S004040 Statement Of Claim_as Filed

FORM 13 (RULE 8)

No. S004040 VANCOUVER REGISTRY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN: TRACY KAPOUSTIN, NICHOLAS KAPOUSTIN BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM TRACY KAPOUSTIN AND MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN PLAINTIFFS AND: THE HONOURABLE MURAVEI RADEV MINISTER OF FINANCE IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY FOR REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA,

DEFENDANT and STEFCHO GEORGIEV, MARIO STOYANOV, EMILIA MITKOVA, KINA DIMITROVA, IVETA ANADOLSKA, DIMITAR SHACKLE and DEREK A. DOORNBOS, INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Preliminary Statement 1. The Plaintiffs assert that the liability for the acts they have alleged falls squarely upon the Republic of Bulgaria, its employees, officials, agencies or instrumentalities and the Individual Defendants named herein and cite the majority decision of the European Court of Human Rights: Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Case 5310/71, Judgement 18 January, 1978, Series A, No 25, p. 57 para 159: “ It is inconceivable that the higher authorities of a state should be or at least should be entitled to be, unaware of the existence of such a practice. Furthermore, under the Convention those authorities are strictly liable for the conduct of their subordinates; they are under a duty to impose their will on subordinates and cannot shelter behind their inability to ensure that it is respected.” 2. The Plaintiffs allege the following upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their acts and as to all others upon best information and belief based upon, inter alia, the investigation made by them, including a review of court records and filings in various jurisdiction, 1

published reports and news articles and have, due to Plaintiffs’ personal circumstances, prepared, to the best of their ability, this claim in the absence of legal counsel. Jurisdiction and Venue 3. The claims asserted establish common law torts of privacy, defamation and slander arising from, inter alia, preparation of false, misleading and slanderous materials; the sending abroad of unverified and untrue information; making of false accusations before officials of justice; production of false evidence before a court of law; distributing and causing the public distribution and publication of slanderous remarks embodied in official correspondence and reports protected under law; impugning the character, integrity and honor of the subject with the intent to cause cruel or unusual treatment and punishment; intimidation and harassment with intent to inflict material harm, mental and physical suffering and emotional distress. 4. Jurisdiction and venue is proper in that the violations of law as charged have originated and occurred in substantial part in this district and a common law remedy exists for a breach of the right to privacy and for protection from public defamation and slander [see Roth v. Roth (1991), 9 C.C.L.T. (2d) 141 (Ont. Gen. Div.) at pp. 159-160 and Mackay v. Buelow (1995), 24 C.C.L.T. (2d) 184 (Ont. Gen. Div.)] as interpreted in a manner consistent with Charter principles and inherit jurisdiction of the Court to modify or extend common law in order to comply with prevailing social conditions and values. 5. The Court has jurisdiction upon the subject matter of the claims asserted herein against a foreign state, its employees, officials, agencies and instrumentalities, pursuant to the principle of “de jure gestionis”, the questions of law, the acts, indignities and injuries suffered arise from conduct and acts of the kind committed by or carried on in scienter by private persons and not lawful government activities, “de jure imperii”, for which the restrictive theory and international principle of sovereign immunity might otherwise apply and prevail. 6. In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this Complaint, Defendants did, directly and indirectly, use the means and instrumentalities of the mails and telecommunications within the Province of British Columbia, Canada as well as the facilities of provincial and federal government institutions and agencies in the district to give affect to the violations of law alleged herein. Nature Of Action 7. This is an action seeking to pursue remedies for injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs from deliberate acts of defamation by libel and slander during the years of 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation is sought for the physical injury, mental anguish, deep humiliation, emotional distress and financial loss of the Plaintiffs which arise from the materially false, misleading and deliberately libelous and slanderous 2

statements and injurious lies Defendants prepared and formed as part conclusions of police investigations provided as a record of criminal activity in Canada and elsewhere, then willfully in oral statements to the public and written reports did cause the same to be repeatedly printed in the press and announced on radio and television. 8. Plaintiffs’ business activities in Canada and elsewhere were, as a result, injured and damaged where dependant upon the public image of these activities and credibility of their efforts and investment relying upon the quality of Plaintiffs’ character and integrity of their public and private conduct. 9. Defendants knew at all times the information provided by them to be manipulative and injurious false statements of fact disguised as authentic police research and conclusions conducted in Canada and elsewhere, the public distribution of which would be information “that causes or is likely to cause injury” [see Section 188 C.C.C.] to the Plaintiffs by making it impossible for the public – and others to draw a coherent distinction between statements of opinion and assertions of fact. 10. Throughout the investigative period the Defendants calculated falsehoods and sought to deliberately manipulate people of good faith by an unscrupulous fabrication of basic facts in order to support Defendants’ theories and cause suffering and injury to the Plaintiffs by attacking their reputation and dignity. 11. During the periods in question, up to the present Defendants did cloak their acts and violations of law in the mantle of government action while at all times pursuing their private agenda of discrimination and criminal malfeasance. 12. Defendants did privately , publicly and in official documents impugn the character, competence, integrity and dignity of the Plaintiffs in the name of the Government of Canada with reference to religious associations, sexual orientation and criminal activities and affiliations which Defendants knew to be untrue but would be and in fact were believed and acted upon on account of Defendants status as employees, officials and instrumentalities of law enforcement in Canada and the Republic of Bulgaria. 13. During the period of April 1995 to September 1996 there is no evidence that the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada (the “Minister”) or the Minister of Foreign Affairs as being in any way aware of the Defendants’ conduct, intent or purpose to prosecute and arrest the subject of Defendants’ investigation and seize documents and assets in Canada and a foreign state on account of a criminal investigation and conclusions established in and on behalf of Canada. Neither is there any indication that the Minister had controlled, ordered or otherwise condoned the conduct and the alleged breaches of privacy and Charter rights during the investigative period arising from the acts and violations of law alleged herein. The Plaintiffs, in the absence of any constitutional authorities lawful participation were and are unable to pursue a cause of action to bring the case presently at bar within the purview of s.32 of the Charter. 14. At all times the Defendants’ actions in Canada and elsewhere and violations of law alleged did not constitute government action recognizable under Canadian or international law. The legal occasions and procedural order distinguishing “government activities” (de jure imperii) from private activities (de jure gestionis) was absent or at the best of times cloudy throughout the investigative period, the acts alleged herein as violations of law and the cause 3

