FORM 13 (RULE 8) No.

S004040
VANCOUVER REGISTRY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

TRACY KAPOUSTIN, NICHOLAS KAPOUSTIN BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM

TRACY KAPOUSTIN AND MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN

PLAINTIFFS
AND:

THE HONOURABLE MURAVEI RADEV

MINISTER OF FINANCE
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
FOR
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA,
DEFENDANT
and
STEFCHO GEORGIEV, MARIO STOYANOV, EMILIA MITKOVA, KINA DIMITROVA, IVETA
ANADOLSKA, DIMITAR SHACKLE and
DEREK A. DOORNBOS,
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Preliminary Statement

1. The Plaintiffs assert that the liability for the acts they have alleged falls squarely upon the
Republic of Bulgaria, its employees, officials, agencies or instrumentalities and the
Individual Defendants named herein and cite the majority decision of the European Court of
Human Rights: Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Case 5310/71, Judgement 18 January, 1978,
Series A, No 25, p. 57 para 159:

“ It is inconceivable that the higher authorities of a state should be or at

least should be entitled to be, unaware of the existence of such a
practice. Furthermore, under the Convention those authorities are
strictly liable for the conduct of their subordinates; they are under a duty
to impose their will on subordinates and cannot shelter behind their
inability to ensure that it is respected.”

2. The Plaintiffs allege the following upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their acts
and as to all others upon best information and belief based upon, inter alia, the investigation
made by them, including a review of court records and filings in various jurisdiction,

1
 published reports and news articles and have, due to Plaintiffs’ personal circumstances,
prepared, to the best of their ability, this claim in the absence of legal counsel.

Jurisdiction
and
Venue

3. The claims asserted establish common law torts of privacy, defamation and slander arising
from, inter alia, preparation of false, misleading and slanderous materials; the sending
abroad of unverified and untrue information; making of false accusations before officials of
justice; production of false evidence before a court of law; distributing and causing the public
distribution and publication of slanderous remarks embodied in official correspondence and
reports protected under law; impugning the character, integrity and honor of the subject with
the intent to cause cruel or unusual treatment and punishment; intimidation and harassment
with intent to inflict material harm, mental and physical suffering and emotional distress.

4. Jurisdiction and venue is proper in that the violations of law as charged have originated and
occurred in substantial part in this district and a common law remedy exists for a breach of
the right to privacy and for protection from public defamation and slander [see Roth v. Roth
(1991), 9 C.C.L.T. (2d) 141 (Ont. Gen. Div.) at pp. 159-160 and Mackay v. Buelow (1995),
24 C.C.L.T. (2d) 184 (Ont. Gen. Div.)] as interpreted in a manner consistent with Charter
principles and inherit jurisdiction of the Court to modify or extend common law in order to
comply with prevailing social conditions and values.

5. The Court has jurisdiction upon the subject matter of the claims asserted herein against a
foreign state, its employees, officials, agencies and instrumentalities, pursuant to the
principle of “de jure gestionis”, the questions of law, the acts, indignities and injuries
suffered arise from conduct and acts of the kind committed by or carried on in scienter by
private persons and not lawful government activities, “de jure imperii”, for which the
restrictive theory and international principle of sovereign immunity might otherwise apply
and prevail.

6. In connection with the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this Complaint, Defendants
did, directly and indirectly, use the means and instrumentalities of the mails and
telecommunications within the Province of British Columbia, Canada as well as the facilities
of provincial and federal government institutions and agencies in the district to give affect to
the violations of law alleged herein.

Nature
Of
Action

7. This is an action seeking to pursue remedies for injuries and damages suffered by Plaintiffs
from deliberate acts of defamation by libel and slander during the years of 1995, 1996, 1997
and 1998, pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation is sought for the physical injury,
mental anguish, deep humiliation, emotional distress and financial loss of the Plaintiffs
which arise from the materially false, misleading and deliberately libelous and slanderous
2
 statements and injurious lies Defendants prepared and formed as part conclusions of police
investigations provided as a record of criminal activity in Canada and elsewhere, then
willfully in oral statements to the public and written reports did cause the same to be
repeatedly printed in the press and announced on radio and television.

8. Plaintiffs’ business activities in Canada and elsewhere were, as a result, injured and damaged
where dependant upon the public image of these activities and credibility of their efforts and
investment relying upon the quality of Plaintiffs’ character and integrity of their public and
private conduct.

9. Defendants knew at all times the information provided by them to be manipulative and
injurious false statements of fact disguised as authentic police research and conclusions
conducted in Canada and elsewhere, the public distribution of which would be information
“that causes or is likely to cause injury” [see Section 188 C.C.C.] to the Plaintiffs by making
it impossible for the public – and others to draw a coherent distinction between statements of
opinion and assertions of fact.

10. Throughout the investigative period the Defendants calculated falsehoods and sought to
deliberately manipulate people of good faith by an unscrupulous fabrication of basic facts in
order to support Defendants’ theories and cause suffering and injury to the Plaintiffs by
attacking their reputation and dignity.

11. During the periods in question, up to the present Defendants did cloak their acts and
violations of law in the mantle of government action while at all times pursuing their private
agenda of discrimination and criminal malfeasance.

12. Defendants did privately , publicly and in official documents impugn the character,
competence, integrity and dignity of the Plaintiffs in the name of the Government of Canada
with reference to religious associations, sexual orientation and criminal activities and
affiliations which Defendants knew to be untrue but would be and in fact were believed and
acted upon on account of Defendants status as employees, officials and instrumentalities of
law enforcement in Canada and the Republic of Bulgaria.

13. During the period of April 1995 to September 1996 there is no evidence that the Ministry of
the Attorney General of Canada (the “Minister”) or the Minister of Foreign Affairs as being
in any way aware of the Defendants’ conduct, intent or purpose to prosecute and arrest the
subject of Defendants’ investigation and seize documents and assets in Canada and a foreign
state on account of a criminal investigation and conclusions established in and on behalf of
Canada. Neither is there any indication that the Minister had controlled, ordered or otherwise
condoned the conduct and the alleged breaches of privacy and Charter rights during the
investigative period arising from the acts and violations of law alleged herein. The Plaintiffs,
in the absence of any constitutional authorities lawful participation were and are unable to
pursue a cause of action to bring the case presently at bar within the purview of s.32 of the
Charter.

14. At all times the Defendants’ actions in Canada and elsewhere and violations of law alleged
did not constitute government action recognizable under Canadian or international law. The
legal occasions and procedural order distinguishing “government activities” (de jure imperii)
from private activities (de jure gestionis) was absent or at the best of times cloudy
throughout the investigative period, the acts alleged herein as violations of law and the cause
3
 of action should not have automatically been taken as having a constitutional or official
quality to them only on account of Defendants’ status as government employees or officials
of state agencies or instrumentalities. Despite repeated oral and written notices by the
Plaintiffs to responsible supervisory bodies of the Defendants no action or effort was or has
been undertaken to interpret the conduct and acts of the Defendants in a manner consistent
with prevailing international and Canadian law. Supervisory bodies in Canada and elsewhere
wrongly relied only upon the Defendants’ official or political status.

