Ministry of the Attorney General Michael Kapoustin

Province of British Columbia c/o Sofia Penitentiary

Order in Counsel 13th Section
Administration Office 21, "Stoletov" St
Room 208A 1309 Sofia
Parliament Building
553 Superior Street
Victoria, British Columbia
Canada V8V 1X4

Request For Interverner

To The Attorney General.

This is an application requesting the Ministry of the Attorney General ("Ministry") take immediate steps
to act on possible violations by Ministry representatives of the Applicants Charter Rights. The Attorney
General is respectfully asked to take notice that the Applicant, a Canadian, has apparently been
incarcerated by the Republic of Bulgaria as a result of investigative conclusions and a written request of
the Ministry.

The Applicant remains incarcerated and the Ministry has failed to act on the charges apparently brought
by it in the Province of British Columbia and somehow related to the Applicant's arrest.

This Application to the Ministry of the Attorney General is pursuant to Ss. 32§1 Charter obligations of
the Government of Canada, its agencies, instrumentalities or departments in Canada or abroad. In
particular the manner of their conduct in criminal and judicial matters effecting the rights of citizens in
Canada or abroad as connected to Canada. This Application is further pursuant to conduct by a defendant
in a civil law suit, the defendant obstructing the Ss. 24§1 Charter rights of the Applicant to pursue a
legal remedy for alleged violations of his S.7-S.9, S.10, Ss. 11(a) and (b), S.12 ,and S.15 Charter rights
in or connected to Canada.

Furthermore this Application to the Ministry of the Attorney General is pursuant of State obligations to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp.
(No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976. p.171 (the
"Covenant"). In particular the requirements provided in Article 2§1 and §3, Article 3, Article 5, Article
16, Article 17, Article 19§2 and §3(a), Article 26 Article 26, particular emphasis placed on Article 41 of
the Covenant. It is complained that the Ministry of the Attorney General has failed to act on numerous
prior complaints on Covenant violations. Including violations by Canada in co-operation with the
Republic of Bulgaria of the Applicant's rights pursuant to, inter alia, Article 14§1 and §3 abstracts (a)(c)
and (d) of the Covenant.

The Applicant is placed under a legal disability as a result of a foreign State denying him access to legal
facilities and other resources that might enable submission of more substantive argument. Evidential
materials are with held by the foreign state and the Applicant is unable to appear before a court of British
Columbia so as to demand the production of evidence. The Applicant is as a result unable to provide
relevant provisions of provincial or federal law and applicable legal precedents that might further his
application and its chances of success.

Due to his circumstances, the Applicant is unable to formulate this Application according to the style or
form common in such instances. Moreover these are complex issues and the Applicant has no resources
or opportunity to access attorneys familiar with such subject matters.

The burden on the Applicant to adequately express himself on law, under his circumstances as a prisoner,
is an onerous one. A task made more difficult and frustrating due to the incarcerating State's written
declaration that the Applicant has no civil rights and of the ever-present administrative threats of
sanctions or punishment for pursuit of those rights.

1
The Applicant therefore appeals to the Attorney General to at least indulge him as a Canadian citizen and
resident who has with great difficulty undertaken to prepare and deliver this Application. It is deserving
of consideration and reply.

The facts available appear to suggest that the Ministry of the Attorney General has directly assisted a
foreign State to, inter alia, arrest; effect searches of residences and businesses; seize of documents and
records; confiscate assets; extradite from the Federal Republic of Germany; continue to incarcerate and
attempt to convict a Canadian citizen in domestic and foreign criminal proceedings on accusations and
charges submitted by the Attorney General together with evidence collected through his agency.

The Application's factual substance relies on media releases, documented official statements, and records
of the Republic of Bulgaria. These provide reasonable grounds to form a supposition that the Applicant
had been incarcerated and charged at the direct request of the Attorney General.

It is further documented that the Ministry of the Attorney General provided to that foreign State
unverified and untrue information and data collected by it in the Province of British Columbia. The
information and data provided was in the form of investigative conclusions as if it they were fact when
knowing them to be untrue. Included with the information and data provided were requests that the
Applicant be prosecuted on that information in order to further an investigation of the Attorney General
in the Province of British Columbia.