of action should not have automatically been taken as having a constitutional or official quality to them only on account of Defendants’ status as government employees or officials of state agencies or instrumentalities. Despite repeated oral and written notices by the Plaintiffs to responsible supervisory bodies of the Defendants no action or effort was or has been undertaken to interpret the conduct and acts of the Defendants in a manner consistent with prevailing international and Canadian law. Supervisory bodies in Canada and elsewhere wrongly relied only upon the Defendants’ official or political status. 15. At all times Defendants acted in their own interests, not their constitutional responsibilities, exploiting during the intervening years the facilities, ways and means available to them individually and at their disposal as government employees of Canada and the Republic of Bulgaria. Defendants used the facilities and authority afforded to them by their principal governments to cause injury and harm to the Plaintiffs while in pursuit of Defendants’ private agenda without regard for procedural law or the natural rights of the Plaintiffs as enshrined in the principles and practice of international law. 16. All the while Defendants were supported by political factions of the Defendant government of the Republic of Bulgaria opposed to and prejudiced against the Plaintiffs and their companies’ activities which they considered exploitive of Bulgarian national resources to which the Plaintiffs, as foreigners should not be entitled and counterproductive to certain unpublished official policies of the Defendant Bulgaria, which at all times concealed the unlawful intent and conduct of other individual Defendants. Much of the acts and transactions among Defendants give rise to a prima facie case having a genus of an extortion [see Section 346.1 (1) C.C.C.] attempted against the Plaintiffs in Canada. During the tort period there was no reasonable or lawful justification or excuse for Defendants attempt to induce Plaintiffs with threats, accusations, menaces or violence to provide information concerning a criminal investigation in Canada of which they were not the subject and to provide money from Canada to Defendants in Bulgaria, on account of which one member of the Plaintiffs was falsely accused, unlawfully deprived of his liberty and summarily and repeatedly beaten during the investigative periods of 1996 and 1997 at the direction of Defendants. 17. These “secret commissions” in Canada “of threats, accusations, menaces or violence” by the Defendants and their collective agreement during the investigative period to share “any reward advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration” [see Section 426. (1) (a) (ii) C.C.C.] in exchange for providing statements and reports that are knowingly “false or erroneous or defective in any material particular and that is intended to mislead” [see S. 426 (1) (b) C.C.C.] their principal governments and public are actions which fell foul of Canadian law. This conduct proliferates in the written record of Defendants’ correspondence. 18. The intent of the Defendants defamation was self-reward, advancement and enrichment of themselves and others without regard to the harm and consequences to the Plaintiffs who have suffered as a result thereof. 19. Plaintiffs acknowledge the novelty of their theory of the joint and several vicarious liability of the Defendant state, the Republic of Bulgaria, and the direct liability of officials of the Defendant state as the instrumentalities responsible. The Plaintiffs urge the court that in this particular field of tort law the principle of vicarious liability is being applied by the Plaintiffs with a sensitive view to the policy considerations that justify the imposition of vicarious 4

liability – fair and efficient compensation for wrong and deterrence: [Bazley v. Curry (17 June 1999) S.C.C. No. 26013 and K (W.) v. Pornbacher, [1997], B.C.J. No. 57 (S.C.).] 20. That the questions and allegations raised within the claim are complex ought not to influence the court upon whether there is an issue fit to be tried despite the novelty of the claim and the questions it poses. It is argued that common law is a matter of evolution and that the issues of the claim must be decided on the basis of the pleadings as they stand or as they might be amended: [see Minnes v. Minnes (1962), 39 W.W.R. 112, 34 D.L.R. (2d) 497 (B.C.C.A.); approved in Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. supra]. Important and novel causes of action ought to be resolved at trial. Vital questions of law require a full investigation of the factual matrix out of which the issues of this claim arise, the trial process is the place where novel and difficult questions should first be considered [see Bow Valley Resource Services v. Kansa General Insurance Co. (1991), 56 B.C.L.R. (2nd) 337 Chief Justice McEachern] There is a question fit to be tried.

The Parties 21. The Plaintiff, Tracy Kapoustin (hereinafter “Tracy”) is a homemaker born in Trail, British Columbia and residing on Keats Island, British Columbia with her in-laws and the son born of her marriage to Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin (hereinafter “Kapoustin”). She is unemployed. 22. The Plaintiff, Nicholas Kapoustin (hereinafter “Nicholas”) is the natural son of the Plaintiffs Kapoustin and Tracy, having been born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on April 1st, 1993 and being a minor his interests in this proceeding are represented by Tracy Kapoustin his guardian Ad Litem. Plaintiff Nicholas resides with his mother, the Plaintiff Tracy and is the natural heir and beneficiary of the assets of his parents the Plaintiffs Kapoustin and Tracy. 23. The Plaintiff Kapoustin is a businessman who is a citizen of Canada having his permanent residence in the Province of British Columbia, Canada, he is the husband of Tracy and father of Nicholas and as a result of the violations of law alleged herein is being unlawfully held in remand for four years and 6 months without sentence or benefit of trial in Sofia, Bulgaria. 24. Government of the Republic of Bulgaria (hereinafter “Bulgaria”) is a member of the European Council and signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It at all relevant times acted as “de jure gestoinis” in shrouding the actual tortfeasors who effected and controlled the violations of law in connection with “secret commissions” agreed to among all the Defendants. It may be served by The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Canada under S. 9 (5) of the State Immunity Act , c/o Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs & International Trade, 125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2. 25. Defendant Derek A. Doornbos (hereinafter “Doornbos”) was employed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.) as a Staff Sgt. assigned as liaison to the Embassy of Canada at Vienna, Austria. Doornbos is the principal author of the slander and libels alleged herein and the principal agent of Defendant Bulgaria in Canada for accessing and collecting private information normally restricted and protected by law, as well he is the fabricator of 5

misstatements, misrepresentations, falsities and accusations which he provided other Defendants to act upon, while knowing himself the information provided by him was untrue or at best unreliable or verifiable. Doornbos may be served personally at his place of employment Royal Canadian Mounted Police, International Affairs Office, 1200 Vanier Parkway, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R2. 26. Defendant Stefcho Georgiev (hereinafter “Georgiev”) is a police investigator employed by the National Investigative Service (N.I.S.) of the Republic of Bulgaria. During the investigative periods of 1995, 1996 and 1997 Georgiev acted as principal co-author and collaborator of Defendant Doornbos in the preparation of written and oral statements that Georgiev, with the assistance of other Defendants did cause to be printed and announced on television and radio programs repeatedly. Georgiev is directly responsible for seizing and exploiting the Plaintiffs’ assets in Bulgaria for himself and on behalf of others for supervising the physical torture and mental torment of Kapoustin while demanding information about funds in Canada from Kapoustin for Doornbos and demanding money for himself and other Defendants from the Plaintiffs in Canada. Georgiev is vicariously liable, together with other Defendants for the intimidations and harassments, threats and accusations, menaces or violence against Plaintiffs Tracy and Nicholas and the parents of Plaintiff Kapoustin as alleged. Defendant Georgiev may be served personally at his place of employment Specialized National Investigative Service, 42, "G.M.Dimitrov" St., 1113, Sofia, Bulgaria. 27. Defendant Mario Stoyanov (hereinafter “Stoyanov”) was, during the investigative period a prosecutor for the Sofia City District Court and is the co-author with Defendant Georgiev in the preparation of written documents and “orders of detention” (remand), the factual content of which he knew to be false, misleading and misstatements of fact and unlawfully procured. Defendant Stoyanov acted with Defendant Georgiev to utter the false accusations as prepared by them to television and radio and repeatedly did cause the contents of same be printed and distributed in Bulgaria and abroad. Defendant Stoyanov is the principal author and orchestrator of the unlawful remand of Plaintiff Kapoustin and his prosecution at the request of Defendant Doornbos. Defendant Stoyanov proceeds to demand cash from Plaintiffs in Canada on behalf of himself and others as a condition of Plaintiff Kapoustin’s return to Canada. Defendant Stoyanov can be served at his place of employment Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office, 2, “Vitosha” Blvd., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria. 28. Defendant Emilia Mitkova (hereinafter “Mitkova”) was a trial judge of the Sofia Regional Court during the investigative period. In 1998 Defendant Mitkova, in exchange for her collaboration in the alleged malfeasance was promoted to the Sofia City District Court and in turn assigned, as her first case, the review of the 1995 investigations and seizures, 1996 remand and 1998 indictment of Plaintiff Kapoustin by Defendants Doornbos, Georgiev and Stoyanov. Defendant Bulgaria withheld the Plaintiff Kapoustin’s case from a more experienced and independent judge on account of Defendant Mitkova’s placid agreement to be directed by her employer and the other Defendants. Defendant Mitkova can be served at her place of employment Sofia City Court, Criminal College, 11th staff, 2, “Vitosha” Blvd., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria. 29. Defendant Iveta Anadolska (hereinafter “Anadolska”) is a trial judge of the Sofia Appeal Court and its co-chairman. Defendant Anadolska was instructed by her employer, Defendant Bulgaria, to participate and assist in the alleged malfeasance against the Plaintiffs by supervising and directing the conduct, rulings and decisions of Defendant Mitkova and shielding other Defendants from discovery by obstructing or denying Plaintiffs’ lawful 6