15. At all times Defendants acted in their own interests, not their constitutional responsibilities,
exploiting during the intervening years the facilities, ways and means available to them
individually and at their disposal as government employees of Canada and the Republic of
Bulgaria. Defendants used the facilities and authority afforded to them by their principal
governments to cause injury and harm to the Plaintiffs while in pursuit of Defendants’ private
agenda without regard for procedural law or the natural rights of the Plaintiffs as enshrined in
the principles and practice of international law.

16. All the while Defendants were supported by political factions of the Defendant government
of the Republic of Bulgaria opposed to and prejudiced against the Plaintiffs and their
companies’ activities which they considered exploitive of Bulgarian national resources to
which the Plaintiffs, as foreigners should not be entitled and counterproductive to certain
unpublished official policies of the Defendant Bulgaria, which at all times concealed the
unlawful intent and conduct of other individual Defendants. Much of the acts and
transactions among Defendants give rise to a prima facie case having a genus of an extortion
[see Section 346.1 (1) C.C.C.] attempted against the Plaintiffs in Canada. During the tort
period there was no reasonable or lawful justification or excuse for Defendants attempt to
induce Plaintiffs with threats, accusations, menaces or violence to provide information
concerning a criminal investigation in Canada of which they were not the subject and to
provide money from Canada to Defendants in Bulgaria, on account of which one member of
the Plaintiffs was falsely accused, unlawfully deprived of his liberty and summarily and
repeatedly beaten during the investigative periods of 1996 and 1997 at the direction of
Defendants.

17. These “secret commissions” in Canada “of threats, accusations, menaces or violence” by the
Defendants and their collective agreement during the investigative period to share “any
reward advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration” [see Section 426. (1) (a) (ii)
C.C.C.] in exchange for providing statements and reports that are knowingly “false or
erroneous or defective in any material particular and that is intended to mislead” [see S. 426
(1) (b) C.C.C.] their principal governments and public are actions which fell foul of Canadian
law. This conduct proliferates in the written record of Defendants’ correspondence.

18. The intent of the Defendants defamation was self-reward, advancement and enrichment of
themselves and others without regard to the harm and consequences to the Plaintiffs who
have suffered as a result thereof.

19. Plaintiffs acknowledge the novelty of their theory of the joint and several vicarious liability
of the Defendant state, the Republic of Bulgaria, and the direct liability of officials of the
Defendant state as the instrumentalities responsible. The Plaintiffs urge the court that in this
particular field of tort law the principle of vicarious liability is being applied by the Plaintiffs
with a sensitive view to the policy considerations that justify the imposition of vicarious

4
 liability – fair and efficient compensation for wrong and deterrence: [Bazley v. Curry (17
June 1999) S.C.C. No. 26013 and K (W.) v. Pornbacher, [1997], B.C.J. No. 57 (S.C.).]

20. That the questions and allegations raised within the claim are complex ought not to influence
the court upon whether there is an issue fit to be tried despite the novelty of the claim and the
questions it poses. It is argued that common law is a matter of evolution and that the issues of
the claim must be decided on the basis of the pleadings as they stand or as they might be
amended: [see Minnes v. Minnes (1962), 39 W.W.R. 112, 34 D.L.R. (2d) 497 (B.C.C.A.);
approved in Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. supra]. Important and novel causes of action ought to
be resolved at trial. Vital questions of law require a full investigation of the factual matrix out
of which the issues of this claim arise, the trial process is the place where novel and difficult
questions should first be considered [see Bow Valley Resource Services v. Kansa General
Insurance Co. (1991), 56 B.C.L.R. (2nd) 337 Chief Justice McEachern] There is a question fit
to be tried.

The
Parties

21. The Plaintiff, Tracy Kapoustin (hereinafter “Tracy”) is a homemaker born in Trail, British
Columbia and residing on Keats Island, British Columbia with her in-laws and the son born
of her marriage to Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin (hereinafter “Kapoustin”). She is unemployed.

22. The Plaintiff, Nicholas Kapoustin (hereinafter “Nicholas”) is the natural son of the Plaintiffs
Kapoustin and Tracy, having been born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on April 1st,
1993 and being a minor his interests in this proceeding are represented by Tracy Kapoustin
his guardian Ad Litem. Plaintiff Nicholas resides with his mother, the Plaintiff Tracy and is
the natural heir and beneficiary of the assets of his parents the Plaintiffs Kapoustin and Tracy.

23. The Plaintiff Kapoustin is a businessman who is a citizen of Canada having his permanent
residence in the Province of British Columbia, Canada, he is the husband of Tracy and father
of Nicholas and as a result of the violations of law alleged herein is being unlawfully held in
remand for four years and 6 months without sentence or benefit of trial in Sofia, Bulgaria.

24. Government of the Republic of Bulgaria (hereinafter “Bulgaria”) is a member of the

European Council and signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It at all relevant times acted as “de jure gestoinis” in shrouding the actual tortfeasors who
effected and controlled the violations of law in connection with “secret commissions” agreed
to among all the Defendants. It may be served by The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Canada
under S. 9 (5) of the State Immunity Act , c/o Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Department of Foreign Affairs & International Trade, 125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G2.

25. Defendant Derek A. Doornbos (hereinafter “Doornbos”) was employed by the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (R.C.M.P.) as a Staff Sgt. assigned as liaison to the Embassy of
Canada at Vienna, Austria. Doornbos is the principal author of the slander and libels alleged
herein and the principal agent of Defendant Bulgaria in Canada for accessing and collecting
private information normally restricted and protected by law, as well he is the fabricator of
5
 misstatements, misrepresentations, falsities and accusations which he provided other
Defendants to act upon, while knowing himself the information provided by him was untrue
or at best unreliable or verifiable. Doornbos may be served personally at his place of
employment Royal Canadian Mounted Police, International Affairs Office, 1200 Vanier
Parkway, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R2.

26. Defendant Stefcho Georgiev (hereinafter “Georgiev”) is a police investigator employed by

the National Investigative Service (N.I.S.) of the Republic of Bulgaria. During the
investigative periods of 1995, 1996 and 1997 Georgiev acted as principal co-author and
collaborator of Defendant Doornbos in the preparation of written and oral statements that
Georgiev, with the assistance of other Defendants did cause to be printed and announced on
television and radio programs repeatedly. Georgiev is directly responsible for seizing and
exploiting the Plaintiffs’ assets in Bulgaria for himself and on behalf of others for supervising
the physical torture and mental torment of Kapoustin while demanding information about
funds in Canada from Kapoustin for Doornbos and demanding money for himself and other
Defendants from the Plaintiffs in Canada. Georgiev is vicariously liable, together with other
Defendants for the intimidations and harassments, threats and accusations, menaces or
violence against Plaintiffs Tracy and Nicholas and the parents of Plaintiff Kapoustin as
alleged. Defendant Georgiev may be served personally at his place of employment
Specialized National Investigative Service, 42, "G.M.Dimitrov" St., 1113, Sofia, Bulgaria.

