The Kapoustin Report_copy Gene

Before the Honourable Members of Parliament 2004

THE KAPOUSTIN REPORT CHARTER VIOLATIONS and UNLAWFUL COMMISSIONS 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 COERCIVELY QUESTIONING AND TORTURING CITIZENS OF CANADA WHO TRAVEL OR WORK ABROAD. THE REPORT DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MEMBERS OF THIS PARLIAMENT ANOTHER CASE SIMILAR TO THAT OF ARAR. IN BOTH CASES THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE INTERNATIONAL LIAISON AND FEDERAL EXECUTIVE SERVICES AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA HAVE ACTED TO INTENTIONALLY COMPROMISE THE PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND INTEGRITY OF FOREIGN POLICE AND PROSECUTION OFFICIALS BY SHIELDING MALICIOUSLY MANUFACTURED FALSEHOODS AND MISREPRESENTED OR UNVERIFIED CANADIAN POLICE FACTS BEHIND WORDS OF TRUST VERBA PRECARIA. THESE UNLAWFUL AND MALICIOUS RCMP CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS ARE THEN SANCTIFIED IN SECRET CROWN INDICTMENTS DELIVERED TO FOREIGN STATES AND SHIELDED BEHIND THE MANTEL OF CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY AND GOVERNMENT INTEGRITY. IN ARAR AND KAPOUSTIN THE EXTRADITING STATES HAVE BEEN SECRETLY ADVISED BY CANADA THAT IT HAS NO INTEREST IN REPATRIATING ONE OF ITS NATURALIZED CITIZENS. IN THE KAPOUSTIN CASE, THE CROWN PROMISED MONEY TO BULGARIAN POLICE IN EXCHANGE FOR INFORMATION TO BE OBTAINED AFTER THE FACT OF BULGARIA ARRESTING, QUESTIONING, THEN PROSECUTING AND CONVICTING KAPOUSTIN, A NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF CANADA. IN BOTH ARAR AND KAPOUSTIN THE RCMP NEVER EXPRESSES ANY CONCERNS IF THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BY IT WAS TO BE OBTAINED BY MEANS INVOLVING THE PHYSICAL OR PHYSIOLOGICAL TORTURE OF A CITIZEN OF CANADA. THIS REPORT ALSO DOCUMENTS HOW CANADA’S DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE REFUSED TO TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COMMUNICATING TO OTHER CANADIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES KAPOUSTIN’S CONCERN OVER HIS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION BY A CROWN SERVANT AND THE OTHER MALFEASANCES COMMITTED BY THE RCMP. FOREIGN AFFAIRS OFFICIALS REPEATEDLY EXCUSING WHAT IS A MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND THE ACTS OF TORTURE AND INHUMANE TREATMENT OF CANADIAN CITIZENS AS SOVEREIGN RIGHTS. CROWN OFFICIALS HAVING GONE SO FAR AS TO HAVE REQUESTED THE KAPOUSTIN FAMILY COMPROMISE THEIR CHARTER PROTECTIONS AND OTHER LEGAL RIGHTS IN AND OUTSIDE OF CANADA ONLY SO CANADA FOREIGN AFFAIRS COULD SECURE TREATY COOPERATION FROM BULGARIAN OFFICIALS. THE REPORT SEEKS AN INVESTIGATION INTO THIS CULTURE OF APPEASEMENT. THE OBJECT OF THIS REPORT IS TO PRECIPITATE FURTHER ENQUIRY BY THE HONOURABLE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT INTO THE ALLEGATIONS MADE HERE AND INTO A POSSIBLE LEGISLATIVE GAP, LEGES LACUNA, PERMITTING THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE INTERNATIONAL LIAISON AND FEDERAL EXECUTIVE SERVICES AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA TO VIOLATE IN SECRET AND OUTSIDE OF CANADA THEIR CHARTER COVENANTS AND PRE-EXISTING POSITIVE LEGAL DUTIES TO CITIZENS OF CANADA WHO ARE UNABLE TO ACT FREELY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEIR FOREIGN DETENTION.

PREFACE To the Honourable Ladies and Gentlemen Members of Parliament,

I have written and compiled this report from inside a Bulgarian prison cell. Bringing this report before members of Parliament would have been impossible if it were not for the assistance I received from Dr. Donald Kommers and other members of the law faculty at Notre Dame Law School and law students like Tom Messner and the other fine future alumni of Notre Dame who gave so much of their time in helping me. The report’s Author is the victim of the practices he documents. As a citizen of Canada, the Author believes the conducts documented in the report are unlawful and have directly derogated from his Charter rights and protections. Legal and Moral Questions in the Report Is there a systemic wide practice within the Office of the Attorney General of Canada and the RCMP to presume as guilty any naturalized citizen of Canada suspected of a crime? Should a presumption of guilt allow a Crown agency to secretly make oral and written requests for foreign police to arrest, detain, extradite or deport a citizen of Canada alleged to be a former national of the requested state? Are naturalized citizens of Canada being maliciously prosecuting at Canada’s request by foreign states in the name of Canada’s national security and for the greater Canadian social order and public good? Are the Attorney General of Canada and the RCMP, unfettered by Charter covenants and pre-existing positive legal obligations to naturalized Canadians who work or travel abroad? Are “well meaning” secret Canadian police activities desirable even when having an undesirable fascist overtone? Why is this Report Presented to Parliament by the Family and Friends of a Citizen of Canada Incarcerated in the Republic Of Bulgaria? This Report should have been compiled and presented by self-regulating agencies of the Crown. However, each such agency has refused all requests to investigate itself. Despite years of effort, no agency of the Government of Canada was ready to assist this Author or his family in exposing the truth or in defending the Author’s legal and fundamental rights in Canada or abroad. For more than eight (8) years the Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs demonstrated only an unwillingness to act on irrefutable documents proving that the Author’s arrest, prosecution and torture in the Republic of Bulgaria are directly attributable to agencies of the Crown. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services and the Attorney General of Canada having undertaken to intentionally cause the Author and his family public humiliation, emotional and physical harm and the loss of their dignity and property.