appeals. Defendant Anadolska can be served at her place of employment Sofia Court of Appeal, 24, “Positano” St., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria. 30. Defendant Kina Dimitrova (hereinafter “Dimitrova “) is in the employment of Defendant Bulgaria as a professional and full time juror. A former prosecutor, the Defendant agreed to participate in the alleged malfeasance with other Defendants by agreeing to be guided by her employer. She replaced juror Natalia Radeva. Defendant Dimitrova can be served at her place of employment Sofia City Court, Criminal College, 11th staff, 2, “Vitosha” Blvd., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria. 31. Defendant Dimitar Shackle (hereinafter “Shackle”) is in the employment of Defendant Bulgaria as a professional and full time juror. The Defendant agreed to participate in the alleged malfeasance with other Defendants by agreeing to be guided by his employer. He replaced juror Todor Kassabov. Defendant Shackle can be served at his place of employment Sofia City Court, Criminal College, 11th staff, 2, “Vitosha” Blvd., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria. 32. It is appropriate to treat the individual Defendants as a group for pleading purposes and to presume that the malfeasance, slanderous and libelous statements and false and misleading information conveyed by them in public filings, court documents, reports, press releases and leaks and other announcements and violations of law as alleged herein are the collective actions of the narrowly defined group of Defendants identified above as employees, agents and instrumentalities of a special interest group operating at government levels of Defendant Bulgaria. Each of the above, by virtue of his or her high – level positions within agencies and instrumentalities of their respective governments, directly participated in the supervision of the defamations and malfeasances alleged and were involved at various times throughout the period in the day to day operations of the investigative activities which are fundamental fabric of the matrix of facts which prove the violations of law alleged. Defendants existed and operated at the very highest levels of government, its agencies and instrumentalities and were privy at all times to confidential information and facts concerning the Plaintiffs’ operations, finances, financial condition, business prospects, associations, both business and private and personal history, and knowing same the Defendants proceeded to draft, produce, review and/or disseminate the false and misleading, slanderous and libelous statements alleged herein, and were aware that the said statements were being issued regarding the Plaintiffs and approved or ratified these statements in violation of law, and in pursuit of their malfeasance. 33. As employees, officials, agencies and instrumentalities of government and as controlling persons over the investigation and prosecution of the Plaintiffs as instituted by Canadian peace officer Defendant Doornbos and governed by Canadian and Bulgarian law as superceded by international covenants of conduct, the Individual Defendants, as officers of law and supervisors of the investigation and prosecution of law, had a duty to that law to disseminate promptly only accurate and truthful information with respect to Plaintiffs’ operations, finances, financial condition, business prospects, associations, both business and private and personal history and to correct any previously issued statements from any source that had become materially misleading or untrue, and to investigate and disclose facts that would materially affect the proper conduct of the investigation and prosecution of justice according to the principles of natural law, so that reports, documents, conclusions or announcements would be based upon truthful and accurate information. Under the rules and procedures promulgated under the laws of Canada and Bulgaria, as superceded by international covenants, to which the respective governments are a party, the Individual 7

Defendants had a duty to protect the privacy and natural rights of the Plaintiffs and to refuse all demands and verify all information that were unreasonable and unverifiable and likely to impact upon the Plaintiffs rights under law. The individual Defendants’ representations, conduct and demands during the investigative period and beyond violated these specific requirements and obligations. 34. The Individual Defendants participated in the drafting, preparation and/or approval of various public documents and official reports and other requests and communications as alleged herein under the mantle of legitimate government activities, yet were aware of their reckless disregard for the truth and due process under law, their misstatements as contained therein and omissions therefrom. At all times Defendants were aware of their materially misleading nature. 35. Because of their positions within their respective governments, each of the Individual Defendants had access to non-public information about the Plaintiffs and others as particularized herein and knew the information provided to be manipulative and injuriously false statements disguised as official conclusions and statements of fact. 36. The Individual Defendants, because of their positions of control and authority as agencies and instrumentalities of government were able to and did control the contents of official documents and reports, press releases and presentations to national and international authorities not a part of their scheme and had the ability and opportunity to prevent or obstruct the discovery of truth which might cause the wrongs alleged herein to be corrected. As a result each of the Defendants is responsible for the defamation alleged and other violations of law as detailed herein and is therefore primarily liable for the representations and the consequences of Defendants’ acts upon the Plaintiffs. 37. Each of the Defendants is liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of action shrouded under the mantle of government activities that operated as a fraud or deceit in an attempted extortion of information, money and assets, by disseminating false and misleading information and slanderous and libelous statements and concealing material and facts that might reveal the truth. The scheme deceived the public regarding the business, character, personality, associations, religious and sexual conduct of the Plaintiff Kapoustin. It precipitated and gave rise to enmity, rancor and violence against the Plaintiffs and resulted in the false accusations, loss of liberty and cruel or unusual treatment and punishment as claimed herein. No Safe Harbour 38. The “safe harbour” provided by the State Immunity Act in Canada for a sovereign state, its officials, agencies and instrumentalities under certain circumstances does not apply in the case at bar since the allegedly false and misleading statements and defamation pleaded in this complaint and other violations of law complained of are “de jure gestionis”. The statements alleged to be false and misleading herein all relate to then existing facts and conditions, which government activities, “de jure imperii” would have considered and acted upon according to its prevailing law if the acts alleged herein had in fact been such. In addition to the extent certain of the statements alleged to be false can be characterized as “slanderous” and “libelous”, they were none the less identified by the Defendant Bulgaria as facts when 8

made. There was no statement made with respect to any of those representations forming the basis of this complaint that actual facts “could differ materially from those represented” and there was no meaningful effort identifying collecting or considering factors that could cause information and statements to differ materially for those represented by Individual Defendants and there was no government activity to seek or consider facts which might bring into disrepute the responsible employees, officials, agencies or instrumentalities named as Defendants herein, alternatively vicarious liability, is qualifiable because Defendant Bulgaria knew and has actual knowledge that particular false information and defamations announced was authorized and/or approved by employees, officials, agencies or instrumentalities responsible to it. 39. Sovereign immunity as might arise out of governmental activities is inoperable as a procedural defense against the torts alleged herein and, if allowed, would provide a “safe harbour” that would encourage violations of natural and international law and Canada’s civil and criminal code with impunity against citizens of Canada residing in Canada or abroad, since the Court would “be obligated to sit still and (to) see its own process abused” [see Baron Alderson in Cocker v. Tempess (1841), 151 E.R. 864 (Exch.)], denied the exercise of its residual fund of procedural powers and tools necessary and at its disposal to ensure that principles of natural justice and law are protected and sedulously fostered and done at all stages of every proceeding and is manifestly seen to be done, granting to all parties “eqaulity at arms” and no unfair administrative advantage granted to an official, agency or instrumentality alleged to be directly or vicariously liable for injuries and damages arising from unlawful acts committed against residents and citizens of Canada, the alternative would be to deprive citizens of a judicial remedy and venue for wrongs and injuries inflicted upon them by employees, officials, agencies or instrumentalities of a foreign state, whose conduct intentionally violated the accepted practice and principles of international law. 40. Alternatively “sovereign immunity” would in the case at bar violate Plaintiffs’ charter rights under Section 15 (1) by denying Plaintiffs “equality at arms” before the law and “equal protection” and “benefit” of the law. Immunity unfairly discriminates against private citizens as it provides a safe harbour shrouding officials, agencies or instrumentalities, the actual tortfeasors, who effectively controlled and affected the alleged violations of law on behalf of themselves and others. 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, 9

