Professional Documents
Culture Documents
M. Kapoustin
Affidavit No. 15
Date July 9th 20001
No. S004040
VANCOUVER REGISTRY
BETWEEN:
TRACY KAPOUSTIN, NICHOLAS KAPOUSTIN BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM
TRACY KAPOUSTIN AND MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN
PLAINTIFFS
AND:
THE HONOURABLE MURAVEI RADEV
MINISTER OF FINANCE
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
FOR
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA,
DEFENDANT
And
STEFCHO GEORGIEV, MARIO STOYANOV, EMILIA MITKOVA, KINA DIMITROVA,
IVETA ANADOLSKA, DIMITAR SHACKLE and
DEREK A. DOORNBOS,
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
AND:
MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN
RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN, the Respondent, am a citizen of Canada having a permanent place
of residence in the province of British Columbia, and one of the Plaintiffs in the two above-
captioned proceedings. As such I have personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances attested to here by me as set out below, WHEREFORE I DO MAKE
OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
That the subject matter of this, my sworn affidavit may summarised and indexed for the
convenience of the Court as follows:
Part I Introduction.
Proceedings In Absentia of the Respondent
1. That I did repeatedly, according to the requirements of the national law of the
Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria (the "Defendant" or "Defendant Bulgaria"),
petition the Minister, Ministry of Justice Republic of Bulgaria, the ministry
having direct oversight over penal institutions in Bulgaria and legislated to
securing the fundamental civil rights of prisoners; And I did require it to
undertake on my behalf as its ward the necessary steps to have me conducted in
custody, at the expense of a third party, to and from the Friday July 13th 2001
hearing on the Defendant's applications before this Court (the 'Hearing").
2. That my absence at the Hearing and all other pre-trail applications as made by
me is directly consequenced by the refusals of the Defendant, to conduct me, in
custody to and from the Court.
3. That this refusal by the Defendant is consequenced by its own admission to
having withdrawn my civil rights. This was admitted to me in a letter dated May
9th 2001 by the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Dimitar Tonchev who advised
me as follows:
"[Sic]…I, being a representative of the executive authority, do not have and
may not have power to participate in negotiations for reaching any agreement
between you and the Republic of Bulgaria.
The restriction of your civil rights pointed out by you is connected namely with
the measure of detention imposed and the Ministry of Justice has no power to
determine or to alter it." [see Exhibit No. 1 ]
4. That when on May XXXX (see Radulova Affidavt § ) I rebutted the former
Minister and his Ministry on the withdrawal of my fundamental civil rights as a
violation of national and international law, and received from the Defendant on
June 25th 2001 this reply as follows:
(inser text of richard as my attorney) [see Exhibit No. 2 ]
53. That the following is based upon my personal knowledge of certain facts and
circumstances; where relevant I have made references to provisions of
prevailing national law and enactment together with any pertinent legislation
and international agreements to which the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria (the
“Defendant”) is a contracting party; making referral only to common judicial
practice and relevant decisions of the Supreme Causation Administrative Court
(“Supreme Court”), Republic of Bulgaria (“Bulgaria”).
54. That, as a civil and criminal attorney licensed to practice law in Bulgaria, I have
made reference only to those national laws, decisions and treaties I believe to be
meaningful to this, my Affidavit, as submitted by me for consideration by this
Honourable Court; doing so in support of claims made by the Plaintiffs to this
jurisdiction being the only one proper and right to ascertain if the Plaintiffs,
being citizens and residents of British Columbia, Canada, are or are not entitled
to the relief sought for the breeches of law and other acts of the Defendants as
alleged by Plaintiffs to be connected to them in the Province of British
Columbia (the “Province”).
55. That, upon my best information and belief, after having closely examined all the
materials available to me and relevant provisions of law, I do verily believe that
the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court is proper since the particulars of the
above entitled case and the facts to which I attest to, in this my Affidavit, lead
me to believe that this Defendant is directly or vicariously responsible for the
personal injury, property loss and breeches of contract or other the torts alleged
in the Plaintiffs claim as having occurred in or otherwise somehow being
connected to the Province.
56. As to all other facts they are on my best information and belief based upon,
inter alia, the investigations made by me, including a review of various court
records and filings in various jurisdictions; my examination of numerous
official state documents of Canada and those of agencies or instrumentalities,
including political subdivisions of this Defendant; the personal records of the
Plaintiffs; the corporate and court records of the Bulgarian registered company
LifeChoice International AD and others; various published reports and news
articles; my personal interviews with the Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin and such
other persons as did provide information under oath, the nature of which I
19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 22 of 73
believe relevant; upon the foregoing I have prepared to the best of my ability
this, my affidavit, and do verily believe it to represent the facts as they are and
the applicable provisions of law as know to me.