Unable to secure any form of assistance from federal government agencies and lacking the resources to retain attorneys, the Author, as a citizen of Canada and victim of Canadian police abuses, was forced to submit this written disclosure to Canada’s elected officials in the hope they might engage themselves in an investigation as to why this has happened to the Author and other Canadians. As a result, the Report is presented to the Honourable Ladies and Gentlemen Members of Canada’s Parliament by the victim, his family, and a close circle of friends, sympathetic Members of Parliament and a few professionals who have assisted the Author. The hoped for result? That the Honourable Members of Canada’s Parliament will put an end to practices that will cost Canadian tax payers millions dollars in lawsuits because they are unethical, inconsistent with Canada’s Constitution and prove to be morally wrong when causing citizens of Canada to unlawfully and needlessly suffer malicious prosecutions, and physical and psychological tortures in foreign states at the request of their own government, Canada. This Report will prove the root cause for the Author’s being imprisoned in Bulgaria and his having to remain there to be Crown agencies. The same agencies appearing less than enthusiastic when pursuing bringing the Author and other Canadians like ARAR, SAMPSON and OLIVIER out of misery and back to the safety of Canada. May be the Members of Parliament will do what Canada’s foreign affairs ministry refuses to do and succeed where it has failed, the repatriating of the author from Bulgaria and after nearly nine years finally reuniting him with his family in Canada. Similarities to the ARAR Incident The Author’s Report asserts that the MAHER ARAR incident in the United States and Syria of 2002 and that in 1996 of the author, MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN in Germany and Bulgaria, the latter documented here, are neither isolated nor occurred within an official vacuum. Canada’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General and Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade had to have known, or had a duty to know that senior Crown servants at the RCMP INTERNATIONAL LIAISON AND FEDERAL EXECUTIVE SERVICES BRANCH in Ottawa are in the practice of profiling naturalized citizens of Canada and engaging foreign police in their arrest and criminal prosecution on Canadian criminal indictments. Senior Crown officials pursued a singular purpose of securing information allegedly for a Canadian criminal investigation. To secure that information the Crown knowing employed illegal and unconstitutional means in scienter with and relying on inhumane interrogation techniques not permitted in Canada. The KAPOUSTIN and ARAR incidents respectively involve the Bulgaria and Syrian police. Each of these foreign police agencies had not conducted a prior separate and independent criminal investigation of either KAPOUSTIN or ARAR. Instead they acted solely upon secret requests. The criminal indictments and the police facts are prepared in Canada by the Crown and delivered in secret through Canadian embassies. These elements are common to the KAPOUSTIN and ARAR incidents and the methods and means used by the RCMP INTERNATIONAL LIAISON AND FEDERAL EXECUTIVE SERVICES BRANCH in Ottawa are well thought out and clearly premeditated in character as follows. KAPOUSTIN and ARAR are identified, and profiled as undesirable foreign nationals having acquired Canadian citizenship. When leaving Canada they are targeted by senior Crown servants at

the RCMP and the Office of the Attorney General of Canada in Ottawa. The matrices KAPOUSTIN and ARAR have the common factual fundamentals (1) there is a Canadian police investigation that while unrelated to the two men is some how indirectly connected to them; (2) the Crown has made an unverified supposition that the two men have information believed to be necessary to the Canadian police investigation; (3) both men regularly travel and work abroad; (4) in each case there are insufficient facts for the Attorney General of Canada to issue international arrest warrants for either KAPOUSTIN or ARAR; (5) the Crown takes special notice of the fact that both men are naturalized Canadian citizens whose families escaped oppressive and brutal political systems while both were children, Bulgaria and Syria respectively; (6) the Crown knows both men and their families to have secret police dossiers in the countries of their birth. The families of these men are viewed by the secret police of these countries as de facto criminals, Bulgarian and Syrian police viewing with suspicion the activities of escapees or émigrés; (7) the RCMP and the Attorney General of Canada take notice of Bulgarian and Syrian suspicions and make a calculated decision to circumvent Canada’s judicial system, the Charter, Interpol and Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs by directly contacting the secret police services in the countries of their birth, respectively Bulgaria and Syria, (8) the Crown knows of and in fact relies on the notorious and internationally recognised fact that neither Bulgaria or Syria are likely to subject Crown police facts, accusations or a Crown criminal indictment to any proper legal test before agreeing to arrest citizens of Canada that the Crown alleges to be in the case of KAPOUSTIN a previously convicted international criminal and of ARAR, a known terrorist; (9) Crown servants then proceed to contact Bulgarian and Syrian police and prosecution officials and communicate to them what are nothing more than calculated and maliciously manufactured falsehoods and misrepresented or unverified Canadian police facts presented by Crown servants as if the result of proper police work in Canada; (10) these Crown slanders are communicated with the singular purpose of creating official and public enmity towards KAPOUSTIN and ARAR, sufficient to cause their arrest, detention, extradition/deportation, questioning, torture and possible convictions; (11) the Crown reduces its slanders to a series of libels in secret Crown indictments and communications delivered directly to the police of Bulgaria and Syria. In these the Crown is formally requesting the arrest and prosecution of KAPOUSTIN and ARAR; (12) the Crown identifies to Bulgarian and Syrian police the information it needs from KAPOUSTIN and ARAR and believes can be obtained by Bulgarian and Syrian police interrogators; (13) to obtain this information the Crown is relying on Bulgarian and Syrian interrogation techniques that it knows to be degrading, brutal, inhumane and unlawful in Canada; (14) the Crown requests Bulgarian and Syria prosecutors issue international arrest warrants for KAPOUSTIN and ARAR; (15) Bulgarian and Syrian police and prosecutors prepare their international warrants using the near exact wording of the Crown indictments against KAPOUSTIN and ARAR; (16) KAPOUSTIN is detained in Germany and ARAR in the Untied States; (17) both men fear for their lives, and their families plead for Canada Foreign Affairs to forcefully intervene on their behalf and ensure they are not extradited or deported to the countries of their birth, Germany and the United States both know that there is no judicial supervision over police or prosecutors and that KAPOUSTIN and ARAR will be subjected to inhumane treatment, and tortured during their respective detentions in Bulgaria and Syria; (18) unknown to the families of KAPOUSTIN or ARAR, is the fact that the Crown is responsible for their arrests and is secretly pressing Germany to extradite KAPOUSTIN and the United States to deport ARAR to the countries of their birth; (19) both men are profiled by the Crown to German and American authorities not as Canadians but as a Bulgarian and Syrian national attempting to hide behind Canadian citizenship and law to avoid facing justice in the countries of their birth. For this reason German prosecutors and judicial authorities incarcerate KAPOUSTIN with other Bulgarians national. ARAR is considered a Syrian and not Canadian citizen by immigration and police agencies of the United States. His request to be deported Canada refused; (20) German courts are provided manufacture facts and misleading Canadian police data on KAPOUSTIN through Bulgaria’s Prosecutor General; (21) in the ARAR