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 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 43. In such an instance treaties, as arrangements between administrative bodies of states should not confer the veil of immunity or act as safe harbours from civil responsibility and liability for damages from intentional acts which have knowingly breached domestic and international law. In Re McVey 91993), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) Sopinka J., at p 47 stated: “We must not lose sight of the fact that … treaties, although they are arrangement between governments, affect the liberty of individuals…” 44. Plaintiffs have made no allegations that the injury inflicted upon them is a consequence of a lawful government activity. They allege the alternative, that the injury and deep humiliation are the consequence of private actors operating in scienter for personal gain and advancement and on account of a deep prejudice and discrimination harboured by them against the Plaintiffs. These are acts of a private actor and not a conduct subject to or deserving of immunity.

Relevant Facts Background 45. The Plaintiffs, upon the representations and promises made and the assurances of agencies and officials of the Republic of Bulgaria, as well as public statements made by it and upon offers and proposals of officers, directors and managers of enterprises and institutions controlled by ministries chartered by it under law, including but not limited to the ministries 10

of health, finance, justice and foreign affairs, did induce the Plaintiffs from 1991 to 1995 to invest for themselves and on behalf of others; cash in the amount of 5,153,393 United States Dollars and 338,999 German Marks; in 160,572 bottles of Scotch whisky value at 1,600,572 United States Dollars, in 174,260 bottles of Russian Vodka valued at 685,040 United States Dollars, in 132 containers of canned beer valued at 824,000 United States Dollars and miscellaneous other dry goods valued at 434,600 USD; in medicines and medical raw materials 4,442,405 USD and 580,000 German Marks; in waste oil refining equipment, technology and manufacturing rights valued at 3,000,000 USD and 917,984,769 Greek Drachmas; in land, leasehold improvements, office equipment and furniture valued at 1,340,000 German Marks; in transfers of technology, licenses, trademarks, patents, proprietary technologies, licenses and rights to goodwill valued at 18,407,000 USD; in local securities 2,000,000,000 Bulgarian leva; in associate company shares, stocks and convertible debentures 3,000,000 USD; into enterprises located in or associated to the Republic of Bulgaria and by which the Defendant Bulgaria would derive direct or indirect benefit. 46. Plaintiffs as a consequence of their investment, labor and intellectual contribution, did develop, test, patent and license an HIV/AIDS immunotherapeuticum, “Factor – R”, of which Plaintiff Kapoustin is co-author and a patent holder. 47. Plaintiffs did organize and finance from 1993 to 1995 the clinical testing and treatment of 200 + HIV/AIDS patients, 160 of which are residents of Canada and the United States. Results of clinical trials, as presented before a committee of peers at the National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland on or about July 1995, provided evidence of clinical efficacy in 75% of patients treated. Plaintiffs anticipated, upon the objective and subjective merits of science and market prospects, to treat, in the months and years ahead tens of thousands of HIV/AIDS and cancer patients, in so doing providing to patients health benefits and prolonged lives. Plaintiffs expected to realize returns commensurate and common within the medical biotechnology industry under the facts and circumstances prevalent at the time.

First Claim As to The Republic of Bulgaria 48. In late 1995 the Plaintiffs discovered and intended to prove that the alleged herein violations of law by Defendant Bulgaria against themselves and others similarly situated arise from and forms a part of a scheme contrived by Defendant Bulgaria and its instrumentalities to give effect, inter alia, to a form of international terrorism conceived during the late 1980’s to cause the injury, pain and death of citizens of Canada, the United States, Western Europe and other politically or socially “offensive” nations and cause political and social difficulty and unrest in the said nations; develop and utilize the virus which causes AIDS (see Kapoustin and others v. Bulgaria, European Court of Human Rights, Application No 6650/2000, pending; and Libya v. Bulgarian medical personal, District Criminal Court Benghazi, Libya, murder by HIV infection of 393 Libyan children) as a weapon of mass terrorism; continue to realize Defendants’ policy of state sponsored discrimination against HIV/AIDS infected individuals and all private organizations and religious groups associated with their care and treatment; deny treatment of any kind to HIV/AIDS victims; in the alternative, monopolize and control for itself and others all accessible to it technology and realizable profits from any 11

treatment of HIV/AIDS; seize and exploit, for itself and others, the assets of foreign businessmen and firms when and where possible in Bulgaria; “officially extort” cash payments from foreign businessmen and firms on threat of government seizures; arrest foreign nationals as an “inducement” to gain access to all or part of cash assets available to them; slander and malign, through state instrumentalities of the media, individual foreign nationals and private companies as “criminals” and the root cause for domestic and regional economic instability and depression; promote, among the general public, enmity, rancor and discrimination against foreign citizens and companies upon allegations that foreign nationals, and not the Defendant Bulgaria is responsible for economic hardship, rising inflation, currency devaluation, the collapse of banks and state enterprises and loss of jobs historically and presently prevalent in the economy of the Defendant Bulgaria; identify foreign nationals as “criminal exploiters” of the Defendant Bulgaria’s population, by so doing, ultimately deflect attention from the Defendant Bulgaria’s crimes as committed by officials of its instrumentalities against their own population; deflect attention from Defendants’ crimes against the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

Second claim As to Defendants Doornbos, Georgiev and Stoyanov 49. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 50. On or about February of 1995 through the means and instrumentalities of the ministries of finance and health and the facilities of the mass printed and electronic media controlled by Defendant Bulgaria and at the direction and orchestration of its Ministry of Interior, the “secret police”, being responsible and accountable to Defendant Bulgaria did commence to affect the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this Complaint as described below and through unlawful means did enlist the services of an official agent of the Government of Canada to facilitate the Defendants’ common objective of enriching themselves and promoting the national political and popular agenda of the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria through threats, accusations, menaces and violence.. 51. 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, the Defendant Doornbos, an employee and official of the Government of Canada, did meet or had contact with Defendant Georgiev and other officials of the Defendant Republic of Bulgaria with the official purpose and intent to publicly humiliate, degrade and damage the reputation as well as the financial well being of the Plaintiffs, by knowingly, with malice and aforethought, uttering untrue, false and slanderous remarks concerning the personality, character and business activities of Plaintiff Kapoustin. Representations, which Defendant Doornbos knew or should have known to be untrue, yet did, intentionally and with malfeasance, represent the said false and slanderous remarks to officials of the Defendant Bulgaria. 52. Defendant Bulgaria, with the knowledge and consent of Defendant Doornbos, did provide to its mass media the false and slanderous remarks and conclusions of Defendant Doornbos, so that the public at large might believe that the Plaintiff Kapoustin had, inter alia, been convicted in Canada for the sexual rape of children; is an internationally recognized fraud 12