27. Defendant Mario Stoyanov (hereinafter “Stoyanov”) was, during the investigative period a
prosecutor for the Sofia City District Court and is the co-author with Defendant Georgiev in
the preparation of written documents and “orders of detention” (remand), the factual content
of which he knew to be false, misleading and misstatements of fact and unlawfully procured.
Defendant Stoyanov acted with Defendant Georgiev to utter the false accusations as prepared
by them to television and radio and repeatedly did cause the contents of same be printed and
distributed in Bulgaria and abroad. Defendant Stoyanov is the principal author and
orchestrator of the unlawful remand of Plaintiff Kapoustin and his prosecution at the request
of Defendant Doornbos. Defendant Stoyanov proceeds to demand cash from Plaintiffs in
Canada on behalf of himself and others as a condition of Plaintiff Kapoustin’s return to
Canada. Defendant Stoyanov can be served at his place of employment Supreme Cassation
Prosecutor’s Office, 2, “Vitosha” Blvd., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria.

28. Defendant Emilia Mitkova (hereinafter “Mitkova”) was a trial judge of the Sofia Regional
Court during the investigative period. In 1998 Defendant Mitkova, in exchange for her
collaboration in the alleged malfeasance was promoted to the Sofia City District Court and in
turn assigned, as her first case, the review of the 1995 investigations and seizures, 1996
remand and 1998 indictment of Plaintiff Kapoustin by Defendants Doornbos, Georgiev and
Stoyanov. Defendant Bulgaria withheld the Plaintiff Kapoustin’s case from a more
experienced and independent judge on account of Defendant Mitkova’s placid agreement to
be directed by her employer and the other Defendants. Defendant Mitkova can be served at
her place of employment Sofia City Court, Criminal College, 11th staff, 2, “Vitosha” Blvd.,
1000, Sofia, Bulgaria.

29. Defendant Iveta Anadolska (hereinafter “Anadolska”) is a trial judge of the Sofia Appeal
Court and its co-chairman. Defendant Anadolska was instructed by her employer, Defendant
Bulgaria, to participate and assist in the alleged malfeasance against the Plaintiffs by
supervising and directing the conduct, rulings and decisions of Defendant Mitkova and
shielding other Defendants from discovery by obstructing or denying Plaintiffs’ lawful
6
 appeals. Defendant Anadolska can be served at her place of employment Sofia Court of
Appeal, 24, “Positano” St., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria.

30. Defendant Kina Dimitrova (hereinafter “Dimitrova “) is in the employment of Defendant

Bulgaria as a professional and full time juror. A former prosecutor, the Defendant agreed to
participate in the alleged malfeasance with other Defendants by agreeing to be guided by her
employer. She replaced juror Natalia Radeva. Defendant Dimitrova can be served at her
place of employment Sofia City Court, Criminal College, 11th staff, 2, “Vitosha” Blvd., 1000,
Sofia, Bulgaria.

31. Defendant Dimitar Shackle (hereinafter “Shackle”) is in the employment of Defendant

Bulgaria as a professional and full time juror. The Defendant agreed to participate in the
alleged malfeasance with other Defendants by agreeing to be guided by his employer. He
replaced juror Todor Kassabov. Defendant Shackle can be served at his place of employment
Sofia City Court, Criminal College, 11th staff, 2, “Vitosha” Blvd., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria.

32. It is appropriate to treat the individual Defendants as a group for pleading purposes and to
presume that the malfeasance, slanderous and libelous statements and false and misleading
information conveyed by them in public filings, court documents, reports, press releases and
leaks and other announcements and violations of law as alleged herein are the collective
actions of the narrowly defined group of Defendants identified above as employees, agents
and instrumentalities of a special interest group operating at government levels of Defendant
Bulgaria. Each of the above, by virtue of his or her high – level positions within agencies and
instrumentalities of their respective governments, directly participated in the supervision of
the defamations and malfeasances alleged and were involved at various times throughout the
period in the day to day operations of the investigative activities which are fundamental
fabric of the matrix of facts which prove the violations of law alleged. Defendants existed
and operated at the very highest levels of government, its agencies and instrumentalities and
were privy at all times to confidential information and facts concerning the Plaintiffs’
operations, finances, financial condition, business prospects, associations, both business and
private and personal history, and knowing same the Defendants proceeded to draft, produce,
review and/or disseminate the false and misleading, slanderous and libelous statements
alleged herein, and were aware that the said statements were being issued regarding the
Plaintiffs and approved or ratified these statements in violation of law, and in pursuit of their
malfeasance.

33. As employees, officials, agencies and instrumentalities of government and as controlling

persons over the investigation and prosecution of the Plaintiffs as instituted by Canadian
peace officer Defendant Doornbos and governed by Canadian and Bulgarian law as
superceded by international covenants of conduct, the Individual Defendants, as officers of
law and supervisors of the investigation and prosecution of law, had a duty to that law to
disseminate promptly only accurate and truthful information with respect to Plaintiffs’
operations, finances, financial condition, business prospects, associations, both business and
private and personal history and to correct any previously issued statements from any source
that had become materially misleading or untrue, and to investigate and disclose facts that
would materially affect the proper conduct of the investigation and prosecution of justice
according to the principles of natural law, so that reports, documents, conclusions or
announcements would be based upon truthful and accurate information. Under the rules and
procedures promulgated under the laws of Canada and Bulgaria, as superceded by
international covenants, to which the respective governments are a party, the Individual
7
 Defendants had a duty to protect the privacy and natural rights of the Plaintiffs and to refuse
all demands and verify all information that were unreasonable and unverifiable and likely to
impact upon the Plaintiffs rights under law. The individual Defendants’ representations,
conduct and demands during the investigative period and beyond violated these specific
requirements and obligations.

34. The Individual Defendants participated in the drafting, preparation and/or approval of
various public documents and official reports and other requests and communications as
alleged herein under the mantle of legitimate government activities, yet were aware of their
reckless disregard for the truth and due process under law, their misstatements as contained
therein and omissions therefrom. At all times Defendants were aware of their materially
misleading nature.

35. Because of their positions within their respective governments, each of the Individual
Defendants had access to non-public information about the Plaintiffs and others as
particularized herein and knew the information provided to be manipulative and injuriously
false statements disguised as official conclusions and statements of fact.

36. The Individual Defendants, because of their positions of control and authority as agencies
and instrumentalities of government were able to and did control the contents of official
documents and reports, press releases and presentations to national and international
authorities not a part of their scheme and had the ability and opportunity to prevent or
obstruct the discovery of truth which might cause the wrongs alleged herein to be corrected.
As a result each of the Defendants is responsible for the defamation alleged and other
violations of law as detailed herein and is therefore primarily liable for the representations
and the consequences of Defendants’ acts upon the Plaintiffs.

37. Each of the Defendants is liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of action
shrouded under the mantle of government activities that operated as a fraud or deceit in an
attempted extortion of information, money and assets, by disseminating false and misleading
information and slanderous and libelous statements and concealing material and facts that
might reveal the truth. The scheme deceived the public regarding the business, character,
personality, associations, religious and sexual conduct of the Plaintiff Kapoustin. It
precipitated and gave rise to enmity, rancor and violence against the Plaintiffs and resulted in
the false accusations, loss of liberty and cruel or unusual treatment and punishment as
claimed herein.

