USE Kapoustin Affidavit No. 15, Tabbed Amended

FORM 60 (RULE 51 (2) AND (6))
Affidavit No. 15
Michael Kapoustin
August 17th, 2001
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 REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA et al.,
DEFENDANTS
AND:
MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN,
RESPONDENT
AND
No. S005440
VANCOUVER REGISTRY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:
"LIFECHOICE INTERNATIONAL AD", DIMITAR HRISTOV, BORISLAV MARINOV, RADKA
PETROVA, LIFECHOICE BANQ1 CORPORATION On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
PLAINTIFFS
AND:
THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA et al.,
AND
MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN,
RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
Comes now Michael Kapoustin the Respondent ("Respondent/Plaintiff"), a citizen of Canada and permanent
resident of the province of British Columbia ("Province") TO MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
I am one of the Plaintiffs and a Respondent in the two above-captioned proceedings. As such I have personal
knowledge of the facts and circumstances attested to herein as set out below.
21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 1 of 50

That the subject matter of this, my sworn affidavit is indexed for the convenience of the Court as follows:
1 Chapter Generally........................................................................................................................................................4
Section A. Statements.................................................................................................................................................4
Section B. Obstruction Complaints. ...........................................................................................................................5
Part I Proceeding In My Absence...........................................................................................................................5
Part II Background of the Problem.........................................................................................................................6
Part III Applications To Bulgaria To Attend...........................................................................................................7
Part IV Restrictions of My Civil and Fundamental Rights.....................................................................................7
Part V Conclusion - Bulgarian National Law........................................................................................................11
Part VI Appeal Of Master's Decision....................................................................................................................12
2 Chapter On The Applications Before the Bar............................................................................................................12
Section C. Commercial Activities.............................................................................................................................13
Part I On Bulgaria Government Assertions...........................................................................................................13
Part II Involvement In Commercial Activities......................................................................................................13
Part III The Affidavit Of Dobreva Is Untrue.........................................................................................................13
Section B. Plaintiffs .................................................................................................................................................16
Part I No Proper Ex Juris Notice or Service ........................................................................................................16
Part I To Proceed In Forma Pauperis....................................................................................................................17
Part II To Proceed In Writing................................................................................................................................17
Section C. Exchange of Documents In Bulgaria Service.........................................................................................17
Section F. Nature of Plaintiffs' Proceedings .............................................................................................................20
Part I What Official, Agencies and Instrumentalities............................................................................................20
Part II Subject Matter of Contracts.......................................................................................................................20
Part III Personal Injury..........................................................................................................................................21
Section G. Commercial Activities of Bulgaria .........................................................................................................21
Section A. British Columbia Companies and Investors ..........................................................................................21
Part I LifeChoice Pharmaceuticals Inc. ................................................................................................................21
Part I Official Representations By Defendant.......................................................................................................23
Part II Defendant's Representations In Canada.....................................................................................................24
Part III Commencement Of Commercial Activities In British Columbia.............................................................25
Part IV Contracts With The Plaintiffs...................................................................................................................26
Part V Joint Venture Companies With The Government of Bulgaria...................................................................28
Part VI North American Trade Organisation Inc..................................................................................................28
Part VII LifeChoice International Inc. (A.D.).......................................................................................................28
Part VIII Refinery Contracts with the Defendant ................................................................................................29
Part IX Medical Contracts ....................................................................................................................................29
Section B. That Contracts In or Connected to the Province Were Dependant on Defendant. ................................29
Part I As, in the Province the:...............................................................................................................................29
Part II As connected To The Province are:............................................................................................................30
Section C. That Defendant Received Property, Money and Investment...................................................................31
Part I Items Paid, Delivered Or Otherwise Entrusted To Defendant....................................................................31
Part II Conclusions................................................................................................................................................31
5 Chapter Claims Framed In Tort..................................................................................................................................32
Section K. Damage and Loss To Property - Fiduciary Breach ................................................................................32
Part I Conversion Of Property..............................................................................................................................32
Section B. Personal Injury .......................................................................................................................................33
Part I Privacy.........................................................................................................................................................33
Part II Malicious Prosecution................................................................................................................................34
Part III Misrepresentation - Defamation - Slander................................................................................................37
Part IV Reproductions of the Slander and Libel - Newspaper articles:................................................................40
Documents Given In Evidence....................................................................................................................................45

1 ChapterGenerally
Section A.Statements
[1] On 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 Court is proper since the particulars of the above entitled case and the facts to which I
attest, lead me to believe that this Defendant is directly or vicariously responsible for the
personal injury, property loss and breaches of contract or other torts I have alleged in the
claim as having occurred in or otherwise somehow being connected to the Province.
[2] 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 other plaintiffs and such other persons as did
provide information under oath, the nature of which I 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 known to me.
[3] 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 matter of the Plaintiffs
law suit and as a result to establish this Honourable Court's lawful jurisdiction over this
Defendant.
[4] The facts and documents I enumerate below are directly related to the Province and
represent the subject of my law suit and that of the other plaintiffs. Our actions relate to
damages or losses of property or other assets, breaches of contract or commercial losses,
personal injury or ill health as suffered in the Province as a direct result or on account of
the Defendant Bulgaria.

[5] I have collected a substantial amount of material evidence to place before this Court to aid
it in finding that there exits sufficient and plausible prima facie cause to give rise to the
claims of my family and I, together with those of other individuals, of contracts breached
and injuries framed in tort, and to prove that, inter alia (1) the Republic of Bulgaria is
involved in commercial activities; (2) through me those commercial activities of the state
Defendant were able to reach into and effect residents of the province of British
Columbia; (3) contracts were signed between resident corporations of British Columbia
and the state Defendant; (4) contracts were signed between resident corporations and
resident individual investors in British Columbia that principally relied on material
representations and promises of the state Defendant; (5) the state Defendant breached its
agreements and contracts for goods and services to be provided to clients and partners in
British Columbia (6) the state Defendant with held, and converted to its own use the
capital equipment and improvements paid for by resident corporations or individual
investors in British Columbia (7), the state Defendant converted to is own use or
liquidated for its own profits the intellectual properties, technology rights and goods
entrusted to its fiduciary care by corporations or individual investors resident in British
Columbia; (8) the state Defendant interfered with contracts that it knew were to be
completed in the province of British Columbia and in so doing has caused property loss or
damage to occur in British Columbia; (9) as a result of the foresaid corporations and
individual investors resident in or connected to British Columbia suffered damage or loss
of their property or other economic losses; (10) the state Defendant was a party to a
conspiracy in British Columbia of malicious prosecution and defamation of me, my family
and my companies, friends and partners; (11) Tracy and Nicholas Kapoustin suffered
personal injuries as a result; (12) Tatiana and Robert Kap suffered personal injures as a
result; (13) Nicholas Kapoustin and Tatiana Kap suffered permanent physical impairment
and disability as a result of their injuries.
[6] I believe the facts are enough to prove a connection to the province, and even in my
absence the Court may find that there exist enough questions to make the issues triable
and the jurisdiction proper. The above-entitled actions contain reasonable claims that are
neither scandalous, frivolous nor vexatious, it is not otherwise an abuse of the process of
this Honourable Court. It is as a result of the acts alleged therein and claimed by me, as
Plaintiff, and my family, as other Plaintiffs, that we have suffered economic harm and
personal injury in or connected to the province and seek damages and relief.
Section B.Obstruction Complaints.
My affidavit to the following facts and circumstances is provided to aid to the Court in the first question, had I
been allowed to ask it: When do reasonable rules and behaviour cease to be reasonable and become an
obstruction of justice or tortious abuse of official processes? Ultimately this Court must decide on the facts and
law.
Part I Proceeding In My Absence