and swindler known to be a close associate of one Ivon Shearing; is a participant and financial supporter of Mr. Shearing’s “pseudo – religious cult” the “Kabalarian Society” of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; operated the Plaintiffs’ international company “LifeChoice” in the Republic of Bulgaria as a criminal operation and large scale fraud, which had transferred 16 million United Sates dollars to Canada, all or a substantial part claimed by Defendant Doornbos as coming from citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria. 53. Defendants Doornbos, Bulgaria and Georgiev knew the statements uttered by them to be untrue but knowingly proceeded with their slander and other violations of law as alleged since it suited the Defendants’ stated and recorded objectives to popularize and qualify the unlawful seizure, exploitation and confiscation of the Plaintiffs assets through threats, accusations, menaces and violence. 54. From the period of May 31, 1995 to the present the aforesaid misrepresentations and slander 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. The aforesaid is best represented and evidenced by a published interview with Defendant Georgiev in Continent newspaper, Sofia, Bulgaria, on August 1, 1996. 55. This action arises in part from the aforesaid official and public humiliation, degradation and slander of the Plaintiff Kapoustin, by Defendant Bulgaria and others, the objective of which was to purposefully subject the Plaintiffs to cruel and unusual treatment. 56. Defendants so acted in order that they might precipitate in the public mind adequate cause for the unlawful arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin and seizure of Plaintiffs’ assets in the Republic of Bulgaria and Canada on the grounds of the written conclusions and report given in writing as evidence against the Plaintiffs by peace officer and diplomat Defendant Doornbos on July 7, 1995. 57. Defendant Bulgaria, although knowing the alternative to be true, did act upon the conclusions of Defendant Doornbos on account of his quality as a peace officer and diplomatic representative of the Government of Canada. Doornbos knew it to be impossible for anyone to draw a coherent distinction between his statements of opinion and assertions of fact. 58. Defendant Doornbos as an officer of the government of Canada, had he acted at the direction of the Attorney General, would have violated ss. 11 (d) of the Charter when he declared: “… Kapoustin through his large-scale financial frauds carried out by his pyramidal structure “LifeChoice “. It was found out the transfers go through Caribbean banks.” Defendant Doornbos, in so doing, declared the Plaintiffs Kapoustin guilty of “large-scale financial frauds” , a crime for which no one, including Plaintiff Kapoustin, had been at the time charged, nor proven guilty of in a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal in any jurisdiction or venue. 59. Defendant Doornbos knew and had every reason to believe his conclusion and requests, as stated in his letter, would be acted upon and would thereby cause the arbitrary imprisonment and loss of liberty and security of person of Plaintiff Kapoustin, which gave rise to the 13

seizure and destruction of the Plaintiffs’ property, loss of income, the extortion of cash, physical torture and the permanent injury derived of the emotional, physical and psychological trauma suffered by the Plaintiffs. Extortion And Malfeasance Allegations 60. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 61. On or about July 17, 1995 Defendants Bulgaria, Georgiev and Mario Stoyanov (hereinafter “Stoyanov”) were further induced by Defendant Doornbos into collaborating in this public humiliation of the Plaintiffs when, by oral and written promise the said Defendant Doornbos caused Defendants to believe they would be beneficiaries of all or a substantial part of the said 16 million United States dollars alleged by him to be property of the Plaintiff Kapoustin and his associates in various banks in Vancouver, British Columbia 62. This financial reward was officially embodied in a July 7, 1995 letter issued by Defendant Doornbos to the Defendants wherein the motives for the malfeasance against the Plaintiffs were setout and qualified solely upon the personal suppositions and conclusions of Defendant Doornbos as setout therein and as elevated by him to the status of “official facts” and “conclusions“ of the Government of Canada without the knowledge, consent or order of his immediate superiors and in violation of the principles and procedures of law under “Mutual Legal Assistance In Criminal Matters Act”, Chapter M – 13.6 (RS 1985, c. 30 (4 th supp.)) 1988, c. 37, assented to 28 July, to which the Defendant was legally incumbent as an official of Canada. 63. As has been previously alleged, and is now re-alleged, Defendant Doornbos did further violate the natural law and individual rights of the Plaintiffs as enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Human Rights to which he, as an official of the Government of Canada, was ethically and morally bound and did so on account of his prejudice to the dual nationality and ethnic origin of Plaintiff Kapoustin and the association of Plaintiffs with HIV/AIDS advocacy. 64. The Defendants Bulgaria, Georgiev and Stoyanov did not subject the Defendant Doornbos representation to any proper legal test as was incumbent upon them. These Defendants, upon the belief and promise of the financial reward to be derived from the humiliation of the Plaintiffs and seizure and possible confiscation of their assets and as well as to divert attention from crimes committed by them and other benefits, did embark upon an official campaign to induce in the minds of the public enmity, hostility, antipathy, rancor, malice, discrimination and bias against the Plaintiffs with the intent to cause them financial harm, loss of reputation and goodwill. 65. By attacking the nationality of the Plaintiffs and upon the motives of a financial award the Defendants jointly and severally did conspire, plan and openly solicit complaints through paid advertising and public announcements. With the promise of money to witnesses Defendants did succeed in securing criminal complaints grounded upon their slander and acrimony as privately, personally, politically and publicly promoted by them. Though these complaints were unsubstantiated and contrary to the facts and circumstances known to the 14

Defendants, they did nonetheless affect, at the insistence of Defendant Doornbos for “any prosecution whatsoever against Kapoustin”, the arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin made as a precondition by Defendant Doornbos to the 16 million dollar financial reward promised by him. Whereupon on February 7, 1996 the Plaintiff Kapoustin was summarily and without due process under law, imprisoned at the direction of the Defendants and remains so in the Republic of Bulgaria at Sofia Central Prison, 21, “Gen. Stoletov” St., 1309, Sofia. 66. The Plaintiffs allege and shall prove that the Defendants Bulgaria, Doornbos, Georgiev and Stoyanov, jointly and severally first considered and then did later effect, in order that they might advance their cause, an unlawful arrest of Kapoustin, deemed by them to be necessary to gain their personal objectives and political goals to humiliate and injure the Plaintiffs and in so doing financially enrich themselves and others. Anticipating to obtain cash in Canada, with threats, accusations, menaces and violence against the Plaintiffs. 67. The Defendants, in causing the deep humiliation of the Plaintiffs and damaging the reputation and business of the Plaintiff Kapoustin sought to and did advance their professional and personal objectives of increased public and political esteem. By affecting, Plaintiff Kapoustin’s physical imprisonment without legal cause or occasion, and endlessly maintaining same, the Defendants hoped to or in fact did enrich themselves and others with the assets of the Plaintiffs and continue to plot and hope, with the ongoing imprisonment of Plaintiff Kapoustin, to negotiate a position whereby they shall further enrich themselves and others with all or part of the 16 million United States dollars promised by the Defendant Doornbos. 68. The Defendant Georgiev, in order to extract evidence and information from the Plaintiff Kapoustin, for the benefit and exploitation by Defendant Doornbos as well as to insure the Plaintiff’s cooperation and silence did affect physical beatings and torture as well as mental torment of the Plaintiff Kapoustin, which is relevant under the instance since each such torment, which commenced on September 18, 1996 and continuing to October 23rd 1996, and beginning again on January 15th 1997 until March 6th, 1997 and then again July 1st 1997 until November 10th 1997 was adjunct to a severe interrogation in the absence of attorneys or interpreters. These interrogatories were concerned entirely and exclusively upon the subject matter setout in Defendant Doornbos’ requests. Most particularly that of July 7th 1995 and the monies referenced therein and repeatedly inquired about thereafter by the Canadian official Defendant Doornbos. 69. The physical and mental torture involved beatings about the shoulders, back, buttocks and legs muffled through blankets and affected by hard, yet flexible, plastic or rubber. Each incident involved 4-6 masked individuals one of whom repeatedly interrogated the Appellant in poor English concerning funds purported to be ensconced in Canada with the alleged criminal associates of Plaintiff Kapoustin as identified to the Government of Bulgaria by Defendant Doornbos in the 07.07.1995 request to the Defendants to prosecute, arrest and extract information from the Plaintiff Kapoustin, a Canadian citizen. 70. Subsequent to these beatings the Plaintiff Kapoustin was kept in isolation for days, often weeks, without any medical examination or contact except with Defendant Georgiev, the investigator supervising the case. Beating lasted as little as 5 minutes with the longest being approximately 10 minutes.