57. That I have read the 23rd February 2001 Affidavit of Ms. Maya Dobreva
(“Dobreva”) and can attest that there exists no document or other material fact
known or discovered by me or known to the Plaintiffs as having been filed with
this Honourable Court proving or otherwise establishing the legal right or
authority of Ms. Dobreva, as Minister Plenipotentiary & Consul, Embassy
Republic of Bulgaria, to retain an attorney or enter an appearance or to
otherwise act or to engage others to act or make representation in any legal or
other capacity in the Province for or on behalf of the Defendant as to material
facts or contracts or applicable national and international laws which did bind
this Defendant as a contracting party, making this Defendant subject to the
jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
58. That I am unaware of any material fact or circumstance which would lead me to
believe that Ms. Dobreva or Mr. Dimitar Tonchev, Deputy Minister, Ministry of
Justice of the Defendant, as Respondent, to having any direct or specific
personal knowledge of those events, acts, material contracts or other
transactions as concluded by the Plaintiffs with this Defendant or certain of the
Defendant’s political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities; each of the
aforementioned being separate commercial activities or transactions of this
Defendant with the Plaintiffs and having been effected among the parties, now
litigants, between the period from August 1991 up to and including the end of
December 1995; the breeches of contract and torts claimed against this
Defendant are alleged to have occurred from 31 December 1994 up to and
including 30th November 1998; these are the periods as known to me to be
relied upon by the Plaintiffs in their claim which I, as their legal counsel in
Bulgaria am familiar with and have, in part, briefly enumerated below .
59. That I am further unaware of any material fact or circumstance which would
lead me to believe, Ms. Dobreva or Mr. Dimitar Tonchev, Deputy Minister,
Ministry of Justice of the Defendant, to having any direct or specific knowledge
of those breaches of contract, torts or other acts of the Defendant or certain of
the Defendant’s political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities that are
alleged as having caused damage or loss of property, physical injury and other
material and non-material harm claimed to have been suffered by the Plaintiffs
in the Province; the nature and cause of which the Plaintiffs rely upon as their
grounds for the relief sought.
60. Setting aside the applicable legal questions of the right of Ms. Dobreva to
participate or give testimony in the above entitled proceedings on behalf of her
employer, this Defendant; or her and Mr. Tonchev’s questionable personal
knowledge of relevant material facts during the period from August 1991 up to
December 1998, the following can be said.
62. Upon my best information and from the materials available to me it is apparent
the Plaintiffs have not claimed anywhere in their allegations that the judicial
proceeding in Bulgaria cited by Ms Dobreva is the causus for the claims made
by them or the relief sought; Plaintiffs claims against this Defendant arise from
acts organized by it of the kind as carried on by private persons, de jure
gestionis, in connection with commercial activities and certain material
contracts and transactions as entered into by this Defendant in the Province with
the Plaintiffs; who allege that breaches of contract and other torts of the
Defendant resulted in the injuries and damages being claimed;
63. That Ms. Dobreva’s assertion of Plaintiffs reliance upon official acts arising out
of government activities, de jure imperii, does not represent the truth and is not
reflected in either the originating process as served upon this Defendant. or any
subsequent pleadings or argument set before this Honourable Court
66. Furthermore that it is apparent to me that the Plaintiffs law suit does not rely
upon or relate to any lawful conduct of this Defendant from 4th December 1998
19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 24 of 73
to the present in the judicial hearing in Bulgaria as referenced in the written
declarations of Ms. Dobreva.
67. It is further apparent to me that there are no claims or allegation made by the
Plaintiffs against this Defendant for a new breech of contract or other tort to be
alleged after December 4th 1998; Plaintiffs claims are for activities of this
Defendant from June 1991 up to and including November 1998.
68. That upon my best information and belief and as is apparent to me from the
material facts set before me, the Plaintiffs are seeking to exercise the sovereign
right and jurisdiction of courts of the Province and Canada and seek only their
lawful right to have adjudicated for them, as lawful resource users and citizens
of the Province, their claims for relief and to do so before a Canadian court with
competent jurisdiction in commercial matters and property or personal injury
claims that are in someway connected to the Province and its residents;
Plaintiffs asking this Honourable Court to assessed upon the merit of their facts
the claims made by them; this Honourable Court applying those provisions of
Canadian law, enactment or international law as applicable in the instance case
and giving it sovereign right and jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
Plaintiffs claims..
69. Setting aside the applicable principles in Canadian and international law as are
known to me to be relevant and binding; requiring this Defendant to submit to
the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court; I can state with all certainty from
personal knowledge as attorney in Bulgaria for the Plaintiffs, and upon
documents available to me, that the representations made in Paragraph 3 of the
Affidavit of Ms. Dobreva contain the following distortions of facts as they are
and are known to me to be true; the Affidavit provided this Honourable Court
by Ms. Dobreva making the following material misrepresentations which are
false and misleading.
70. From here Anatol you have to, in a similar style attack the affidavit Para 3 and
4 each paragraph a separate point.
71. An example would be that the judicial proceeding referenced by Ms. Dobreva
started in Bulgaria on 16th April 1999, not December, that LCI was not used to
embezzle money from, etc. These are all material misrepresentation of facts
made under oath. Very serious stuff that effects the credibility of the person
making the declaration.
73. Para 4 is also interesting and can be attacked. Changing defence lawyers, filing
to Strasbourg or writing parliament are my rights and not a thing for a state to
complain of! I’ll express that in my separate affidavit.
76. If NCIPD and the various science academies are state institutions (not state
owned companies then they can be treated as contracts with the Defendant state.
77. This affidavit Anatol will be, in different parts and style filed in the USA law
suits. The amounts you claim do not have to be exact or ascertained by an
expert. Also you can include a statement at the end where you fix an amount for
costs, expenses and time expended in preparing for these lawsuits.
78. I will also prepare a paragraph where you declare before the Court you intent to
enter the case as an “expert” in Bulgaria law with a Canadian lawyer if and
when arranged by the Plaintiffs.