It is further documented that the unverified and damaging information and data provided by the Ministry
of the Attorney General has been made massively public. This appears to have taken place with the
apparent consent of the Ministry.

A result of this damaging and untrue public disclosure, the Applicant and his family have been caused to
suffer deep emotional anguish, shame and embarrassments. It is, if not directly then at least vicariously,
the cause of the Applicant's mother and son in British Columbia having suffered personal injury, physical
pain and the family severe financial loss.

It is indisputably a direct cause of the Applicant's unreasonable imprisonment and beatings.

Documents reveal that on February 7th 1996 the Applicant was arrested on the written request and
unverified statements provided in evidence by a representative of the Ministry of the Attorney General of
Canada to the Republic of Bulgaria.

It is further documented that the Applicant continues to remain incarcerated as a direct result of those
representations made by the Ministry of the Attorney General to authorities of the Republic of Bulgaria.

It is as well document that a Defendant to a civil proceeding in the Province of British Columbia
unlawfully obstructs the Applicant in his rights as a litigant.

The Defendant apparently seeks to prevent the Applicant from revealing facts and documents that
support his legal action against that Defendant. Such interference is unlawful and requires legal action
that is within the purview of the Attorney General.

The Applicant complains, and it is apparent to any objective observer, that employees of the Republic of
Bulgaria are at present directly interfering with and otherwise attempting to obstruct the Applicant in the
exercise of his rights as a litigant. Certain employees and officials of Defendant the Republic of Bulgaria
are documented to be interfering and obstructing a proceeding before a court(s) of Canada.

Agents of the Republic of Bulgaria, in violation of Canadian law and provisions of international
covenants, are documented to have undertaken the uttering of threats and refusals to respect the civil
rights of the Applicant. The Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Ministry of Justice as
respondent for the Defendant in a Canadian civil proceeding, has apparently undertaken a political
decision to deny a Canadian citizen his civil rights.

2
Insodoing the Republic of Bulgaria seeks to extend its influence to the sovereign jurisdiction of the
courts of Canada. This is setout in a May 9 th 2001 letter to the Applicant by the Ministry of Justice,
Republic of Bulgaria. The Deputy Minister D. Tonchev advising this Canadian citizen that he has no civil
rights since he is incarcerated and awaiting a final sentence.

This withdrawal of the Applicant's civil rights is inconsistent with the principles of law in a democratic
society. Civil rights are protected both constitutionally and by international laws, not withstanding that an
individual has been deprived of his or her liberty.

The Applicant is cognizant that the Attorney General is unable to act outside the jurisdiction of Canada.
However, the request embodied here requires the Attorney General to act within the jurisdiction of
Canada, not outside of it. And to do so specifically on three subjects of this Application.

First, to investigate the conduct of the office of the Attorney General, his officers, and those
others in or connected to the accusations as brought in the Province against the Applicant. The
failure to disclose to the Applicant the nature of the accusations and charges against him and to
bring the matter to a speedy to trial in a court of the province.

Second, the Attorney General to concern himself with the actions of his officer and those others
directly connected with representation made to the Republic of Bulgaria concerning the
Applicant. Those responsible having provided untrue and false information to a foreign state,
allowed that untrue and slanderous information to be made public and requesting, on the
grounds of their information and conclusions as police authorities of Canada, that a Canadian
citizen be prosecuted abroad.

Third the Attorney General to engage himself in ascertaining the lawfulness of interfering with
or otherwise obstructing the Applicant's civil rights in a proceeding before courts of Canada.
The Applicant has brought a Charter complaint in a civil action conducted by him, as Plaintiff,
in the nature of a criminal proceeding. The Ministry of the Attorney General has failed or
alternatively refuses to intervene. By failing to do so the Ministry has permitted violation of the
Applicant's Charter rights.

The Attorney General and courts of Canada have original jurisdiction in personam over the subject
matter complained of. Any act of obstruction of a litigants lawful rights in a judicial proceeding in the
Province, even if effected outside the Province by a foreign State, are acts de jure gestionis and subject
to the jurisdiction of Canada.