15

71. During the 1997 episodes of abuse the Plaintiff Kapoustin was repeatedly given, without his knowledge, psychotropic drugs to disorient him deprive him of sleep and to induce moods of extreme depression and helplessness. Subsequent to these episodes the Plaintiff would again be interrogated upon the subject matter of the funds in Canada to be paid to the Defendant Bulgaria. 72. Each denial by the Plaintiff Kapoustin of having any knowledge of these funds encountered assurances by his interrogators that the information was accurate and provided by Canadian authorities who sought together with the Defendant Bulgaria the return of these funds. 73. Interrogators were certain the Plaintiff was lying and therefore extended their beatings and continued their investigation for 4 years prior to committing to trial. The Defendants continue, until this day, to believe there are funds in Canada as represented to them and proceed to demand the money from the Plaintiffs. Third claim As to Defendants Mitkova and Anadolska 74. The Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 75. On or about January 15, 1999 Defendants Emilia Mitkova (hereinafter “Mitkova”) and Iveta Anadolska, officials in the employment and public service of the Defendant Bulgaria, in exchange for promotions and political and financial consideration agreed to conspire and plan with Defendants Georgiev and Stoyanov. 76. Defendants sought to maintain, as was in their official capacity, the unlawful imprisonment of the Plaintiff Kapoustin and seizure of the Plaintiffs’ assets, in order to torment the Plaintiffs until such time as they provided to the Defendant Bulgaria all or part of the 16 million United States dollars promised by Defendant Doornbos and represented by him to be the property of the Plaintiff Kapoustin. 77. Whereupon the Defendants Mitkova and Anadolska proceeded to repeatedly and without cause deny the Plaintiff Kapoustin his freedom, and to hold him officially hostage together with the substantial assets of the Plaintiffs until such time as the Plaintiffs, provided the desired sum of money to the Defendants as had been officially and publicly demanded by the Defendant Stoyanov in the newspaper “Monitor” on April 8th, 2000 - page 8; “Monitor” – April 11th, page 9; newspaper “Standart” on April 11th, 2000 – page 3 and documented in the proceedings against said Plaintiff Kapoustin. These funds were demanded by the Defendants as a condition for the release and termination of the unlawful process instituted against Plaintiff Kapoustin. 78. Defendants stated that without payment of what amounts to state sponsored extortion to the Defendant Bulgaria the Plaintiff Kapoustin would not be returned to his family Plaintiffs Tracy and Nicholas.

16

Fourth claim as to Defendants Dimitrova and Shackle 79. The Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 80. On or about April 1st, 1999 Defendant Mitkova, in order to secure her promise to maintain the imprisonment and to obstruct the defense and rights to natural law of the Plaintiff Kapoustin did facilitate, on or about the aforestated date, the dismissal of jurors Natalia Radeva and Todor Kassabov as initially appointed to the judicial tribunal. Having done so Defendant Mitkova secured the appointment of her collaborators, the Defendants Dimitrova and Shackle to affect together with Defendant Mitkova, any and all actions necessary to deny the Plaintiffs rights under law to their assets and the Plaintiff Kapoustin his freedom until such time as the financial, political and professional aspirations of each Defendant were realized at the financial, material, emotional, physical and psychological cost of the Plaintiffs. 81. Defendants Dimitrova and Shackle, by affixing their signatures to documents which they knew or should have known to be questionable as to their truthfulness and veracity and which they intentionally and with premeditation did not subject to the proper legal tests nor did properly consider the detailed and contrary facts, circumstances and motives did thus become parties to the criminal malfeasance of the other Defendants and therefore equally culpable and liable for the injury and damage caused the Plaintiffs.

Scienter Allegations 82.

This alleged violation of law arises from the November 28,1995 “orders of detention” produced by Defendants Georgiev and Stoyanov at the direct or indirect inducement of Defendant Doornbos, whereupon and subsequent to the Defendant Georgiev did on November 30, 1995 and again on Feb. 12, 1996 provide to Interpol Sofia requests of which the substantive content was known by Defendants to be false and principally grounded upon the unconfirmed allegations, conclusions and slanderous representation of Defendant Doornbos, thereby directly and indirectly inducing agencies and instrumentalities of the Federal Democratic Republic of Germany (hereinafter “FDRG”) to wrongfully arrest Plaintiff Kapoustin at Frankfurt International Airport on Feb. 7th, 1996. It is alleged the ensuing 208 days detention of Plaintiff Kapoustin by the FDRG and his subsequent handing over to Defendant Bulgaria and additional 1405 days of captivity, did permit, facilitate and aid the Defendants in proceeding with their malfeasance, slander, planned extortion and other violations of law.

83.

Defendants were no longer obstructed or otherwise hindered by the Plaintiffs who, in fear for the safety and life of Plaintiff Kapoustin and at the request of agencies of the Government of Canada, ceased to interfere with or publicly protest the unlawful acts of the Defendants.

84.

The alleged herein unlawful arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin demonstrates the Defendants acted with scienter in that : they knew the “orders of detention” issued and later statements 17

made by them as officials acting in the name of Defendant Bulgaria were materially false, misleading and procured by them with no regard for the procedures for so doing as promulgated under Bulgarian domestic law; Defendants Georgiev and Stoyanov knew their statements as “officers of law” and “prosecuting authorities” of the Defendant Bulgaria would not be subjected to any proper legal tests by the FDRG as to the merits; Defendants knowing fully well the FDRG unwilling and disinterested to investigate Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ claims as made to the alternative; knew that on account of the official slanders made by Defendants as alleged and proven herein co-mingled with the Jewish ethnic and Russian origins of Plaintiff Kapoustin and on account of Defendant Bulgaria misrepresenting in its Feb. 16, 1996 Request for Extradition the residency and citizenship of Plaintiff Kapoustin as Bulgarian the FDRG in a common discriminatory conduct of its courts would participate and acquiesce to the Plaintiff Kapoustin’s arrest, detention and extradition without exercising the required due diligence the FDRG may otherwise have undertaken, had Kapoustin not had Jewish and Russian ancestry and the therein alluded to Bulgarian residency and citizenship. 85.

It is alleged the “orders of detention” were known to the Defendants and FDRG to be primary violations of prevailing international law and practice. The “order of detention” could prove to the Defendants and FDRG a legal obstacle to their planned malfeasance and extortion, if tested by a court of the FDRG and Defendants’ scienter discovered.

86.

The said documents, in and of themselves, were insufficient and not in compliance with the prevailing international legal precedents for arrest, detention and extradition by a third party. The Defendants to give effect to their unlawful intent to gain bodily the Plaintiff Kapoustin undertook to and could engage in a fraudulent scheme due to their official control over the content of documents and statements made to the FDRG as translated and officially transmitted by them in the German language.

87.