82. Also whisky was collected by Despred in Austria and transported to the free
trade zone.
83. All references should be “The Plaintiffs paid for or “advanced funds to” or “
etc””.
84. All transactions which can be considered as “commercial activity of the State”.
85. The breech of contract or injury would be the failure of the state to complete on
the contracts (Antarctic expedition, clinical research, testing etc..).
86. The chronology of events starts out from BC in 1991 and moves forward, the
connection being LCP and LCI and me. Etc..
87. Upon my best information and belief each contract or commercial activity or
tort as set out below by me and as may be amended in later pleadings by the
Plaintiffs as to the nature of the transactions or the injury suffered and the
damages or other relief to be ordered, if any; should be determined by a trial
judge and jury of this Honourable Court upon a hearing of all the facts and
provisions of relevant law; the merit of the Plaintiffs claims rely on thousands
of pages of documents and contracts with this Defendant, numerous witnesses
already deposed or to be deposed; the facts and documents in question are
required to demonstrate to this Honourable Court its jurisdiction in the subject
19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 26 of 73
matter of the Plaintiffs law suit and as a result to establish this Honourable
Courts lawful jurisdiction over this Defendant.
88. Upon my best information and belief this Honourable Court cannot
meaningfully ascertained its right of jurisdiction in the above entitled
proceeding in the absence of the Plaintiffs representative, Michael Kapoustin;
without its considered and full review of all the facts, including all documents
and witnesses testimony; a short notice of motion and hearing upon a point of
law does not adequately or fairly permit a full consideration or hearing of all the
interested parties and the complex factual matrix of the above entited
proceeding.
90. That upon my best information and belief upon investigation of the material
facts and documents made available to me appears to be support concluded in
the Province or elsewhere.
91. That upon my best informtion andas a result of breeches of contract by the
Defendant and other torts material contracts, property or commercial activities
having been affected by making a part of the Plaintiffs claims against having or
those acts effected by the Defendant which are directly responsible for the
personal injuries claimed to have been suffered in the Province as a result of the
Defendant’s misrepresentations, fraud and breeches of contract made in the
above entitiled civil proceeding as setout by the Plaintiffs or to otherwise have
sufficient give evidence as to facts of the above entitled proceeding.
92. That, upon my best information and belief and according to those documents
examined by me, the Plaintiffs as residents of British Columbia and citizens of
Canada, did in 1991 provide the capital necessary to form “Life Choice
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“LCP”), a Canadian federally incorporated company.
93. The principal business of the Plaintiffs and other acting as an unincorporated
association of individual investors was to provide LCP with sufficient capital to
permit it to acquire intellectual property rights to experimental proprietary
processes or patentable substances for use in the clinical treatment of cancer or
HIV/AIDS, LCP to organize their clinical testing, limited production and
marketing. Such substances to be later licensed to others for manufacture and
distribution.
94. Upon my best information and as is apparent from those materials inspected by
me the Plaintiffs, while resident in the Province of British Columbia (the
“Province”), provided or directly facilitated all or a significant part of the
19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 27 of 73
financial resources necessary for LCP to acquire clinical drug research and
market development rights to, inter alia, a proprietary process for
manufacturing semi-synthetic VinBlastine and VinCristine, both well known
clinical drugs in the treatment of cancer; a new potential clinical drug, 3-4
DyhydroVinblastine, which was derived from the aforesaid proprietary process;
a proprietary process to tissue culture Tripterygium wilfordii and isolate
Triterpene acid compounds “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” having marked inhibition in
vitro on Lymphocyte proliferation and a new process to extract and purify tetra;
a proprietary process to culture and process bacterial bodies of Streptococcus
pneumonia, Neisseria catarrhalis, Streptococcus pyogenes, Haemophilus
influenzae, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Rc
mutant of E. Coli, Proteus mirabilis and Enterococcus faecalis and pentacylic
oxindole alkaloids from Uncaria tomentosa, in particular alloisopteropodine,
Isomer A having proven stimulative effect on phagocytosis.
96. In late 1991 the Plaintiffs, in association with others, developed a clinical drug
testing, manufacturing and distributing program for LCP products modeled
around certain agreements with the British Columbia Cancer Control Agency.
97. On or about September of 1991 the Plaintiffs examined the feasibility of new
product research and development, limited manufacturing and clinical drug
trials in the Republic of Bulgaria as was represented to them by agents of the
Ministries of Finance and Health, political sub-divisons of this Defendant.
99. Plaintiffs had contact with the following representatives of this Defendant,
being, inter alio, Prof. Dr. Uzunov, MD, Phd., Biology, President of the Medical
Academy of Sofia Mr. Konstantin Kostov, Managing Director, Electronic and
magnetic Products, Plovdiv; Prof. Dr. Dimitrina Mihailova – Kasabova, M.Ph.,
Ph.D., Science, Faculty of Medicine, Sofia; the then Deputy Minister of Justice
Mr. …. (see Exhibit No …); the then Minister of Health Mr. … and Mr. Ivan
Kirov, Director International Connections, Ministry of Health (see Exhibit No
…); Mr. Simeon Georgiev, General Director, “Pharmacia”, City of Dupnica; Mr.
Konstantinov, Director Scientific Research Institute and Mr. Minev, Vice –
President, “Antibiotic”, City of Razgrad (see Exhibit No …); Mr. Nicholas
Angelov, Attorney at Law – Plovdiv, (see Exhibit No …); Dr. Dimitar K.
