.

95.

It is alleged a violation of law arises from DOORNBOS engaging on his behalf the agencies and instrumentalities of a foreign state, the Republic of Bulgaria, to successfully circumvent the procedures and law embodied in the Act, the Charter and other laws of Canada.

96.

The acts complained of herein as alleged are inter alia, violations of Article 17 para (1) and Article 18 para (1) of the Act.

97.

There exists no instance or document in evidence that the Minister either received or in the alternative approved a lawful request, under Article 11 para (1) of the Act.

98.

At no time did the Republic of Bulgaria utilize diplomatic channels to obtain in Canada on its behalf the facts and data provided by DOORNBOS to Bulgaria’s police and prosecution officials.

99.

There is no instance or document in evidence to suggest that police and prosecution officials of Bulgaria requested police facts or conclusions or reports from the R.C.M.P. The R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” and DOORNBOS indicts KAPOUSTIN for what it alleges are criminal offences under Bulgarian criminal law and over which the Republic of Bulgaria has proper and sovereign jurisdiction. The R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” is an indictment of KAPOUSTIN on a charge of fraud allegedly committed by KAPOUSTIN on the territory of Bulgaria, and the proceeds of that fraud, according to the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” are in Canada thank to transfer effected by KAPOUSTIN in his legal

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 29 of 38

capacity as the lawful representative of a Bulgarian company owned and managed by him, LIFECHOICE. 100.

There exists no application or order from a judge in Canada of complement jurisdiction and authorizing the gathering of evidence against KAPOUSTIN in or outside of Canada, or for the preparation of police reports or evidence and their sending abroad to a foreign police agency or court.

101.

The documents referenced in the SECTION “FACTS” and attached to the Complaint prove that DOORNBOS and possibly other officials of the R.C.M.P. violated Article 20 of the Act, and therefore Canadian law when unlawfully collecting, preparing and delivering to agencies of a foreign state, the Republic of Bulgaria, evidence and data concerning KAPOUSTIN and other Canadian citizens. This information and evidence to be used against KAPOUSTIN in a Bulgarian criminal court.

102.

DOORNBOS at all times knew of the Act, the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Charter and his obligation under law to them. The actions of DOORNBOS show that as a police official operating outside of Canada and diplomatic representative of the Government of Canada DOORNBOS did not feel bound by Canada’s laws.

103.

The complaint reveals that the Minister could not give affect or means to the provision under Part I of the Act on account that the Republic of Bulgaria is not a party to the treaty under which the Act is promulgated and is therefore not entitled, under Article 8 of the Act, to mutual legal assistance in a criminal matter without the direct consent of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada.

104.

Article 6 para (1) of the Act requires an "administrative arrangement" be instituted with any non treaty foreign state on a case by case basis by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Canada.

105.

Inquiries and court records reveal no administrative arrangement is affected by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Canada and Foreign Affairs, Bulgaria upon the subject matter of KAPOUSTIN.

106.

DOORNBOS and others also violated the laws of the Republic of Bulgaria. The alleged violation arises from Article 464 para (2) of the Bulgaria’s Criminal Code of Procedure and reads: “464 (1)… (2) The request for legal assistance shall be forwarded to the Ministry of Justice and Legal Euro- Integration (Bulgaria), unless another procedure is provided by international treaty to which the Republic of Bulgaria is a party.”

107.

Government of Canada and the Ministry of Justice of Bulgaria have no record of such a request for legal assistance in the matter of KAPOUSTIN having ever been made in compliance with laws of the Republic of Bulgaria or for that matter the laws of Canada.

108.

This Complaint to the Ministry of the Attorney General asserted that it falls within the purview of Section 32 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 30 of 38

“Charter”). KAPOUSTIN alleged breaches of s. 15 (1) which triggered “a situation that is simply unacceptable” [ see USA v. Arllard (1991), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 159 at p. 522] under s. 12 of the Charter, the acts in question and consequences thereof offending the Canadian sense of what is fair, right and just under s. 11 (a) and (d), s. 9, s. 8 and s. 7 of the Charter in relationship to the nature of the cause and considerations of comity and security, and after having granted due latitude and having maintained a perspective for the reasonable requirements of law enforcement as demonstrate justifiable in a free and democratic society. 109.

The breaches of the Charter rights of KAPOUSTIN arise from the violations of the laws of Canada some have been identified in this Complaint. In such an instance the Attorney General would have competent jurisdiction over the subject matter of this claim pursuant to s. 24 (1) of the Charter.

110.

KAPOUSTIN claimed that the DOORNBOS and the R.C.M.P. violate the law promulgated under the (Provincial) Protection of Privacy Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter 165, Section 15 (h), S. 30 and S. 28 in conjunction with S. 22 (1); the (Federal) Privacy Act [R.S.C. 1985] Section 8 (1) and he further alleged that the acts and transactions of, inter alia, preparation of false, misleading and slanderous materials; the sending abroad of same; causing the public distribution and publication of information protected by law and the preparation and delivery abroad of official reports and documents was adequate proof of common law torts of privacy, defamation and slander as having occurred in Canada even though having been transmitted abroad.

111.

KAPOUSTIN complained of violations of law and the Charter arise from acts affected in a foreign state by an agency of the Government of Canada against the person and property of a citizen of Canada. The conduct of DOORNBOS directly and vicariously caused, inter alia, threats, accusations, menaces and violence without reasonable justification or excuse; cruel and unusual treatment and punishment; deprivation of security of person and right to life; discrimination on account of national or ethnic origin and religion; disclosures of information to the public harmful to the individual and a violation of the right to privacy; threats to safety, mental and physical health; disclosures of information to the public resulting in undue financial loss and burden; the disclosure of information to the public which were knowingly inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable, thus damaging unfairly the reputation of KAPOUSTIN who is the person(s) referred to therein and having been compiled and identified as a part of a Canadian investigation into a possible violation of law in Canada; disclosures of information to the public which inaccurately, unreliably and slanderously indicated untrue sexual orientation, religious belief or association of KAPOSUTIN as the person(s) named.

112.

KAPOUSTIN claimed the vicarious liability on the part of the Government of Canada for its participation in aiding and abetting the violations of law alleged and for having been the direct cause for KAPOUSTIN to suffer cruel and unusual punishment in Bulgaria.

113.

That the physical and psychological coercion and torture of KAPOUSTIN was for the singular purpose of securing data and facts for an R.C.M.P. investigation in Canada. As a result, the protections of Canada’s laws and the Charter for KAPOUSTIN to enjoy his

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 31 of 38

fundamental rights as a citizen of Canada to liberty and security of person are denied to him solely for the purpose of securing information for R.C.M.P. 114.

The alleged breaches of the Charter rights of KAPOUSTIN are with the direct knowledge and participation of a peace officer, and Crown Servant Derek DOORNBOS.

115.

All these earlier complaints establish the accountability of DOORNBOS for the malicious prosecution of KAPOUSTIN in Bulgaria on the charges of fraud and money laundering represented in the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” and also the common law torts of privacy, defamation and slander arising from DOORBOS having, inter alia, prepared false, misleading and slanderous materials; the sending abroad of unverified and untrue information; making false criminal accusations against KAPOUSTIN before officials of justice in Bulgaria; the production of false evidence before a court of law; distributing and causing the public distribution and publication of untrue criminal charges and slanderous remarks embodied in the official correspondence of the Government of Canada and official reports providing private information protected under law; impugning the character, integrity and honour of the KAPOUSTIN with the intent to cause him and his family to suffer cruel or unusual treatment and harassment; KAPOUSTIN to be physically and psychologically tormented, punished; intimidated with intent to inflict upon KAPOUSTIN and his family material harm, mental anguish, physical suffering and emotional distress.

SECTION D Part Seven 116.

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT –The Allegations

The Complaint before the Commission may be summarised as alleging the malicious foreign prosecution of KAPOUSTIN, at the request of the R.C.M.P., on a charge of misappropriation by fraud.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 32 of 38

117.

That commencing on or about May 15, 1995 and including but not limited to the dates of June 13, 1995; July 7, 1995; September 7, 1995; December 13, 1995; April 1, 1996; August 14, 1996; August 23, 1996 and July 2, 1997, DOORNBOS, an employee of the Government of Canada, did meet or have contact with Stefcho Georgiev and other officials of the Republic of Bulgaria with sole purpose and intent of having KAPOUSTIN prosecuted and convicted in Bulgaria on a charge of misappropriation by fraud and for “laundering” the proceeds of crime.

118.

That any exchanges and other transactions between police agencies of the Government of Canada and prosecution agencies and courts of the the Republic of Bulgaria are to be governed by the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, chapter M-13.6 (R.S. 1985, c30 (4th supp.)) 1988, c.37

119.

That from on or about May 15, 1995 DOORNBOS acted without the knowledge, consent or participation of the respective parties of Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Justice and Office of the Attorney General of Canada, DOORNDOS entered into an unlawful agreement for the Republic of Bulgaria to arrest and prosecute KAPOUSTIN on the charges, information and data provided by the Government of Canada, DOORNBOS.

120.

That DOORNBOS, in breach of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, chapter M-13.6 (R.S. 1985, c30 (4th supp.)) 1988, c.37 and other laws of Canada did cause the preparation and public dissemination of official R.C.M.P. correspondences, reports and alleged evidence collected against KAPOUSTIN on Canada that DOORNBOS knew to be either false, misleading, unverified, suggestive and intentionally slanderous. DOORNBOS having no legal capacity to make an “administrative arrangement” between the R.C.M.P and the police and prosecutors of a foreign state, the Republic of Bulgaria.

121.

That the intended purpose for DOORNBOS to make an “administrative arrangement” with Bulgarian authorities was to present misrepresentations and misstatements of fact and to cause and in fact did cause the malicious prosecution, arrest, extradition and torture of the KAPOUSTIN by agencies of the Bulgaria police and prosecution with whom DOORNBOS and the Government of Canada had unlawfully interacted.

122.

That the malicious prosecution and indictment by Bulgarian authorities of KAPOUSTIN on charges of misappropriation of Bulgarian public funds by fraud and money “laundering” is the result of a criminal indictment of KAPOUSTIN as prepared by DOORNBOS on July 7th 1995. DOORNBOS, on behalf of the Government of Canada and formally requesting the Republic of Bulgaria to bring “…a criminal prosecution of any character at all [nakazatelno proizvodstvo ot kakavto I da bilo harakter] be started against Kapoustin or Life Choice [LCIAD]?” [See §40 above].

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 33 of 38

123.

That the stated purpose of DOORNBOS and his sworn “INFORMATION” was to have Bulgarian and police officials arrest and prosecute KAPOUSTIN in aid of a Canada wide criminal investigation of one Ivon Shearing and the Kabalariansociety. A criminal investigation and penal proceeding to which KAPOUSTIN was not a party, a witness nor a subject of any possible future indictment of Shearing.

124.

That the DOORNBOS “INFORMATION” made false and malicious representations against KAPOUSTIN as if they are true and verified Canadian police facts, which they are not.

125.

That the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” provided by DOORNBOS as well as statements attributed to him by Bulgarian police and prosecution officials are the substance and pith of the content and foundation for all the slanders and libels of KAPOUSTIN in Canada, Bulgaria and internationally.

126.

That DOORNBOS and the R.C.M.P. knew their representation to Bulgarian police and prosecution officials to be unverified conjecture at best and are at worst criminally false and the charges levelled against KAPOUSTIN untrue.

127.