The Defendants engaged themselves in providing to the FDRG materially misleading misstatements with a reckless disregard for the falsity and misleading nature of the information which they caused to be disseminated. In particular Defendant Bulgaria knew and should have known that Defendant Georgiev was not a “hauptuntersucungsrichter” (“chief” or “presiding investigative judge”) or “untersuchungsrichter” (“investigative judge”) as was fraudulently and misleadingly set out in the “orders of detention” as well as other documents and statements made to the FDRG.

88.

Defendants to attain their unlawful objectives and to facilitate the violations of law herein alleged, knowingly disregarded or failed to correct to the FDRG these misleading misstatements or to disclose to the FDRG that Defendant Georgiev was in fact an “untersuchungsführer” (police “investigator” (“sledovatel”)) and did not in this, his official capacity, meet the internationally recognized criteria as an “officer” authorized to exercise “judicial power” to order the deprivation of liberty or extradition of Plaintiff Kapoustin. Case law prevailing at the time (see Schiesser v. Switzerland judgement, 4 Dec., 1979, ECHR) and recent decisions ( see Assenov and others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998 and Nikolova v. Bulgaria, 25 March 1999 judgements, ECHR) have held that such “officer” must satisfy certain conditions providing a guarantee to the detained person against arbitrary arrest. Thus the “officer” must be independent of the executive and of the parties.

18

89.

Defendants Georgiev and Stoyanov who issued the “orders of detention” of November 28, 1995 and February 12, 1996 and which constituted, in totus, the grounds for arrest, detention and extradition by the FDRG, would not meet any criteria of international law had not the Defendants participated in the fraudulent scheme arising by virtue of the materiality of their misleading misstatement in documents provided by them to the FDRG.

90.

Defendant Georgiev had no independence or impartiality (see Huber v. Switzerland judgement 23 October 1990 and Brincat v. Italy judgement 26 November 1992, ECHR), nor did he undertake to attempt to hear the Plaintiff Kapoustin in person and to review, by reference to legal criteria, whether or not the “order of detention” could be justified by the prosecution represented by Defendant Stoyanov. In Assenov and others v. Bulgaria the ECHR found, inter alia, that neither an investigator (“sledovatel” or “untersuchungsführer”) or prosecutor who had, at first instance, approved the “order of detention” could be considered to be the “officers” authorized by law to exercise judicial control within the meaning of prevailing international case law. The facts of the alleged violations herein bear no material difference to the decisions referenced above. Defendant Georgiev did not have the power to make a decision as to Plaintiff Kapoustin’s arrest, detention and extradition and to therefore bind the FDRG to comply with his request nor can Defendant Stoyanov who approved the “orders of detention” be considered an “officer(s) authorized by law to exercise judicial power”.

91.

Under prevailing international law Defendant Stoyanov, as prosecutor, was not sufficiently independent or impartial for the purposes of law since he could and in fact continues to act as a subsequent party to the proceedings instituted by him and Defendant Bulgaria against the person of Plaintiff Kapoustin and did control at the time the assets of the Plaintiffs.

92.

This same principle applies to statements submitted by the Main Public Prosecutor of Bulgaria, Ivan Tatarchev, on February 16, 1996 to the FDRG, the contents of which are grounded in their entirety upon the fraudulent and unlawful actions of the Defendants as alleged herein and are therefore not materially different although issued independent of the Defendants.

93.

During the aforesaid period the Defendants carried out a continuous plan, scheme and course of conduct which was intended to and throughout the period did; deceive the public and the Government of the FDRG as alleged hereto and so caused the FDRG to deeply humiliate the Plaintiffs by unlawfully arresting, detaining and extraditing Plaintiff Kapoustin, by so doing the FDRG did directly and indirectly, harm and injure the Plaintiffs in furtherance of the unlawful scheme, plan and course of conduct the Defendants who undertook the unlawful actions set forth herein.

94.

The Defendants employed devises, schemes and artifices to defraud and slander; made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading; engaged in acts, practices and a course of official conduct which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the Plaintiffs, the FDRG and the public, which included the physical and mental torture of the Plaintiff Kapoustin, emotional and physical anguish of other Plaintiffs. Defendants acted in an effort to humiliate the Plaintiffs and to gain for the Defendants and/or others the Plaintiffs’ assets in order to as well protect the Defendants from discovery and prosecution; to gain, as agents for Defendant Doornbos, a reward and benefit, for affecting acts vicariously relating to affairs of his principal, 19

Canada; to enhance their official positions and to secure the substantial compensation and prestige they hoped to obtain by so doing. 95.

The Defendants did as well conceal evidence of crimes against justice, humanity and the person of the Plaintiff Kapoustin as known by them and in evidence. In abnegating their responsibility to law and failing in their joint and several incumbency to report new crimes, the Defendants jointly and severally become culpable and liable for the injury and harm caused the Plaintiffs as setout herein.

96.

Defendants, individually and in concert, directly and indirectly, by use of their official office and the means and instrumentalities made available to them, engaged and participated in a continuous course of conduct to conceal their activities and their employment of official devices of the Government of Canada in British Columbia and elsewhere, the schemes and artifices of the Government of Bulgaria as used by them to defraud officials of the FDRG and public while in possession of material facts and information adverse to their objects and so engaged in the acts, practices and course of conduct as alleged herein in an effort to encourage others to believe in the Plaintiff Kapoustin’s guilt and likely substantial financial benefits to be realized by others from the Plaintiffs’ assets.

97.

Defendants’ acts included, inter alia, the making of, or the participation in the making of, untrue statements of material facts and omitting to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements as they were made, not misleading, as set forth more particularly herein, and engaged in practices and a course of conduct which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the public, the Plaintiffs and the FDRG and a slander upon the Plaintiffs’ honor and reputation.

98.

The individual Defendants’ primary liability and official personal liability arises from the following facts: they were high level officials of the Defendant Bulgaria and the Government of Canada; by virtue of their responsibilities and activities as senior officials the individual Defendants were privy to and participated in the coercion, development, preparation, delivery and enforcement of official documents and statements; each of the individual Defendants enjoyed significant personal contact and had access to other officials, agencies and instrumentalities of Defendant Bulgaria and the Governments of Canada and the FDRG; the individual Defendants were aware at all times and had in fact facilitated and effected that there would be direct and indirect dissemination of humiliating, slanderous and untrue data on the Plaintiffs to the public and official agencies and instrumentalities of foreign governments which they knew to be slanderous. Defendants recklessly disregarded and encouraged the information’s materially false and misleading nature.

99.

The Defendants had actual knowledge of the slanders, misrepresentations and omissions of material facts set forth herein, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth in that they failed to ascertain and to disclose such facts, even though such facts were available to them. Such Defendants material misrepresentations and/or slanders and/or omissions were done knowingly and recklessly and for the purpose and effect of concealing their violations of law, malfeasance and actual motives from the public, officials of the Governments of Canada and the FDRG and the Plaintiffs. As demonstrated by the Defendants slanderous overstatements and misstatements of the facts through the periods in question, the Defendants, if they did not have actual knowledge of the misrepresentations, slanders, 20