19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 28 of 73
Todorov, Director, Laboratory of Oncopharmacology, National Cancer Centre,
Sofia, mostly concerning his co-operative work with Dr. G. Deliconstantious in
Phase I clinical drug trials of Thailiblastine in the United States (see publication
“Experienta” No 38, 1992, Reference pg. 587), to ascertain possible parallels to
clinical drug trials of Dy – Alkovin (see Exhibit No …) and Dr. I. Yamboliev,
Faculty of Pharmacy, Higher Medical School, Sofia (see Exhibit No …).
100. On … , 1991 LCP, to effect and proceed toward its corporate objective of
clinical drug evaluation to be conducted by agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government, did provide to the Ministry of Health, the Republic of Bulgaria, at
great expense to the limited partnership [see before § 20], 201grams of Dy –
Alkovin, at a cost of 90,000 Canadian dollars per gram (see Exhibit No …),
together with the required data for toxicological evaluation and Phase I clinical
trial approval, having forwarded the aforesaid to the Ministry of Health
representative of this Defendant, by Federal Express Courier, Way Bill No …
from Vancouver, British Columbia.
1
To date, all attempts by the Applicant to recover the 20 grams provided and research funds advanced or
to alternatively have results of tests delivered have been frustrated and proven in vain. Upon best
information and belief of the Applicant, it can be surmised that LCP funds and substances were not
utilized or applied for the purpose they were intended.
19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 29 of 73
101. 25 2 "December 31, 1991" To:Ministry of Health "Shipment by
Plaintiffs of 20 grams Dy-Alkovin experimental substance and associated
technological data. Evidenced by Fed-X AWB No. 400-27831425, valued at
$90,000 USD per gram and forwarded to Dr. K. Kostov see later Tab."
102. "December 8, 1992" To:Ministry of Health See Tab No. 32 Tab No. 32
makes reference in its invoice to this contract and credits Plaintiffs with funds
paid Defendants on or about this date.
103. 18 3 "September 9, 1993" From:NCIPD Copy Cash order for $ 6000
USD of 1st payment on substance for Factor-R production and associated bank
transaction.
104. 1 2 "December 1, 1993" To: Ministry of Health Request by
Plaintiff to commence human clinical trials in and outside Bulgaria
.11 Associate Professor Dr. Asen Ivanov, M.D. Ph.D., and Chief,
Departments of Pharmacognosy and Pharmacological Botany,
Sofia.
.12 Professor Dr. Zahari Raikov, M.D., Ph.D. Sc., Higher Medical
Institute, Stara Zagora.
.18 Dr. K. Kostov, M.D., medical manager and director of the Infectious
Diseases Hospital, Ministry of Health, Republic of Bulgaria.
.19 Dr. Plamen Nenkov, M.D., D.Sc., research manger and deputy
director of National Center for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases,
Medical Academy of Sofia, 26 Yanko Sakazov St., Sofia.
.20 That on October 20th 1993 at the Royal York Hotel, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, the representatives of the Defendant Bulgaria,
Prof. Bogdan Petrunov, M.D., D.Sc., Prof. Plamen Nenkov, M.D.,
D.Sc., and Prof. Rahamin Shekerdjiiski, Ph.D. and Prof. Dr. Dimitar
Todorov, M.D., D.Sc., made public representations. The
representations were made before Canadian investors as to the
Defendant Bulgaria's commercial activities in the Province [see §I
and especially §8above] with the Plaintiffs.
.23 That on June 2nd 1994 the Department of Health & Human Service,
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland USA AIDS
Clinical Trials Group (ACDDC) submitted its requirements to
Plaintiffs and the Defendant. ACDDC setout the laboratory and
clinical data of the Defendant to be presented [see A as attached
hereto] by its representative. The Defendant Bulgaria, as per its
contract, was required to prepare its data and represent it for the
Plaintiffs to the ACDDC panel.
.25 That November 23rd 1994 the ACDDC was reviewing the
Defendant Bulgaria's data as submitted for Factor-R. The ACDDC
rescheduled the Defendant’s presentation of that data for the
Plaintiffs from December 9th 1994 to March 6th 1995 [see A as
attached hereto]. The meeting was rescheduled again to June.
19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 37 of 73
.26 On June 7th 1995 representatives of the Defendant Bulgaria made
representations to the Plaintiffs attorneys, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, Washington, District of Columbia USA. The Defendant
setout the data prepared by it for the Plaintiffs and confirmed its
commercial activities and contracts.
.29 That the Defendant incorporated among the regular duties of, inter
alio Trade Commissioner Mr. Dragnevski; Consul Mladenov and
others, a direction to solicit, promote or otherwise encourage the
commercial activities of or joint investments with the Defendant
Bulgaria in the Province and Canada as a whole. Defendant’s
consular and trade representatives to Canada and the Province
are in practice required to engage in identifying sources for
financing, marketing, and promoting the Defendant’s commercial
activities.
.2 On June 30th 1993, the Defendant Bulgaria amended the April 29th
1992 agreement [see A as attached hereto]. Director's of
departments of the Defendant, Ministry of Health, Prof. Dr. Bogdan
Petrunov, M.D., D.Sc., Prof. Dr. Plamen Nenkov, M.D., D.Sc., and
Prof. Rahamin Shekerdjiiski, Ph.D. contracted with the Plaintiffs to
assist in obtaining, inter alia, licenses to technology of the
Defendant; new patents; the transfers of technology or patents to
the Province from the Defendant; and the securing of other
distribution rights to the Defendants products for the Province or as
connected to it [see and A as attached hereto].