Failure by representatives of an agency of Canada to observe a Canadian citizen's Charter Rights in or

outside Canada is a violation of law.

It is sine qua non, that the Charter be observed and seen to have been observed in all proceedings
conducted by officers of the Government of Canada. The Ministry of the Attorney General is no less
accountable to the protection and fostering of the principles of natural law, international covenants and
the Charter than are other agencies of Canada.

Admittedly, this application requires the Office of the Attorney General to engage itself in complex
issues embodied in numerous provisions of international law, enactments of Canada and the Republic of
Bulgaria. A review is also called for of the applicable rules of criminal and civil procedure in the
Republic of Bulgaria.

While unorthodox in its nature, this Application is well within the ambit of the Attorney General's
legislated authority and the jurisdiction of the courts of Canada.

The factual and legal complexity of the instance case is not adequate cause to provide an excuse for the
demonstrated apathy of the Ministry of the Attorney General. The Applicant did not author the
documents in evidence or contrive the publication of their contents. These are the documented acts of
officers of the Attorney General. These slanders and defamation are born in the fertile imaginations and
ethnic and religious discriminations of men employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

3
There is incontrovertible evidence to this fact; this makes no other rational or reasonable explanation
possible except discrimination.

This makes it reasonable that the Attorney General take the appropriate actions as an intervener for the
Applicant. It is the Applicant and his family's Charter Rights as Canadian citizens that must be
contemplated by the Attorney General. Rights which the Applicant and his family as citizens and
residents are entitled to ask the Attorney General not only to observe but also to protect.

WHEREUPON the Applicant must rely on the principles and ethics of the Office of the Ministry of the
Attorney General to engage itself in identifying what provisions of law or enactments are applicable and
support the following:

Part I In The Crown v. Michael Kapoustin, Vancouver Jurisdiction

1. The Attorney General is required to observe the Applicant's S. 11(a) Charter

Right and to inform him at the address provided here in detail of the specific
offenses and charges that appear to be outstanding [see IV through IV] and to
have been brought by the Ministry against the Applicant in the Province.

2. If the foregoing is true, the Attorney General is required to act immediately to

observe the Applicant's S. 11(b) Charter Right to a speedy trail. The Ministry
taking the necessary steps to proceed to trial in the Province. Fixing a time
and date according to the provisions and requirements of law and dually
advising the Applicant.

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

4. As a practical matter, the Ministry of the Attorney General is relied on to

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

5. The Attorney General to observe the Applicant's demands for trial.

Applicable principles of international law consider it, sine qua non, a
right of a litigant to be heard and allowed to give evidence at any hearing
or trial in which their lawful interests are at risk. This procedural
possibility, as a practical consideration for imprisoned litigants, is
provided for in provisions of the Defendant foreign State's national
Criminal Code of Procedure Articles 463(2), 464, 465 and 466 and the
principle of reciprocity among democratic States and free societies.

6. The Applicant agrees to his temporary custody to Canada to appear at trial in

the Province. And agrees, as a condition to return to the Penitentiary in the
Republic of Bulgaria.

4
7. If the Ministry of the Attorney General refuses the Applicant's request for trial
or alternatively if the Applicant is no longer suspected, accused or charged by
the Attorney General as he appears to have been in July of 1995. Then the
Attorney General to then so advise the Applicant and undertake to provide an
adequate explanation of the accusations and charges embodied in those
documents which are enclosed and the other documents alluded to therein.

8. The Attorney General is required to advise the Applicant on what grounds his
Ministry had requested on July 7th 1995 [see IV] that the Republic of Bulgaria
prosecute the Applicant. Clarifying exactly how the Ministry had reached the
investigative conclusions provided on that date and later forwarded to the
Republic of Bulgaria from the Province.

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

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

11. The Attorney General is therefore required to act for the Applicant as an
accused in custody that is unable to act independently without support of the
Ministry. The Attorney General to secure for the Applicant a remedy before a
court of competent jurisdiction according to the provisions of S. 24 of the
Charter.