That the sole intended purpose of the “INFORMATION” and the false criminal charges and misrepresentations set out therein is to cause Bulgarian police and prosecution officials to arrest, prosecute and question KAPOUSTIN according to Bulgarian criminal law. The R.C.M.P. seeking to avoid the limitation imposed on it under Canada’s laws and insodoing to aid an R.C.M.P. investigation in Canada by having Bulgarian police and prosecution officials arrest and question KAPOUSTIN..

128.

That on account of the Government of Canada assurances offered by DOORNBOS to Bulgarian authorities, and due to the Bulgarian belief and the DOORNBOS promise of a financial reward [see §40 above “…16,000,000 USD…confiscated and it would be comparatively easy [for the R.C.M.P.] to prove in front of the [Canadian] court that these are proceeds from criminal activities [of KAPOUSTIN in Bulgaria”]

129.

That DOORNBOS knew that his assurances as an “OFFICIAL” of the Government of Canada to Bulgaria police and prosecutors would prove sufficient for the Bulgarian authorities to not subject the DOORNBOS representations to any proper legal test as was incumbent upon them and before proceeding to indict KAPOUSTIN on the written representations made by DOORNBOS. There was no on going criminal investigation of KAPOUSTIN in Bulgaria prior to DOORNBOS making contact with Bulgarian authorities in Sofia, Bulgaria on or before May15th 1995.

130.

That the R.C.M.P. indictment of KAPOUSTIN on July 7th 1995 before a foreign state is a violation of the due process rights and Charter protections afforded to citizens of Canada.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 34 of 38

131.

That from the period of May 31, 1995 to the present the DOORBOS misrepresentations and slanders appeared repeatedly in hundreds of national newspaper articles, television and radio programs and official documents throughout the Republic of Bulgaria as well as on a number of occasions in parts of Canada and Europe via electronic news services.

132.

That DOORNBOS knowingly acted to cause Bulgarian agencies to embark upon an official campaign to induce in the minds of the public enmity, hostility, antipathy, rancour, malice, discrimination and bias against KAPOUSTIN with the intent to cause loss of reputation and goodwill.

133.

The aforesaid is best represented and evidenced by a published interview with Georgiev in Continent newspaper, Sofia, Bulgaria, on August 1, 1996 [see §16 above].

134.

That DOORNBOS knew the ultimate results of his misconduct. Yet DOORNBOS acted intentionally to represent to police and prosecution officials of Bulgaria what DOORNBOS knew to be a false criminal accusation and manufactured facts intended to deceive Bulgarian authorities and the public into believing that, inter alia, KAPOUSTIN had been convicted in Canada for the sexual rape of children; was an internationally recognized swindler and fraud and swindler was known to be a close associate and accomplice of one Ivon Shearing and a participant and financial supporter of Mr. Shearing and his “pseudo – religious cult” the “Kabalarian Society” of Canada; that KAPOUSTIN is a criminal and his company “LifeChoice” is a criminal enterprise and large scale fraud having transferred 16 million United States dollars to Canada; that all or a substantial part of the criminal proceeds in Canada comes from citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria. DOORNBOS knew his “police facts” to be untrue and only designed to evoke the arrest and prosecution of KAPOUSTIN by Bulgarian police and prosecutors.

135.

That DOORNBOS is the “Official Canadian Source” providing Bulgarian police, prosecution officials and the media with the slanders and libels appearing and continuing to appear in the Bulgarian and international press,

136.

That the DORRNBOS slanders, libels, misrepresentations, misstatements and other misinformation as subsequently transmitted by DOORNBOS from Canada’s embassy at Vienna, Austria and its public release to agencies of a foreign state, Bulgaria, was undertaken by DOORNBOS with the intent to see such information made ultimately public. The manufactured police conclusions and transmissions of police facts and private data by DOORNBOS are in breach of the rights of KAPOUSTIN and his family under the laws of Canada including but not limited to the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act.

137.

DOORNBUS knowingly acted to humiliate KAPOUSTIN by publicly accusing him of acts of moral perversion with the real expectation that this would further facilitate the arrest and prosecution of KAPOUSTIN.

138.

That DOORNBOS did then wilfully make oral statements to the public and written reports to Bulgarian officials causing the same to be repeatedly printed in the press and announced on radio and television. Insodoing DOORNBOS was able to secure the arrest and prosecution of KAPOUTSIN by Bulgarian police and prosecution officials.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 35 of 38

139.

That DOORNBOS acted with malice and forethought when uttering what he knew to be untrue, false and slanderous remarks concerning the personality, character and business activities of the KAPOUSTIN in Bulgaria, Canada and elsewhere.

140.

That DOORNBOS at all times knew that his false criminal accusations and defamatory statements would cause KAPOUSTIN to be publicly humiliated, and his reputation and standing in the community irrevocably and forever ruined.

141.

The Complaint alleges there is a violation of Canadian law and the Charter rights of KAPOUSTIN when DOORNBOS used the resources of the Federal Government of Canada on behalf and for the Republic of Bulgaria to arrest; prosecute; and convict a citizen of Canada.

142.

That the conduct of DOORNBOS and subsequent events prove to be the product of a criminal malfeasance against KAPOUSTIN designed by DOORNBOS to secure for himself professional prestige and at the expense of the honour, integrity and property of KAPOUSTIN.

143.

That DOORNBOS and the R.C.M.P. knew KAPOUSTIN would be held in remand indefinitely, without benefit of habeas corpus or other judicial control of his remand and that he would be confined to a solitary cell.

144.

DOORNBOS and the R.C.M.P. knew that according to international reports on conditions within Bulgaria’s criminal justice system and remand facilities KAPOUSTIN, a Canadian citizen, would be likely subjected to psychological and physical coercion as part of the interrogation procedure. The facts and data sought after by the R.C.M.P. would most probably be obtained only through the torture of KAPOUTSIN.

145.

That the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” provided by DOORNBOS is directly responsible for precipitating both official and public acrimony in Bulgaria towards KAPOUSTIN. In particular the slanderous and libellous assertions of Canadian “police fact” that are directly attributed to the R.C.M.P. (“Canadian authorities”) in the August 1st 1996 public statement of Bulgarian police and prosecutors lead directly to KAPOUSTIN being beaten and tortured by Bulgarian Ministry of Interior police and his continued imprisonment by Bulgarian prosecutors and judges without possibility of bail or transfer.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 36 of 38

146.

That the physical and psychological coercion and torture and beatings of a Canadian citizen, KAPOUSTIN by Bulgarian Ministry of Interior Police is directly the result of DOORNBOS repeatedly requesting that Bulgarian Ministry of Interior police and prosecution officials obtain information from KAPOUSTIN in answer to the questions directed by DOORNBOS to Bulgarian police officials as follows: a. July 7th 1995 “Now each piece of information or even only supposition [by Bulgaria] whatsoever about eventual breach of Bulgarian Law by Kapoustin [Applicant] connected with LifeChoice that your service [CSBOP] could submit [to Canada], is of special importance for the investigation in Vancouver…” [See §40 above]; b. July 7th 1995 “…additional data or operational information in what direction the funds obtained by LifeChoice [LCIAD] are being transferred out of Bulgaria? [see §41 above]; c. April 1st 1996 “Kapoustin now falls entirely within your jurisdiction. Could you advise please if your further investigation had determined [the where, how or end destination of the money which Kapoustin defrauded from [Bulgarian investors] Were you able to identify offshore banking institutions, account numbers…[see §64 above]; d. August 14th 1996 “…please advise us when or if any information is found regarding Kapoustin [Applicant] having transferred monies to Canada.” [See §68 above]; e. August 23rd 1996 “I am still very much interested in any indication he has that any of Kapoustin gains [transfers] from the fraud in Bulgaria ended up in Canada.” [See §70 above]; f. July 2nd 1997 “I am still awaiting in writing, confirmation, information and a Rogatory Request promised by Mr. Stefan GUEORGIEV [Georgiev] regarding funds that Kapoustin transferred [transfer] to Canada” [See §77 above]

147.

As a result, there have been numerous breaches of the Charter rights of KAPOUSTIN and numerous other violations of Canadian law by DOORNBOS.

148.

This complaint seeks to establish and pursue remedies for a malicious prosecution of KAPOUSTIN by the R.C.M.P. and to identity the injuries and damages suffered by KAPOUSTIN from what are deliberate acts of physical and psychological torture and the defamation of KAPOUSTIN by libel and slander and the blatantly false criminal accusations made by DOORNBOS during the years of 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998.

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 37 of 38

149.

The complaint further alleges KAPOUSTIN and his family suffered physical pain, mental anguish, deep humiliation, emotional distress and financial loss from the materially false, misleading and deliberately libellous and slanderous statements and injurious lies that DOORNBOS prepared and formed as part conclusions of police investigations provided as a record of criminal activity in Canada and elsewhere.

150.

The complaint further alleges KAPOUSTIN and his family suffered pecuniary and nonpecuniary injuries from inter alia, the seizure and destruction of property, loss of income, the extortion of cash, physical torture; permanent injury derived of emotional and psychological trauma and public humiliation and loss of reputation.

151.

This complaint further alleges that the injuries caused KAPOUSTIN and his family would not have been otherwise possible if not for the means and instrumentalities available to DOORNBOS as an official at Government of Canada. The facilities situated at the Embassy of Canada, Vienna, Austria, and if not for the instrumentalities and secure telecommunications, diplomatic mails and other facilities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ottawa, Ontario and Vancouver, British Columbia.

On the basis of the foregoing the Complainant KAPOUSTIN and his family seek the Commission secure a Parliamentary enquiry into Derek A. DOORNBOS and the R.C.M.P.

Signed M. Kapoustin

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 38 of 38

For official use only! Central service for fight against organized delinquency Our ref. 3233/ July 17th, 1995

M _________ Take legal actions! (signature) MV (?) _________

TRANSLATION FROM ENGLISH FAX Date: July 7th, 1995 (signature) From: O/V NP Command [Liaison Officer (RCMP?)] Canadian Embassy Vienna, Austria To the attn. of Mr. Levicharov Director of Central service for fight against organized delinquency Attn. Mr. A. Kosev Department “KMC” (?)