.5 On January 13th 1994, as per his contract with the Plaintiffs, Dr.
Bogdan Petrunov submitted to other departments of the Defendant
Bulgaria a request for human clinical trials in and outside Bulgaria
for Factor-R [see A as attached hereto].
.11 That on August 4th 1994, the representative for the Defendant
Bulgaria, Prof. Dr. Shekerdjiiski, agreed to organize and develop
an analytical method for the product Factor-R [see A as attached
hereto].
.15 That on March 10th 1995 the Defendant contracted to provide the
Plaintiffs exclusive distribution rights in or connected to the
Province for other immunological products produced by it [See A
as attached hereto].
.16 That on March 21st 1995 the First deputy Minister of Health, Prof.
P. Uzunov [see §1above] confirmed the delivery and planned
clinical use of the AZT and other property of the Plaintiffs.
.3 That from May 1st 1994 to July 1st 1995 the Plaintiffs provided the
Defendant in excess of $600,000 USD in leasehold improvements
and equipment to the Defendant's property at No. 3 Kraka Road
[see §9above].
.8 On May 9th 1995, Plaintiffs paid $1,975 USD for processing and
packaging of product [see A as attached hereto].
.10 That on July 26th 1995 Plaintiffs paid $23,990 USD toward their
May 9th 1995 order for processing and packaging of finished
product [see A as attached hereto].
.11 On August 3rd 1995, Plaintiffs paid $9,875 on a May 9th 1995 order
to process and package product [see A as attached hereto].
.13 On April 6th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $6,000 USD on an order for
processing and packaging of product.
.14 On April 8th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $6,000 USD for processing of raw
materials
.15 That on July 26th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $110,000 USD to supply
Defendant with 80kg in finished tablets of Novopharm of Canada
AZT .
.16 That on August 15th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $3,000 USD to have the
Defendant develop a methodology demanded by the Ministry of
Health prior to approval for clinical trials of Plaintiffs' [see A as
attached hereto] Factor-R.
.II That on February 17th 1994 Plaintiffs registered with the Defendant a
$38,000 United States Dollar ("USD") initial foreign direct investment in
Bulgaria. The Defendant, Ministry of Finance ("Ministry") Republic of
Bulgaria (Defendant Ministry Ref. No. M-94-000082) recorded Plaintiffs
investment as having a par value of 750,000 Bulgarian Leva
Undenominated (“BGL”) [see §7below ]on June 17th 1993.
.III That on June 16th 1995 Plaintiffs registered with the Defendant a
$74,000,000 USD increase in their direct foreign investment in Bulgaria.
The Defendant's, Sofia City Court, Commercial Register, and recorded
Plaintiffs investment as having a par value of 2,000,000,000 BGL [see
Abelow as attached hereto].
.F That Defendant Had Available From Plaintiffs Full Disclosure At All Times.
That the Plaintiffs had control over more than 60% of the
voting rights and capital of LCPBJV.
.5 The August 20th 1993 contract with Founders Group and Assignee,
TBR, Kelowna, British Columbia.
.10 The January 3rd 1994 contract with Saknavtobi Georgian State Oil
and Gas Company, Deputy Chairman Mr. V. Lobzhanidze.
.13 The February 17th 1994 contract with Lead Resources, Inc.,
Vancouver, British Columbia.
.14 The June 10th 1994 agreement with Pajaro de Fierro Inc., Mexico
City, Mexico and Founders Group and Assignee TBR, Kelowna,
British Columbia.
.15 The January 31st 1995 agreement with Royal Advent Securities,
Inc. and Evans & Evans Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia.
.16 The February 7th 1995 agreement with Lindsay R. Semple and
others, Vancouver, British Columbia.
.17 The July 14th 1995 contract with LT. And MC. Trading Company,
Varna, Bulgaria.
.18 The August 31st 1992 contract with LEKO Promarket, Moscow,
Russia
.1 The April 1st 1994 contract with Green Oasis Environmental Inc.,
Charleston, South Carolina USA.
.2 The April 7th 1994 contract with LifeChoice Inc., Austin, Texas USA.
.3 The August 1st 1994 contract with Green Oasis Environmental Inc.,
Charleston, South Carolina USA.
.4 The August 12th 1994 contract with Mimi Co. Ltd., Tibilisi, Republic
of Georgia.
.6 The October 4th 1994 contract with Shurtleff Waste Oil Systems
division of Utopia Fabricating Ltd., Pennfield, New Brunswick,
Canada.
.9 The January 30th 1995 agreement with Lyths & Hangers Limited,
Bahamas.
.10 The February 15th 1995 contract with Green Oasis Environmental
Inc., Charleston, South Carolina USA.
.12 The June 3rd 1995 contract with MAO Ltd., Tibilisi, Republic of
Georgia.
.13 The August 10th 1995 agreement with E Tech Inc., Bardstown,
Kentucky USA.
.14 The October 15th 1995 contract with the Shoter Rustavelli
Academy Of Theatre, Tibilisi, Republic of Georgia.
.15 The January 31st 1996 contract with The Republic of Georgia, City
of Rustavi.
.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 A 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.