No Safe Harbour

38. The “safe harbour” provided by the State Immunity Act in Canada for a sovereign state, its
officials, agencies and instrumentalities under certain circumstances does not apply in the
case at bar since the allegedly false and misleading statements and defamation pleaded in this
complaint and other violations of law complained of are “de jure gestionis”. The statements
alleged to be false and misleading herein all relate to then existing facts and conditions,
which government activities, “de jure imperii” would have considered and acted upon
according to its prevailing law if the acts alleged herein had in fact been such. In addition to
the extent certain of the statements alleged to be false can be characterized as “slanderous”
and “libelous”, they were none the less identified by the Defendant Bulgaria as facts when
8
 made. There was no statement made with respect to any of those representations forming the
basis of this complaint that actual facts “could differ materially from those represented” and
there was no meaningful effort identifying collecting or considering factors that could cause
information and statements to differ materially for those represented by Individual
Defendants and there was no government activity to seek or consider facts which might bring
into disrepute the responsible employees, officials, agencies or instrumentalities named as
Defendants herein, alternatively vicarious liability, is qualifiable because Defendant Bulgaria
knew and has actual knowledge that particular false information and defamations announced
was authorized and/or approved by employees, officials, agencies or instrumentalities
responsible to it.

39. Sovereign immunity as might arise out of governmental activities is inoperable as a

procedural defense against the torts alleged herein and, if allowed, would provide a “safe
harbour” that would encourage violations of natural and international law and Canada’s civil
and criminal code with impunity against citizens of Canada residing in Canada or abroad,
since the Court would “be obligated to sit still and (to) see its own process abused” [see
Baron Alderson in Cocker v. Tempess (1841), 151 E.R. 864 (Exch.)], denied the exercise of
its residual fund of procedural powers and tools necessary and at its disposal to ensure that
principles of natural justice and law are protected and sedulously fostered and done at all
stages of every proceeding and is manifestly seen to be done, granting to all parties “eqaulity
at arms” and no unfair administrative advantage granted to an official, agency or
instrumentality alleged to be directly or vicariously liable for injuries and damages arising
from unlawful acts committed against residents and citizens of Canada, the alternative would
be to deprive citizens of a judicial remedy and venue for wrongs and injuries inflicted upon
them by employees, officials, agencies or instrumentalities of a foreign state, whose conduct
intentionally violated the accepted practice and principles of international law.

40. Alternatively “sovereign immunity” would in the case at bar violate Plaintiffs’ charter rights
under Section 15 (1) by denying Plaintiffs “equality at arms” before the law and “equal
protection” and “benefit” of the law. Immunity unfairly discriminates against private citizens
as it provides a safe harbour shrouding officials, agencies or instrumentalities, the actual
tortfeasors, who effectively controlled and affected the alleged violations of law on behalf of
themselves and others.

41. The Plaintiffs have not asserted that the Claim falls within the purview of Section 32 (1) of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”). Had the Plaintiffs so elected
they would allege breaches of s. 15 (1) which triggered “a situation that is simply
unacceptable” [ see USA v. Arllard (1991), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 159 at p. 522] under s. 12 of the
Charter, the acts in question and consequences thereof offending the Canadian sense of what
is fair, right and just under s. 11 (a) and (d), s. 9, s. 8 and s. 7 of the Charter in relationship
to the nature of the cause and considerations of comity and security, and after having granted
due latitude and having maintained a perspective for the reasonable requirements of law
enforcement as demonstrately justifiable in a free and democratic society. The breaches of
Charter rights arise from the violations of law pleaded herein. This court, in such instance,
would have competent jurisdiction in this district over the subject matter of this claim
pursuant to s. 24 (1) of the Charter. Plaintiffs would then claim that the officials, agencies
and instrumentalities of the Government of Canada did violate the law promulgated under the
(Provincial) Protection of Privacy Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter 165, Section 15 (h), S. 30
and S. 28 in conjunction with S. 22 (1); the (Federal) Privacy Act [R.S.C. 1985] Section 8 (1)
and further re-allege that the acts and transactions of, inter alia, preparation of false,
9
 misleading and slanderous materials; the sending abroad of same; causing the public
distribution and publication of information protected by law and the preparation and delivery
abroad of official reports and documents was adequate proof of common law torts of privacy,
defamation and slander as having occurred in this Court’s district.

42. Plaintiffs would further allege that violations of law and the Charter arise from acts affected
by a foreign state, its agents, agencies and instrumentalities against the person and property
of citizens of Canada, in Canada and abroad, the conduct of said agents, agencies and
instrumentalities, directly and vicariously causing, inter alia, threats, accusations, menaces
and violence without reasonable justification or excuse; cruel and unusual treatment and
punishment; deprivation of security of person and right to life; discrimination on account of
national or ethnic origin and religion; disclosures of information to the public harmful to the
individual and a violation of the right to privacy; threats to safety, mental and physical
health; disclosures of information to the public resulting in undue financial loss and burden;
disclosures of information to the public which were knowingly inaccurate, incomplete and
unreliable, thus damaging unfairly the reputation of the person(s) referred to therein and
having been compiled and identified as a part of a Canadian investigation into a possible
violation of law in Canada; disclosures of information to the public which inaccurately,
unreliably and slanderously indicated untrue sexual orientation, religious belief or association
of the person(s) named therein and Plaintiffs would claim vicarious liability on the part of the
Government of Canada for its participation in aiding and abetting the violations of law
alleged and for having subjected to cruel and unusual treatment the Plaintiffs. In one instance
the liberty and security of person is denied in an alleged violation of fundamental and civil
rights apparently with the direct participation of a peace officer and diplomat of Canada

43. In such an instance treaties, as arrangements between administrative bodies of states should
not confer the veil of immunity or act as safe harbours from civil responsibility and liability
for damages from intentional acts which have knowingly breached domestic and
international law. In Re McVey 91993), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.) Sopinka J., at p 47 stated:

“We must not lose sight of the fact that … treaties, although they are
arrangement between governments, affect the liberty of individuals…”

44. Plaintiffs have made no allegations that the injury inflicted upon them is a consequence of a
lawful government activity. They allege the alternative, that the injury and deep humiliation
are the consequence of private actors operating in scienter for personal gain and advancement
and on account of a deep prejudice and discrimination harboured by them against the
Plaintiffs. These are acts of a private actor and not a conduct subject to or deserving of
immunity.

Relevant Facts
Background

45. The Plaintiffs, upon the representations and promises made and the assurances of agencies
and officials of the Republic of Bulgaria, as well as public statements made by it and upon
offers and proposals of officers, directors and managers of enterprises and institutions
controlled by ministries chartered by it under law, including but not limited to the ministries
10
 of health, finance, justice and foreign affairs, did induce the Plaintiffs from 1991 to 1995 to
invest for themselves and on behalf of others; cash in the amount of 5,153,393 United States
Dollars and 338,999 German Marks; in 160,572 bottles of Scotch whisky value at 1,600,572
United States Dollars, in 174,260 bottles of Russian Vodka valued at 685,040 United States
Dollars, in 132 containers of canned beer valued at 824,000 United States Dollars and
miscellaneous other dry goods valued at 434,600 USD; in medicines and medical raw
materials 4,442,405 USD and 580,000 German Marks; in waste oil refining equipment,
technology and manufacturing rights valued at 3,000,000 USD and 917,984,769 Greek
Drachmas; in land, leasehold improvements, office equipment and furniture valued at
1,340,000 German Marks; in transfers of technology, licenses, trademarks, patents,
proprietary technologies, licenses and rights to goodwill valued at 18,407,000 USD; in local
securities 2,000,000,000 Bulgarian leva; in associate company shares, stocks and convertible
debentures 3,000,000 USD; into enterprises located in or associated to the Republic of
Bulgaria and by which the Defendant Bulgaria would derive direct or indirect benefit.