malfeasance and omissions and other violations of law alleged, were in the least reckless in failing to obtain such knowledge. 100. Defendants have deliberately refrained from taking those steps necessary to discover whether those documents and statements were false or misleading. Individual Defendant’s ignorance of the fact that other Defendants as officials of the Defendant Bulgaria and Government of Canada were providing directly or indirectly false and misleading documents and statements and relying upon the individually responsible Defendants’ integrity as an official whose representation must therefore by default be truthful even in the presence of materially adverse information provided by the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff’s attorneys, provides no excuse or relief from liability or culpability for the consequentially injuries and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ wrongful conduct or willful ignorance. 101. At all relevant times, the Defendants, individually and in concert, directly and indirectly, engaged and participated in a continuous course of action and conduct whereby they knowingly provided public representations which they knew to be materially false and/or misleading and would cause direct personal injury and financial harm to the Plaintiffs. This continuous course of conduct resulted in the publishing and electronic transmission of media statements and official documents that were false, misleading and slanderous as to their content. 102. The Defendants’ conduct materially influenced the market place, financial institutions, business associates and the public against the Plaintiffs by inciting a rancor and enmity, which has caused the Plaintiffs’ emotional anguish and a deep humiliation, from which they are unable to recover. These acts of the Defendants operated as a fraud and deceit upon the public and business associates of the Plaintiffs causing financial injury and loss. 103. The Plaintiff Kapoustin and his business activities in Bulgaria, prior to his arrest were the sole financial support for his family. The unlawfully seized property and business represented all the assets of the Plaintiffs of which the Plaintiffs Tracy and Nicholas are owners, beneficiaries and heirs to the income and value represented and upon which they were dependent. 104. The Defendant Bulgaria is a direct participant in the wrongs complained of herein. The individual Defendants are liable as direct participants and as controlling persons of the wrongs complained of. Because of their positions and authority as officials of the Defendant Bulgaria, and the Government of Canada the individual Defendants were able to, and did, directly or indirectly, control the content of the public statements relating to the Plaintiffs. 105. The Individual Defendants did cause or control the issuance of public statements containing the slanderous and misleading representations alleged herein. 106. The Individual Defendants had actual knowledge of the facts making these public statements and official documents false, misleading and slanderous or acted with reckless disregard for that they failed to ascertain and to disclose such facts, even though same were available to them. 21

107. As a result of the Defendants’ malfeasance, slander and unlawful arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin, his son, now aged 7 (seven) years, has been wrongly and unjustly deprived for 5 (five) of those years of the love and affection, nurturing care, guidance, companionship and comfort of a father during his young life. The consequences to Plaintiff Nicholas of his depression, confusion and anxiety are best expressed in the physical manifestation of his stress as expressed by contracting Diabetes Type I at the age of 4 (four) years. 108. The actions of the Defendants have reduced the natural life expectancy of Plaintiff Nicholas and placed a burden upon a young life, which is immeasurable in financial or material terms. The Plaintiffs shall be weighed with the expense of special medical attention and care and a lifetime of anxiety over the health and well being of their 7 (seven) – year old son. 109. The unlawful seizure and destruction of the Plaintiffs’ property and assets by the Defendants has further denied Plaintiff Nicholas his rightful inheritance and future opportunity. 110. As a result of the Defendants’ malfeasance, slander and unlawful arrest and inhuman treatment of the Plaintiff Kapoustin, his wife of 12 years, the Plaintiff Tracy has been denied the love, companionship, emotional and financial support in assistance towards living expenses and comfort of a husband and friend. The public humiliation of being forced upon the public dole and the damaged reputation and loss of income and property have caused Plaintiff Tracy to accept social and financial aid from family and friends in order to care for the Plaintiffs’ diabetic son and to finance her fight to free her unlawfully detained husband. 111. The extreme stress, personal anguish and anxiety born of the demands of what is an unjust and undeserved burden have physically manifested themselves in ill health requiring constant medication and the regular attention of physicians, thus causing added financial hardship upon the Plaintiffs. 112. As a result the Plaintiff Kapoustin’s elderly parents Robert and Tatiana, due to the humiliation and anxiety they suffered from the Defendants’ malfeasance, slander, unlawful arrest and inhuman treatment of their son, with attempts by the Defendants to extort money from them and the threats made in the process thereof against their and their son’s safety and lives as the alternative to non payment, caused Robert and Tatiana to suffer grievous personal anguish and anxiety which proved to be the direct cause of the physical and mental deterioration and illness of Plaintiff Kapoustin’s 67-year-old mother Tatiana, whose failed health has placed her under ongoing institutional care and requires the constant attention of her husband, Robert, who at 78 years of age has had to bear the emotional and financial burden of his wife’s care with that of the Plaintiff Kapoustin’s sister Sonia Jordan, neither of whom, in the absence of the Plaintiff’s support are able to financially sustain the care of Tatiana and themselves and their effort to protect their son and gain his freedom. 113. These unjust emotional and material demands have caused the Plaintiff Kapoustin’s elderly parents to lose their home of twenty years, which to them has been second to the resultant loss of the love, care, companionship and affection in the winter of their lives of the son unlawfully denied them.

22

114. As a result of Plaintiff Kapoustin’s deep humiliation, damaged public and business reputation and the deep emotional and physical trauma caused by the Defendants in their five year unlawful imprisonment of him and the Defendants’ unlawful seizure, exploitation and depletion of the Plaintiffs’ assets, the Plaintiff Kapoustin is not now nor shall he ever be able to realize for the rest of the years of his natural life the support of his family or the possibilities, business success, personal aspirations and fulfillment he might have otherwise realized as a father, husband and businessman, which have been and have forever been denied him by the Defendants. 115. As a result the Plaintiffs have jointly and severally incurred certain special damages, loss and expenses and further loss and expense in the future, particulars of which will be provided on request. WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFFS TRACY KAPOUSTIN, NICHOLAS KAPOUSTIN by his guardian Ad Litem TRACY KAPOUSTIN AND MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN claim against the DEFENDANTS THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA, DEREK A. DOORNBOS, STEFCHO GEORGIEV, MARIO STOYANOV, EMILIA MITKOVA, KINA DIMITROVA, IVETA ANADOLSKA and DIMITAR SHACKLE as follows: a) To the Plaintiffs liquidated damages of 37,547,010 USD as assessed upon the value of the Plaintiffs’ investments calculated in Canadian dollars; b) To the Plaintiffs liquidated damages of 2,258,999 DM as assessed upon the value of the Plaintiffs’ investments calculated in Canadian dollars; c) To the Plaintiffs liquidated damages of 917,984,769 Greek Drachmas as assessed upon the value of the Plaintiffs’ investments calculated in Canadian dollars; d) To the Plaintiffs liquidated damages of 2,000,000,000 BGL as assessed upon the value of the Plaintiffs’ investments calculated in Canadian dollars at the prevailing rate of exchange on the date invested as fixed by the Bulgarian National Bank on the day; e) damages, both general and special, for the Plaintiff Nicholas Kapoustin, for the deprivation of love and affection, care, companionship of his natural father and loss of assistance towards living expenses and education and income from his father and his inheritance and for ongoing medical care of his disability and for the resultant loss of future income thereof; f) damages, both general and special, for the Plaintiff Tracy Coburn Kapoustin, for the deprivation of love and affection, care, companionship of her husband and loss of assistance towards living expenses and income from her husband and for ongoing medical care and for the resultant loss of future income thereof; g) damages, both general and special, for the Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin, for deprivation of the love and affection, companionship and joy of his son and wife, and the loss of past and future income as a consequence of his imprisonment and loss of reputation, opportunity and assets. 23

h) general and special damages; i)

interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act;

j)

costs;

k) such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court may seem just.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury. PLACE OF TRIAL:

Vancouver, British Columbia

DATED at the City of Surrey, in the Province of British Columbia, on this 23rd day of June, 2000.

_______________________ Plaintiff Tracy Kapoustin

TO:

THE DEFENDANTS

FILED BY: MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN Suite 94435 7680 River Road, Richmond, B.C. V6Y 2A8

_______________________ Plaintiff Nicholas Kapoustin by his guardian Ad Litem Tracy Kapoustin

______________________ Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin

24