.7 That on February 2nd 1996 the Defendant converted to its own use
32 of the Plaintiffs’ 20’ sea going containers. The Plaintiffs property
was at the time in transit and at a customs free zone. The property
of the Plaintiffs is valued at $48,000 USD.
19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 52 of 73
.8 That on March 3rd 1996 the Defendant converted to its own use the
Plaintiffs’ Land Rover jeep, registration No. C9522CM. The vehicle
is valued at $17,500 USD.
.9 That on March 8th 1996 the Defendant converted to its own use
the Plaintiffs’ oil refining installation and equipment with leasehold
improvements at Tzarimir, Bulgaria. The equipment and leasehold
improvements are valued at $ 5,750,000 USD.
.10 That on March 13th 1996 the Defendant converted to its own use
the Plaintiffs’;
.11 That on March 27th 1996 the Defendant converted to its own use
the Plaintiffs’ Daewoo Tico automobile with registration No.
C7673CX. The vehicle is valued at $4,500 USD.
.12 That on July 29th 1996 the Defendant Bulgaria converted by to its
own use the quantity of 18,144. 0.700L. bottles of Seagram
Canada scotch whisky belonging to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
property was at the time in transit and at a customs free zone and
valued at $181,440.00 USD.
.13 That on August 15th 1996 the Defendant to its own use converted
456 items of property of the Plaintiffs. The value of the items is
$450,000 USD.
.14 That on October 1st 1996 the Defendant converted to its own use
the Plaintiffs’ property [see §1above] and leasehold improvements
[see §9 and 3above] in Sofia found at No. 3 Kraka Road.
.15 That on May 25th 1998 the Defendant converted to its own use and
divided Plaintiffs’ private land in the municipality of Bankia, the
province of Sofia, Bulgaria. The land is valued at $65,000 USD.
.16 That the Defendant converted to its own use the Plaintiffs 20
grams of Dy-Alkovin [see §1above]. The property of the Plaintiffs is
valued at $1,800,000 USD.
.17 That the Defendant converted to its own use the Plaintiffs 152 /100
units of AZT and 1000 /60 units of Factor-R [see §4above]. The
property of the Plaintiffs is valued at $240,408.
.19 July 27, 1998 the Defendant converted to its own use the Plaintiffs
property at No. 3, "Kraka" Road Sofia. The ground floor of the
building consists of 580 square meters of improvements by the
Plaintiffs and other offices of 57 square meters and a separate
premise of 35 square meters as built by the Plaintiffs on a second
level. The Defendant transferred title was to itself by an Act for
State Property No. 001047. The new owner of the Plaintiffs
property is District of Sofia, a political subdivision of the Defendant
Bulgaria. Defendant Bulgaria has not compensated the Plaintiffs
for rent as prepaid or the funds invested. April 15th, 1999
Defendant Bulgaria by executive Order No 011003 issued by the
District Manager of Sofia handed over the Plaintiffs property to the
Regional Union of the Social-Democratic Party.
.V That according to the deponent Ms, Maya Dobreva and public statements
of codefendants Stefcho Georgiev, Mario Stoyanov, [see §7-21below]
Emilia Mitkova, Kina Dimitrova and Dimitar Shackle, the arrest of the
Plaintiffs assets and the Plaintiff Kapoustin by the Defendant was on
Canadian government insistence. The information and assistance provided
in the Province to the Defendant from an agency of the Government
Canada provided the Defendant the motive for its arrest of Plaintiffs
property.
.VI That the Defendant Bulgaria can not produce an official document
exchanged between it and the Government of Canada confirming the
veracity of codefendant Doornbos on the subject of the Plaintiff Kapoustin
[see A and A as attached hereto] that none exists.
Chapter 22
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;
.VIII That the commercial activities of the Defendant with the Plaintiffs in or
connected to the Province and relying on the Defendant made
concealment of the Plaintiff Kapoustin and his activities, as a practical
matter, impossible. The Defendant's agencies or instrumentalities at all
times monitoring the Plaintiff Kapoustin, his activities, and those of others
associated to him.
.13 That the Plaintiffs where represented by attorney Mila Popova and
another attorney who met Mr. Topurov in October of 1994 at the
offices of Supreme Court Prosecutor Topurov, Room 59A, Floor 4
of the Courts of Justice, Sofia, Bulgaria.
.I The there was allowed unauthorized access, collection, use and public
disclosure or disposal of unverified private information and data collected
in the Province was unverified and proved later to be inaccurate or
incomplete and unreliable.
.2 That the Defendant's national law makes plain that its is unlawful
to make public information in a record or thing that would unfairly
expose a person or company to financial or other harm by
damaging their reputation.
[ ] inserted
That this is untrue.
.8 That in the above cited edition of Continent the codefendant
Stefcho Georgiev, in his capacity on behalf of the Defendant
Bulgaria called the Plaintiff Kapoustin an “International swindler”,
and "is a well known fraud for Interpol according to the Canadian
Government "
That this is untrue.
.9 That the Defendant Bulgaria goes on to state to the public that the
Plaintiff Kapoustin has “effected sexual offences against minors
[infants, child abuses] according information from the Canadian
authorities” in the Province ( [] inserted by translator.
That this is untrue.
.10 That the Defendant goes on to publicly state that the Plaintiff
Kapoustin was already ”deceiving others in Georgia” and had
criminal cases in the Province there "are old and unclear" in
Canada.
That this is untrue.