46. Plaintiffs as a consequence of their investment, labor and intellectual contribution, did
develop, test, patent and license an HIV/AIDS immunotherapeuticum, “Factor – R”, of
which Plaintiff Kapoustin is co-author and a patent holder.

47. Plaintiffs did organize and finance from 1993 to 1995 the clinical testing and treatment of
200 + HIV/AIDS patients, 160 of which are residents of Canada and the United States.
Results of clinical trials, as presented before a committee of peers at the National Institute of
Health, Bethesda, Maryland on or about July 1995, provided evidence of clinical efficacy in
75% of patients treated. Plaintiffs anticipated, upon the objective and subjective merits of
science and market prospects, to treat, in the months and years ahead tens of thousands of
HIV/AIDS and cancer patients, in so doing providing to patients health benefits and
prolonged lives. Plaintiffs expected to realize returns commensurate and common within the
medical biotechnology industry under the facts and circumstances prevalent at the time.

First Claim
As to
The Republic of Bulgaria

48. In late 1995 the Plaintiffs discovered and intended to prove that the alleged herein violations
of law by Defendant Bulgaria against themselves and others similarly situated arise from and
forms a part of a scheme contrived by Defendant Bulgaria and its instrumentalities to give
effect, inter alia, to a form of international terrorism conceived during the late 1980’s to
cause the injury, pain and death of citizens of Canada, the United States, Western Europe and
other politically or socially “offensive” nations and cause political and social difficulty and
unrest in the said nations; develop and utilize the virus which causes AIDS (see Kapoustin
and others v. Bulgaria, European Court of Human Rights, Application No 6650/2000,
pending; and Libya v. Bulgarian medical personal, District Criminal Court Benghazi, Libya,
murder by HIV infection of 393 Libyan children) as a weapon of mass terrorism; continue to
realize Defendants’ policy of state sponsored discrimination against HIV/AIDS infected
individuals and all private organizations and religious groups associated with their care and
treatment; deny treatment of any kind to HIV/AIDS victims; in the alternative, monopolize
and control for itself and others all accessible to it technology and realizable profits from any
11
 treatment of HIV/AIDS; seize and exploit, for itself and others, the assets of foreign
businessmen and firms when and where possible in Bulgaria; “officially extort” cash
payments from foreign businessmen and firms on threat of government seizures; arrest
foreign nationals as an “inducement” to gain access to all or part of cash assets available to
them; slander and malign, through state instrumentalities of the media, individual foreign
nationals and private companies as “criminals” and the root cause for domestic and regional
economic instability and depression; promote, among the general public, enmity, rancor and
discrimination against foreign citizens and companies upon allegations that foreign nationals,
and not the Defendant Bulgaria is responsible for economic hardship, rising inflation,
currency devaluation, the collapse of banks and state enterprises and loss of jobs historically
and presently prevalent in the economy of the Defendant Bulgaria; identify foreign nationals
as “criminal exploiters” of the Defendant Bulgaria’s population, by so doing, ultimately
deflect attention from the Defendant Bulgaria’s crimes as committed by officials of its
instrumentalities against their own population; deflect attention from Defendants’ crimes
against the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated.

Second claim
As to
Defendants Doornbos, Georgiev and Stoyanov

49. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

50. On or about February of 1995 through the means and instrumentalities of the ministries of
finance and health and the facilities of the mass printed and electronic media controlled by
Defendant Bulgaria and at the direction and orchestration of its Ministry of Interior, the
“secret police”, being responsible and accountable to Defendant Bulgaria did commence to
affect the acts, conduct and other wrongs alleged in this Complaint as described below and
through unlawful means did enlist the services of an official agent of the Government of
Canada to facilitate the Defendants’ common objective of enriching themselves and
promoting the national political and popular agenda of the Government of the Republic of
Bulgaria through threats, accusations, menaces and violence..

51. On or about May 15, 1995 and including but not limited to the dates of June 13, 1995; July 7,
1995; September 7, 1995; December 13, 1995; April 1, 1996; August 14, 1996; August 23,
1996 and July 2, 1997, the Defendant Doornbos, an employee and official of the Government
of Canada, did meet or had contact with Defendant Georgiev and other officials of the
Defendant Republic of Bulgaria with the official purpose and intent to publicly humiliate,
degrade and damage the reputation as well as the financial well being of the Plaintiffs, by
knowingly, with malice and aforethought, uttering untrue, false and slanderous remarks
concerning the personality, character and business activities of Plaintiff Kapoustin.
Representations, which Defendant Doornbos knew or should have known to be untrue, yet
did, intentionally and with malfeasance, represent the said false and slanderous remarks to
officials of the Defendant Bulgaria.

52. Defendant Bulgaria, with the knowledge and consent of Defendant Doornbos, did provide to
its mass media the false and slanderous remarks and conclusions of Defendant Doornbos, so
that the public at large might believe that the Plaintiff Kapoustin had, inter alia, been
convicted in Canada for the sexual rape of children; is an internationally recognized fraud
12
 and swindler known to be a close associate of one Ivon Shearing; is a participant and
financial supporter of Mr. Shearing’s “pseudo – religious cult” the “Kabalarian Society” of
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; operated the Plaintiffs’ international company
“LifeChoice” in the Republic of Bulgaria as a criminal operation and large scale fraud, which
had transferred 16 million United Sates dollars to Canada, all or a substantial part claimed by
Defendant Doornbos as coming from citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria.

53. Defendants Doornbos, Bulgaria and Georgiev knew the statements uttered by them to be
untrue but knowingly proceeded with their slander and other violations of law as alleged
since it suited the Defendants’ stated and recorded objectives to popularize and qualify the
unlawful seizure, exploitation and confiscation of the Plaintiffs assets through threats,
accusations, menaces and violence.

54. From the period of May 31, 1995 to the present the aforesaid misrepresentations and slander
appeared repeatedly in hundreds of national newspaper articles, television and radio
programs and official documents throughout the Republic of Bulgaria as well as on a number
of occasions in parts of Canada and Europe via electronic news services. The aforesaid is
best represented and evidenced by a published interview with Defendant Georgiev in
Continent newspaper, Sofia, Bulgaria, on August 1, 1996.

55. This action arises in part from the aforesaid official and public humiliation, degradation and
slander of the Plaintiff Kapoustin, by Defendant Bulgaria and others, the objective of which
was to purposefully subject the Plaintiffs to cruel and unusual treatment.