5
 It is immaterial that the Applicant is in the custody
of a foreign state. That custody in a penal
institution of Canada or abroad when at the direct
or vicariously request of the Ministry of Justice in
Canada provides sufficient causus to demand the
Attorney General act in Canada. Incarceration
abroad not have the character or force of
suspending the Applicant's Charter Rights or of
mitigating in any way the Attorney General's
responsibility to observe and protect Charter
Rights in or when connected to Canada.

Part II Supreme Court of British Columbia Civil Case, Vancouver Docket S004040

1. The Attorney General is respectfully requested to act as an intervener in a

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

2. The Attorney General is required to investigate what appear to be possible

violation(s) of criminal law by the Defendant(s) in a civil proceeding. It is
alleged that the Defendant(s) seek to and are succeeding in obstructing the
Applicant's rights under Charter provisions S. 15 and S. 24.

Employees of the Defendant in the above

captioned civil proceeding are threatening the
Applicant who is a witness and a Plaintiff against
the Defendant foreign state and certain officials.
Isolation and withdrawal of international human
and civil rights of the Applicant manifest the
threats. This was recorded on May 9th 2001 where
a representative of the Defendant advised the
Applicant in writing that he had no civil rights.
Other threats abound and physical violence has
been previously employed.

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

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

Part III Relevant Facts

1. The Application concerns recently revealed documents that appear to

implicate that the Applicant was arrested and prosecuted in July of 1995 [see
VIbelow] at the request of and with the assistance the Ministry of the Attorney
General [see IV "Dobreva Affidavit" §3]

6
 2. It is apparent that the Applicant has been tried on March 13th 2001 as a result
of the investigative conclusions and materials provided in July of 1995 and
August of 1997 by investigating officers of the Attorney General [see IV
"Doornbos Submission"].

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

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

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

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

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

8. At present the Applicant is incarcerated and restricted in his access to

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

9. It is apparent that the sentence imposed by the Republic of Bulgaria of 23

years imprisonment is for an embezzlement of funds from a company wholly
owned and controlled by the Applicant and his family from within the
Province.

10. It is apparent the embezzlement conviction is motivated by the Republic of

Bulgaria on materials and conclusions provided and given in evidence are
derived from investigative actions by the Attorney General.

Part IV Enclosures

Enclosure No 1. A Notice to Admit facts and documents in civil proceeding S004040

Vancouver Docket.

Enclosure No 2. The July 7th 1995 correspondence of codefendant Doornbos to the

Defendant Bulgaria.

7
 Enclosure No 3. The December 13th 1995 memorandum of Defendant Bulgaria's meeting in
scienter with codefendant Doornbos.

Enclosure No 4. The April 1st 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria.

Enclosure No 5. The August 9th 1996 Note Verbale Government of Canada.

Enclosure No 6. The August 14th 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.

Enclosure No 7. The August 23rd 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.

Enclosure No 8. The September 12th 1996 extract news article Frankfurter Rundschau, page
3.

Enclosure No 9. The May 23rd 1997 Case Note Government of Canada indicating the July of
1995 warrants for arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin.

Enclosure No 10. The July 2nd 1997 correspondence of codefendant Doornbos to the
Defendant Bulgaria.

Enclosure No 11. The July 9th 1997 copy of receipt signed in Bulgarian language by
codefendant Doornbos delivering documents from the province and giving
evidence against the Plaintiff Kapoustin.

Enclosure No 12. The December 15th 1999 reply Ref. No. 99-H-111/96 of the Defendant
Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice, advising Plaintiffs attorney that the
Defendant Bulgaria never attempted to contact the Plaintiffs directly or for
that matter the Government of Canada.

Enclosure No 13. The January 3rd 2000 Affidavit of Attorney Anastasios S. Koimtzidis that no
subpoena was attempted to the Plaintiffs in Greece.

Enclosure No 14. The February 23rd 2001 Affidavit of Ms. Maya Dobreva.

Part V Extracts of applicable provision of Republic of Bulgaria law.