.11 The Defendant states that the Plaintiff Kapoustin "did not form
LifeChoice and didn’t dare to lie to people that insolently" in the
Province where the Plaintiff Kapoustin also “Played games of
happiness" as he engaged in "sexual assaults against minors,
according to the data of the Canadian authorities".
That this is untrue.
.14 That the Defendant publicly stated that the Plaintiff "Kapoustin
should be responsible for over 18,000,000 USD, which he
managed to steal away from Bulgaria".
That this is untrue.
.16 That the codefendant Georgiev stated publicly for the Defendant
Bulgaria "which country is not going to collect its taxes from the
foreigners who are doing business in the country? Kapoustin was
importing from Canada cigarettes, beer, whisky, vodka for the
purpose of trade, but he did not fill up exact tax declarations. With
which he injured the state budget, the Sofia City community and
the tax department with millions.”
That this is untrue.
.20 That the Defendant publicly stated that the improvements and
equipment at No. 3 Kraka Road were paid for by the Plaintiffs [see
§3above]. The Defendant represented that the Plaintiffs "made
some improvements".
.II That the above-cited public statements of the Defendant Bulgaria and
information of codefendant Doornbos appeared repeatedly in the mass
media on the time and in the newspapers cited here.
.1 Newspaper articles:
January, 1995, Newspaper "Cash" No 14, p.12
March 14-20, 1995, Newspaper "Monopoly"
April 12, 1995, Newspaper "Trud"
April 19, 1995, Newspaper "Democracia" (Democracy)
April 10-16, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"
August 1, 1995, Newspaper "Trud"
April 17-23, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"
May 17-23, 1995, Newspaper "Nosten Zhivot" (Night Life)
June 7, 1995, Newspaper "Trud"
June 19-25, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"
19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 61 of 73
June 26, 1995, Newspaper "Trud"
July 8, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
July 13, 1995, Newspaper "Continent"
July 14, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
July 18, 1995, Newspaper "Pari" (Money)
July 19, 1995, Newspaper "Cash" No 19
July 20, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
July 24, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
July 24-30, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"
July 31, 1995, Newspaper "Continent"
August 1, 1995, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
October 15, 1995, Newspaper "Weekly Standard"
December 5, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
December 8, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
December 18, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
December 23, 1995, Newspaper "Pari" (Money)
Newspaper "Nedelen Novinar" ?
July 8, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
July 13, 1995, Newspaper "Continent"
July 14,1995, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
July 18, 1995, Newspaper "Pari" (Money)
July 19, 1995, Newspaper "Cash" No 29
July 20, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
July 24, 1995, Newspaper "Business Trud"
July 24-30, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"
July 31, 1995, Newspaper "Continent"
August 1, 1995, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
August 8, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"
September 5, 1995, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
October 15, 1995, Newspaper "Weekly Standard"
December 5, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
December 18, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
December 23, 1995, Newspaper "Pari" (Money)
February 14, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"
February 15, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"
February 22, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"
February 24, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"
“… [sic] …
[ ] inserted
.L That the Defendant Denies Plaintiff Kapoustin His Right To Attend Hearings.
.II That the Defendant's national law permits the conduct abroad and
temporary transfer of prisoners to attend trial as witnesses or litigants in
proceedings outside of Bulgaria. The relevant national laws of the
Defendant Bulgaria are Articles 463(2), 464, 465, and 466 of the Criminal
Code of Procedure. That those provisions of law read as follows:
.3 That the Plaintiffs have requested the Defendant provide for the
appearance of the Plaintiff Kapoustin as a witness and litigant to a
hearing or trial date to be fixed by the litigants.
.A That the following are true copies of original documents with the Defendant.
Exhibit No 2. December 31st 1991 Federal Express waybill No. 400 2783 1425.
Exhibit No 4. June 30th 1993 amendments to the April 29th ,1992 License
Agreement with Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 6. July 1st 1993 $3,000,000 USD assignment of April 29th 1993 license
to LifeChoice International AD.
Exhibit No 8. September 9th 1993 payment of $6,000 USD to the Budget of the
Defendant Bulgaria, for delivery to the Province of 5,000 units of
Factor-R.
Exhibit No 10. November 19th 1993 Memorandum of Agency Agreement with Annax
Ventures, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Exhibit No 11. December 7th 1993 agreement for bottling in Bulgaria with Seagram
Canada, Eastern Region & Africa.
Exhibit No 13. December 24th 1993 receipt that Defendant Bulgaria provided for the
$10,400 USD received into its budget for the processing of raw
materials into 8,000 units of finished product Factor-R for the
Province.
Exhibit No 14. January 3rd 1994 Contract No. 1 with Saknavtobi, Georgian State
Oil.
Exhibit No 15. January 13th 1994 Irrevocable Letter of Intent with LifeChoice
Partnership, Vancouver, BC or purchase and delivery of Factor-R in
the Province.
Exhibit No 17. January 13th 1994 submission to the Defendant, Ministry of Health,
official Prof. Genka Gencheva, Ph.D., [Bulgaria and English
Transcript].
Exhibit No 19. January 17th 1994 submission to the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of
Health.
Exhibit No 20. January 18th 1994 Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health approving
clinical trials for Factor-R.
Exhibit No 21. January 18th 1994 Protocol No. 193 of the Defendant Bulgaria,
Ministry of Health session of the Expert Council of Serums and
Vaccines [Bulgaria and English Transcripts].