[7] My failure to attend to court and speak to the subject matter of these proceedings and all
other previous pre-trial applications as made by me is directly consequenced by the
refusals of the Defendant to permit me electronic access to this court in lieu of conducting
me in custody to and from the Court.
[8] Upon my best information and belief this Honourable Court cannot meaningfully ascertain
its right of jurisdiction in the above entitled proceeding in my absence without a
considered and full review of all the facts, including all documents and witnesses
testimony.
[9] I do not believe a Rule 65 chambers hearing can , in my humble opinion, adequately or
fairly permit a full consideration or hearing of all the interested parties and the complex
factual matrix of the above entitled proceeding.

[10] I excuse myself before the Court for being unable to attend. My Factum and this affidavit
are provided to hopefully stand me in good stead.
[11] As I am without a legal counsel and cannot afford one, and if this Court is unprepared to
discuss the possibilities with the Defendant Bulgaria to conduct me, in custody to and
from these proceedings or to alternatively have the Court itself subpoena me through the
Defendant or, as a final alternative to proceed electronically with the consent of the parties
and the Court, then I am left with no alternative but to plead my s. 15(1) Charter Right as a
Canadian citizen who, together with his family has asked this Court to protect their rights
of equality under law.
[12] I ask the Court accept this, my affidavit and the Factum I have prepared as a final
alternative in the absence of any other form of my appearance in proprio persona.
Part II Background of the Problem

[13] I have been unable to appear before this Court and speak to any matter requested by me.
[14] I am unable to attend the hearings set by the Defendant Bulgaria for August 24, 2001 for
the following reasons.
[15] I have been incarcerated for 5 (five) years and 10 (ten) months by the Defendant
Government of the Republic of Bulgaria ("Bulgaria").
[16] I am unconvicted and am still awaiting a final charge and verdict in the Sofia Central
Penitentiary, Sofia, Bulgaria.
[17] I have not seen any member of my immediate family through out the period of my
incarceration.
[18] On or about January 2nd 2001, due to my incarceration, my father, Robert Kap, filed a
motion before the Registrar and Master in form of praecipe seeking an Order permitting
me to proceed in writing and by affidavit or alternatively electronically before the court in
any proceedings brought before it under the two actions captioned above, a copy of that
request is provided here under 1.
[19] The Master refused to hear my motions.
[20] On or about March 12th 2001, against my protests I was provided, by prison officers of the
Defendant Bulgaria, copies of its appearances, notices of hearing and the affidavits of one
Ms. Maya Dobreva.
[21] These documents were given to me with in the presence of my court appointed Bulgarian
interpreter, Ms. Marianna Radulova whose separate affidavit is provided with my Factum.
[22] On April 2nd 2001 I made another motion before the Registrar and Master in form of
praecipe requesting an Order that all future exchanges of documents are required to be
served on any parties in Bulgaria or the United States of America pursuant to Rule
13(12)(c) Rules of the Court per the Hague Convention. A copy of that request is provided
under 1.
[23] On or about April 6th 2001 I filed with this Court a motion in form of praecipe to be
declared indigent and excused from its fees schedules, whereupon I could proceed against
these defendants in default of appearance and obtain an interlocutory order for default
judgement pending a hearing of the matter before the Court on the damages sought and
relief to be obtained. In my affidavit I briefly explained that the claims framed in tort
were, inter alia, an alleged cause in the nature of personal injury as suffered by my family,
in particular the illnesses of my son and mother. That further, the state of mind of my wife
and elderly father is such that it is cruel to ask them to appear in an adversarial proceeding
in their frail and already anxious state. The Master refused to hear any of my applications.
A copy of my motion for indigence and affidavit with exhibits is provided under 1.

[24] On or about April 18th 2001 the Duty Master refused to hear any of my ex parte motions
unless I could attend or retain a counsel to speak to the motions for me before the court.
Again I was requested to do the impossible, to appear myself or retain a counsel to speak
for me.
Part III Applications To Bulgaria To Attend

[25] On or about April 18th 2001, after receiving the Defendant's notices of motion, I petitioned
the Defendant Bulgaria's Central Authority under the Hague Conventions, the Ministry of
Justice, for legal assistance under its agreement at the Hague on the Convention for
International Access to Justice.
[26] I advised the Defendant my desire to attend any hearings it may fix under the above
captioned proceedings and provided it with the needed applications, information and
argument as required under the foresaid convention on access to international justice. A
true copy of that applications is provided under 1
[27] On April 24th 2001 I received a reply from Ms. Roumiana Bidjeva, an official of the
Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice and deponent under this proceeding. Ms. Bidjeva,
for the Defendant, rejected my request for it to permit me access to international justice as
agreed to by the Republic of Bulgaria at the Hague, The Defendant advised, inter alia, that
as I am a Canadian it was not required to grant me access to justice since Canada is not a
party to that convention. A true copy of the Defendant's reply is provided and tabbed as 1
[28] On or about April 26th I responded to the said Bidjeva and the Defendant Bulgaria's
rejection of my request to access international justice. In brief my argument was that I was
calling on the assistance of the Republic of Bulgaria, not Canada, and that as a result
Canada's membership was irrelevant in securing Bulgarian assistance for a legal and
administrative matter within the jurisdiction of the Defendant government and not Canada.
A copy of my response is provided and tabbed as 1. My cover letter to the defendant is
provided and tabbed as 1.
Part IV Restrictions of My Civil and Fundamental Rights

[29] On or about April 28th 2001 the Defendant Bulgaria permitted the defendants Emilia
Mitkova, Dimitar Shackle, Kina Dimitrova and Mario Stoyanov to order the Defendant's
prison officials to prevent me from having any outside contact to my interpreter when
pursuant to these two, or any other proceedings against the defendants.
[30] I can not explain why the Defendant refuses to be seized by provisions of its own
directive, Ordinance No. 2 of the Ministry of Justice Republic of Bulgaria, Article 19(1)
requires it to secure penitentiary inmates necessary contact with experts, physical facilities
and access to judicial and extrajudicial bodies. This includes interpreters.
[31] On May 4th 2001 I filed a complaint with the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice,
Deputy Minister Tonchev that the other individual defendants were acting to unlawfully
obstruct me, as a practical matter, from the pursuit of my fundamental and civil right to
litigate against the Defendant in Canada or anywhere else for that matter. A copy of that
complaint is provided as 1.
[32] On May 9th 2001 I received a reply from the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice, the
said Tonchev, admitted to 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 your detention imposed and the Ministry of Justice has no power to determine
or to alter it."