incident, United States immigration officials arrest ARAR on secret Canadian police data; (22) in the KAPOUSTIN incident as documented here, officials of Germany are told Canada is not interested in repatriating KAPOUSTIN and to go ahead with extradition to his “place of birth”, Bulgaria. The same occurs, mutatis mutandis, in the ARAR incident. The Author’s Report cites a number of official public statements made by Bulgarian police and prosecution officials. These support the Author’s anecdotal evidence that in 1996 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada advised German and Bulgaria authorities that Canada was not interested in the return of KAPOUSTIN to Canada. The same occurs in the ARAR incident. The extradition of KAPOUSTIN is surprising only in the fact that it occurred at all and notwithstanding that German and Canadian officials knew or had a duty to know the following. That the overwhelming public enmity created by the Crown against KAPOUSTIN and the nature of the accusations against him would lead to serious abuses, including torture. Bulgarian police brutality and the lack of official accountability are internationally well documented and known to officials of both Canada and Germany. The lack of judicial supervision over arrests and detentions was also known to the governments of Canada and Germany, both knowing Bulgaria to have no law for judicial control of habeas corpus. These elements provide prima facie cause for the Members of the Parliament to serious consider the claims of this Author that the governments of Canada and Germany both knew the Author would be subjected to brutal treatment once arriving in Bulgaria, and this notwithstanding Bulgarian promises to the contrary. The physical and psychological torture of KAPOUSTIN is a notorious public fact appearing through out the Bulgarian media in 2000 and reported to the criminal trial court. As is the fact of the Author spending more than two years in solitary confinement and more than three years before his arrest and detention was reviewed by a court. Yet, knowing this Germany proceeded and Canada failed to protest the extradition of KAPOUSTIN. In fact the alternative is true; Canada lobbied for the extradition of KAPOUSTIN. The Consent And Insistence Of The Government Of Canada That Germany Extradite KAPOUSTIN Is An Inevitable One. And the only logical conclusion to evolve from the evidence of Crown agencies and servants having invested time in securing the agreement of Bulgarian police for the arrest and prosecution of KAPOUSTIN in Bulgaria on the information found in the Crown’s July 7th 1995 written indictment against KAPOUSTIN. The KAPOUSTIN and ARAR incidents each demonstrate to the Members of Parliament how police and prosecution officials of the United States, Germany, Syria and the Republic of Bulgaria have had their integrity compromised by what now appears to be the unwarranted internationally credibility and reputation of Canada’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Never did Germany, Bulgaria, the United States or Syria subject the Crown’s requests and indictments of KAPOUSTIN and ARAR to any proper legal tests before allowing for their arrests and extraditions.

However, in the fullness of time these secret Crown indictments of these two naturalized citizens of Canada are each proved to be maliciously false criminal allegations, and nothing more than fabrications or at best libellous misrepresentations of fact presented under the guise and mantel of official police work. KAPOUSTIN and ARAR are cleared of the original criminal accusations as presented in the secret Crown indictments against them. It was the Crown, and not Bulgarian or Syria who sought their arrests, extraditions, questioning and torture and it is the Crown who should share responsibility with those foreign states having acted on its information. The Crown promises Bulgarian police a cash reward for arresting, prosecuting and convicting KAPOUSTIN. Unlike ARAR, the case of this Author has continued for more than nine (9) years and failed to end with the 1998 withdrawal of Crown involvement in the Bulgarian prosecution. Why? The answer can be found in the Crown’s promise of a cash reward as documented in the Crown indictment against KAPOUSTIN. Bulgarian police and prosecutors were promised millions of dollars as a reward for the prosecution and conviction of KAPOUSTIN in Bulgaria. Quoting from the indictment the Crown writes that it would be “relatively easy” for Bulgaria to prove the proceeds of KAPOUSTIN ’S crimes as having been deposited in Canadian banks. To this day Bulgaria’s Prosecutor General, the Government of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian public remain convinced by the 1995 Crown indictment and its representations that there are millions of dollars deposited by KAPOUSTIN in banks of Canada, the Crown alleged the money as having been taken out of Bulgaria. The continuing Bulgarian government belief in the Crown’s official deceit is well documented in recent written and oral communications between the Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and officials of Bulgaria’s Ministry of Justice, Minister’s Anton Stankov and Mario Dimitrov. Also, the Prosecutor General of Bulgaria D. Filchev has made the repatriation of KAPOUSTIN to a Canadian prison contingent on Canada or KAPOUSTIN delivering these millions of dollars as promised to Bulgaria in 1995 Crown indictment. The Bulgarian government also insisting that KAPOUSTIN not pursuing his civil and human rights claims of malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest and illegal conversion of private property by the State of Bulgaria. Crown Agencies and Servants Acted in a Calculated Fashion to Create an Atmosphere of Intense Official and Public Enmity Against the Author. Crown agencies and servants informed Bulgarian police and prosecutors that the Author was inter alia “well known in Canada and had prior convictions for the molestation and raping of children”. This together with other maliciously untrue slanders and libels are repeated to other Bulgarian officials and are later reproduced in the Bulgarian mass media. Until 1999, the Author considered such the Bulgarian media reports to be false, neither the Author nor his family believing claims of Crown involvement in his arrest and extradition from Germany. The Author and his family also gave no credence to the Bulgarian media reports and statements of Bulgarian police and prosecutors that Canada Foreign Affairs had advised German and Bulgarian

authorities that Canada was not interested in the repatriation of the Author, a Jew and naturalized Canadian. The Author and his family considered such media reports as nothing more than the result of a yellow Bulgaria press and a too fertile imagination. Bulgarian police investigators and prosecutors, to give added credibility to their groundless allegation claiming Canadian police involvement. The Author learned the truth in April of 1999. Crown Complicity in the Author Arrest and Prosecution is established During the Course his Criminal Trial in Bulgaria. During the course of the Author’s criminal trial, Bulgarian prosecutors presented the trial court with Bulgarian language copies of the secret Crown indictment of the Author as presented to Bulgarian police in July of 1995. Also, in court the Author is shown copies of numerous faxed requests of the Crown to Bulgarian police for information to be secured from the Author while he was still isolated in solitary confinement. The Author’s personal records from his 1996 to 1998 solitary confinement show he was questioned and beaten almost immediately after each such Crown request was faxed to Bulgarian interior police. The secret Crown indictment, the faxed communications and the Crown acting in secret scienter with Bulgaria’s Ministry of Interior police appears as part of the criminal trial record of the Author. It was then that the Author and his family were forced to accept as true the Crown’s direct involvement in having him criminally charged, arrested and extradited to Bulgaria. By not acting to prevent the Author’s extradition by Germany to Bulgaria and by persisting in repeated faxed demands that information be obtained from the Author, the Crown, by its silence and continued participation, was consenting to unlawful detention and torture of a citizen of Canada. During course of his criminal trial, the Author also learned from the Bulgarian Ministries of justice and foreign affairs that no letters rogatory were issued by their Minister to Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs or Minister of Justice requesting legal assistance in a criminal investigation of the Author. From this fact one might conclude that the Crown’s involvement and its evidence before a Bulgarian criminal court are unsolicited offers to Bulgarian Ministry of Interior police. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services and the Attorney General of Canada having volunteered assistance, information and made a promises of money in exchange for the Bulgaria arrest, prosecution, questioning and conviction of a citizen of Canada. Understandably the Author and his family began filing complaints with Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Minister of Foreign Affairs in Ottawa. In March Of 2001 the Author Received a Sentence Of 23 Years at Hard Labour for an alleged Embezzlement of Private Corporate Funds Belonging to the Author’s Company. The Honourable Members of Parliament will learn that no protests were filed with Bulgaria against an unreasonable and unjust 23 year sentence and conviction on a new accusation. The charge and accusation of embezzlement of private corporate funds different from the one presented in Bulgarian extradition documents to Germany of the Author having embezzled public funds.