I’d like to advise you that in compliance with our agreement from May 15th, 1995 in Sofia I have submitted to our economic crime service [Proceeds of Crime] the information Mr. Miroslav GENOV gave me. As a result of this the said service has started an operational investigation of Kapoustin’s former companies and associates in VANCOUVER. It was found out that there is a subsidiary company of Life Choice – Bulgaria, duly registered according to Federal Law. The latter is named “Life Choice Pharmaceuticals Inc." and has been registered in the Commercial register of BRITISH COLUMBIA province since 1991. As a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer the following person has been entered in the Federal Register: KARIN UTE BERGSON, Born on July 15th, 1942 Address: 304-2495 West 3rd Ave, Vancouver BC Occupation: translator, (not registered to be reported on) In the provincial register (of British Columbia – note of the translator) as managing directors the following persons have been entered: 1. DONALD MAXWELL Born on Oct. 23rd, 1950 2. RADKA MILANOVA Born on Jan. 15th, 1954 in Bulgaria Address: 2118 Nanton Ave., Vancouver BC Occupation: scientist, (not registered to be reported on) 3. ARTHUR L. MORRISON 1

Born on Jan. 12th, 1935 Address: 10086 Hymer Dr. Chilliwack BC Occupation: businessman, (not registered to be reported on) 4. MARY SLOAN, Born on May 9th, 1947 Address: 4715 Lancelot CRT, Richmond BC (not registered to be reported on) In this connection the economic crime service [Proceeds of Crime] shows special interest to IVON SHEARING too, born on April 12th, 1928. The latter is a partner of MAXWELL and a former accomplice of KAPOUSTIN to his questionable operations at the Vancouver stock exchange. At present SHEARING is the leader of a pseudo-religious organization called “CABALISTIC PHILOSOPHY”. It was established that last year 4 million and 12 million USD had been transferred to several bank accounts of SHEARING and Cabalistic Philosophy. Most of the transfers came from Western Europe. It was established as well that other accounts of SHEARING had been credited with amounts of about 100,000 USD per day. In view of the conduct and business activities of Shearing and some of his employees it is supposed that most probably large-scale money laundering operations are going on. It is considered as well that most probably a considerable part of these amounts come from the funds obtained in Bulgaria by KAPOUSTIN through large-scale financial frauds carried out by his pyramidal structure “LIFECHOICE”. Besides this it is established that the transfers go through banks in the Caribbean Islands. Here I’d like to draw your attention to my fax dated June 13th, 1995 in which I have asked you to check four persons – Bulgarian citizens, for whom Kapoustin has submitted documents for Canadian visas (NENKOV, POPOVA, PETROUNOV and NINOV). It was stated in the written request submitted by Kapoustin to the Canadian embassy in Belgrade that “LifeChoice” carries out banking activities in Antigua. Now each piece of information or even only supposition whatsoever about eventual breach of Bulgarian Law by Kapoustin connected with LifeChoice that your service could submit, is of special importance for the investigation in Vancouver. In this instance our service in Vancouver would be able to obtain search warrants for the office premises and houses of the aforesaid subjects. In this situation we consider there is every possibility we can successfully conduct a large scale joint investigation as a result of which the assets of SHEARING & Co in Canada will be confiscated and it would be comparatively easy to prove in front of the court that these are proceeds of criminal activities. One of the names you advised to be employees of North American Trade Organization was Chavdar Georgiev MLADENOV, born on August 25th, 1995. We were surprised to learn after respective verifications in the national system of Operative Department of the National Police (abbreviations – not very sure of the proper name of this department – note of translator) of Canada that a person named Chavdar G. MLADENOV staying in Canada and acting as General Consul of Bulgaria in Toronto has been registered to be involved in illegal currency deals and financial frauds in Bulgaria (we do not dispose with any other data). Verifications are going on. It’s been ascertained that SHEARING is abroad at present and we consider it’s possible for him to arrange a meeting(s) with Kapoustin. Please advise urgently the following: 2

1. Have you listed operative information on BERGSON, MAXWELL, MILANOVA, MORRISON, SLOAN (Nenkov, Popova, Petrounov and Ninov)? 2. Has any of the aforesaid persons especially MAXWELL or SHEARING stayed formerly in Bulgaria? Can you establish instances of direct contacts between Maxwell or Shearing and Kapoustin in Bulgaria? 3. Is it established at the moment that LifeChoice or Kapoustin are committing any violations whatsoever of Bulgarian laws? Can a criminal prosecution of any character at all be started against Kapoustin or LifeChoice ? 4. Have you any additional data or operational information in what direction the funds obtained by Life Choice are being transferred out of Bulgaria? 5. Please reconfirm (advise again) the Canadian passports numbers which Kapoustin has used to register North American Trade Organization (NATO) and LifeChoice in Bulgaria. 6. Is there data that the Bulgarian General Consul (Mladenov) has been involved in breach of currency control regime? Is the present General Consul of Bulgaria in Toronto one and the same person with the employee of NATO, as the said company was registered by Kapoustin?

Best regards, (Signature) D. A. Doornbos Attaché Liaison officer of Canada, Vienna Three copies printed #1 – A (M) #2 – ID OOZB/124 #3 – KA Made by B-v Written by KG-2-759 July 14th, 1995 Sofia For the veracity of translation: Marianna Radoulova

3

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 33 of 39

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 34 of 39

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 35 of 39

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 32 of 39

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 36 of 39

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 37 of 39

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 38 of 39

2004.01.23_ TO HEAFEY COMPLAINT AS AMENDED_Amsterlaw.doc

Page 39 of 39

February 15,1996 Standard Newspaper

CANADA and BULGARIA Are Fighting For Michael Kapoustin The Swindler Arrested At Frankfurt Airport on February 7 Michael Kapoustin was arrested on February 7 at the Frankfurt airport, confirmed the National Investigation Department yesterday. Kapoustin was detained upon request of the Bulgarian Prosecutor's Office, as well as on behalf of the Canadian government, according to Sofia's District Attorney Nestor Nestorov. It is only a question of time who will be the first to send the extradition documents. Canada also wants to get hold of Kapoustin because of financial frauds and tax evasion. We will start checking whether he has given up his Bulgarian passport, said Nestorov. Current information is that he has both a Bulgarian and a Canadian passport.

February 22,1996 STANDARD NEWSPAPER Canada Willing To Give Kapoustin Back Most probably, Canada will gallantly hand over Michael Kapoustin to us and he will return here. Bulgaria has already asked Germany for extradition, announced Attorney General Ivan Tatarchev yesterday. Michael Kapoustin was arrested in Germany on February 7, which was first reported by ..Standard". The boss of ,,Life Choice" was detained in Frankfurt am Main upon his return from Georgia. A lot of countries are eager to get hold of the international swindler, who is of Bulgarian and Canadian origin. Bulgaria, though is the first to request his extradition. Until now, there is no information whether Canada has done the same. Although we have not signed an agreement for legal co-operation with her, Canadian police Forces have agreed to assist us. Bulgaria's right to Kapoustin is the greatest, because of the great number of Bulgarian cheated by him, and also because of great sums stolen from them. The extradition request states that the Bulgarian legal authorities will hold Kapoustin responsible for tax evasion. This crime is strictly penalized in most countries. Because of it Al Capone and Steffi Graft's father were imprisoned. Aside from that Kapoustin will also face charges on fraud and theft.

Kapoustin is an international swindler Insists the chief of the Economical Department of the National Investigation Service, Mr. Stefcho Georgiev. x

x

x x x x

x

Mr. Georgiev, Kapoustin complained in the letter, which we published in “Kontinent” newspaper on Tuesday, that you and the chief of the Sofia city prosecution office, Mr. Nestor Nestorov refused to listen to him about the possibility to refund the money of the investors. Why? Sofia City prosecution form(ed) the case against Michael Kapoustin at the end of September, when he has already left the country with his motorcycle “Harley Davidson”. When we accused the pharaoh of a deception of 12,000 investors in Bulgaria he already had some more in Georgia. The case has been worked by default. On the 7th of February he was caught at Frankfurt airport in accordance with our request I hope he will be extradite(d) soon from Germany and then we shall have time to ask him personally the questions about his activities in Bulgaria. We will be together long enough to have a possibility to understand his position. The defendant has a right of a defence. When Kapoustin has been arrested in Frankfurt, Mr. Nestorov said that Canada and Bulgaria will struggle which country is going to bring an action against him. But it looks like Canada does not want the pharaoh? His cases there are old and unclear. In Canada he didin’t form LifeChoice and didn’t dare to lie to people that insolently. He relied on the gullibility of the Bulgarians and he didn’t mislead himself. Are the accusations against Kapoustin more serious in comparison with the other creators of pyramids? The Plovdiv born with Canadian citizenship occurs to be an international swindler. He speculated with the unhappiness of the poor people in the country, promising big preferential benefits. His clients were invalids and pensioners, from whom he managed to suck their last savings. Kapoustin is (a) famous swindler for Interlpol. Even in Canada he was playing the “games of happiness”. He did sexual assaults against minors, according to the data of the Canadian authorities. The accusations against him in Bulgaria are three: for misappropriation of 5,000,000 USD and usurpation of 4,800,000 USD. with six false invoices he sent to the Caribbean islands the money of the Bulgarian citizens, to buy the drug “Factor – R”, produced in Bulgaria. He cheated for 12,000,000 USD over 12,000 Bulgarians, who can hardly make both ends meet. These are extremely heavy crimes according to the Bulgarian legislature. All together Kapoustin should be responsible for over 18,000,000 USD, which he managed to steal away from Bulgaria. In his letter he is trying to hide behind political partialities. Tell me which country is not going to collect its taxes from the foreigners who are doing business in the country? Kapoustin was importing from Canada cigarettes, beer, whisky, vodka for the purpose of trade, but he didn’t fill up exact tax declarations. With which he injured the state budget, the Sofia city community and the tax department with millions. Attached to the case there are claims from Canadian companies, which suffered damages of 470,000 USD. Before his arrest at the airport in Frankfurt he did some business activities in Georgia. So far the case against him is up to 40 volumes. But anyway he did some activities in Bulgaria as well? In his letter he talks about a waste oil refinery in Tsarimir village, near the city of Plovdiv, which could give back up to 10,5 million USD to the investors? 1

x

x x

x x

With his everyday total advertising program in all means of communications Kapoustin became popular. His offices in Sofia, Plovdiv, Varna and Silistra were necessary to imitate trade activities. First high dividends he gave to “fish in troubled water”. About the refinery he bought a second hand installation. It cannot bring the dreams of 10,5 million USD. At “Krakra” he made some improvements, which are on the account of the Ministry of Health and the National Center of Parasitic and Infectious Diseases. The drug “Factor –R” sold out without a permission of the Bulgarian authorities is simply the medicine “Respivax” plus vitamin C. he financed the expedition of the Atlantic club with 50,000 USD. these are not his money, but of the investors. How could you explain that he gypped off so many people? Among them were some quite well off. Kapoustin is a good economist. He didn’t allow anybody to manage the money. Nobody could without his signature draw even a penny or manage bank accounts. To his Bulgarian partner Mila Popova he gave 250,000 leva (BGL) for the purpose of a Bulgarian participation in the company. You are an investigator who watches the cases against the pharaohs. Is there a possibility that Kapoustin should be extradite(d) to Bulgaria and we shall let him out on bail and there will never be a process? My proposal to him since he is still in Germany, is to think how he is going to refund at least part of the money of the deceived investors, because that’s the only thing which could possibly mitigate the guilt.