A copy of the Defendant's reply is provided and tabbed as 1.
[33] On May 11th 2001 I responded to the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice and advised
the Minister that, inter alia, the May 9th reply was inconsistent with applicable provisions
of its national law and the relevant international agreement to which the Defendant was a
contracting party. That further there was no judicial order to deny me my civil right to
appear at other judicial hearings to which I may be a party. I could find no national or
international jurisprudence to support the Defendant's reasoning that unconvicted, or for
that matter convicted prisoners, were to be denied a right to appear in civil proceedings
against a state defendant. A copy of my response is provided and tabbed as 1.
[34] On May 15th 2001 I received a reply from the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice.
Again the said Bidjeva, rejected my resubmission for access to international justice and
no substantive or reasonable argument was given. It can be candidly said that these replies
consistently traverse matters not averred to in my requests and are for the most part
contradictory to the letter of the various legislation they rely on. A copy of this reply is
provided under 1.
[35] On or about June 12th 2001 I was advised by my interpreter, Ms. Radulova that she he had
received a fax of a hearing having been fixed in Vancouver by the Defendant before the
Duty Master for July 13th 2001. However, no documents were delivered to me.
[36] I did repeatedly, according to the requirements of the national law of the Defendant,
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 first Friday July 13th 2001 hearing on the Defendant's applications before this
Court (the 'Hearing").
[37] On June 14th 2001 I again petitioned the Defendant Bulgaria. This time to be conducted in
custody specifically to the hearing as fixed by the Defendant. A copy of my request is
provided under 1.
[38] My requests were again pursuant to the Defendant's national law and applicable provisions
of international law on fundamental and civil rights of prisoners as recognised by the
United Nations and the European Community. In my requests to the Defendant I made no
mention whatsoever for it to alter my nearly 6 years of detention in custody for the
purposes of appearing. I in fact asked for conduct in custody of Bulgarian and Canadian
police authorities to and back from any hearing or trial of these proceedings against it in
Canada.
[39] As a mitigating circumstance to my request I relied on the fact that these hearings are on
applications made by the Defendant Bulgaria and not my own or that of other plaintiffs,
and believing in the comity among democratic states, I asked that the Defendant allow me
to exercise my right of appearance and to plead in defence of my interests as a litigant to
these proceedings.
[40] Alternatively I requested that some other arrangement be made to permit these
proceedings to be conducted either electronically or only by written exchanges of the
litigants pleadings to be placed before the Court.

[41] I believed such requests to the Defendant were not only reasonable but within the
Defendant's international and constitutional obligations to any person incarcerated by it
and relying, as a ward of its penal institutions, on the Defendant to secure for me a
prisoner's civil right to appear at a judicial hearing. When making my requests I further
considered the fact that I was already being regularly conducted by the Defendant to and
from civil proceedings in Bulgaria, often against my will and under inhumane conditions
of transport. That fact, and the practices of our own correctional services in Canada as
well as those of other countries, made me believe I was being reasonable when making
such requests.
[42] Costs of my conduct were to be to the account of friends and other plaintiffs who sought
that I appear as a witness at any proceedings or hearings on the subject matter of these two
actions.
[43] On June 25th 2001 my requests were refused, again by the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of
Justice, the said Dimitar Tonchev and the said Ms. Bidjeva. In the letter to me as provided
by Minister Tonchev, as he then was, he wrote, that inter alia:
"…..your conduct to Canada for participation in civil proceedings commenced by you
against the Republic of Bulgaria is impossible.
[44] I can not explain why the Defendant refuses to observe its national laws.
[45] I cannot further explain why the Defendant advises me in his June 25 th correspondence
that a partner in the law firm of its legal counsel of record in these proceedings, Mr. R.
Sugden, will be representing my interests before the Court.
"It can be seen from the Notices of Hearing about the hearing of July 13 th , 2001 of the
Supreme Court of British Columbia that you have a duly authorised defence counsel -
solicitor Richard R. Sugden, who, within the powers given to him by you, will defend
your interests."
[Emphasis Added - Mine]
I know Mr. Sugden to be a senior law partner at the law firm representing the Defendant
Bulgaria. A copy of this reply is provided and tabbed 1
[46] On June 28th 2001 I responded to the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice the said
Tonchev and Bidjeva and said, inter alia, that Mr. Sugden is the Defendant's counsel and
not mine. To the moment of this affidavit the Defendant has not explained as to why it
made these, among many, absurd representations to me. A copy of my response is
provided and tabbed 1.
[47] The fact that I am unable to arrange my appearance before this Court is clearly the result
of the Defendant's policy as taken from the May 9th 2001 words of Mr. Dimitar Tonchev
institutionalised citizens, guilty or innocent, have no civil rights. As I have mentioned this
is the apparent result of an administrative decision and not a provision of Bulgarian
national law or other legislative enactment.
[48] The then Minister Dimitar Tonchev apparently does not hesitate to admit to me his
government considers the withdrawing or obstructions of fundamental civil rights of
prisoners a part of the fabric of its attitude to civil rights generally. Mr. Tonchev asserting
that the Defendant Bulgaria is not required to observe national or international law to
protect a citizen's fundamental rights once he or she in incarcerated.
[49] I believe such a fundamental right is the right to appear before any tribunal anywhere you
are a litigant or even only as a respondent to applications submitted by others. It can be of
no legal consequence whether such an appearance is in the jurisdiction of this province,
Canada or an international tribunal.

[50] And, on my best information and belief such conduct in custody to and from the courts of
Canada is possible with the assistance of the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada
and the R.C.M.P.
[51] I can not explain why the Defendant refuses to observe its national laws and international
treaties by refusing to contact the government agencies of Canada with my request.
[52] The Defendant's actions are in contradiction of its December 7th, 2000 Statement of
Defence, filed, as prepared by the Defendant's official, Deputy Minister of Justice Ms.
Zlatka Rousseva. A copy is provided and found at 5, Chapter 5.
[53] Ms. Rousseva confirmed and admitted to me that my appearance at and forced conduct to
civil proceedings is in point of law obligatory on the Defendant Bulgaria, even if it is
against my will, having said:
"With reference to your complaint that you are being forced to appear at civil proceedings
under the threat of physical coercion it was established that this does not meet the truth.
Your participation in proceedings under civil cases is in connection with the penal
proceeding conducted against you. Under all of them you were duly summoned by the
court through a subpoena and your appearance was obligatory.".
[54] I know it to be a fact and can prove that the civil proceedings to which the Defendant
makes reference in its statement of defence and declares my "appearance is obligatory" are
not any more connected to the penal proceedings the Defendant mentions anymore than
are those proceedings as brought by me before this Court. The only distinction being that
the Defendant is not a party to those proceedings and its interests are not at risk should I
be permitted or forced to appear.
[55] I can prove that all the civil proceedings to which my "appearance is obligatory" are
instead more closely connected by the material facts to the province of British Columbia
and the subject matter of the second proceeding as brought before this court in S005440,
this according to the agreement of the parties and the written contracts that are in
controversy. This can be seen from the Dimitar Hristov and Anatol Lukanov affidavits.
[56] I can not explain why my "appearance is obligatory" in other civil proceedings but not in
those before this Court.
[57] I know it to be a fact that the Notice of Motion and Notice of Hearing provided by the
Defendant require me to respond and appear before the Court and , to my best
information, I have been "duly summoned" by the Defendant, making my "appearance
obligatory".
[58] I know defendants are acting with malicious intent and aforethought when obstructing me
form attempting to prove my claims against it.
[59] I do verily know it to be true and can prove at trial on cross examination or by written
interrogatory of Defendant Bulgaria witness the said Ms. Bidjeva, that the Defendant
sought and continues to seek to ensure that I am unable to give evidence against it by
attending proceedings in Canada.
[60] As I have previously said, there is no legal or practical causus to deny me conduct to
proceeding or to refuse to adjourn proceeding by mutual consent until my conduct, by
consent, can be secured. It is apparent to a well informed observer that these obstructions
to my appearance are more than coincidental, and are in fact more likely intentional
obstructions of justice and my civil rights.
[61] At risk of being redundant, I again say to this court, I know of no law in a democratic
society to deny a prisoner his or her right to sue or be sued and to appear at such
proceedings.