In fact, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade suggested to the Author and his family that he not appeal his 23 year sentence or conviction. An appeal could take a year or more where in that same time he could be transferred to Canada. The Author rejected this advice principally because he did not trust the promises of Bulgarian prosecutors. The Author was acquitted in late 2001 by the Court of Appeal but charges were altered and he was sentenced to 9 years on a new accusation of fraud. This was later overturned by the Bulgarian Court of Cassation at the request of the prosecution. At the Author’s second trial by the Court of Appeal he was again acquitted but again the charges were altered and he was sentenced to 17 years on a new accusation of embezzlement, this without any element of fraud. The Author appealed. From March 2001 to October of 2002 the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade repeatedly requested the family of the Author to convince him to drop his continued appeals and to discontinue his civil and human rights complaints against the government of Bulgaria and a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade shows the Author and his family Bulgarian Letters Rogatory and minutes of consular meetings where Bulgarian officials promise that the Author’s transfer to a prison in Canada would be expeditious and imminent once the conviction was final. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade wanted the Author to capitulate and accept the Bulgarian sentence. By dropping his appeals the Author’s sentence could become final and he could to be transferred. This was clearly taken to mean that when the Author stopped appealing his conviction and accepted its inevitability he could expect to be transferred. Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade had no desire to confront Bulgarian or Germany government officials with the Author’s complaints or to forcefully insist on his legal rights according to the terms of the Author’s extradition from Germany in 1996, preferring instead to satisfy unreasonable Bulgarian demands. Regrettably, the Author and his family accepted the advice and direction of Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and in October 2002 the Author withdrew his Appeal before the Bulgarian Court of Cassation. The Honourable Members of this Parliament will discover that the Author and his family had made a serious mistake trusting officials at Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade who negligently or intentionally has misrepresented the intentions of the Bulgarian State. Is There A Cover Up? Objectively, it is only the Honourable Ladies and Gentlemen Members of Parliament who can eventual find the answer to this question. However, there is some evidence to suggest this to be the true in both in the Author’s case and that of ARAR. In late 1999 and early 2000, the Author’s family was contacted by a journalist from the Globe and Mail who had learned of the secret Crown indictment of the Author. The story on the Author and Crown complicity in his arrest and torture was later killed by an Editor for the Globe and Mail, even after several months had been invested in their research of the Author’s claims.

The reason given the Author and his family by the Globe journalist was that his Chief Editor had contacted senior officials at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services and the Attorney General of Canada. The Globe was asked to not proceed with the story. According to the Canadian police information given the Globe, the Author was, according to Canadian police sources, “guilty and not worthy of public sympathy”, so the Globe complied and never published the story. Did the Crown have Fundamental Charter Obligations to KAPOUSTIN and ARAR as Citizens of Canada Traveling or Working Abroad? It is the Honourable Members of Parliament who will draw their own conclusions from the events documented in this Report and the claims before Canada’s parliament and courts both by the Author in 2001 and recently Mr. ARAR in 2004. But, if the cases of KAPOUSTIN and ARAR establish anything before this Honourable Parliament and the people of Canada at all then it is this; that servants of the Crown feel no obligation or sense of accountability towards citizens of Canada when they travel or work abroad. In preparing this Report the Author concluded there to be three fundamental obligations to him and other citizens of Canada that were beyond ethical or legal controversy. First, that Crown agencies and servants have the ethical obligation of protecting citizens of Canada. Second, that Crown agencies and servants have the legal obligation to observe the laws of Canada and its Charter protections. Third, that such are these ethical and legal obligations of Crown agencies and servants that they do not fall away once a citizen of Canada leaves the territorial boundaries of Canada. However, from these there emerges a singular a priori, that there exists an ethical and legal duty for Crown agencies and servants to first and above all else protect the rights and serve the interests of Canada’s citizens. Protect and Serve the Citizens of Canada, the A Priori of the Author’s Report. In the absence of such an a prior the complaints of the Author and this Report become moot. The rules of official conduct, civil protections enacted under Canada’s national law and the oath taken by Crown servants do not come with territorial limitations. The same laws and the oath that binds servants of the Government in Canada must also bind them outside of Canada. Oaths and Canada’s national laws, in particular the Charter, have no caveats limiting Crown servants to ethical conduct and observing the Charter rights of citizens only when in acting against citizens in Canada. That is not to say that the interests of international comity between democratic societies, and the common social order and good are to be subordinated according to ones citizenship, the rule of law demands otherwise. The Author never expected in his case that officials of the Republic of Bulgaria would observe his Canadian Charter or due process rights according to Canadian law.

However, he did expect members of Canada’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and other Crown servants to observe the Author’s Charter rights and freedoms as well as their individual ethical and legal obligations as Crown servants to citizens of Canada beyond the boundaries of Canada, even for a naturalized Jewish Canadian. Regrettably, it was in 1999 that this Author first learned a valuable and disappointing lesson. Being a citizen of Canada provided no protection from Canadian police abuses and malicious prosecutions once you leave Canada. ARAR learned the same lesson in 2002. According to the documented experiences of this Author and MR. ARAR, the rights of c citizen of Canada to due process, repatriation and other rights taken for granted by Canada’s citizens are therefore, in order of practice unavailable to naturalized Canadians outside of Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services and Attorney General of Canada are treating naturalized citizens of Canada as de facto nationals of foreign states and not as Canadians. The Author also believes his case and that of ARAR are anecdotal evidence of a culture of AntiSemitic and Anti-Islamic ethnic profiling within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services and Attorney General of Canada. Religion, ethnic and national origin playing a key role in the decision making practices of Crown agencies. The first such anecdotal evidence appears in 1996 when the Crown requests Bulgarian authorities to criminally prosecute the Author as a Bulgarian and German police to profile the Author as a Bulgarian and not Canadian national. The Crown and German authorities knowing KAPOUSTIN to be a Jew born in Bulgaria of Russian parents who arrived in Canada when he was aged 4 in 1956. It is on the foundation this ethnic profiling of naturalized Canadians and a secret Canadian indictment of KAPOUSTIN presented under the pretext of a Bulgarian arrest warrant that the Author was detained and extradited by Germany to Bulgaria. Both Canada and Germany knew in advance that KAPOUSTIN would be prosecuted in Bulgarian on the Canadian indictment but denied the protections of Canadian law against malicious prosecution, unlawful detention and torture once he was placed in Bulgarian police custody. Did ARAR Suffer The Same Prejudices In 2002 As KAPOUSTIN In 1996 and Is the ARAR Case An Addition Source Of Anecdotal Evidence For This Author’s Report? From what the Author has researched, it appears the Crown asked Syrian authorities to prosecute ARAR as a Syrian and American authorities to profile him as a Syrian and not Canadian national. The Crown and American authorities knowing ARAR to be Moslem man born in Syria and coming to Canada at the age of 14. Again, it is on the foundation of a secret Canadian indictment of ARAR and under the pretext of his prior Syria nationality that ARAR is detained and extradited/deported by the United States to Syria. He, like KAPOUSTIN, would be prosecuted on a secret Canadian indictment but denied the protections of Canadian law against malicious prosecution, unlawful detention and torture. Something the governments of Canada and the United States knew in advance of placing ARAR in Syrian custody.