56. Defendants so acted in order that they might precipitate in the public mind adequate cause for
the unlawful arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin and seizure of Plaintiffs’ assets in the Republic of
Bulgaria and Canada on the grounds of the written conclusions and report given in writing as
evidence against the Plaintiffs by peace officer and diplomat Defendant Doornbos on July 7,
1995.

57. Defendant Bulgaria, although knowing the alternative to be true, did act upon the conclusions
of Defendant Doornbos on account of his quality as a peace officer and diplomatic
representative of the Government of Canada. Doornbos knew it to be impossible for anyone
to draw a coherent distinction between his statements of opinion and assertions of fact.

58. Defendant Doornbos as an officer of the government of Canada, had he acted at the direction
of the Attorney General, would have violated ss. 11 (d) of the Charter when he declared:

“… Kapoustin through his large-scale financial frauds carried out by

his pyramidal structure “LifeChoice “. It was found out the transfers go
through Caribbean banks.”

Defendant Doornbos, in so doing, declared the Plaintiffs Kapoustin guilty of “large-scale

financial frauds” , a crime for which no one, including Plaintiff Kapoustin, had been at the
time charged, nor proven guilty of in a fair and public hearing before an independent and
impartial tribunal in any jurisdiction or venue.

59. Defendant Doornbos knew and had every reason to believe his conclusion and requests, as
stated in his letter, would be acted upon and would thereby cause the arbitrary imprisonment
and loss of liberty and security of person of Plaintiff Kapoustin, which gave rise to the
13
 seizure and destruction of the Plaintiffs’ property, loss of income, the extortion of cash,
physical torture and the permanent injury derived of the emotional, physical and
psychological trauma suffered by the Plaintiffs.

Extortion
And
Malfeasance Allegations

60. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

61. On or about July 17, 1995 Defendants Bulgaria, Georgiev and Mario Stoyanov (hereinafter
“Stoyanov”) were further induced by Defendant Doornbos into collaborating in this public
humiliation of the Plaintiffs when, by oral and written promise the said Defendant Doornbos
caused Defendants to believe they would be beneficiaries of all or a substantial part of the
said 16 million United States dollars alleged by him to be property of the Plaintiff Kapoustin
and his associates in various banks in Vancouver, British Columbia

62. This financial reward was officially embodied in a July 7, 1995 letter issued by Defendant
Doornbos to the Defendants wherein the motives for the malfeasance against the Plaintiffs
were setout and qualified solely upon the personal suppositions and conclusions of
Defendant Doornbos as setout therein and as elevated by him to the status of “official facts”
and “conclusions“ of the Government of Canada without the knowledge, consent or order of
his immediate superiors and in violation of the principles and procedures of law under
“Mutual Legal Assistance In Criminal Matters Act”, Chapter M – 13.6 (RS 1985, c. 30 (4 th
supp.)) 1988, c. 37, assented to 28 July, to which the Defendant was legally incumbent as an
official of Canada.

63. As has been previously alleged, and is now re-alleged, Defendant Doornbos did further
violate the natural law and individual rights of the Plaintiffs as enshrined in Canada’s Charter
of Human Rights to which he, as an official of the Government of Canada, was ethically and
morally bound and did so on account of his prejudice to the dual nationality and ethnic origin
of Plaintiff Kapoustin and the association of Plaintiffs with HIV/AIDS advocacy.

64. The Defendants Bulgaria, Georgiev and Stoyanov did not subject the Defendant Doornbos
representation to any proper legal test as was incumbent upon them. These Defendants, upon
the belief and promise of the financial reward to be derived from the humiliation of the
Plaintiffs and seizure and possible confiscation of their assets and as well as to divert
attention from crimes committed by them and other benefits, did embark upon an official
campaign to induce in the minds of the public enmity, hostility, antipathy, rancor, malice,
discrimination and bias against the Plaintiffs with the intent to cause them financial harm,
loss of reputation and goodwill.

65. By attacking the nationality of the Plaintiffs and upon the motives of a financial award the
Defendants jointly and severally did conspire, plan and openly solicit complaints through
paid advertising and public announcements. With the promise of money to witnesses
Defendants did succeed in securing criminal complaints grounded upon their slander and
acrimony as privately, personally, politically and publicly promoted by them. Though these
complaints were unsubstantiated and contrary to the facts and circumstances known to the
14
 Defendants, they did nonetheless affect, at the insistence of Defendant Doornbos for “any
prosecution whatsoever against Kapoustin”, the arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin made as a
precondition by Defendant Doornbos to the 16 million dollar financial reward promised by
him. Whereupon on February 7, 1996 the Plaintiff Kapoustin was summarily and without due
process under law, imprisoned at the direction of the Defendants and remains so in the
Republic of Bulgaria at Sofia Central Prison, 21, “Gen. Stoletov” St., 1309, Sofia.

66. The Plaintiffs allege and shall prove that the Defendants Bulgaria, Doornbos, Georgiev and
Stoyanov, jointly and severally first considered and then did later effect, in order that they
might advance their cause, an unlawful arrest of Kapoustin, deemed by them to be necessary
to gain their personal objectives and political goals to humiliate and injure the Plaintiffs and
in so doing financially enrich themselves and others. Anticipating to obtain cash in Canada,
with threats, accusations, menaces and violence against the Plaintiffs.

67. The Defendants, in causing the deep humiliation of the Plaintiffs and damaging the
reputation and business of the Plaintiff Kapoustin sought to and did advance their
professional and personal objectives of increased public and political esteem. By affecting,
Plaintiff Kapoustin’s physical imprisonment without legal cause or occasion, and endlessly
maintaining same, the Defendants hoped to or in fact did enrich themselves and others with
the assets of the Plaintiffs and continue to plot and hope, with the ongoing imprisonment of
Plaintiff Kapoustin, to negotiate a position whereby they shall further enrich themselves and
others with all or part of the 16 million United States dollars promised by the Defendant
Doornbos.

68. The Defendant Georgiev, in order to extract evidence and information from the Plaintiff
Kapoustin, for the benefit and exploitation by Defendant Doornbos as well as to insure the
Plaintiff’s cooperation and silence did affect physical beatings and torture as well as mental
torment of the Plaintiff Kapoustin, which is relevant under the instance since each such
torment, which commenced on September 18, 1996 and continuing to October 23rd 1996, and
beginning again on January 15th 1997 until March 6th, 1997 and then again July 1st 1997 until
November 10th 1997 was adjunct to a severe interrogation in the absence of attorneys or
interpreters. These interrogatories were concerned entirely and exclusively upon the subject
matter setout in Defendant Doornbos’ requests. Most particularly that of July 7th 1995 and the
monies referenced therein and repeatedly inquired about thereafter by the Canadian official
Defendant Doornbos.

69. The physical and mental torture involved beatings about the shoulders, back, buttocks and
legs muffled through blankets and affected by hard, yet flexible, plastic or rubber. Each
incident involved 4-6 masked individuals one of whom repeatedly interrogated the Appellant
in poor English concerning funds purported to be ensconced in Canada with the alleged
criminal associates of Plaintiff Kapoustin as identified to the Government of Bulgaria by
Defendant Doornbos in the 07.07.1995 request to the Defendants to prosecute, arrest and
extract information from the Plaintiff Kapoustin, a Canadian citizen.