[62] I do verily believe it to be true that more than coincidence is at play when Counsel for the
Defendant is allowed to schedule hearings on the Defendant's applications before this
Court only and immediately after the defendants obstructed me on April 28th 2001 from
having contact with those experts assisting to me in the preparation of my pleadings and
evidence.
[63] My inability to submit my additional proof and other arguments in time before this Court
or to appear, in proprio persona, as previously mentioned, are the direct result of co-
defendants Mitkova, Shackle, Georgiev, Dimitrova, Mario Stoyanov and, I do verily
believe know it to be at order of other officials of the Defendant Bulgaria, including
former Minister of Finance Mr. Radev.
[64] The facts and the circumstances of events provide a proximity to the other that make
inescapable a conclusion that the defendant seeks to obstruct, by whatever means is within
its power, the plaintiffs and my right to a fair hearing.
Part V Conclusion - Bulgarian National Law.

[65] As I previously cited and know to be true is that the Criminal Code of Procedure of
Bulgaria permits the conduct in custody 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 can be found in Articles 463(2), 464, 465, and 466 of its Criminal
Code of Procedure and those provisions of law read as follows:
"Appearance of Witness and Expert before a Foreign Court.

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

Costs for Execution of Request
Article 466
The costs for execution of the request shall be distributed between the
countries in compliance with international treaties to which the Republic
of Bulgaria is a party, or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity.
[66] I have at some length explained that I have taken all the necessary and reasonable steps
one person, in my particular circumstances might take. Including providing the Defendant
with a copy of its own notices to me to appear at hearings fixed before this Court.
[67] I can not formulate, nor can my attorney in Bulgaria and a deponent for the Plaintiffs Mr.
Anatol Lukanov, a reasonable explanation to explain why the Defendant fixes a date for a
hearing, attempts to provide notices to me in prison for that hearing and then refuses to
permit me to attend the hearing.
[68] I find it more ridiculous that the Defendant foreign state's, Deputy Minister of Justice Mr.
Tonchev would write a foreign citizen that he has no civil rights to sue or be sued and to
be present at such judicial hearings. It is more ridiculous that the said Tonchev would
insist that the senior law partner in counsel for the Defendant's law firm is my attorney in
these proceeding.
[69] I believe, since no reasonable explanation is impossible for the behaviour of the
Defendant, there remains only one foreseeable alternative and that is the unreasonable one
I have suggested previously: That the Defendant seeks to obtain its Order by the plaintiffs
non-appearance to give evidence against it.
Part VI Appeal Of Master's Decision

[70] On or about May 28th 2001 I filed with this court, by registered mail a Notice of Appeal
from the earlier decision of the Duty Master to not hear my motions by affidavit. My
request to the court relied on its powers of (1) subpoena or alternatively, (2) where a party
to proceedings is incarcerated or otherwise unable to attend and (3) lacks necessary
financial resources to secure counsel or legal aid. My one requirement was for the court to
hear my petitions and argument by way of affidavit and brief. A copy of that appeal is
provided and tabbed as 1 .
[71] My reliance on alternative methods of appearance, in proprio persona, was pursuant to
such provisions as can be found in the Rules of Court. Under the circumstances of my
incarceration by the Defendant, I was of the conviction that the exercise of such provisions
as found in the rules provided a fair and equitable alternative to proceeding in absentia or
ex parte.
[72] On or about June 20th 2001 I was advised that the Honourable Mr. Justice E.R.A. Edwards
had reviewed my appeal from the Duty Master's decision. His Lordship concluded that no
further steps be taken by me in these proceedings until a representative appeared for me to
speak to these matters. Something, as can been seen from the facts is for all practical
matters impossible.
[73] At the suggestion of the Registrar I did make numerous attempts by fax, e-mail and had
my interpreter, Ms. Radulova attempt by telephone, to obtain legal aid in the province so
an attorney could appear on my behalf. These attempts were all unsuccessful.
[74] On July 4th 2001 I contacted the British Columbia Court of Appeal and advised the
Registrar of my intention to appeal, in forma pauperis, the decision of His Lordship
Edwards. My intention was to rely on s. 24(1) of the Charter and to seek relief, most
probably in form of a mandamus. A copy of that correspondence and my motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, with affidavits, is provided and tabbed 1.
2 ChapterOn The Applications Before the Bar

[75] I have set out above a number of outstanding applications as made to the Duty Master.
[76] I have provided those applications with this affidavit and Factum on the possibility that,
although the Master may not be seized on this occasion to take a decision on these
outstanding motions of the plaintiffs, it is, as I understand it, a matter of discretion for the
court.
Section C.Commercial Activities
Part I On Bulgaria Government Assertions

[77] I find it difficult for the Defendant Bulgaria to feign apparent ignorance of my companies
and the other plaintiffs connection to British Columbia and the Defendant's commercial
activities and contracts with the plaintiffs in these two separate actions.
[78] I provide later in my affidavit dates and occasions where the Defendant's joint commercial
activities with my companies and third parties in the province were highly publicised in its
local mass media.
Part II Involvement In Commercial Activities

[79] My commercial involvement with the Defendant's commercial institutions is an extremely
well documented record of its actions and representation as made in British Columbia and
Bulgaria and the consequences and later actions the Defendant had its officials and
agencies later undertake.
[80] Perhaps my difficulty with the Defendant's applications arises from knowing that there
exits in the Defendant's and my possession (1) thousands of recorded commercial
transactions between it and the plaintiffs; (2) thousands of newspaper, television and radio
reports that recorded the development of the Defendant's and our joint commercial
activities in this province; (3) the same mass media that recorded our commercial
activities and contracts in the province also the slander or libel that provides the nexus in
the province necessary to the tort of defamation (4) the claims framed in tort are
commercial and personal in nature and find their origin and final consequence in British
Columbia; (5) the tens of thousands of other documents in Canada, the United States and
Bulgaria distinctly established that officials, agencies and instrumentalities of the
Defendant Bulgaria conducted commercial activities and entered contracts in or connected
to British Columbia, and; (6) the hundreds of British Columbia residents and Bulgaria
investors who suffered economic losses a result of the Defendant Bulgaria's conspiracy to
interfere with our contracts and commercial activities connected to each other and this
province through a complex series of tens or thousand of individual transactions.
[81] I find the facts and evidence collected make the Defendant's claim of absolute immunity
and its assertions of having no connection to this province an absurd claim. It can not have
been made in ignorance, the facts are too publicly displayed, it must therefore have been
made in deceit.
[82] The Defendant's claim of immunity can be adduced to claim it has no commercial
activities, this boomerangs in the face of history, for no reasonable educated man can offer
any reasonable explanation why a government that owns or controlled as recently as 1997
90% of all the commercial enterprises in its country should pretend ignorance before this
court. The claims are brought and are permitted to be brought against a state when they are
a result of its commercial activities.
Part III The Affidavit Of Dobreva Is Untrue