Are these mere coincidences and isolated incidents having occurred in a vacuum or are they evidence of a newly uncovered secret policy within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services and Attorney General of Canada? So Should the Charter’s A Prior extend Beyond the Territorial Limits of Canada? This appears to be in dispute. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services have remained silent on the issue as has the Attorney General of Canada, that notwithstanding a number of complaints filed by the Author and his family. Such a silence is interpreted by the Author as meaning that in practice, if not in principle, his Charter protections or other legal rights as a Canadian citizen do not exist or do apply to Crown servants whenever a citizen leaves Canada. The Attorney General of British Columbia, in a letter to the Author, had written that such rights as exist under Canada’s laws are available to him but only when he is physically in Canada and do not apply to him when he is outside of Canada. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has repeatedly insisted to the Author and his family that rights according to Canadian law do not exist outside of Canada. It the national law of foreign sovereign states that determine the rights of Canada’s citizens who live or work abroad. The Author found the reasoning offered him by officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Attorney General as only partially true. The complaints of the Author and his family have always concerned the rights and obligations of Crown agencies and servants according to Canadian law, and not the rights and obligations of the servants of foreign states. The official malfeasances, misconducts and derelictions of duty under Canadian law and as complained of to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Attorney General of Canada are those of Crown agencies and servants, not foreign agencies, instrumentalities or officials. The report also documents before the Honourable Members of Parliament the written and oral communications of Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs. The wording of these correspondences to the Author and his family overwhelming suggest that Crown servants are routinely withholding information on the secret commissions against citizens of Canada given by the Crown to foreign police. Such correspondences, when examined against the matrix of documented facts, particularly in the KAPOUSTIN case, collectively provide prima facie evidence of a practice of deception among officials within Canada Foreign Affairs. There is no doubt that the Canadian citizens KAPOUSTIN and ARAR have been lied to and their families deceived by feigned assistance from one agency of Canada, foreign affairs, while other agencies of Canada, the RCMP and Attorney General, are secretly acting in scienter with foreign police to have the same citizen of Canada arrested, extradited or deported and criminally prosecuted in a foreign state. The KAPOUSTIN, ARAR and SAMPSON cases are before the Honourable Members of Parliament and each document separate incidents of how representatives of Canada’s embassies and consular services in and outside of Canada insulate themselves from the suffering of Canada’s citizens who are incarcerated in foreign prisons.

Both cases shown the common elements of an insular Canadian government whose inaction and indifference to the injustice and injures caused citizens of Canada is second only to the unconscionable acts and secret commissions of the RCMP and the Attorney General of Canada. Is There an Official Culture of Insulation and a Policy of Appeasement within Canada’s Department Of Foreign Affairs And International Trade? That Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has no concrete mandate to proactively pursue the complaints of Canada’s citizens against agencies, instrumentalities and officials of foreign states is established fact. Here, Canada’s citizens are to fend for themselves and expect little to no support from foreign affairs. In the Author’s case no Canadian consular official was ever willing or prepared to confront a foreign official with the serious complaints of corruption, attempted extortions, physical and psychological torture and malicious prosecutions. The same appears to be true in the cases of ARAR and SAMPSON. Instead, officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in Ottawa actively insulate themselves from confrontations with foreign officials. The official Crown correspondences linked to the KAPOUSTIN case provide direct evidence of this official Canada foreign affairs policy and practice of never confronting a foreign state with the crimes of its officials, no matter how well documented. Officials at Canada Foreign Affairs prefer the simple and pat answers of slick and deceitful foreign police, prosecutors and government officials to the complex facts and statements of citizens of Canada. However, officials at Canada foreign affairs never once hesitate to forcefully confront Canadian families and to instruction then in pressing their loved ones to subjugate their individual and human rights in exchange for gaining the cooperation of foreign officials. There is only one appropriate description here for this Canadian foreign policy, appeasement. The cooperation of foreign officials is accomplished by Canada foreign affairs at the expense of the treasure, honour and dignity of the Canadian families who often pay in blood and suffering to gain that cooperation. The corruption and brutality suffered abroad by Canada’s citizens is apparent in the ARAR and SAMPSON, thankfully the suffering of these two Canadians has ended. However, the case of this Author (KAPOUSTIN) continues to drag on beyond into its ninth year (9) year with no end in sight. Obvious to anyone reading this Report is the fact that officials in Ottawa find it easier and much less work to accept plausible lies from foreign officials than the truth from citizens of Canada. To believe a citizen of Canada requires real work and a full investigation into their painful complaints. Apparently, such investigations are to be avoided at all costs, they require time, money and real effort, the excuse? An overwhelming case load of citizens needing help. So Ottawa has left all such confrontations to the families of the Canadian citizens being tortured and wrongly prosecuted, and to any member of Canada’s parliament who agrees to help even when it is at Canada’s request.