“Continent Newspaper” Sofia, Bulgaria August 1st, 1996

Transcript of the original translation

2

August 8,1996 Standard Newspaper Michael Kapoustin On Hunger Strike Because Of Sect

Michael Kapoustin is a member of a powerful sect and most probably has turned into a zombie, says an anonymous Canadian source. This is about a Cabalistic organization, which has spread throughout the world. The source goes on to say that its leader is the Canadian Ivonne Sherling, who is of Swedish origin. According to it, Kapoustin made money transfers to its bank accounts from his Pyramids" around the world and in Bulgaria. Now the Cabalists are trying to kill him, since he has fulfilled his mission. Kapoustin did not fly to Bulgaria on Wednesday since he had been seriously dehydrated. He has been on a hunger strike for more than a month in a Frankfurt prison. The same source admitted that the „ Pharaoh" might not have carried out his mission to the very end, and that's why he wanted to die. He will return to Bulgaria only if the German doctors manage to keep him away from the sectarian hypnosis. Michael Kapoustin, ,,Life Choice" boss was arrested on February 7 this year, after our country sought assistance from Interpol

.‘ ‘

August 23, 1996, “Standard Newspaper Kapousitn Back on IV Tubes, Military Hospital Reserves Bed for Him Michael Kapustin is coming back to Bulgaria on Wednesday, said investigators yesterday. Already for thirty days, the international swindler is on a hunger strike. German doctors still have not given their approval for a flight back to Bulgaria, since this could be fatal for him. In Bulgaria, the Investigation Department of the Head Prosecutor’s Office, is extremely nervous. They keep faxing the police, the Foreign Ministry and the Central Interpol Office in Sofia. Bulgarian doctors from the Military Hospital will form part of the escort, consisting of two police officers. A bed is reserved for the important patient in the clinic. Medical teams are prepared to put him on IV tubes immediately after his plane lands in Sofia. Kapoustin’s arrival may be delayed, but retribution will not, say prosecutors. They are happy that they will have Kapoustin before any of the other involved countries Greece, Georgia, Canada. The maple-leaf country does not want her citizen Michael who was born in Plovdiv, back. Canada confesses that did not wreak havoc there, as he did in Bulgaria. He was basically involved in sexual crimes. The Georgians still have not realized how he swindled them. He even baited their Health Ministry, according to Interpol Officers. Life Choice” boss will answer to forgery and theft charges in Bulgaria. The exact sum, stolen by his pyramids” from investor still cannot be determined, since the legal accounting investigation is still going on. But in any case, it will surely amount to over 15 millions US dollars, collected from 1992 to 1995. : Bulgarian investigators and prosecutors are acquainted with hid accounts in Bulgarian banks, as well as with his money transfers abroad. They hope that sooner or later the sums will be returned, since they are a product of his crimes. Because of the grand scale on which his crimes were carried out, Kapoustin is threatened by thirty years in prison -

,. ....

... . .

Department of Justice Canada The Honourable Anne McLellan P.C., M.P. Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada 284 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0H8

Michael Kapoustin c/o Sofia Penitentiary 13th Section 21, "Stoletov" St 1309 Sofia

May 19, 2001

Request For Legal Aid and Assistance

To The Attorney General.

This is an application requesting the Ministry of the Attorney General ("Ministry") take immediate steps to act on possible violations by Ministry representatives of the Applicants Charter Rights. The Attorney General is respectfully asked to take notice that the Applicant, a Canadian, has apparently been incarcerated by the Republic of Bulgaria as a result of investigative conclusions and a written request of the Ministry. The Applicant remains incarcerated and the Ministry has failed to act on the charges apparently brought by it in the Province of British Columbia and somehow related to the Applicant's arrest. This Application to the Ministry of the Attorney General is pursuant to Ss. 32§1 Charter obligations of the Government of Canada, its agencies, instrumentalities or departments in Canada or abroad. In particular the manner of their conduct in criminal and judicial matters effecting the rights of citizens in Canada or abroad as connected to Canada. This Application is further pursuant to conduct by a defendant in a civil law suit, the defendant obstructing the Ss. 24§1 Charter rights of the Applicant to pursue a legal remedy for alleged violations of his S.7-S.9, S.10, Ss. 11(a) and (b), S.12 ,and S.15 Charter rights in or connected to Canada. Furthermore this Application to the Ministry of the Attorney General is pursuant of State obligations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976. p.171 (the "Covenant"). In particular the requirements provided in Article 2§1 and §3, Article 3, Article 5, Article 16, Article 17, Article 19§2 and §3(a), Article 26 Article 26, particular emphasis placed on Article 41 of the Covenant. It is complained that the Ministry of the Attorney General has failed to act on numerous prior complaints on Covenant violations. Including violations by Canada in co-operation with the Republic of Bulgaria of the Applicant's rights pursuant to, inter alia, Article 14§1 and §3 abstracts (a)(c) and (d) of the Covenant. The Applicant is placed under a legal disability as a result of a foreign State denying him access to legal facilities and other resources that might enable submission of more substantive argument. Evidential materials are with held by the foreign state and the Applicant is unable to appear before a court of British Columbia so as to demand the production of evidence. The Applicant is as a result unable to provide relevant provisions of provincial or federal law and applicable legal precedents that might further his application and its chances of success. Due to his circumstances, the Applicant is unable to formulate this Application according to the style or form common in such instances. Moreover these are complex issues and the Applicant has no resources or opportunity to access attorneys familiar with such subject matters.

1

The burden on the Applicant to adequately express himself on law, under his circumstances as a prisoner, is an onerous one. A task made more difficult and frustrating due to the incarcerating State's written declaration that the Applicant has no civil rights and of the ever-present administrative threats of sanctions or punishment for pursuit of those rights. The Applicant therefore appeals to the Attorney General to at least indulge him as a Canadian citizen and resident who has with great difficulty undertaken to prepare and deliver this Application. It is deserving of consideration and reply. The facts available appear to suggest that the Ministry of the Attorney General has directly assisted a foreign State to, inter alia, arrest; effect searches of residences and businesses; seize of documents and records; confiscate assets; extradite from the Federal Republic of Germany; continue to incarcerate and attempt to convict a Canadian citizen in domestic and foreign criminal proceedings on accusations and charges submitted by the Attorney General together with evidence collected through his agency. The Application's factual substance relies on media releases, documented official statements, and records of the Republic of Bulgaria. These provide reasonable grounds to form a supposition that the Applicant had been incarcerated and charged at the direct request of the Attorney General. It is further documented that the Ministry of the Attorney General provided to that foreign State unverified and untrue information and data collected by it in Canada. The information and data provided was in the form of investigative conclusions as if it they were fact when knowing them to be untrue. Included with the information and data provided were requests that the Applicant be prosecuted on that information in order to further an investigation of the Attorney General in the Province of British Columbia. It is further documented that the unverified and damaging information and data provided by the Ministry of the Attorney General has been made massively public. This appears to have taken place with the apparent consent of the Ministry. A result of this damaging and untrue public disclosure, the Applicant and his family have been caused to suffer deep emotional anguish, shame and embarrassments. It is, if not directly then at least vicariously, the cause of the Applicant's mother and son in British Columbia having suffered personal injury, physical pain and the family severe financial loss. It is indisputably a direct cause of the Applicant's unreasonable imprisonment and beatings. Documents reveal that on February 7th 1996 the Applicant was arrested on the written request and unverified statements provided in evidence by a representative of the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada to the Republic of Bulgaria. It is further documented that the Applicant continues to remain incarcerated as a direct result of those representations made by the Ministry of the Attorney General to authorities of the Republic of Bulgaria. It is as well documented that a Defendant to a civil proceeding in the Province of British Columbia unlawfully obstructs the Applicant in his rights as a litigant. The Defendant apparently seeks to prevent the Applicant from revealing facts and documents that support his legal action against that Defendant. Such interference is unlawful and requires legal action that is within the purview of the Attorney General. The Applicant complains, and it is apparent to any objective observer, that employees of the Republic of Bulgaria are at present directly interfering with and otherwise attempting to obstruct the Applicant in the exercise of his rights as a litigant. Certain employees and officials of Defendant the Republic of Bulgaria are documented to be interfering and obstructing a proceeding before a court(s) of Canada.

2

Agents of the Republic of Bulgaria, in violation covenants, are documented to have undertaken the rights of the Applicant. The Government of the respondent for the Defendant in a Canadian civil decision to deny a Canadian citizen his civil rights.

of Canadian law and provisions of international uttering of threats and refusals to respect the civil Republic of Bulgaria, the Ministry of Justice as proceeding, has apparently undertaken a political

Insodoing the Republic of Bulgaria seeks to extend its influence to the sovereign jurisdiction of the courts of Canada. This is setout in a May 9th 2001 letter to the Applicant by the Ministry of Justice, Republic of Bulgaria. The Deputy Minister D. Tonchev advising this Canadian citizen that he has no civil rights since he is incarcerated and awaiting a final sentence. This withdrawal of the Applicant's civil rights is inconsistent with the principles of law in a democratic society. Civil rights are protected both constitutionally and by international laws, not withstanding that an individual has been deprived of his or her liberty. The Applicant is cognizant that the Attorney General is unable to act outside the jurisdiction of Canada. However, the request embodied here requires the Attorney General to act within the jurisdiction of Canada, not outside of it. And to do so specifically on three subjects of this Application. First, to investigate the conduct of the office of the Attorney General, his officers, and those others in or connected to the accusations as brought in Canada against the Applicant. The failure to disclose to the Applicant the nature of the accusations and charges against him and to bring the matter to a speedy to trial in a court of Canada. Second, the Attorney General to concern herself with the actions of her officer and those others directly connected with representation made to the Republic of Bulgaria concerning the Applicant. Those responsible having provided untrue and false information to a foreign state, allowed that untrue and slanderous information to be made public and requesting, on the grounds of their information and conclusions as police authorities of Canada, that a Canadian citizen be prosecuted abroad. Third the Attorney General to engage herself in ascertaining the lawfulness of interfering with or otherwise obstructing the Applicant's civil rights in a proceeding before courts of Canada. The Applicant has brought a Charter complaint in a civil action conducted by him, as Plaintiff, in the nature of a criminal proceeding. The Ministry of the Attorney General has failed or alternatively refuses to intervene. By failing to do so the Ministry has permitted violation of the Applicant's Charter rights. The Attorney General and courts of Canada have original jurisdiction in personam over the subject matter complained of. Any act of obstruction of a litigant's lawful rights in a judicial proceeding in Canada, even if effected outside Canada by a foreign State, are acts de jure gestionis and subject to the jurisdiction of Canada. Failure by representatives of an agency of Canada to observe a Canadian citizen's Charter Rights in or outside Canada is a violation of law. It is sine qua non, that the Charter be observed and seen to have been observed in all proceedings conducted by officers of the Government of Canada. The Ministry of the Attorney General is no less accountable to the protection and fostering of the principles of natural law, international covenants and the Charter than are other agencies of Canada. Admittedly, this application requires the Office of the Attorney General to engage itself in complex issues embodied in numerous provisions of international law, enactments of Canada and the Republic of Bulgaria. A review is also called for of the applicable rules of criminal and civil procedure in the Republic of Bulgaria.

3

While unorthodox in its nature, this Application is well within the ambit of the Attorney General's legislated authority and the jurisdiction of the courts of Canada. The factual and legal complexity of the instance case is not adequate cause to provide an excuse for the demonstrated apathy of the Ministry of the Attorney General. The Applicant did not author the documents in evidence or contrive the publication of their contents. These are the documented acts of officers of the Attorney General. These slanders and defamation are born in the fertile imaginations and ethnic and religious discriminations of men employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General. There is incontrovertible evidence to this fact; this makes no other rational or reasonable explanation possible except discrimination. This makes it reasonable that the Attorney General take the appropriate actions as an intervener for the Applicant. It is the Applicant and his family's Charter Rights as Canadian citizens that must be contemplated by the Attorney General. Rights which the Applicant and his family as citizens and residents are entitled to ask the Attorney General not only to observe but also to protect. WHEREUPON the Applicant must rely on the principles and ethics of the Office of the Ministry of the Attorney General to engage itself in identifying what provisions of law or enactments are applicable and support the following:

Part I

4

In The Crown v. Michael Kapoustin, Vancouver Jurisdiction

1.

The Attorney General is required to observe the Applicant's S. 11(a) Charter Right and to inform him at the address provided here in detail of the specific offenses and charges that appear to be outstanding [see Enclosure No 2 through Enclosure No 7] and to have been brought by the Ministry against the Applicant in the Province of British Columbia.

2.