[83] 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 as
having been filed with this 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 Bulgaria.
[84] Ms. Dobreva has no connection or involvement with the agreements, contracts or
transactions that makeup the factual matrix of my claims or those of the other plaintiffs.
As such she is unqualified to make an informed statement as to the nature of those claims
against the Defendant government.
[85] I notice in her affidavit that Ms. Dobreva makes reference to the aforesaid Mr. Dimitar
Tonchev with whom I have exchanged numerous correspondences and documents in these
proceedings.
[86] It appears to me that Mr. Tonchev is the only source, and a biased one at that, of hearsay
information. In her sworn affidavit of February 23rd 2001 where she says the following:
"2. I have been advised by Mr. Dimitar Tonchev, Deputy Minister of the Bulgarian
Ministry of Justice in Sofia, of the following facts."
[87] I am unaware of any material fact or circumstance which would lead me to believe that
Ms. Dobreva or Mr. Dimitar Tonchev, have any direct or specific personal knowledge of
those events, acts, material contracts or other transactions as concluded by me with the
Defendant or certain of the Defendant’s political subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities; each of the aforementioned transactions are separate commercial
activities with the Defendant and have been effected among the parties, now litigants,
from August 1991 up to and including the end of December 1997; the breaches of contract
and claims framed in tort against this Defendant are alleged to have occurred from 31
December 1994 up to and including 30th November 1998. Neither the said Dobreva or
Tonchev were party to any of these transactions or events.
[88] 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.
[89] I find the representations made by Ms. Dobreva as unrelated to the subject matter of the
law suit as set before this Court; neither are they pertinent to the subject of this Court’s
jurisdiction over the Defendants in civil or commercial matters which are the substance of
the claims.
[90] I consider a main issue placed before this Court as one of commercial activities conducted
by this Defendant in this Province, as affected by its representatives, employees, officials,
agencies or instrumentalities with residents of the Province.

[91] The Court, as I understand it, is only to consider if Bulgaria (1) conducted a commercial
activity with my companies, family and me in the province (2) made contracts connected
to the province (3) if these transactions and breaches of contract that form one or more
causes of action; (4) is their a fiduciary responsibility when the Defendant agreed to
warehouse property of residents of this province placed by them to the Defendant's care
in Bulgaria; (5) is the Defendant's unlawful transfer or conversion of property of British
Columbia residents a triable cause of action in this province; (6) were there
representations made in or connected to the province; (7) are allegations that such
representations proved to be materially untrue or fraudulent commercial representations a
cause of action triable in this province; (8) is the tort of privacy or defamation actionable
in the province when consequenced by personal injury or property loss in the province
when and where the tortfeasors are outside the province and officials in the employment
of the Defendant, and; (9) is a civil action brought before this court in the nature of a
criminal proceeding of malicious prosecution or defamation or extortion a cause of action
triable in a Canadian court.
[92] It is apparent to me that no where do I make claims against the Defendant that the judicial
proceeding in Bulgaria, as cited by Ms Dobreva, to be the causus of our law suits. The
claims against this Defendant arise from acts organised by it of the kind as carried on by
private persons, in connection with commercial activities and certain material contracts
and transactions as entered into by this Defendant in the Province. I allege, among other
things, breaches of contract and torts that have resulted in injuries and damages being
suffered by my family, my companies and my investors.
[93] That Ms. Dobreva’s assertion of my reliance on official acts arising out of government
activities, does not represent the truth and is not reflected in either of the two originating
processes as served upon this Defendant. On any subsequent pleadings or argument set
before this Court I am unable to determine upon what representations or material facts Ms.
Dobreva is able to conclude, under oath as if fact or alluding to it as such, that the law suit
commenced by Plaintiffs in the Province is on account of or as a result of a penal judicial
proceeding initiated on the 4th of December 1998 against one of the Plaintiffs presently in
Bulgaria.
[94] I believe that Ms. Dobreva has perjured herself when making immaterial averment in her
affidavit that is fraudulent, misleading and otherwise untrue in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, and 5 as
follows:
Paragraph 1
"[sic]…I have personal knowledge of the facts set out below…."
It is clearly apparent from "the facts" and evidence that Ms. Dobreva could not have any
"personal knowledge" of any of "the facts set out below" and relies only on third party
representations to her.
Paragraph 3
"[sic] Mr. Kapoustin went into hiding abroad and only through the assistance of the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police…he was arrested..[sic]"
The facts, if they were to be examined by this court, would show that neither did I go "into
hiding abroad" nor did the Defendant request "the assistance of " the R.C.M.P.
Paragraph 4
"Mr. Kapoustin's case in Bulgaria started on December 4, 1998..[sic]"

This is untrue, the "case" was started in secret by the Defendant governments Ministry of
Interior on July 17th 1995 after receiving a Letter of Request from the Canadian
Government, R.C.M.P. to have my companies LifeChoice et al., and me criminally
prosecuted on account of an R.C.M.P. investigation conclusion in British Columbia. A fact
that forms the nexus of the malicious prosecution in this province.
Paragraph 5
"[sic]… I am unaware of any connection between, on the one hand, Mr. Kapoustin's
criminal case in Bulgaria and the allegations he makes in this action, and, on the other
hand the Province of British Columbia."
I consider this last statement of Ms. Dobreva not only misleading but an oxymoron that
contradicts her previous statement in Paragraph 3, where she swears under oath to the
involvement of the R.C.M.P. and makes reference to a British Columbia founded
"company called LifeChoice." The evidence of a connection to British Columbia is
documented through out the "criminal case in Bulgaria" and to say no such connection
exists is to be grossly deceitful.
[95] Except for the province I know of no other judicial jurisdiction or venue that exists and
know of no bilateral or multilateral treaty to which the state Defendant has contracted with
Canada that would permit residents of this Province to sue a state Defendant and litigate
their grievances of contractual breaches, commercial disputes, and property loss or
personal injury claims framed in tort when the "lex loci delecti" in the province of British
Columbia.
[96] Upon my best information and the ensuing material facts and circumstances as known to
me convincingly suggest that Ms. Dobreva has knowingly made false representations at
the direction of others, and did willingly perjure herself before this Court. I believe her
affidavit to be untrue and unreliable evidence. I do verily know it to be true that the
Defendant Bulgaria prior to and after the alleged official investigation of the said Dobreva
knew at all material times of the following contracts, commercial and other activities of its
officials, agencies or instrumentalities. Including various ministries, departments or
institutions of the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria or its political subdivisions as
follows.
[97] It is apparent to me from paragraph 2 of the Affidavit of Ms. Dobreva that she did rely, in
part or in whole, upon the representations of the Minister of Justice and Deputy Minister
of Justice Ms. Z. Rouseeva, author of the statement of defence, and apparently by the said
Rouseeva's own representations. If that is true, then it is most certainly reasonable to
believe that Ms Dobreva has perjured herself when deposing to be aware of the facts.
[98] I again repeat and do firmly believe that Ms. Dobreva perjured herself when she swore to.
Among other things that "….only through the assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police…..was he arrested in Germany and extradited by German authorities to Bulgaria."
The Canadian government, Ministry of Attorney General and the Bulgarian Government,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has denied an such requests or involvement on the part of
Canada. The correspondences and exchanges of the Defendant Bulgaria with of the
defendant Doornbos are documents that evidence a possible breach of Canadian law by
Doornbos who is employed by the Government of Canada. I have therefore undertaken to
add the Ministry of the Attorney General as a party to this proceedings.
Section B.Plaintiffs
[99] I ask the court to give consideration to the outstanding motions I have set before it and
identified in my Factum, there are the following.
Part I No Proper Ex Juris Notice or Service