Any such request by the Ministry of the Attorney General must comply with
the procedural requirements of Bulgarian national law legislated in Chapter
22 Criminal Code of Procedure. The law permits the conduct abroad and
temporary transfer of prisoners to attend trial as witnesses or litigants in
proceedings outside of Bulgaria. The relevant codes are Articles 461, 462,
463(2), 464, 465, and 466 of the Criminal Code of Procedure. Those
provisions of law read as follows:

Chapter 22

Section VI Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (new S.G.

64/1997) (relevant Articles)

Article 461 (new - S.G. 64/1997)

8
Legal assistance under criminal cases of another country is
rendered under the circumstances of an international treaty
concluded, to which Bulgaria is a party or according to the principle
of reciprocity.

The legal assistance constitutes of the following actions:

Handing in of summons and judicial papers;

Seizing and submitting of the objects with which the crime was
committed or of the property obtained through an offence;
interrogation of an accused person, defendant or a witness;
appointing of an expertise and accepting its conclusion; conducting
of inspection, search and seizure; search and identification of
persons;

Submitting of material evidence, information, and documents;

Submitting information concerning the conviction of a person.

Article 462 (new - S.G. 64/1997) Legal assistance may be refused

if executing of the request might threaten sovereignty, national
security, social order or other interests, protected by law.

Appearance of Witness and Expert before a Foreign Court.

Article 463
(1) …[Sic]
(2) Extradition of persons detained in custody to be
interrogated as witnesses or experts shall be allowed only
in exceptional cases by discretion of composition of the
respective district court, on the grounds of papers
submitted by the other country, provided the person gives
his consent for extradition, and the stay in the other
country shall not exceed the term of his detention in
custody.
Procedure for Submission of Request to Another Country
Article 464
(1) The request for legal assistance shall contain data about:
the body filing the request; the subject and motive of the
request; full name and citizenship to whom the request
refers; name and address of person to whom papers are
to be submitted; where necessary the indictment and brief
description of the relevant facts.
(2) The request for legal assistance shall be forwarded to the
Ministry of Justice and Legal Euro-Integration, unless
another procedure is provided by international treaty to
which the Republic of Bulgaria is a party.
Execution of Request by Another Country
Article 465

9
Requests for legal assistance shall be executed
pursuant to the procedure provided by Bulgaria law. A
procedure may also be executed pursuant to
procedure provided by the law of the other country,
should that requested and if it is not contradictory to
the Bulgarian law. The other country shall be notified
of the time and place of the execution of the request,
should that be requested.

10
 Costs for Execution of Request
Article 466
The costs for execution of the request shall be
distributed between the countries in compliance with
international treaties to which the Republic of Bulgaria
is a party, or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.
Part VI Extracts of Enclosures.
1. That at Canada's Instance the Defendant Prosecuted the Plaintiff Kapoustin.

I. On May 15th 1995, the Defendant Bulgaria solicited information from

codefendant Derek Doornbos ("Doornbos") on the Plaintiffs activities and
bank accounts in the Province. Codefendant Doornbos identified to the
Defendant $16,000,000 USD in cash in the Province that he claimed to be
connected to the Plaintiff Kapoustin. Later Defendant discovered that these
are not connected to the Plaintiff Kapoustin.

.1 That on July 7th 1995 [see IVabove as attached hereto] co-

defendant Doornbos advised the Defendant that Plaintiff Kapoustin
had cash of $16,000,000 USD [see §5-§13below, and III] in the
Province.

.2 That the information and data was provided to representatives of

the Defendant Bulgaria, Col. Levicharov, Director of [the] Central
Service for [the] Fight Against Organized Crime [Centralna slujba
za borba s organiziranata prestapnost – CSBOP].

.3 That all information as forwarded by codefendant Doornbos was

given in the careof one Mr. Anatoli. Kosev, division “KMC”
[phonetic] of Defendant’s Ministry of Internal Affairs [Ministerstvo
na vatreshnite raboti]

.4 That Mr. Anatoli Kosev was assigned by the Defendant as the

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

11
 .5 That the July 7th 1995 information of codefendant Doornbos was
not corroborated by another source.

.6 That the Defendant was advised by an agency of the Government

of Canada that in 1994 the Plaintiff Kapoustin had moved “4 million
and 12 million USD had been transferred to several bank
accounts” in the Province.