If the foregoing is true, the Attorney General is required to act immediately to observe the Applicant's S. 11(b) Charter Right to a speedy trail. The Ministry taking the necessary steps to proceed to trial in the Province of British Columbia. Fixing a time and date according to the provisions and requirements of law and duly advising the Applicant.

3.

The Applicant demands his right to know, if any, the accusation and charges presently against him. If any then, the Applicant demands his right to be brought to trial on the accusations and charges.

4.

As a practical matter, the Ministry of the Attorney General is relied on to employ the provisions, mutatis mutandis, of ss.79 (1)(a) of the Extradition Act [1999 c.18] (the "Act"). The Attorney General further relying on the procedural powers of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to subpoena as provided for by subrule 40(40) Rules of the Court. As a practical matter the Ministry to recall that provisions of ss. 81(1) and S.82 of the Act are consistent with the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria national law for temporary extradition [see Part V below] and international principle of reciprocity.

5.

The Attorney General to observe the Applicant's demands for trial. Applicable principles of international law consider it, sine qua non, a right of a litigant to be heard and allowed to give evidence at any hearing or trial in which their lawful interests are at risk. This procedural possibility, as a practical consideration for imprisoned litigants, is provided for in provisions of the

Defendant foreign State's national Criminal Code of Procedure Articles 463(2), 464, 465 and 466 and the principle of reciprocity among democratic States and free societies.

6.

The Applicant agrees to his temporary custody to Canada to appear at trial in the Province of British Columbia. And agrees, as a condition to return to the Penitentiary in the Republic of Bulgaria.

7.

If the Ministry of the Attorney General refuses the Applicant's request for trial or alternatively if the Applicant is no longer suspected, accused or charged by the Attorney General as he appears to have been in July of 1995. Then the Attorney General to then so advise the Applicant and undertake to provide an adequate explanation of the accusations and charges embodied in those documents which are enclosed and the other documents alluded to therein.

8.

The Attorney General is required to advise the Applicant on what grounds his Ministry had requested on July 7th 1995 [see Enclosure No 2] that the Republic of Bulgaria prosecute the Applicant. Clarifying exactly how the Ministry had reached the investigative conclusions provided on that date and later forwarded to the Republic of Bulgaria from the Province.

9.

The Applicant advises the Ministry of the Attorney General that he exercises his legal right as embodied in the Covenant Article 14 §3(d). The Attorney General is expected to observe and honor the Applicant's right, doing all things necessary and reasonable to secure that right. The Applicant desires to appear in person before a court of the Province of British Columbia at any hearing or trial to which he is a party or required to appear as witness and demands his S. 15(1) Charter Right to equality at arms.

10.

From the enclosures provided and prevailing facts it is apparent that Charter violations appear to have occurred. The Applicant observes that these violations arise from the investigative actions of the Ministry in the Crown v. Ivon Shearing et al. and the inaction of the Attorney General of Canada in the Crown v. Kapoustin. The Ministry of the Attorney General appears to have given the Applicant, in both cases, the character of a suspect and an accused to a criminal proceeding in Canada.

11.

The Attorney General is therefore required to act for the Applicant as an accused in custody that is unable to act independently without support of the Ministry. The Attorney General to secure for the Applicant a remedy before a court of competent jurisdiction according to the provisions of S. 24 of the Charter. It is immaterial that the Applicant is in the custody of a foreign state. That custody in a penal institution of Canada or abroad when at the direct or vicariously request of the Ministry of Justice in Canada provides sufficient causus to demand the Attorney General act in Canada. Incarceration abroad not have the character or force of suspending the Applicant's Charter Rights or of mitigating in any way the Attorney General's responsibility to observe and protect Charter Rights in or when connected to Canada.

5

Part II

Supreme Court of British Columbia Civil Case, Vancouver Docket S004040

1.

The Attorney General is respectfully requested to act as an intervener in a civil matter brought in the nature of a criminal proceeding [see State Immunity Act R.S. 1985, c. S-18] for acts claimed as qualified by provisions of S. 188, S. 3461(1), and S. 426(1)(a)(ii) and (1)(b) of the C.C.C..

2.

The Attorney General is required to investigate what appear to be possible violation(s) of criminal law by the Defendant(s) in a civil proceeding. It is alleged that the Defendant(s) seek to and are succeeding in obstructing the Applicant's rights under Charter provisions S. 15 and S. 24. Employees of the Defendant in the above captioned civil proceeding are threatening the Applicant who is a witness and a Plaintiff against the Defendant foreign state and certain officials. Isolation and withdrawal of international human and civil rights of the Applicant manifest the threats. This was recorded on May 9th 2001 where a representative of the Defendant advised the Applicant in writing that he had no civil rights. Other threats abound and physical violence has been previously employed.

6

3.

The facts available provide a prima facie case of the Defendant(s) employees directly or vicariously engaging in criminally interfering with and consciously obstructing a judicial proceeding of the Province of British Columbia in which their employer, the Defendant Republic of Bulgaria is a Defendant. These acts are of a questionable and suspect nature and have, as their objective, a desire to secure a favorable outcome at any hearing or trial of the controversies at issue before the provincial court.

4.

In the alternative, the Attorney General must motivate to the Applicant and his family why they are not entitled to the protection of law under the Charter and other applicable international law as enacted by Canada.

Part III

7

Relevant Facts

1.

The Application concerns recently revealed documents that appear to implicate that the Applicant was arrested and prosecuted in July of 1995 [see Part VI below] at the request of and with the assistance the Ministry of the Attorney General [see Enclosure No 14 "Dobreva Affidavit" §3]

2.

It is apparent that the Applicant has been tried on March 13th 2001 as a result of the investigative conclusions and materials provided in July of 1995 and August of 1997 by investigating officers of the Attorney General [see Enclosure No 11 "Doornbos Submission"].

3.

It is apparent from the documents released that the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Republic of Bulgaria where apparently influenced against the Applicant due to his Jewish ancestry, the Kaballa, Kabbalistic traditions and a "pseudo-religious" organization in Canada unconnected to the Applicant or Judaism. These appear as factors in the Applicants arrest on February 7th 1996, his long period of incarceration and beatings, and the popular politicizing of his case. This is best expressed in an August 1st 1996 press release of the Republic of Bulgaria.

4.

It appears the Applicant, a Canadian citizen and resident of the Province of British Columbia, had been arrested, prosecuted and convicted to a 23 year imprisonment as a result of investigative actions and materials of the Attorney General.

5.

It also appears now the arrest and conviction of the Applicant was grounded by the foreign State, Republic of Bulgaria, only on statements from Canada, represented as if fact by an agent of the Ministry and the result of materials originated in Canada and provided from an investigation of the Attorney General.

6.

It appears that the investigative agents of the Ministry of the Attorney General provided to agents of a foreign state personal options presented in the form of police conclusions as if fact, though knowing them not to be such. The investigative conclusions and materials of the Attorney General were as a result made public [see Part VI below] on hundreds of occasions in the mass media.

7.

It appears that as a direct result of the Ministry the Applicant has been arrested on February 7th 1996 by the Republic of Bulgaria and finally convicted on March 13th 2001.

8.

At present the Applicant is incarcerated and restricted in his access to international justice. However, the requirements as setout here and the complaints here are related exclusively to acts in Canada. These acts impact directly on the legal and Charter rights of the Applicant and his family in Canada as lawful resource users of Canada.

9.

It is apparent that the sentence imposed by the Republic of Bulgaria of 23 years imprisonment is for an embezzlement of funds from a company wholly owned and controlled by the Applicant and his family from within Canada.

10.

Part IV

It is apparent the embezzlement conviction is motivated by the Republic of Bulgaria on materials and conclusions provided and given in evidence are derived from investigative actions by the Attorney General.

Enclosures Enclosure No 1.

A Notice to Admit facts and documents in civil proceeding S004040 Vancouver Docket.

Enclosure No 2.

The July 7th 1995 correspondence of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria.

Enclosure No 3.

The December 13th 1995 memorandum of Defendant Bulgaria's meeting in scienter with codefendant Doornbos.

Enclosure No 4.

The April 1st 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria.

Enclosure No 5.

The August 9th 1996 Note Verbale Government of Canada.

Enclosure No 6.

The August 14th 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria.

Enclosure No 7.

The August 23rd 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria.

Enclosure No 8.

The September 12th 1996 extract news article Frankfurter Rundschau, page 3.

Enclosure No 9.

The May 23rd 1997 Case Note Government of Canada indicating the July of 1995 warrants for arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin.

Enclosure No 10. The July 2nd 1997 correspondence of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria. Enclosure No 11. The July 9th 1997 copy of receipt signed in Bulgarian language by codefendant Doornbos delivering documents from the province and giving evidence against the Plaintiff Kapoustin. Enclosure No 12. The December 15th 1999 reply Ref. No. 99-H-111/96 of the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice, advising Plaintiffs attorney that the Defendant Bulgaria never attempted to contact the Plaintiffs directly or for that matter the Government of Canada. Enclosure No 13. The January 3rd 2000 Affidavit of Attorney Anastasios S. Koimtzidis that no subpoena was attempted to the Plaintiffs in Greece. Enclosure No 14. The February 23rd 2001 Affidavit of Ms. Maya Dobreva.

Part V

Extracts of applicable provision of Republic of Bulgaria law. Any such request by the Ministry of the Attorney General must comply with the procedural requirements of Bulgarian national law legislated in Chapter 22 Criminal

8

Code of Procedure. The law permits the conduct abroad and temporary transfer of prisoners to attend trial as witnesses or litigants in proceedings outside of Bulgaria. The relevant codes are Articles 461, 462, 463(2), 464, 465, and 466 of the Criminal Code of Procedure. Those provisions of law read as follows:

Chapter 22 Section VI Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (new S.G. 64/1997) (relevant Articles) Article 461 (new - S.G. 64/1997) Legal assistance under criminal cases of another country is rendered under the circumstances of an international treaty concluded, to which Bulgaria is a party or according to the principle of reciprocity. The legal assistance constitutes of the following actions: Handing in of summons and judicial papers; Seizing and submitting of the objects with which the crime was committed or of the property obtained through an offence; interrogation of an accused person, defendant or a witness; appointing of an expertise and accepting its conclusion; conducting of inspection, search and seizure; search and identification of persons; Submitting of material evidence, information, and documents; Submitting information concerning the conviction of a person. Article 462 (new - S.G. 64/1997) Legal assistance may be refused if executing of the request might threaten sovereignty, national security, social order or other interests, protected by law.

Appearance of Witness and Expert before a Foreign Court. Article 463 (1) …[Sic] (2) Extradition of persons detained in custody to be interrogated as witnesses or experts shall be allowed only in exceptional cases by discretion of composition of the respective district court, on the grounds of papers submitted by the other country, provided the person gives his consent for extradition, and the stay in the other country shall not exceed the term of his detention in custody.

9

Procedure for Submission of Request to Another Country Article 464 (1) The request for legal assistance shall contain data about: the body filing the request; the subject and motive of the request; full name and citizenship to whom the request refers; name and address of person to whom papers are to be submitted; where necessary the indictment and brief description of the relevant facts. (2) The request for legal assistance shall be forwarded to the Ministry of Justice and Legal Euro-Integration, unless another procedure is provided by international treaty to which the Republic of Bulgaria is a party.