70. Subsequent to these beatings the Plaintiff Kapoustin was kept in isolation for days, often
weeks, without any medical examination or contact except with Defendant Georgiev, the
investigator supervising the case. Beating lasted as little as 5 minutes with the longest being
approximately 10 minutes.

15
71. During the 1997 episodes of abuse the Plaintiff Kapoustin was repeatedly given, without his
knowledge, psychotropic drugs to disorient him deprive him of sleep and to induce moods of
extreme depression and helplessness. Subsequent to these episodes the Plaintiff would again
be interrogated upon the subject matter of the funds in Canada to be paid to the Defendant
Bulgaria.

72. Each denial by the Plaintiff Kapoustin of having any knowledge of these funds encountered
assurances by his interrogators that the information was accurate and provided by Canadian
authorities who sought together with the Defendant Bulgaria the return of these funds.

73. Interrogators were certain the Plaintiff was lying and therefore extended their beatings and
continued their investigation for 4 years prior to committing to trial. The Defendants
continue, until this day, to believe there are funds in Canada as represented to them and
proceed to demand the money from the Plaintiffs.

Third claim
As to
Defendants Mitkova and Anadolska

74. The Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.

75. On or about January 15, 1999 Defendants Emilia Mitkova (hereinafter “Mitkova”) and Iveta
Anadolska, officials in the employment and public service of the Defendant Bulgaria, in
exchange for promotions and political and financial consideration agreed to conspire and
plan with Defendants Georgiev and Stoyanov.

76. Defendants sought to maintain, as was in their official capacity, the unlawful imprisonment
of the Plaintiff Kapoustin and seizure of the Plaintiffs’ assets, in order to torment the
Plaintiffs until such time as they provided to the Defendant Bulgaria all or part of the 16
million United States dollars promised by Defendant Doornbos and represented by him to be
the property of the Plaintiff Kapoustin.

77. Whereupon the Defendants Mitkova and Anadolska proceeded to repeatedly and without
cause deny the Plaintiff Kapoustin his freedom, and to hold him officially hostage together
with the substantial assets of the Plaintiffs until such time as the Plaintiffs, provided the
desired sum of money to the Defendants as had been officially and publicly demanded by the
Defendant Stoyanov in the newspaper “Monitor” on April 8th, 2000 - page 8; “Monitor” –
April 11th, page 9; newspaper “Standart” on April 11th, 2000 – page 3 and documented in the
proceedings against said Plaintiff Kapoustin. These funds were demanded by the Defendants
as a condition for the release and termination of the unlawful process instituted against
Plaintiff Kapoustin.

78. Defendants stated that without payment of what amounts to state sponsored extortion to the
Defendant Bulgaria the Plaintiff Kapoustin would not be returned to his family Plaintiffs
Tracy and Nicholas.

16
 Fourth claim
as to
Defendants Dimitrova and Shackle

79. The Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth
herein.

80. On or about April 1st, 1999 Defendant Mitkova, in order to secure her promise to maintain
the imprisonment and to obstruct the defense and rights to natural law of the Plaintiff
Kapoustin did facilitate, on or about the aforestated date, the dismissal of jurors Natalia
Radeva and Todor Kassabov as initially appointed to the judicial tribunal. Having done so
Defendant Mitkova secured the appointment of her collaborators, the Defendants Dimitrova
and Shackle to affect together with Defendant Mitkova, any and all actions necessary to
deny the Plaintiffs rights under law to their assets and the Plaintiff Kapoustin his freedom
until such time as the financial, political and professional aspirations of each Defendant were
realized at the financial, material, emotional, physical and psychological cost of the
Plaintiffs.

81. Defendants Dimitrova and Shackle, by affixing their signatures to documents which they
knew or should have known to be questionable as to their truthfulness and veracity and
which they intentionally and with premeditation did not subject to the proper legal tests nor
did properly consider the detailed and contrary facts, circumstances and motives did thus
become parties to the criminal malfeasance of the other Defendants and therefore equally
culpable and liable for the injury and damage caused the Plaintiffs.

Scienter Allegations

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

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

84. The alleged herein unlawful arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin demonstrates the Defendants
acted with scienter in that : they knew the “orders of detention” issued and later statements
17
 made by them as officials acting in the name of Defendant Bulgaria were materially false,
misleading and procured by them with no regard for the procedures for so doing as
promulgated under Bulgarian domestic law; Defendants Georgiev and Stoyanov knew their
statements as “officers of law” and “prosecuting authorities” of the Defendant Bulgaria
would not be subjected to any proper legal tests by the FDRG as to the merits; Defendants
knowing fully well the FDRG unwilling and disinterested to investigate Plaintiffs’
attorneys’ claims as made to the alternative; knew that on account of the official slanders
made by Defendants as alleged and proven herein co-mingled with the Jewish ethnic and
Russian origins of Plaintiff Kapoustin and on account of Defendant Bulgaria
misrepresenting in its Feb. 16, 1996 Request for Extradition the residency and citizenship
of Plaintiff Kapoustin as Bulgarian the FDRG in a common discriminatory conduct of its
courts would participate and acquiesce to the Plaintiff Kapoustin’s arrest, detention and
extradition without exercising the required due diligence the FDRG may otherwise have
undertaken, had Kapoustin not had Jewish and Russian ancestry and the therein alluded to
Bulgarian residency and citizenship.

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

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

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

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

18
89. Defendants Georgiev and Stoyanov who issued the “orders of detention” of November 28,
1995 and February 12, 1996 and which constituted, in totus, the grounds for arrest,
detention and extradition by the FDRG, would not meet any criteria of international law
had not the Defendants participated in the fraudulent scheme arising by virtue of the
materiality of their misleading misstatement in documents provided by them to the FDRG.

90. Defendant Georgiev had no independence or impartiality (see Huber v. Switzerland

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

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

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

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

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

19
 Canada; to enhance their official positions and to secure the substantial compensation and
prestige they hoped to obtain by so doing.

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

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

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

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

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

100. Defendants have deliberately refrained from taking those steps necessary to discover
whether those documents and statements were false or misleading. Individual Defendant’s
ignorance of the fact that other Defendants as officials of the Defendant Bulgaria and
Government of Canada were providing directly or indirectly false and misleading
documents and statements and relying upon the individually responsible Defendants’
integrity as an official whose representation must therefore by default be truthful even in
the presence of materially adverse information provided by the Plaintiffs and Plaintiff’s
attorneys, provides no excuse or relief from liability or culpability for the consequentially
injuries and damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants’ wrongful conduct or willful ignorance.

101. At all relevant times, the Defendants, individually and in concert, directly and indirectly,
engaged and participated in a continuous course of action and conduct whereby they
knowingly provided public representations which they knew to be materially false and/or
misleading and would cause direct personal injury and financial harm to the Plaintiffs. This
continuous course of conduct resulted in the publishing and electronic transmission of
media statements and official documents that were false, misleading and slanderous as to
their content.

102. The Defendants’ conduct materially influenced the market place, financial institutions,
business associates and the public against the Plaintiffs by inciting a rancor and enmity,
which has caused the Plaintiffs’ emotional anguish and a deep humiliation, from which
they are unable to recover. These acts of the Defendants operated as a fraud and deceit
upon the public and business associates of the Plaintiffs causing financial injury and loss.