What does appear to be a Canada foreign affairs policy mandate is documented in this report as the clear and ever present directive for officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to confront and distress Canadian families. Leaving foreign officials alone and able to continue their abusing and torturing of citizens of Canada. Crown Agencies And Servants, Particularly Officials At Canada’s Department Of Foreign Affairs And International Trade And The Office Of Canada’s Attorney General, Have A Tendency To Consider Naturalized Citizens Of Canada As Plebeian And So Give No Credence To Their Complaints And Allegations Of Wrongdoing And Injury Suffered At The Hands Of Canadian And Foreign Police. Despite being plebeian, the Author did sometime ago make the required legal distinction between what is an act de jure imperii and an act that is de jure gestionis and what is actionable or not actionable in Canada according to Canadian law or is a right and obligation according to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, entered into force January 27, 1980 and actionable only before an international tribunal. The Author and many other Canadian families are being repeatedly and incorrectly advised by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Ottawa that international treaties are not legally binding on Canada’s bi-lateral or multi-lateral partners. That there is no recourse for the Government of Canada against those foreign states refusing to observe or reasonably apply their treaty commitments to Canada. This is simply not true; it is instead a matter of a Canadian government policy of non-involvement and not a matter of Canadian or international law. There are courts of international jurisdiction that provide venues for treaty complaints, the fact that the Government of Canada avoids such venues has no relationship to the jurisdiction of such venues over those Contracting States who have agree to accede to their judgments. A malicious foreign prosecution at the request of the Crown provides the necessary legal causa causans for jurisdiction in Canada and the Crown to act against those Crown servants and agencies responsible for official malfeasances and criminal slander and libel committed against KAPOUSTIN in the name of the Crown. Also, the treaty violations of Bulgaria’s prosecution and courts in sentencing KAPOUSTIN on an accusation not part of the German extradition agreement also provides Canada legal causa causans to claim against Germany and Bulgaria on behalf of KAPOUSTIN before international tribunals. However, what the Author has documented is the alternative to Crown servants helping defend the rights of citizens of Canada. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in Ottawa routinely requests citizens of Canada to subordinate their legal rights and interests to the political, financial and personal interests of foreign officials and agencies in foreign states. In the KAPOUSTIN case officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in Ottawa never once trusted as true the complaints of this Author or his family. Instead foreign affairs officials prefer and accept as true the words of the very foreign officials who ordered the torture of this Author and his trial and conviction on an unproven allegation of having embezzled private funds from a company whose property he controls and owns by virtual of his legal right as its sole shareholder.

The elements of the Bulgarian accusation of embezzlement brought against the Author in Germany do not contain the same elements as those found in his conviction. The acteus reus identified in the Bulgarian conviction of the Author do not continue any element of deception or fraud and so could constitute the crime of embezzlement according to German national law. It is not a crime in Germany or Canada too lawfully transfers private money to a foreign company with the consent of the owners and management of the company having lawful acquired patrimony and disposition over the money that is to be transferred. As a result, the new Bulgarian charge of embezzlement as brought against the Author in 2001 after his extradition by Germany is an accusation that exists in breach of the letters rogatory exchanged between the governments of Germany and Bulgaria. Even so Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs refuses to act. With Practiced Aloofness, Officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Repeat to Canadian Families Only What They Are Told by Representatives of Foreign Governments. Whenever unreasonable or questionable representations of foreign officials are openly and reasonably challenged by Canadian families, the Department of Foreign Affairs in Ottawa falls immediately upon an ancient mantra of sovereign right and immunity. Family members are repeatedly and cruelly reminded by Ottawa of the severity and serious nature of their loved ones crimes, the consequences and risk of having chosen to travel or work abroad and that it is better to appease and not confront foreign officials. In the 7th year of the Author’s trial, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade “strongly advised” he withdraw his most recent an appeal against a wrongful criminal conviction, and that he surrender all his other legal, property and human rights in Bulgaria. In addition, his family was asked to pay money to the State of Bulgaria. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade also “strongly advised” the Author meet Bulgarian demands “of his own free will” and withdraw his claims against the State of Bulgaria as made before the European Court of human Rights and civil courts of Canada and the United States. The Author was even asked by the Department of Foreign Affairs that he provide a declaration to Bulgarian officials that he was not being coerced into giving these concessions. Officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade gave the reason for making such requests to the Author and his family as an attempt at securing “the good-will” of Bulgaria officials. This way the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade could get the cooperation of their Bulgarian counterparts in the transfer of a citizen of Canada. This report documents exchanges with officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, where the Author and his family are told that citizens of Canada giving up rights not restricted by virtue of their criminal conviction is an acceptable practice in international law. The payments of money and the appeasement of Bulgarian officials would give Canada’s foreign affairs officials the necessary “diplomatic tools” they needed to get the Bulgarian State to agree to observe a multi-lateral treaty that allowed Canadian citizens to be transferred to prison in Canada from Bulgaria.

Never in the 8 years of this Author’s and his families involvement with officials in Ottawa have they once heard a Canadian official ready to aggressively question or put to any kind of legal or factual test dubious factual and legal representations and the unreasonable demands of Bulgaria’s officials at its Ministries of justice and foreign affairs. No Matter How Unreasonable, Ethically Questionable or Unlawful the Demands of Foreign Officials, Canada Foreign Affairs Advises Canadian to satisfy these Demands. In the Author’s case, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs has proven unwilling to confront officials of Bulgaria’s government with the specific breaches of the written promises made by Bulgarian in its letters rogatory as delivered to the governments of Canada and Germany. Also, in the Author’s case, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs was unwilling to confront officials of Germany’s government with having remained silent when Bulgarian breached of the terms of this Canadian citizen’s extradition as set out in German letters rogatory to Bulgaria and Canada. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs still continues to refuse to react proactively or positively to the complaints of Canada’s citizens against corrupt foreign practices. This is true in Bulgaria even as the Author prepared his Report, the Honorary Consul to Bulgaria Mr. Levon Hampartzoumian not having replied to one of the Author’s numerous letters and complaints. Canada’s Honorary Consul has even recently been implicated in the media as having connections to Bulgarian organised crime and corrupt Bulgarian government officials. Therefore, it is no wonder that he has done little to secure the repatriation of the Author to Canada and his family. It is those same corrupt Bulgaria officials who are responsible for the Author’s arrest, torture, mock trial and wrongful conviction. There is adequate evidence, direct and anecdotal, to suggest a Canadian government foreign policy that prefers incarcerated Canadian citizens and their families capitulate and appease foreign officials. Never, should any Canadian expect Canada’s Foreign Minister and his office to demand or defend the rights of Canadians before them. Officials at Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade have an established preference to defend the actions and demands of Bulgarian officials as a sovereign right of the Bulgarian state, notwithstanding the unreasonableness and incompatibility of such demands with international treaties, Bulgaria’s basic constitutional law and the extradition agreement with Germany governing the charges allowed against the Author. Canada’s Efforts at Appeasement Fail In April of 2004, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade learned that its policy of appeasing Bulgarian demands had failed and Bulgarian officials would not make good on their written promises of April 1999 and oral agreements to transfer the Author to a prison in Canada. As a result, the Author and his family remain separated for more than 9 years and have little hope of being reunited with the help of Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs. It remains to be seen if Canada’s new Minister of Foreign Affairs will bring an end to the present culture of appeasement. This insulation from confrontation with foreign officials has been allowed enjoy by officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs only at expense of Canadian families.