Execution of Request by Another Country Article 465 Requests for legal assistance shall be executed pursuant to the procedure provided by Bulgaria law. A procedure may also be executed pursuant to procedure provided by the law of the other country, should that requested and if it is not contradictory to the Bulgarian law. The other country shall be notified of the time and place of the execution of the request, should that be requested.

Costs for Execution of Request Article 466 The costs for execution of the request shall be distributed between the countries in compliance with international treaties to which the Republic of Bulgaria is a party, or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.

Part VI

Extracts of Enclosures.

1.

That at Canada's Instance the Defendant Prosecuted the Plaintiff Kapoustin. I.

On May 15th 1995, the Defendant Bulgaria solicited information from codefendant Derek Doornbos ("Doornbos") on the Plaintiffs activities and bank accounts in Canada. Codefendant Doornbos identified to the Defendant $16,000,000 USD in cash in the Province that he claimed to be connected to the Plaintiff Kapoustin. Later Defendant discovered that these are not connected to the Plaintiff Kapoustin. 1.

10

That on July 7th 1995 [see Enclosure No 1 above as attached hereto] co-defendant Doornbos advised the Defendant that Plaintiff Kapoustin had cash of $16,000,000 USD [see §5-§13 below, and III] in Canada.

11

2.

That the information and data was provided to representatives of the Defendant Bulgaria, Col. Levicharov, Director of [the] Central Service for [the] Fight Against Organized Crime [Centralna slujba za borba s organiziranata prestapnost – CSBOP].

3.

That all information as forwarded by codefendant Doornbos was given in the care of one Mr. Anatoli. Kosev, division “KMC” [phonetic] of Defendant’s Ministry of Internal Affairs [Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti]

4.

That Mr. Anatoli Kosev was assigned by the Defendant as the Plaintiff Kapoustin's official interpreter at interviews and judicial hearing. Defendant has never disclosed to the Plaintiffs' attorneys that Mr. Anatoli Kosev's is an employee of the Defendant and an official of its police.

5.

That the July 7th 1995 information of codefendant Doornbos was not corroborated by another source.

6.

That the Defendant was advised by an agency of the Government of Canada that in 1994 the Plaintiff Kapoustin had moved “4 million and 12 million USD had been transferred to several bank accounts” in the Province.

7.

The Defendant was further advised that the accounts in Canada as connected to the Plaintiff Kapoustin were being credited daily “with amounts of about 100,000 USD”

8.

That the Defendant and codefendant Doornbos concluded that the money transferred and credited to accounts in Canada are “amounts coming from the funds accumulated in Bulgaria by KAPOUSTIN”.

9.

That codefendant Doornbos and the Defendant Bulgaria concluded that Plaintiff Kapoustin was transferring funds to Canada obtained “through large-scale financial frauds carried out by his pyramidal structure “LIFECHOICE.”

10.

That Defendant and codefendant Doornbos concluded that the funds being deposited from Bulgaria to accounts in Canada by the Plaintiff Kapoustin are “established as transfers going through banks in the Caribbean Islands.”

11.

The Defendant was asked by codefendant Doornbos to provide or collect any additional information and data on the Plaintiffs in or connected to Canada as might be found in Bulgaria. Codefendant Doornbos directed the Defendant to formulate “even if only a supposition whatsoever about any eventual breach of Bulgarian Law” by the Plaintiff Kapoustin “as connected with LifeChoice that your service could submit” to Canada “is of special importance.”

II.

12.

That the Defendant was directed by an agency of the Government of Canada to make every effort to bring, against the Plaintiff Kapoustin or the company LifeChoice “a criminal prosecution of any character at all [nakazatelno proizvodstvo ot kakavto I da bilo harakter]” and to provide “any additional data or operational information in what direction the funds obtained by LifeChoice are being transferred out of Bulgaria” and into Canada.

13.

That an agency of the Government of Canada advised the Defendant Bulgaria it could make arrangements in Canada, “in Vancouver, to obtain search warrants of the office premises and houses” of the Plaintiffs and could expropriate for the Defendant all or part of the $16,000,000 USD in Canada together with other property.

That on May 9th 1997 the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, did advise the Government of Canada that the warrants for the Plaintiff Kapoustin's arrest date back to May of 1995 [see Enclosure No 9 as attached hereto]. 1.

That on December 13th 1995, the Defendant Bulgaria and codefendant Doornbos held a meeting at the offices of A. Alexandrov in Sofia, Bulgaria. Representing the Defendant were, Mr. Anatoli Kosev, Mr. Miroslav Genov, Central Service for [the] Fight Against Organized Crime, Mr. Roumen Andreev, deputy chief, National Investigative Service and co defendant [sledovatel] S. Georgiev [see Enclosure No 3 above as attached hereto].

2.

That Defendant Bulgaria made public a written memorandum containing the phrase: “it is of mutual interest for the Bulgarian and Canadian authorities to establish the entire criminal activity of Michael Kapoustin in his large scale financial frauds and the incoming to Canadian and Caribbean banks of millions of USD from East and West Europe” as deposited to accounts in Canada.

3.

That at the December 13th 1995 meeting as cited above, the codefendant Doornbos advised the Defendant Bulgaria that the Plaintiff Kapoustin had been charged and convicted in Canada as child molester and Pedophile. This information having later been made public by the Defendant Bulgaria].

4.

That on April 1st 1996 the Defendant received a request from codefendant Doornbos [see Enclosure No 4 as attached hereto] to “advise, please if your further investigation had determined end destination of the money which Kapoustin defrauded” and transferred to Canada. And if the Defendant Bulgaria was “able to identify offshore banking institutions, account numbers" of the Plaintiffs. It contains the following additional phrase from codefendant Doornbos: “I am asking this as it is a very real possibility, as suggested in December that some of the funds may have been eventually transferred to Canada. If you have any information in this regard please advise”

12

III.

5.

That on July 31st 1996 the Defendant Bulgaria solicited more information concerning Plaintiffs property and activities in or connected to Canada.

6.

That on August 14th 1996, codefendant Doornbos again requested the Defendant Bulgaria to “advise when or if any information is found regarding Kapoustin having transferred monies” to Canada [see Enclosure No 6 as attached hereto].

7.

That on August 23rd 1996, codefendant Doornbos requested the Defendant Bulgaria [see Enclosure No 7 as attached hereto] again provide information “with respect to Kapoustin and companies and accounts that he had in the Caribbean” and connected to Canada. That the codefendant is “still very much interested in any indication he has that any of Kapoustin gains from the fraud in Bulgaria ended up in Canada.”

8.

That on June 25th 1997 the Defendant solicited information and data in Canada from codefendant Doornbos.

9.

That on June 26th 1997 the Defendant was advised by codefendant Doornbos that he was “still awaiting in writing, confirmation, information and the Rogatory Request promised” by the Defendant Bulgaria.

10.

That the following request was made by codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria to provide him with information “regarding funds that Kapoustin transferred to Canada, specifically to the law office of McCandless, Morrison & Verdicchio” by the Plaintiffs [see Enclosure No 10 as attached hereto].

11.

That on July 2nd 1997 codefendant Doornbos personally delivered to the Defendant documents obtained by him in Canada [see Enclosure No 10 as attached hereto].

On July 17th 1995 the Defendant Bulgaria, on the order of “M”, as countersigned by “MV” , commenced to “Take legal Action” [Da se zavede delo] [see §13 above] against the Plaintiff Kapoustin and the company LifeChoice. The Defendant Bulgaria ordered on that date the arrest of the Plaintiff [see §II above] and property of the Plaintiffs in Bulgaria.

.

Dated: May 27, 2001 Applicant Cc:

13

Mr. Gar Pardy Mr. Robert Kap Ms. Tracy Coburn Ms. Sofia Jordan

Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP Shirley Heafey Commissioner 60 Queen Street, 3rd Floor Ottawa, Ontario Canada Michael Kapoustin Sofia Central Penitentiary 10th Foreign Prisoners Group 21 General Stoletov St. Sofia 1309 BULGARIA Friday, January 16, 2004

Dear Ms. Heafey, I am writing you from a Bulgarian prison. This has been my home away from Canada for more than 8 years. This realty is largely due to what I believe are the unlawful actions of the R.C.M.P. You do not know my story, this only because over these many years the numerous complaints of my family and me have been largely ignored by agencies of the Government of Canada. However, now you need to know my story. Maybe you can make a difference. As Canadians, the Arar family is fortunate to have secured the safe return to Canada of a Canadian victim of RCMP exuberance. However, in 1996 while the young Mr. Arar was still enjoying his freedom in Canada I was already regularly beaten in an isolated and windowless, unventilated Bulgaria cell that would be my home for the next 2 years and two months. Thankfully, Mr. Arar appears to have succeeded where I have failed. The public attention given his case and his persistence will, I am sure, lead to his collecting the needed evidence to prove true the following hypothesises. That in order to obtain information in a purely Canadian criminal investigation, the R.C.M.P. as Canada’s federal police, is routinely engaging R.C.M.P. liaisons at Canada’s embassies to swear out and issue an “INFORMATION” to foreign prosecutors and police requesting the arrest and prosecution of citizens of Canada. That such an “INFORMATION”, no uncertain terms, states and swears to a criminal charge and makes an indictment against a citizen of Canada for a criminal act he or she is

2004.01.16_Intro Letter Commission for Public Complaints

Page 1 of 5

alleged, by an Officer of the Crown (R.C.M.P.), to have been committed on the territory the requested foreign State and elsewhere. That the Crown submits to a foreign state what it alleges to the facts of a crime and qualifies that crime and thereby secures the arrest and prosecution of a citizen of Canada by that foreign state. That an Officer of the Crown (R.C.M.P.) provides the “INFORMATION” and identifies to officials of the foreign State what the Crown liaison alleges in no uncertain terms to be police facts and conclusions of the R.C.M.P. That the “factual” representations and “criminal charge” contained in the Crown (R.C.M.P.) “INFORMATION” are presented to officials of the foreign State as sufficient grounds for the Crown to request that the foreign State arrest, prosecute and question under its criminal law the identified citizen of Canada. At the request of the Crown, questions are to be presented the detainee and additional facts and data to be collected by foreign police and prosecutors and then transmitted to the R.C.M.P. That the swearing out of the Crown (R.C.M.P.) “INFORMATION” is done before authorities of a foreign State and against a citizen of Canada, this in the sanguine hope that foreign police or prosecution officials can obtain the data and facts required by the R.C.M.P. That the swearing out of the Crown (R.C.M.P.) “INFORMATION” by an official of the R.C.M.P. before a foreign State and against a citizen of Canada is a means and method that requires the R.C.M.P. to make misleading or blatantly false statements, and insodoing cause the malicious prosecution of a citizen of Canada by authorities of a foreign state. That the R.C.M.P. is unconcerned with and in fact relies on the laws of a foreign State and the possibilities of physical and psychological coercion and beatings by foreign police as an acceptable means to obtain the information required by the R.C.M.P. Foreign police and prosecutors agreeing to act as proxy for the R.C.M.P. in questioning a citizen of Canada and for securing data and facts by whatever means, notwithstanding the abusive and intrusive nature of the techniques employed. That the R.C.M.P. should be help responsible and accountable for injuries or damages suffered by a citizen of Canada as a consequence of any Crown (R.C.M.P.) “INFORMATION” presented to a foreign State requesting the arrest and prosecution of a citizen of Canada under the laws of the foreign State and charges him or her with a crime, that later provides to be untrue and the allegations of Canadian police “fact” as contained prove false. That the R.C.M.P. should be help responsible and accountable for injuries or damages suffered by a citizen of Canada as a consequence of any Crown (R.C.M.P.) “INFORMATION” or correspondences presented to a foreign State that later results in