[100] I know it to be true, that the Defendant has failed to effect service of any notices on its
applications and any hearings to the other parties of interest as identified in either of the
two lawsuits have captioned above and to be found in the affidavit of Ms. Ada Gogova for
the Plaintiffs.
[101] I know for a fact that the Defendant has not served a notice of its applications or any
hearings on the Plaintiffs Mr. Dimitar Hristov, Ms. Radka Petrova and Mr. Broislav
Marinov who are named in the second cause of action, S005440. This despite that the said
Hristov, Petrova and Marinov had previously advised the Counsel for the Defendant, Mr.
Patrick Lewis, by fax of their proper address for service and how service should be
effected on them.
[102] I advised counsel for the Defendant and the Defendant that on my best information and
belief their service on me of the notices on the Defendants' applications and for any
hearings are not in compliance with the methods prescribed by the Defendant's national
law and to the exceptions made by its government on August 2000 to the Hague
Convention on the Service of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents. And that I did verily
believe that the Defendant's extrajudicial service of its notices did not, under these
circumstances and in the absence of an endorsement by the Court, comply with the Rules
of the Court.
[103] That I did learn from speaking to Ms. Marianna Radulova, and I do verily believe it to be
true, that Ms. Bidjeva, an officer of the Ministry of Justice and Central Authority for the
Republic of Bulgaria and employee of the Defendant, did say to the said Radulova that the
notices as served on me is inconsistent with the national laws of Bulgaria.
Part I To Proceed In Forma Pauperis

[104] My application and affidavit to be declared indigent are provided. No matter what the
outcome of today's hearing, for me to proceed in forma pauperis against the other
individual defendants named who are presently in default of appearance..
Part II To Proceed In Writing

[105] I had made application and affidavit asking the Court, due to my incarceration and an
obstinant Defendant, to permit me to proceed in hearing my motions and pleadings in
chambers in writing and by affidavit. It appears the only equitable solution.
Section C. Exchange of Documents In Bulgaria Service

[106] In serving the DEFENDANT BULGARIA I first relied on the provisions, mutatis
mutandis, of subrule 11(2)(b) Rules of the Court, having obtained an endorsement of this
Honourable Court for service outside of the province.
[107] I did further rely on subrule 13(12) Rules of the Court when serving the DEFENDANT
BULGARIA the originating process pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 paragraph 2 of
the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-judicial Documents in
Civil and Commercial Matters. Hereinafter to be referred to by me as the “Convention.”
[108] Furthermore, pursuant to the provisions of ss. 9(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act,
hereinafter referred to by me as the “ACT,” I did rely on the fact of the Defendant being a
contracting party to the CONVENTION as of August 1st 2000.
[109] Consistent with the fact set out in §Cabove and provisions of the ACT and
CONVENTION, I did have the originating process and other documents delivered to the
Defendant. My doing so was consistent with my understanding that the Defendant,
pursuant to ss 2(b) of the ACT, is an unincorporated department and part of the legal
corpus of the Defendant foreign State Bulgaria.

[110] I further in the alternative relied on the fact and did verily believe that the Defendant
designated its Central Authority pursuant Article 2 of the CONVENTION, and was the
responsible agency of the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria; as such it would
forward the originating process and other documents served by me to the responsible
department or responsible part of the legal corpus of the Defendant foreign State Bulgaria.
[111] I do not know of any time the Ministry of Justice, pursuant to Article 4 of the
CONVENTION had undertaken to provide me, a written objection to the service and
delivery of documents by the methods I have thus far employed as deposed to.
[112] On September 26th 2000, on behalf of myself and the other Plaintiffs, I acted to secure
every other reasonable method available to me that the originating process and other
documents under the above entitled proceeding would reach the defendants.
[113] My actions on September 26th 2000 and thereafter were a direct consequence of the
written objections deposited by the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, informing the Minister at the Hague that
the transmission channels for service of documents mentioned in Article 10 of the
CONVENTION were inappropriate on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria.
[114] Whereby I, pursuant to the fact set out in § Cabove and relying on the provisions of ss
9(2) of the ACT, did on September 29th 2000 personally provide Ms. Heather Brooker,
First Secretary and Consul of the Canadian Embassy, a sufficient number of true and
correct copies of the Endorsement for Service Ex Juris, Writ of Summons, Statement of
Claim and Demands for Discovery of Documents.
[115] I requested Consul Brooker to forward the said documents to the Central Authority for
Canada, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Treaty Law Division,
designated by the Government of Canada in it declaration on the CONVENTION as the
competent federal authority.
[116] Among the documents I provided for transmission to the DEFENDANT BULGARIA,
Minister MURAVEI RADEV, was a demand from me in Form 92 for the DEFENDANT
BULGARIA to produce certain documents pursuant to subrule 26(1) Rules of the Court.
[117] I did furthermore on the same date as set out in §Cabove requested Canadian consular
officers to deliver to Minister Nadejda Mihailov, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, of Bulgaria,
additional and sufficient copies of the aforesaid documents together with written
interrogatories in Form 22. When formulating the request and written interrogatories I and
the other Plaintiffs relied on subrules 29(2) and (3) Rules of the Court..
[118] Upon my best information and belief the Minister of Foreign Affairs was to transmit the
documents provided by me to the Central Authority identified in §Cabove. That, as the
responsible agency according to the provisions of the CONVENTION, the Central
Authority was to have forwarded to the all parties of record resident in the Republic of
Bulgaria.
[119] I included among the designated recipients of the said documents was the person of
Minister MURAVEI RADEV.
[120] As required by subrule 13(14) Rules of the Court, I did annex to each document provided
by me a Form 104 and Form 105 to be delivered to the DEFENDANT BULGARIA,
Minister MURAVEI RADEV and those others named together with the originating
process and other documents I have mentioned in the above entitled proceeding.
[121] I further provided the Central Authority a Form 106 for certification by the Sofia District
Court after delivery of the documents to those defendants resident in the Republic of
Bulgaria. Including among them Minister MURAVEI RADEV. When doing so I relied on
the written declarations of the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria to the provisions
of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the CONVENTION.