The practice has flourished for far too long and at a terrible human cost to ARAR, SAMPSON, this Author and each of our families. We have all endured too much to silently accept our individual loses and pain, even from within a Bulgarian prison. Will Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs order a new and more challenging approach? One ending this culture of insulation and appeasement by replacing with one prepared to legally and diplomatically confront states like Bulgaria whose officials consider treaty obligations as “optional” and the keeping of promises as unnecessary. Whys should a foreign agency or official act positively when he or she knows that the Canadian government is unwilling to take recourse against them? When Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs decides to act, then he can bring this Author home and many other citizens of Canada in similar circumstances. In The Correspondences And Transcripts Of Conversations Between This Author’s Family And Officials At Canada Foreign Affairs, The Honourable Members Of This Parliament Can Read For Themselves The Undisguised Contempt Some Canada Foreign Affairs Officials Have Against This Author. The Honourable Members of this Parliament will have the opportunity to themselves read exactly how one Canadian family is confronted by an official in Ottawa, Mr. Lindsey Hiseler. The written and spoken words of Foreign Affairs Ottawa indirectly defends the rights of foreign states to arrest, detain and even torture citizens of Canada and confirms the guilt of Canadian citizens. Mr. Hiseler taking an almost sadistic pleasure in reminding Canadian families how helpless we are and how Ottawa can do nothing and will do nothing. The Reports and Statement Made by Officials At The Department Of Foreign Affairs And International Trade In Ottawa Proves the Only Apparent Requirement for Being Employed is How Well Confrontations with Foreign Officials can be Avoided and the Complaints of Canadian Families Put Off. From the Author’s experiences as documented in this Report, the principle function of the Department of Foreign Affairs appears only to be one of administering the records of Canada citizens who complain of malicious prosecutions, physical and psychological mistreatment, torture and other abuses. These abuses are not prevented by what is an ineffectual Canadian foreign policy of “silent diplomacy” better described earlier as diplomacy by appeasement. It is this very policy that causes Canadians to suffer more. Each time Canada remains publicly silent over foreign official corruption, brutality and incompetence, the responsible foreign officials, feeling no pressure of accountability, is compelled by the silence to continue his attempts at extortion and torture of Canada’s citizens. Canada’s citizens are offered humane prison conditions, equal application of national laws and freedom only in exchange for paying money or securing favours. Year after painful year citizens of Canada are repeatedly told by Ottawa to “trust their government and the experience of its officials”. As a result, the family of the Author and other Canadian families are being asked by officials in Ottawa to follow what nearly always proves to be very bad advice. Accepting the reassuring words and promises of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in Ottawa has proven a fatal mistake for the Author, his wrongful conviction final only because the family of the Author was convinced into pleading with him to withdraw the appeals against his criminal conviction.

The Canadian hallmarks of humanity, professional ethics and a sense of accountability to the Charter and the laws of Canada are clearly absent in the documented conducts of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services and the Attorney General of Canada. And, officials at Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in Ottawa and consular officials in Bulgarian appear completely unconcerned and oblivious to the suffering that Canadian citizens endure in foreign prisons or to their rights under Canadian and international law. Are The Governments Of Canada And The Republic Of Bulgaria In Silent Agreement To Delay Or Avoid Repatriating the Author To Canada? This is a deeply disturbing and alien question for a citizen of Canada to ask the members of this parliament. However, the unwillingness of the Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs to act in the Author’s case gives substance to this abstract concept and the exigent circumstances surrounding Crown’s involvement in the ARAR begs the following question. Is There A Secret Or Undeclared Agreement Between The Attorney General Of Canada And The Attorney General Of Bulgaria To Keep A Naturalized Citizen Of Canada In Bulgaria? To what end? Possibly to keep the Author from further public prosecution of his claims in courts of Canada against the Republic of Bulgaria and the Attorney General of Canada and so exposing their earlier cooperation? So abstract an idea requires that there be something of sufficient consequence to some one official or some one agency of Canada, and even as the Author sets this idea to pen he finds it far fetched and may be only the seed of a paranoia finding root in the fertile mind of a man to long imprisoned and separated from his family and country. But still the Honourable Members of Parliament must ask themselves what the Author and his family have asked themselves for years. Why in 1996 did the Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services and the Attorney General of Canada rely on cloak and dagger antics, secret indictments and found a need to act in scienter with foreign police and prosecutors in the arrest, questioning, torture and prosecution of a citizen of Canada in Bulgaria? Or, for that matter Syria. Support ends from Canada Foreign Affairs These complaints as made in late 1999 had an unexpected effect of ending what was until then the visible assistance of consular officials at Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and Canada’s embassy in Bucharest, Romania... The last Ambassador to visit with the Author in Bulgaria and taking a serious interest in his case was the Honourable David Collins. Consular services official Jamie Bell and Heather Brooks, also from the Embassy of Canada in Bucharest were the last representatives to take a serious interest in the Author’s circumstances and in trying to return him to his family in Canada. 1999 saw the end of intensive sessions between German and Canadian consular officials. Canada’s Consul Bell assured the Author in 1999 that he could not be tried in Bulgaria on any new accusations. And, that his

conviction and sentence, if any, had to be within the reasonable limits of a similar sentence had the Author been tried in Germany. At a meeting with both Canadian and German consular officials in 1999, the Author was told that 9 years was considered to be a “reasonable maximum” as a prison term, and that anything else would precipitate protests from the Government of Germany and Canada. In visits with Ambassador Collins, the Author was told that Bulgaria officials had been asked to secure a speedy trial and that whatever the sentence the Canada would ask for its citizen to be transferred to a prison in Canada. The Author recalls one meeting with Ambassador Collins where he said, and here I paraphrase, “heck, the sentence doesn’t matter we will transfer you immediately, so long as there is a sentence”. After the departures of Ambassador Collins, Consuls Jamie Bell and Heather Brooks, the new representatives of Canada’s foreign affairs to Bulgaria proved uninterested in the Author’s case, particular the two new Canadian Ambassadors who have followed the Honourable Mr. Collins. No Ambassador of Canada has visited the Author since late 1999. Why Does Canada’s Minister Of Foreign Affairs Remain Silent In The Face Of The Fact Of That The Republic Of Bulgaria Is Agreeable To The Transfer And Parole Of Citizens From States Other Than Canada? The Report documents letters rogatory and other Bulgarian correspondences between Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Bulgaria Attorney General and this Author. Repeatedly, the Author and his family are assured by Canada and Bulgaria that its treaty with Canada on transfer of sentenced persons will be observed and the transfer of the Author to a Canadian prison approved. As documented in this Report, the Republic of Bulgaria reneged on its written assurance and has refused the first Canadian request for a transfer for one of its citizens. Why? No Agency Of The Government Of Canada Was Prepared To Confront The Facts Or Willing To Put To A Legal Test The Complaints Of This Author. The difficult question of why the Crown acted in complete secrecy and needed to have the Author arrested and prosecuted in a Bulgaria still remains unanswered and a mystery. In 2001, the Author having no funds for a Canadian attorney proceeded to and did prepare his own lawsuit against inter alio the Republic of Bulgarian and Staff Sgt. Derek Doornbos, the member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services who maintained liaison for the Crown with Bulgarian prosecutors. His family filed the law suit in British Columbia Supreme Court. The lawsuit claims among other things a constitutional tort. So, what of the facts? The Report documents in detail how agencies of the Crown acted outside the scope of their legislated mandate and breached the due process rights of naturalized citizens of Canada.