2004.01.16_Intro Letter Commission for Public Complaints

Page 2 of 5

the use of physical and psychological coercion, beatings or other forms of cruelty against a citizen of Canada during the course of an interrogation by foreign police where the interrogators employing such techniques when presenting and demanding answers to those questions offered by the Crown. That representative of the Crown (R.C.M.P.) and the Crown should be held responsible and accountable to the laws and people of Canada for every wilful or negligent breach of Canadian law notwithstanding that the breach of law occurred outside the territorial boundaries of Canada and that is the direct or indirect consequence of the Crown swearing out an “INFORMATION” for the arrest and prosecution of a citizen of Canada by a foreign State. That it is significant as a fact that representative of the Crown can engage foreign police investigators to obtain information from citizens of Canada by means that are unlawful and therefore denied to them by Canada’s constitution, its bill of rights and laws. Are these hypothesises supported by any hard evidence? I cannot speak for Mr. Arar, but the copies of official documents I have attached to my Complaint and the very public facts leading to my arrest and prosecution in Bulgaria are hard evidence of an R.C.M.P. prepared to precipitate a malicious prosecution and to be complicit in acts of brutality. In my case the beatings in Bulgaria police custody were as routine as was their question to me, inter alia, “Tell us where the money is in Canada?”; “Who is Ivon Shearing? And “Who are the Kabalarian?”. However, I could not answer no matter how often or hard they beat me. These were questions I simply did not know the answers to. And, no matter how many times the R.C.M.P. called Sofia Bulgaria or sent faxes to Bulgarian police and prosecutors requesting they collect the answers from me, I could not answer. I was beaten each time the R.C.M.P. sent a fax to a Bulgarian police investigator asking again for an answer. It was mid 2000 when I finally learned the R.C.M.P. was directly responsible for my arrest and prosecution. The Crown (R.C.M.P.) “INFORMATION” provides Bulgarian Ministry of Interior police and prosecutors the only legal grounds for a police investigation, my arrest and prosecution. Bulgarian authorities could and would not have acted without that the Crown “INFORMATION” of July 7th 1995 requesting my prosecution. As a result, I was forced to endure two years of beatings, public humiliation and degrading treatment and other cruelties only because Bulgarian officials were provided an excuse, the “INFORMATION” from “Canadian Authorities”. From there, Bulgarian police and prosecutors

2004.01.16_Intro Letter Commission for Public Complaints

Page 3 of 5

undertook every cruel and brutal step open to them in an attempt to prove as true the data and facts provide in the Crown “INFORMATION” submitted by the R.C.M.P. liaison to the Embassy of Canada, Vienna, Austria. In my investigation I learned that during June, May and July of 1995 in Sofia, Bulgaria the R.C.M.P. initiated numerous contacts and meetings with Bulgarian police and prosecution officials. Official documents establish that during the course of these contacts in Sofia, Bulgaria, the Crown representative (R.C.M.P.) repeatedly falsely and maliciously accused me of being among other things a convicted felon, a repeat offender, a convicted paedophile, a fraud and a principle in what the Crown represented to Bulgaria prosecutors as an international criminal organization operating from Canada. An Officer of the Crown sworn in an INFORMATION that I was party to and responsible for laundering into Canadian banks accounts the proceeds of crimes committed by me in Bulgaria and more than four other countries. The R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION” requested Bulgarian police and prosecution official charge me with fraud and question me to obtain data or facts to assist a large scale (unrelated) Canada wide criminal investigation. Can you image my surprise and shock to learn my arrest was solely due to untrue and misleading representations sworn to in the R.C.M.P. “INFORMATION”? What is more surprising and shocking is that no Canadian government agency or diplomatic service official would assist me in investigating my complaints against the RCMP. I was either turned down or ignored. This is particularly true for the Solicitor General of Canada. Simply, no one from Canada’s government would believe me. It did not matter that I had the documents to prove my complaints. At this point I will end my soliloquy. The facts and attached copies of documents will speak for themselves. I am convinced Mr. Arar and I are victims of a systematic abuse of official powers by R.C.M.P. officers whose personal malice, malfeasance or misfeasance towards naturalized citizens of Canada cannot be controlled outside of Canada. These feelings of malice towards naturalized citizens of Canada is being allowed by our elected officials to freely and uncontrollably manifest and express itself outside of Canada and so long as the cruelty and brutality is effected outside the confines of Canada and by some agency other than the R.C.M.P. No matter that such cruelty and brutality towards a citizen of Canada is part of assisting an R.C.M.P. investigation.

2004.01.16_Intro Letter Commission for Public Complaints

Page 4 of 5

Possibly the cases of Arar and Kapoustin will be enough to garner the political will necessary. Then Canada’s legislators need to act by passing laws that make the representatives of the Crown (R.C.M.P.) accountable for their acts outside of Canada. No longer can Canada’s legislators allow the R.C.M.P. to breach with impunity Canada’s legal and moral principles, particularly is fundamental law and the natural rights of its citizens, only because it occurs outside of Canada and through the proxy of a foreign state ready to abuse the rights of citizens of Canada. No longer should the Government of Canada or Officers of Crown answer to my family or Mr. Arar with “it is unfortunate that it occurred outside of Canada” and “it is beyond the reach of Canada’s law” and the “Charter does not extend beyond the territorial limits of Canada”. Every servant of the Crown must be held legally liable and accountable for his or her unlawful or even criminal conduct in and out of Canada. Particularly, when such unlawful conduct is n the course of his or her duty as a Crown servant and affects the fundamental rights of citizens of Canada who are traveling abroad. However, my 8 year experience causes me to expect nothing to come of this. Not because I am wrong but because my family and I have learned one thing; government officials and agencies in all countries are adept at and determined to defend each others actions at whatever the cost to an ordinary citizen. The many times my complaints have been ignored is adequate proof that there is no official will and little real interest on the part of Canada’s agencies to defend the rights of individual citizens against the illegal actions of the R.C.M.P. outside of Canada. Your response to my family and I, will prove or disprove the lack of interest of the Government of Canada or the Commission in helping someone like me to hold accountable in Canada a Crown servant (R.C.M.P.) breaching Canada’s law and their Oath outside of Canada. Enclosed, or attached if by electron mail, is my Complaint. It is organized into 5 sections or parts. A CD and hard copy will follow IF YOU DIRECT FOREIGN AFFAIRS CANADA to collect this from me here at the Sofia Central Penitentiary, otherwise they will refuse my mail and I have no money for posting it to you. Sincerely, M. Kapoustin

2004.01.16_Intro Letter Commission for Public Complaints

Page 5 of 5

Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP Mr. Glenn Hansen Director, Enquiries and Complaints 7337 137 Street Suite 102 Surrey, British Columbia V3W 1A4 Michael Kapoustin Sofia Central Penitentiary 10th Foreign Prisoners Group 21 General Stoletov St. Sofia 1309 BULGARIA March 26th 2004,

Dear Mr. Hansen, I am writing you further to your letter of February 16th 2004 and require the following clarifications and amendments. After which I ask you reconsider the question of dealing with my complaint and who should dealing with it. First, please clarify to me the question of your jurisdiction. Why is the Surrey branch of the Commission been assigned a complaint that has a federal question? According to facts the Complaint alleges a malicious prosecution and unlawful arrest together with other malfeasances committed in secret and in scienter with Canada’s then Attorney General against a citizen of Canada. The members responsible are assigned to the international liaison and federal executive services branches of the RCMP and act only out of Ottawa. My confusion may be obvious from the following. On copies of documents I have obtained from the Government of Bulgaria there appears repeatedly as the source of RCMP faxes the following words; “SECURITY CLASSIFICATION PROTECTED “A” OUR FILE 95E-3653 DIRECTOR FEDERAL SERVICES HQ-RCMP” and with an Ottawa Canada fax No. of “613 993 0260”. The British Columbia RCMP element does not appear at all significant since the members against which I am complaining operated exclusively from RCMP International Affairs HQ at 1200 Vanier Parkway in Ottawa. They appear to be the sole source of the complained of unlawful acts.

2004.05.14 2nd Responce to Hansen_Heafey Letter 2004.02.16

Also, RCMP International Affairs HQ Ottawa and the offices of then Attorney General Anne McClellan PC, MP appears to be the exclusive origin of the secret indictment and arrest warrant issued by Canada against me in 1995 as well as all the other untrue and misleadingly offensive and false statements of RCMP members as made to Bulgarian authorities and media. Second, in your letter you write “...must involve conduct of an individual who is a member of the RCMP at the time the complaint is made.” Be advised that complaints were made as early as August 1996 by my family in Canada and me from arrest in Frankfurt, Germany. However, all the complained of unlawful actions of the RCMP were conducted against me in secret and it was therefore impossible to learn the names of those individuals responsible for the malfeasances and the RCMP indictment of me. It not until sometime in late 1999, when quite by accident that I obtained the name of RCMP Member Doornbos and later still before I collected copies of some the communications. Furthermore, on July 25th 2000 I filed a civil complaint in British Columbia Supreme Court against RCMP Officer Doornbos. He is identified as member of the RCMP and was served by registered mail on two separate occasions. First, at the place of his deployment the Embassy of Canada to Austria in Vienna and again through RCMP HQ International Affairs Office in Ottawa, the place of his employment, both services registered with the court. Mr. Doornbos did not bother filing an appearance or defence. Not unusual when considering the victim is incarcerated and isolated in a foreign prison. From the facts the actual time of my original complaint must be 1996, and against a member or members then unknown to the Complainants. The ignorance of the Complainants is only the result of their being subject to an investigation conducted in complete secrecy by the RCMP. Even so, the filing and service of a civil action upon a member of the RCMP for acts committed during the course of his duties is de facto the filing of a complaint against a member of the RCMP. It is the RCMP and the member, here Doornbos, who refused to respond to the complaint. In addition to the cited complaints there are those filed by me against the RCMP and Doornbos on May 19th 2001 with the Department of Justice, Minister of Justice and Attorney General Anne and on May 3rd, 2001 with the RCMP International Affairs Office in Ottawa. Again, neither the Department of Justice nor the RCMP would respond to my complaints. Therefore, the question before you cannot be “when the complaint made”. The facts clearly demonstrate not one but several efforts to precipitate an investigation, and this in 1996 and in 2000 while Doornbos was still a member. The question of the Commission should instead be the following. Did the RCMP and the Attorney General of Canada intentionally act to avoid an investigation by ignoring the complaints and lawsuit brought by the victim and his family in Canada?