[122] As of the date of this, my Affidavit, neither the other Plaintiffs nor I have been returned a
certified original or any copy of the Form 106 as provided by me. At no time has the
Defendant, pursuant to Article 4 of the CONVENTION undertaken to provide, as Central
Authority for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA, a written objection to the service and
delivery of documents by the methods I thus far employed as deposed to in §§ C-Cabove.
[123] On December 11th, 2000 the Central Authority for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA, the
office of the Deputy Minister of Justice, Ms. Zlatka Rousseva, served me with its defence
at the Central Penitentiary in City of Sofia, the December 7th, 2000 was in answer to the
complaints and claims made by me in the above entitled proceeding.
[124] The Defendant wrote me and formally set forth in § 2 of its defence and claimed to do so
after having first conducted a complete investigation of the allegation, in the complaints,
the Defendant State wrote me, that from a factual context my claims were generally
without merit.
[125] On or about January 2nd 2001 Mr. Robert Kap, a party of interest and my father, filed for
me with this Court a true and correct copy of the English and Bulgarian language
transcripts of the answer by the Defendant as deposed in §§ C-Cabove.
[126] On January 11th, 2001 the Mr. Kap, relying on the provisions of subrule 31(1) Rules of
the Court and on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Deponent, served on the Defendant a
Notice to Admit in Form 23. Plaintiffs required DEFENDANT BULGARIA admit or deny
that set out:
1. Service had been provided on September 7th 2000.
2. The answer and response to the complaint had been made by the Deputy Minister of
Justice Z. Rousseva as RESPONDENT for the defendant foreign State.
3. The Republic of Bulgaria had waived voluntarily the defence of sovereign immunity
in the above entitled proceeding, by so doing the agreeing to submit to the
jurisdiction of a provincial court of British Columbia and to proceed only on the
merits of those contracts and facts in dispute.
4. Provided with the Notice to Admit as Exhibits were copies of the statement of
defence in Bulgarian and English transcripts as filed with the Registrar of this
Honourable.
[127] In support of my claim in §§ C-Cabove I incorporate herein, by reference and make a part
of this, my Affidavit, the January 2nd 2001 Affidavit No. 2 of Mr. Robert Kap and the
Notice to Admit as filed by him with this Honourable Court on or about January 11th
2001.
[128] On January 11th 2001, relying on the provisions of subrule 31(2) Rules of the Court and
believing the truth of the facts to be admitted by the RESPONDENT, I served the
DEFENDANT BULGARIA, pursuant to subrule 23(1) Rules of the Court, a Reply in
Form 23.
[129] On or about January 16th 2001 I was advised by registered mail from the Department of
Foreign Affairs, Director Treaty Law Division, Government of Canada, that my request of
September 26th 2000 [see §§ C-Cabove] was realised on December 19th 2000 by
transmission of documents in the above entitled proceeding to the Government of the
[130] In support of my claim in § Cabove I incorporate herein, by reference and make a part of
this my Affidavit, the January 3rd 2001 letter of Mr. John T. Holmes, Director Treaty Law
Division, Government Canada as filed with this Honourable Court by Government Canada
.
[131] I believe it to be apparent from the material facts deposed to by me in and the available
documents that:

1. The RESPONDENT for the DEFENDANT BULGARIA has been aware, since
September 7th 2000, of the nature and details of the Plaintiffs claims before this
Honourable Court and the relief as sought.
2. DEFENDANT BULGARIA admitted on December 7th 2000 in the statement of
Deputy Minister of Justice Z. Rouseeva to having conducted “an official
verification” of all the Plaintiffs and this deponents complaints.
3 Chapter
Section F.Nature of Plaintiffs' Proceedings

[132] The other Plaintiffs and I allege in our complaint to having suffered loss of property and
livelihood in the Province as a result of breaches of commercial contracts and tortious
conduct of officials, agencies or instrumentalities of the Defendant Bulgaria.
[133] My complaints together with the other Plaintiffs rely, in part, on written and oral contracts
with the Defendant Bulgaria, and its fiduciary responsibilities to my companies, my
investors and to me.
[134] I have enumerated and documented in this affidavit certain relevant material transactions,
agreements and contracts which I signed for the plaintiffs and witnessed the signature of
officials or other representatives appointed by the state of Bulgaria. It was and still is
readily apparent that the state Defendant Bulgaria consented to be a party to these
transactions, agreements and contracts and did so for its own eventual or immediate profit.
[135] It is the breach by the Defendant of its agreements and contracts with my companies and
me, and the nature of those breaches that form, in part, the cause of action for the above
entitled proceeding.
Part I What Official, Agencies and Instrumentalities

[136] At all material time the Defendant Bulgaria was represented by officials of agencies or
instrumentalities a part of and not separate from the legal corpus of the Defendant State
and Government.
[137] Each agency or instrumentality of the Defendant Bulgaria whom I have identify here as
having contracted or otherwise entered in joint commercial activities with the Plaintiffs
share a common budget with the Defendant Bulgaria. Our transactions, agreements and
contracts are with the Defendant Government of Bulgaria, and I so conclude because the
institutions I made contracts with were at all material times politically controlled and
directly answerable to the political divisions of the Defendant Bulgaria government. The
profits of these institutions were for the benefit of the Defendant government.
Part II Subject Matter of Contracts

[138] The subject matter of the contracts is related to the Defendant representations and
activities in four principal commercial activities with the Defendant, (1) in
pharmaceuticals; (2) waste management of oil by-products; (3) food and beverage
production and distribution.
[139] The other Plaintiffs and I further have alleged and can prove the Defendant Bulgaria did
make fraudulent and untrue representations to us in the Province and elsewhere
concerning its activities in these four areas.
[140] I discovered that the Defendant Bulgaria, by way of its misrepresentation, sought to and in
fact did induce others and I to enter into contracts with its institutions and to deliver to it
property as well as provide funds or make available goods to the Defendant on credit to its
officials.

Part III Personal Injury
[141] Plaintiff Nicholas Kapoustin is represented by his guardian Ad Litem Tracy Kapoustin, his
mother and my wife. They are unable to afford legal counsel. This is due to medical needs
of my son's diabetic condition and my personal poverty. As Plaintiffs they rely upon me to
effect all acts necessary in the above-entitled proceedings.
[142] My family exists in a constant state of anxiety and fear for my son who seeks to exercise
his legal rights as a Canadian citizen before a court of law in the Province of British
Columbia for relief and redress for wrongs has suffered.
4 Chapter
Section G.Commercial Activities of Bulgaria

[143] In late 1991 , in association with others, developed a clinical drug testing, manufacturing
and distributing program for LCP products modelled around certain agreements we had
with the British Columbia Cancer Control Agency.
[144] On or about September of 1991 I examined the feasibility of new product research and
development, limited manufacturing and clinical drug trials to be done in the Republic of
Bulgaria. This idea was represented to me by representative of the Ministries of Foreign
Affairs, Finance and Health of the Republic of Bulgaria.
[145] I came into contact in British Columbia with representatives and representations of the
Defendant Bulgaria when. according to a document dated 16 October, 1991, my company
was initially contacted by the Defendant Republic of Bulgaria (the “Defendant”) through
the agency of its Bulgarian Trade Commission, Trade Commissioner, I. Draganski, at that
time located at 100 Adelaide St., West Suite 405, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. In his official
capacity as Trade Commissioner for the Defendant Mr. Draganski provide my partners
and I information about foreign investment in the Republic of Bulgaria and made
representations to me personally on the phone as to the relevant advantages and favourable
legislation in Bulgaria.
Section A. British Columbia Companies and Investors

[146] I had been, from 1991 up to the present, the controlling shareholder and key person
employed by LifeChoice Pharmaceuticals Inc., the principal British Columbia corporation
and owner of the foreign subsidiary corporations that were at all relevant times engaged in
commercial activities with the government of the Republic of Bulgaria in or connected to
the province.
[147] I know, that all the companies that contracted or had otherwise become commercially
engaged with the state of Bulgaria were doing business in the province and had their
controlling mind at all times resident in this province.
[148] I, together with members of my family, personally financed the following British
Columbia resident companies.
Part I LifeChoice Pharmaceuticals Inc.