Court documents collected in the Republic of Bulgaria by the Author provide prima facie evidence that give both pith and substance to the Author’s complaints. These copies of official Canadian government correspondences indict the Crown and Royal Canadian Mounted Police for what is now proven to be a malicious prosecution on untrue allegations of fraud and misappropriation alleged by the Crown to have occurred in Bulgaria. The Crown responsible for having uttered and made public maliciously injurious slanders designed and having the sole purpose of creating public enmity against the Author and so aiding the Crown’s stated purpose of having the Author arrested and prosecuted in Bulgaria. The Crown is responsible for the Author’s public humiliation, his destroyed reputation and business collapse. The Author’s inhumane 29 month detention in solitary confinement and repeated torture are directly a result of the Crown’s repeated demands for information from police agents and prosecutors in the Republic of Bulgaria. The documents identified in this report provide more than anecdotal evidence of what are clandestine and unregulated practices finding agencies of the Crown acting with both malice and forethought when violating the Charter rights and freedoms of naturalized citizens of Canada who travel or work abroad. The documents found in the Report reveal the Crown providing foreign police and prosecutors with specific criminal charges, factual motives and requests for the criminal prosecution of Canada’s citizens by foreign prosecutors. The Report reveals how the Crown acted in scienter with the police agents and prosecutors of a foreign state in the malicious prosecution and unlawful detention of a citizen of Canada on criminal charges and reasons formulated by the Crown. The official documents made a part of Report are a written record of how to aide an unrelated criminal investigation in Canada, the Crown turns a blind eye and a deaf ear towards the public humiliation and physical and psychological torture caused too naturalized citizens of Canada. The Author’s case and the MAHER ARAR INCIDENT document to Parliament a willingness of the Crown to tolerate serious injury and harm coming to citizens of Canada. Public statements by Bulgarian prosecutors and police together with anecdotal evidence strongly support the theory that the Crown prefers to unburden itself of naturalized citizens whom it deems undesirable. The Crown readily extraditing ARAR and the Author to face criminal charges in the countries they fled as children. Criminal charges brought at the written request of the Crown. A History of Unanswered Complaints The Author documents in the Report how in 2001 he sent a detailed written complaint to Ann McClellan, Canada’s then Minister of Justice and Attorney General, and to officials of Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and then Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy. At no time did Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs or Minister of Justice and Attorney General address the facts and court documents provided by the Author and proving he had been charged by Bulgarian police and prosecutors at the request and on the initiative of the Crown. The Author’s arrest, his extradition from German and detention in Bulgaria the result of a secret 1995 Crown indictment and continued involvement with Bulgarian prosecutors until as late as 1998. What the Report Clearly Documents.

How in May of 1995 the Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services and the Attorney General of Canada sent a representative to Sofia, Bulgaria to request Bulgarian police arrest and prosecute the Author. At the time Author was still in Bulgaria and could have been contacted and requested to voluntarily provide the information sought by the Crown in Bulgaria. Instead the Crown preferred to act in secret and through the proxy of Bulgarian police. On July 7th 1995, the Crown’s request to arrest and prosecute the Author in Bulgaria was reduced to writing in a secret criminal indictment issued by Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services to the Bulgarian Interior Ministry Police. This secret Crown indictment of 1995 clearly stipulates in it the alleged nature of the crime the Author is alleged to have committed in Bulgaria and elsewhere. The Crown indictment also supplies Bulgarian prosecutors with what are alleged to be Canadian police facts about the crimes the Author is said to have committed in Canada and elsewhere. The legal qualifications of the criminal charges are also identified by the Crown to Bulgarian prosecutors as criminal misappropriation by fraud. These are the original charges the Crown requested Bulgarian police and prosecutors lay against. In its indictment the Crown requests that after the arrest and prosecution of the Author, Bulgarian police obtain from the Author certain information vital to the Crown in Canada, this not unlike the requests made by the Crown for Syrian authorities to question and extract information from ARAR for use in Canada. In Conclusion What Can Of The Author Say Of His Report? The Author believes the documents copied and identified in this Report are more than prima facie proof that beyond Canada’s borders and the inquisitive eyes of its courts and elected officials, agencies of the Crown have become blinded by an unregulated freedom of action or un-enforced legislative restrictions on that freedom. According to what the Author’s has documented, there is either no Canadian enactment or judicial precedent that directly binds or makes criminal or civilly liable an agency or servant of the Crown who does not observe Canada’s Charter protections or laws beyond its borders. Or, in the alternative whatever legislation or precedent does exist in Canadian legislation it is without bite, having no teeth to hold agencies or servants of the Crown to its legislative purpose. With no legislative fetter to Canada’s Charter or its national laws or the other legislated protections of its citizens, agencies and servants of the Crown have undertaken outside of Canada a dangerous and questionable practice of secret foreign commissions and indictments that criminally indicts naturalized citizens in the countries of their birth. Many of these countries, like Bulgarian and Syria are internationally recognized for their readiness to physically and psychologically abuse or torture detainees in arrest and prison. The Crown could not help but know this. This Report, when considered in the context of the ARAR incident, is more than casual proof of a culture within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police International Liaison and Federal Executive Services and the Attorney General of Canada that finds senior administrators and field operatives outside of Canada acting in secret scienter with foreign police agencies

The Report has presented to the Honourable Members of Parliament documents facts and other exigent circumstances that exist as distinct and separate elements and cannot be clouded over or distorted by the Author’s desperation, paranoia and personal suffering. The secret written indictment of the Crown is real as is the request to Bulgarian police that they criminally prosecute the Author and the numerous visits by a Crown servant to Bulgarian from 1995 to 1998. No one agencies or person can forever escape the truth. History shows that the truth will pursue and catch up with everyone, including Crown servants and agencies responsible for the wrongs and abuses alleged by the Author, ARAR and SAMPSON and the others who most surely will follow us. The Author has never made pretence of being a flawless and perfect citizen of Canada having lived an uncorrupted. The Author is sure there are such people, but he is not one of them. However, the Author as every citizen of the world has the right to expect not to be wrongly accused and indicted by his own government in front of a foreign government for things he has not done. As a citizen of Canada the Author deserved and correctly expected to be treated with some dignity and given the benefit of doubt by Crown agencies and servants, even if they do not consider his character to be beyond reproach. Crown agencies and servants should have shown in deed and not only words humanity and compassion for the wife and small son left alone in Canada. Ultimately, you Honourable Ladies and Gentlemen of Canada’s Parliament will have to decide how much you can or are willing to accept of the Author’s facts and his reasoning. One fact no one can escape is the harm caused a child who has to grown up without the support and love of a father.