103. The Plaintiff Kapoustin and his business activities in Bulgaria, prior to his arrest were the
sole financial support for his family. The unlawfully seized property and business
represented all the assets of the Plaintiffs of which the Plaintiffs Tracy and Nicholas are
owners, beneficiaries and heirs to the income and value represented and upon which they
were dependent.

104. The Defendant Bulgaria is a direct participant in the wrongs complained of herein. The
individual Defendants are liable as direct participants and as controlling persons of the
wrongs complained of. Because of their positions and authority as officials of the
Defendant Bulgaria, and the Government of Canada the individual Defendants were able
to, and did, directly or indirectly, control the content of the public statements relating to the
Plaintiffs.

105. The Individual Defendants did cause or control the issuance of public statements
containing the slanderous and misleading representations alleged herein.

106. The Individual Defendants had actual knowledge of the facts making these public
statements and official documents false, misleading and slanderous or acted with reckless
disregard for that they failed to ascertain and to disclose such facts, even though same were
available to them.

21
107. As a result of the Defendants’ malfeasance, slander and unlawful arrest of Plaintiff
Kapoustin, his son, now aged 7 (seven) years, has been wrongly and unjustly deprived for
5 (five) of those years of the love and affection, nurturing care, guidance, companionship
and comfort of a father during his young life. The consequences to Plaintiff Nicholas of his
depression, confusion and anxiety are best expressed in the physical manifestation of his
stress as expressed by contracting Diabetes Type I at the age of 4 (four) years.

108. The actions of the Defendants have reduced the natural life expectancy of Plaintiff
Nicholas and placed a burden upon a young life, which is immeasurable in financial or
material terms. The Plaintiffs shall be weighed with the expense of special medical
attention and care and a lifetime of anxiety over the health and well being of their 7 (seven)
– year old son.

109. The unlawful seizure and destruction of the Plaintiffs’ property and assets by the
Defendants has further denied Plaintiff Nicholas his rightful inheritance and future
opportunity.

110. As a result of the Defendants’ malfeasance, slander and unlawful arrest and inhuman
treatment of the Plaintiff Kapoustin, his wife of 12 years, the Plaintiff Tracy has been
denied the love, companionship, emotional and financial support in assistance towards
living expenses and comfort of a husband and friend. The public humiliation of being
forced upon the public dole and the damaged reputation and loss of income and property
have caused Plaintiff Tracy to accept social and financial aid from family and friends in
order to care for the Plaintiffs’ diabetic son and to finance her fight to free her unlawfully
detained husband.

111. The extreme stress, personal anguish and anxiety born of the demands of what is an unjust
and undeserved burden have physically manifested themselves in ill health requiring
constant medication and the regular attention of physicians, thus causing added financial
hardship upon the Plaintiffs.

112. As a result the Plaintiff Kapoustin’s elderly parents Robert and Tatiana, due to the
humiliation and anxiety they suffered from the Defendants’ malfeasance, slander, unlawful
arrest and inhuman treatment of their son, with attempts by the Defendants to extort money
from them and the threats made in the process thereof against their and their son’s safety
and lives as the alternative to non payment, caused Robert and Tatiana to suffer grievous
personal anguish and anxiety which proved to be the direct cause of the physical and
mental deterioration and illness of Plaintiff Kapoustin’s 67-year-old mother Tatiana, whose
failed health has placed her under ongoing institutional care and requires the constant
attention of her husband, Robert, who at 78 years of age has had to bear the emotional and
financial burden of his wife’s care with that of the Plaintiff Kapoustin’s sister Sonia Jordan,
neither of whom, in the absence of the Plaintiff’s support are able to financially sustain the
care of Tatiana and themselves and their effort to protect their son and gain his freedom.

113. These unjust emotional and material demands have caused the Plaintiff Kapoustin’s elderly
parents to lose their home of twenty years, which to them has been second to the resultant
loss of the love, care, companionship and affection in the winter of their lives of the son
unlawfully denied them.

22
114. As a result of Plaintiff Kapoustin’s deep humiliation, damaged public and business
reputation and the deep emotional and physical trauma caused by the Defendants in their
five year unlawful imprisonment of him and the Defendants’ unlawful seizure, exploitation
and depletion of the Plaintiffs’ assets, the Plaintiff Kapoustin is not now nor shall he ever
be able to realize for the rest of the years of his natural life the support of his family or the
possibilities, business success, personal aspirations and fulfillment he might have
otherwise realized as a father, husband and businessman, which have been and have
forever been denied him by the Defendants.

115. As a result the Plaintiffs have jointly and severally incurred certain special damages, loss
and expenses and further loss and expense in the future, particulars of which will be
provided on request.

WHEREFORE THE PLAINTIFFS TRACY KAPOUSTIN, NICHOLAS KAPOUSTIN by his

guardian Ad Litem TRACY KAPOUSTIN AND MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN claim against the
DEFENDANTS THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA, DEREK A. DOORNBOS, STEFCHO
GEORGIEV, MARIO STOYANOV, EMILIA MITKOVA, KINA DIMITROVA, IVETA
ANADOLSKA and DIMITAR SHACKLE as follows:

a) To the Plaintiffs liquidated damages of 37,547,010 USD as assessed upon the value of
the Plaintiffs’ investments calculated in Canadian dollars;

b) To the Plaintiffs liquidated damages of 2,258,999 DM as assessed upon the value of

the Plaintiffs’ investments calculated in Canadian dollars;

c) To the Plaintiffs liquidated damages of 917,984,769 Greek Drachmas as assessed

upon the value of the Plaintiffs’ investments calculated in Canadian dollars;

d) To the Plaintiffs liquidated damages of 2,000,000,000 BGL as assessed upon the

value of the Plaintiffs’ investments calculated in Canadian dollars at the prevailing
rate of exchange on the date invested as fixed by the Bulgarian National Bank on the
day;

e) damages, both general and special, for the Plaintiff Nicholas Kapoustin, for the
deprivation of love and affection, care, companionship of his natural father and loss
of assistance towards living expenses and education and income from his father and
his inheritance and for ongoing medical care of his disability and for the resultant loss
of future income thereof;

f) damages, both general and special, for the Plaintiff Tracy Coburn Kapoustin, for the
deprivation of love and affection, care, companionship of her husband and loss of
assistance towards living expenses and income from her husband and for ongoing
medical care and for the resultant loss of future income thereof;

g) damages, both general and special, for the Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin, for
deprivation of the love and affection, companionship and joy of his son and wife, and
the loss of past and future income as a consequence of his imprisonment and loss of
reputation, opportunity and assets.

23
 h) general and special damages;

i) interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act;

j) costs;

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

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury.

PLACE OF TRIAL: Vancouver, British Columbia

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

_______________________
Plaintiff Tracy Kapoustin

TO: THE DEFENDANTS

FILED BY: MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN _______________________

Suite 94435 Plaintiff Nicholas Kapoustin
7680 River Road, by his guardian Ad Litem
Richmond, Tracy Kapoustin
B.C. V6Y 2A8

______________________
Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin

24