.7 The Defendant was further advised that the accounts in the

Province as connected to the Plaintiff Kapoustin were being
credited daily “with amounts of about 100,000 USD”

.8 That the Defendant and codefendant Doornbos concluded that the

money transferred and credited to accounts in the Province are
“amounts coming from the funds accumulated in Bulgaria by
KAPOUSTIN”.

.9 That codefendant Doornbos and the Defendant Bulgaria

concluded that Plaintiff Kapoustin was transferring funds to the
Province obtained “through large-scale financial frauds carried out
by his pyramidal structure “LIFECHOICE.”

.10 That Defendant and codefendant Doornbos concluded that the

funds being deposited from Bulgaria to accounts in the Province by
the Plaintiff Kapoustin are “established as transfers going through
banks in the Caribbean Islands.”

.11 The Defendant was asked by codefendant Doornbos to provide or

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

.12 That the Defendant was directed by an agency of the Government

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

.13 That an agency of the Government of Canada advised the

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

II. That on May 9th 1997 the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
did advise the Government of Canada that the warrants for the Plaintiff
Kapoustin's arrest date back to May of 1995 [see IV as attached hereto].

12
.1 That on December 13th 1995, the Defendant Bulgaria and
codefendant Doornbos held a meeting at the offices of A.
Alexandrov in Sofia, Bulgaria. Representing the Defendant were,
Mr. Anatoli Kosev, Mr. Miroslav Genov, Central Service for [the]
Fight Against Organized Crime, Mr. Roumen Andreev, deputy
chief, National Investigative Service and co defendant [sledovatel]
S. Georgiev [see IVabove as attached hereto].

.2 That Defendant Bulgaria made public a written memorandum

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

.3 That at the December 13th 1995 meeting as cited above, the

codefendant Doornbos advised the Defendant Bulgaria that the
Plaintiff Kapoustin had been charged and convicted in Canada as
child molester and Pedophile. This information having later been
made public by the Defendant Bulgaria].

.4 That on April 1st 1996 the Defendant received a request from

codefendant Doornbos [see IV as attached hereto] to “advise,
please if your further investigation had determined end destination
of the money which Kapoustin defrauded” and transferred to the
Province. And if the Defendant Bulgaria was “able to identify
offshore banking institutions, account numbers" of the Plaintiffs. It
contains the following additional phrase from codefendant
Doornbos:

“I am asking this as it is a very real possibility, as

suggested in December that some of the funds may
have been eventually transferred to Canada. If you have
any information in this regard please advise”

.5 That on July 31st 1996 the Defendant Bulgaria solicited more

information concerning Plaintiffs property and activities in or
connected to the Province.

.6 That on August 14th 1996, codefendant Doornbos again requested

the Defendant Bulgaria to “advise when or if any information is
found regarding Kapoustin having transferred monies” to the
Province [see IV as attached hereto].

.7 That on August 23rd 1996, codefendant Doornbos requested the

Defendant Bulgaria [see IV as attached hereto] again provide
information “with respect to Kapoustin and companies and
accounts that he had in the Caribbean” and connected to the
Province. That the codefendant is “still very much interested in any
indication he has that any of Kapoustin gains from the fraud in
Bulgaria ended up in Canada.”

.8 That on June 25th 1997 the Defendant solicited information and

data in the province from codefendant Doornbos.

13
 .9 That on June 26th 1997 the Defendant was advised by
codefendant Doornbos that he was “still awaiting in writing,
confirmation, information and the Rogatory Request promised” by
the Defendant Bulgaria.

.10 That the following request was made by codefendant Doornbos to

the Defendant Bulgaria to provide him with information “regarding
funds that Kapoustin transferred to Canada, specifically to the law
office of McCandless, Morrison & Verdicchio” by the Plaintiffs [see
IV as attached hereto].

.11 That on July 2nd 1997 codefendant Doornbos personally delivered

to the Defendant documents obtained by him in the Province [see
IV as attached hereto].

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

Dated: Tuesday, May 15, 2001

Applicant

Cc: Mr. Gar Pardy

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

14