Exhibit No 22. April 1st 1994 contract for $475,000 USD with Green Oasis
Environment, Charleston, South Carolina for the delivery of refining
equipment to the Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 24. May 1st 1994 lease agreement with the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry
of Health for No. 3 Kraka Rd., Sofia, Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 25. May 1st 1994 lease agreement as endorsed by the Defendant
Bulgaria, Minister of Health Dr. T. Gougalov.
Exhibit No 26. June 2nd, 1994 letter of direction from National Institutes of Health,
Maryland, USA, to the Plaintiffs.
Exhibit No 27. August 1st 1994 Contract for $600,000 USD with Green Oasis
Environment, Charleston, South Carolina or the delivery of refining
equipment to the Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 28. August 1st 1994 offer by Defendant Bulgaria for analytical
investigation of Plaintiffs product Factor-R.
Exhibit No 30. September 21st 1994 contract of the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of
Health department of National Center for Infectious and Parasitic
Diseases, Sofia, Bulgaria [English Language Copy] for exclusive
distribution in Bulgaria for its products of Respivax, Urostim and
Dentavax.
Exhibit No 31. September 29th 1994 contract with the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry
of Health department of National Center of Radiobiology and
Radiation Protection, Sofia, Bulgaria [English Language Copy].
Exhibit No 32. October 4th 1994 notice for the shipping of oil recycling equipment
for the Defendant Bulgaria from Utopia Fabricating Ltd., Pennfield,
NB
Exhibit No 34. November 23rd 1994 letter of the National Institutes of Health
rescheduling AIDS Clinical Drug Development Committee
("ACDDC") presentation by representative of the Defendant Bulgaria
for the Plaintiffs.
Exhibit No 35. January 4th 1995 Plaintiffs agreement with Seagram Canada,
Europe & Africa Division, London, GB.
Exhibit No 37. January 30th 1995 purchase agreement concluded in the Province
for Plaintiffs product "PROTEC" to be manufactured for the Plaintiffs
by the Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 38. February 7th 1995 Amended Offer to Purchase in the province
6,100,000 common shares of LifeChoice Inc., Utah, USA from Mr.
Lindsey Semple.
Exhibit No 40. March 1st 1995 receipt of the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health
department of Infectious Diseases Hospital of Sofia signed by Dr. K.
Kostov. The document acknowledges receipt from the Plaintiffs of
$217,000 USD in Factor-R and $23,408 USD in AZT for use in
clinical trials conducted by the Defendant.
Exhibit No 41. March 10th 1995 exclusive Trade License Agreement with the
Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health department of National
Center for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases.
Exhibit No 42. March 21st 1995 letter (Ref. No. 47-22-215) of the Defendant
Bulgaria, First Deputy Minister, Prof. P. Uzunov, Ministry of Health to
the Plaintiffs concerning their transfer of the balance of AZT
inventory shipped to Bulgaria. This inventory was provided to the
Defendant Ministry of Health department Infectious Diseases
Hospital of Sofia.
Exhibit No 43. March 23rd 1995 AWB No. 020-6920-3816/01 for 80kg of AZT
shipped to Bulgaria and collected by the Defendant.
Exhibit No 44. May 4th 1995 letter of Mr. Todd Rohling, on behalf of Plaintiff to Mr.
Sasho Russev on behalf of Defendant.
Exhibit No 45. May 4th 1995 receipt of the Defendant, Ministry of Finance,
Bulgarian National Bank, Department for Financial Audit, Inspector
Sasho Russev on delivery of Plaintiffs corporate records.
Exhibit No 47. June 3rd 1995 purchase agreement with M.A.O. Ltd., Tibilisi,
Republic of Georgia.
Exhibit No 49. July 13th 1995 bank transfer of $72,000 USD to the budget of the
Defendant Bulgaria, BalkanShip, Varna, Bulgaria
Exhibit No 50. July 26th 1995 bank transfer of $23,990 USD to the budget of the
Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health for delivery to the Province of
10,000 units of Factor-R.
Exhibit No 51. August 3rd 1995 invoice No. 95041 of $ 9,875 USD paid to the
budget of the Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 52. August 14th 1995 complaint to the Defendant Bulgaria of illegal
seizure of property in transit..
Exhibit No 53. October 15th 1995 contract with Shoter Rustavelli Academy of
Theatre.
Exhibit No 55. January 31st 1996 Letter of Intent with the Government of the
Republic of Georgia, City of Rustavi for acquisition of recycling and
refining equipment of Plaintiffs.
Exhibit No 56. April 1st 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 57. July 3rd 1996 Invoice No. 95034 of $7,900 USD payment to the
budget of the Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 59. August 14th 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 60. August 23rd 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 61. September 12th 1996 extract news article Frankfurter Rundschau,
page 3.
Exhibit No 62. May 23rd 1997 Case Note Government of Canada indicating the July
of 1995 warrants for arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin.
Exhibit No 65. 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.
Exhibit No 66. January 3rd 2000 Affidavit of Attorney Anastasios S. Koimtzidis that
no subpoena was attempted to the Plaintiffs in Greece.
Exhibit No 69. The Sofia City Court commercial register, corporate statistics
showing the par value of LifeChoice International A.D. at
2,000,000,000 (two billion) Bulgarian Leva as of June 16th 1995,
equivalent at the time to $74,000,000 USD investment by Plaintiffs
in the capital stock of the corporation.