2004.05.14 2nd Responce to Hansen_Heafey Letter 2004.02.16

There is an obvious mens rea to delay or prevent entirely an investigation of the RCMP, possibly by retiring Doornbos from the RCMP in 2001, and from the evidence it is apparent that more than one complaint was brought but none ever acted on by the RCMP or Government of Canada. At least not while Doornbos was still a member of the RCMP. These are questions that only an official investigation or enquiry can answer. Third, and further in the alternative, if you and the Commissioner refuse to accept that the abovementioned complaints had the character of a filed “complaint” before the retirement of Doornbos as required by Parliament and given by you as grounds for refusing jurisdiction, then I also amend my complaint and resubmit it mutatis mutandis to read as follows: Against: “JOHN DOE” RCMP THE DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL LIAISON AND EXECUTIVE SERVICES OTTAWA from January 1995 to December 2001, and others to be named’ AND “JOHN DOE” THE DIRECTOR OF FEDERAL SERVICES HQ-RCMP OTTAWA from January 1995 to September 2001 and others to be named, AND STAFF SGT. VANDER GRAAF, Acting Officer in Charge Proceeds of Crime, Detachment and Division unknown; DETECTIVE B. DESMARAIS, Proceeds of Crime, Detachment and Division unknown, STAFF SGT. DEREK A. DOORNBOS (retired) and others to be named; (Hereinafter “JOHN DOE et al.”) Reference: RCMP International Liaison and Executives Services, Federal Service File No. 95V-EC-003 and OIC Proceeds of Crime Branch File No. 95E-3653

I sincerely will find it hard to believe that everyone has retired. My preliminary statement of facts as set out in the original complaint remains the same with necessary changes made. I will submit a full complaint with exhibits once having receiving a reply from the Commission that a file will be opened. Let me conclude with the following. We are a simple Canadian family without exceptional resources. Only one reason can be attributed to any fault of us having filed to the wrong authority or made poorly framed complaints, we are ordinary lay persons who relied on our government to help us and not to have to educate ourselves first. Then to only discover that our rights to legal remedies are lost to the passing of time and the retirement of those who have caused us so much harm and injury. I believe the Commission and the Commissioner have a duty to us as Canadian citizens to help us investigate our complaints.

2004.05.14 2nd Responce to Hansen_Heafey Letter 2004.02.16

Yes, the civil lawsuit against Doornbos and others remains an active but expensive and difficult option to pursue as a venue with jurisdiction to discover the truth. Particularly from within a Bulgarian prison, even though it is now true that there is enough new documental evidence collected to name the Crown as a party. But, if as a Canadian family we have lost our right to an investigation by the Commission, then our fault is only that we acted as ordinary citizens of Canada who wrote everywhere within our government and expected a lot more help than we got. And, if you continue to insist the Commission has no jurisdiction, then we lost our legal rights as Canadians only because those rights were intentionally cause to lapse because the wrongs and injuries were committed in secret by agencies and servants of the Crown. Then, secrecy will have won over decency, honest and public disclosure, admittedly a strange complaint from a convicted felon. But then this is one convict who still insists he is innocent and the victim of some elaborate and stupid conspiracy contrived by the Canadian RCMP to “get their man” through me and by enriching some very corrupt Bulgarian police officials. For now I am pretty much on my own in this view. But with time that will change, with or without the help of the Commissioner. But the conduct of the Commissioner will no doubt be an issue, particularly now that I have learned that retirement of an RCMP member equates to immunity from accountability for the commission of secret acts and their discovery after the fact of retirement. We can take this to mean that if you hide something long enough, then eventually you can get away with it. That does not sound very fair, particularly for those men and women who serve, and have the protection of the Crown. Sincerely, M. Kapoustin

2004.05.14 2nd Responce to Hansen_Heafey Letter 2004.02.16

Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP Mr. Glenn Hansen Director, Enquiries and Complaints 7337 137 Street Suite 102 Surrey, British Columbia V3W 1A4 Michael Kapoustin Sofia Central Penitentiary 10th Foreign Prisoners Group 21 General Stoletov St. Sofia 1309 BULGARIA Friday, May 14, 2004,

Dear Mr. Hansen, I am writing again because I never received the courtesy of a reply to my letter of March 26th 2004. Please be kind enough to advise me of the results, if any from the Members’ names I gave you and the RCMP security file number I provided. Is it the Commissioners intention to ignore these facts even when considering the recent disclosures of Canadian citizens Mr. Arar and Mr. Alain Oliver together with the Parliamentary and Globe and Mail disclosures of corrupt officials in Bulgaria? Mr. Hanson, I am in a difficult position and need the Commissioners help. For your own information I provide the cover of a draft report to parliament that will be published with copies of all the secret Canadian RCMP correspondences to Bulgaria and Crown I can find. Through out these there is the constant reference to Crown offer of millions of dollars as a cash reward in exchange for my arrest and prosecution in Bulgaria. This “reward” is to be paid by the Crown to Bulgaria if its police and prosecutors can prove that the 16 million USD of alleged to be proceeds of crime found in Canada are deposited there by or through me. Is not the promise by a Crown servant of money to a foreign official a crime in Canada? Particularly when the promise is made to get that official or agency to do what they might not otherwise do. It is outside my competence to make such a determination. I can only ask the questions and hope for you to give me the courtesy of a reply. Sincerely, M. Kapoustin

2004.05.14 2nd Responce to Hansen_Heafey Letter 2004.02.16

Before the Honourable Members of Parliament

THE KAPOUSTIN REPORT CHARTER VIOLATIONS and UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES of THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

THE CASE OF MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN AND

THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA THE MALICIOUS FOREIGN PROSECUTIONS AND TORTURE OF CANADA’S CITIZENS

THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT IS A PRIVATE CITIZEN’S UNSOLICITED EXPOSE INTO A LEGISLATIVELY UNREGULATED CULTURE OF DISINFORMATION AND SECRET FOREIGN COMMISSIONS OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE INTERNATIONAL LIAISON AND FEDERAL EXECUTIVE SERVICES AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA WHEN REQUESTING FOREIGN POLICE AND PROSECUTION OFFICIALS OBTAIN INFORMATION BY ARRESTING, PROSECUTING AND PERMITTING THE COERCIVE QUESTIONING AND TORTURE OF CITIZENS OF CANADA. THE REPORT DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MEMBERS OF THIS PARLIAMENT ANOTHER CASE SIMILAR TO THAT OF ARAR. BULGARIAN COURT DOCUMENTS ESTABLISH THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE INTERNATIONAL LIAISON AND FEDERAL EXECUTIVE SERVICES AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AS HAVING ACTED TO INTENTIONALLY COMPROMISE THE PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND INTEGRITY OF BULGARIAN POLICE AND PROSECUTION OFFICIALS WITH AN OFFER OF MONEY AND SHIELDING WHAT ARE MALICIOUSLY MANUFACTURED FALSEHOODS AND MISREPRESENTED OR UNVERIFIED CANADIAN POLICE FACTS BEHIND WORDS OF TRUST VERBA PRECARIA AS TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE CANADIAN ALLEGATIONS. THE MALICIOUS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF KAPOUSTIN IS SANCTIFIED IN A SECRET CROWN INDICTMENT SHIELDED BEHIND THE MANTEL OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SOVEREIGNTY AND POLICE INTEGRITY. IN KAPOUSTIN AND ARAR THE EXTRADITING STATES ARE ADVISED BY CANADIAN AUTHORITIES THAT CANADA HAS NO INTEREST IN REPATRIATING THESE NATURALIZED CITIZENS. IN THE KAPOUSTIN CASE, COURT DOCUMENTS REVEAL THE CROWN MAKING PROMISES OF MONEY TO BULGARIAN AUTHORITIES IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR ARRESTING, QUESTIONING, PROSECUTING AND CONVICTING KAPOUSTIN. IN ITS SECRET CORRESPONDENCES THE CROWN NEVER EXPRESSES CONCERN THAT CO-OPTING BULGARIAN ASSISTANCE WITH A PROMISE OF MONEY MAY CAUSE BULGARIA POLICE TO PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY TORTURE A CITIZEN OF CANADA FOR THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE CROWN. THIS REPORT ALSO DOCUMENTS HOW CANADA’S DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE DEFENDS OR EXCUSES THE TORTURE, MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, UNLAWFUL CONVICTION AND INHUMANE TREATMENT OF CANADIAN CITIZENS AS A SOVEREIGN RIGHT. FOREIGN AFFAIRS OFFICIALS REPEATEDLY REQUEST THE KAPOUSTIN FAMILY COMPROMISE THEIR CHARTER PROTECTIONS AND OTHER LEGAL RIGHTS IN EXCHANGE FOR CANADA FOREIGN AFFAIRS SECURING TREATY COOPERATION FROM BULGARIAN OFFICIALS. THE REPORT SEEKS AN INVESTIGATION INTO THIS CULTURE OF APPEASEMENT AND DECEIT, CANADA NEVER ADVISING ITS CITIZENS THAT THEIR ARREST AND FOREIGN PROSECUTION ARE AT THE REQUEST OF THE CROWN. THE OBJECT OF THIS REPORT IS TO PRECIPITATE FURTHER ENQUIRY INTO THE ALLEGATIONS AS MADE AND OF A POSSIBLE LEGISLATIVE GAP, LEGES LACUNA, WHICH PERMITS THE SERVANTS OF THE CROWN TO IN SECRET VIOLATE THEIR CHARTER COVENANTS AND PRE-EXISTING POSITIVE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO CITIZENS OF CANADA WHO WORK OR TRAVEL ABROAD.

2004.05.14 2nd Responce to Hansen_Heafey Letter 2004.02.16

Ms. Shirley Heafey Commission for Public Complaints Against the R.C.M.P. P.O. Box 3423, Station D Ottawa, Ontario Head Office Office Address: 60 Queen Street, 3rd Floor Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa ON, K1P 6L4 Canada Ms. Heafey, Friday, May 14, 2004 I never received a reply from Mr. Glenn Hanson or you. As a result, I am resending this letter and a copy of my letter to Mr. Hanson. Mr. Hanson did not provide an e-mail, so the attached letter was mailed. Can you please ask your college to not close the file yet? I will be amending my complaint to include other RCMP officers apparently involved with former RCMP officer Doornbos. These names having come to my attention from recent documents I have uncovered here in Bulgaria. I doubt that they are all retired. Furthermore I will also identify in the amended complaint "and Crown Servants (persons) unknown" who participated in the issuing of an unlawful written indictment against me and leading to my unlawful arrest, extradition and malicious prosecution by a foreign government on charges of fraud. During this time I was interrogated and tortured for the sole purpose of obtaining information for the RCMP in Canada. Also, I continue to remain in Bulgarian custody ONLY because of the untrue assertions made by the RCMP of my having deposited between 1994 and 1996 in Canadian banks "16,000,000 USD the result of his (my) criminal activities in Bulgaria". The Bulgarian government still believing that these funds are in Canada, at my disposal and therefore refusing to transfer me, deport me or otherwise release me from custody until I return this money to Bulgaria. Unlike Mr. Arar, I have copies of most of the RCMP documents that make these false accusations and request my arrest, all courtesy of the Government of Bulgaria. So, please do not rush at closing my file. This is not over. Regards, Michael Kapoustin

Commission for Public Complaints Against the R.C.M.P. Attention: Mr. Andrée Leduc Enquiries and Complaints Analyst 7337 137th Street Suite 102 Surrey, British Columbia V3W 1A4 Canada

Tel. No. Toll Free

604-501-4095 800-665-6878

Friday, October 08, 2004

Dear Mr. Leduc, I received last week your letter date September 3rd, 2004 and wish to thank you for your correspondence. Furthermore to my complaint, could you please advise me where I can send copies of official “secret” RCMP documents that provide material evidence to my complaints? Also, under the Access to Information Act, [R.S. 1985, c. A-1] what agency in Canada should I write to secure a copy of the original English language text of the 1995 “RCMP secret indictment or information” requesting that Bulgarian authorities arrest and prosecute? I have asked my sister, Ms. S. Jordan to forward this letter to you and I further request you provide your reply to her and she can then forward it to me by e-mail. Again I thank you for your assistance, Yours truly, Michael Kapoustin