[149] I provided the funds to form the foresaid LifeChoice Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“LCP”), and
had it federally incorporated on August 9th 1991 under the Canada Business Corporations
Act of Canada, Certificate No. 274128-8.
[150] I, together with my family are its principle shareholders.
[151] I insisted at all time that the directors and management of LCP keep its registered and
records office in or near the City of Vancouver, British Columbia. This remained the case
throughout its operating history.

[152] My ownership of LCP, together with the interests my family, represented more than
22,000,000 (twenty two million) of its unrestricted common stock and more that 90% of
its issued and outstanding capital.
[153] I was appointed by the LCP board of directors and management to represent the company
in all negotiations with state institutions and commercial enterprises controlled by the
government of Republic of Bulgaria. For the most part I was responsible for making
arrangements for various commercial transactions and contracts between LCP and the
state Defendant of Bulgaria.
[154] I organised and arranged for LCP to provide to the Defendant Bulgaria the needed cash,
intellectual and capital assets and other property or goods requested from time to time by
its officials. I have enumerated a part of these transactions, agreements and contracts later
in my affidavit.
[155] I signed, on behalf of LCP most of its different agreements, contracts and other corporate
documents as required by the Defendant Bulgaria so that LCP and the state of Bulgaria
might enter into a number of joint venture partnerships with different commercial;
departments, agencies or enterprises controlled by the Defendant Government of Bulgaria.
[156] Acting on the suggestions, representations and the insistence of officials of the state
Defendant Bulgaria, I advised as early as October 1991 that LCP directors agree to enter
into joint commercial activities in the province with the state Defendant Bulgaria.
[157] Because of my position within the LCP I have personal knowledge of all commercial
agreements, contracts and activities with the defendant government of Bulgaria at issue in
these law suits. I had direct contact with the principal representatives, including those
government ministries that supervise the various commercial activities of its
unincorporated and incorporated commercial agencies or instrumentalities that are the also
the subject of these law suits and are wholly controlled, directed or owned by the
government of Bulgaria.
[158] Since about February 1992 I had been personally involved in negotiating and signing
contracts in the province of British Columbia directly connected with the commercial
activities of unincorporated government institutions and departments of the defendant
Government of Bulgaria as follows.
[159] My experience in British Columbia with the commercial activities of the Defendant
Bulgaria involved an agreement with the state Defendant to commercially develop,
produce, and distribute clinical drugs or homeopathic compounds in the Province. Some
products were intended to be suitable for the therapy of HIV/AIDS . and §Bbelow] and
Cancer in or connected to the Province.
[160] I know, that since about 1949 the Defendant Government of Bulgaria had been the only
lawful owner and operator of commercial activities for profit in the Republic of Bulgaria.
As a practical matter upto 1992 and beyond, the Defendant Bulgaria has maintained
control over all commercial activities in the Republic of Bulgaria associated with
pharmaceutical research, development, production, and distribution in Bulgaria. This
included the packaging and the direct export of such products to LCP in British Columbia.
[161] I was offered by officials of the Defendant Government of Bulgaria the opportunity to
participate with the Defendant in any number of its commercial activities. Among them
there was offered; (1) products from its scientific institutions; (2) services including
pharmaceutical manufacturing; medical research and development; (3) the production and
supply of raw materials for chemical, biological and other pharmacopoeias, and; (4) the
exclusive right of marketing and distribution of its medical products in Canada and
elsewhere, including the territory of or as connected to Bulgaria.

[162] My experience, as I am sure to be same experience of any corporation or businessman
working in former communist countries, found governments like that of the Defendant
Bulgaria, regularly acted as contractors for, inter alia, pharmaceutical and other product
research and development; manufacturing know-how; technology transfers; refining and
improving manufacturing processes; laboratory and clinical testing of drugs, including the
conducting of human trials; licensing proprietary clinical and homeopathic technologies;
exclusive rights for marketing and distribution of finished processes or products;
production of ready for export clinical drugs and homeopathic products.
[163] I know, as a practical matter that any commercial activities in or as connected to this
Province that involved a Bulgaria product or service of the kind as set out in §I and
§Iabove had to out of necessity rely on contracts or transactions with a department of the
Defendant's government, in our case primarily the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of
Health.
[164] My first agreements with the Defendant Bulgaria in British Columbia involved the
commercial departments of various scientific institutions in Bulgaria to conduct for me
and later deliver to the province, inter alia, clinical drug research and development results
from a working project developed by LCP for a new semi-synthetic VinBlastine and
VinCristine, clinical drugs in the treatment of cancer; to provide me with a method for low
cost production and supply of these semi-synthetics to the Province; to conduct and report
to me in the province its results from laboratory and clinical evaluations done for me of
new substances for potential treatment of cancer or HIV/AIDS; to provide me in the
province, its working project for research and development of 3-4 DyhydroVinblastine as
derived from an LCP proprietary processes and materials; to conduct for me laboratory
and clinical evaluations of Triterpene acid compounds “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” and to
report those results to me; to design a low cost method to isolate these compounds by a
proprietary process developed by LCP in the Province and deliver them F.A.S. Vancouver;
to develop for me a commercial method for the tissue culture of Tripterygium wilfordii,
the compounds extracted having a marked inhibition in vitro on Lymphocyte proliferation;
a laboratory and clinical evaluation of tetra and pentacylic oxindole alkaloids from the
Uncaria tomentosa plant, in particular alloisopteropodine, Isomer A having a marked
stimulative effect on phagocytosis increase, and; the Defendant to develop a low cost
process to extract and purify these oxindole alkaloids and deliver them F.A.S. Vancouver.
[165] In all cases I paid the Defendant in advance for any work performed by it and provided it
any needed raw materials and proprietary data it requires.
Part I Official Representations By Defendant

[166] I together my family, and LCP management and directors had numerous meetings and
exchanges with officials of the Defendant Bulgaria from February 1992 up to April 1995.
[167] I, as others met with and relied on the truthfulness and veracity of the employees of the
Defendant Government of Bulgaria, those I had contact with and relied on are as follows.
[168] Prof. Dr. Uzunov, MD, Ph.D., Biology, President of the Medical Academy of Sofia, on
behalf of the Minister of Health.
[169] Mr. Konstantin Kostov, Managing Director, Electronic and Magnetic Products, Plovdiv.
[170] Mr. Ivan Kirov, Director International Connections, Ministry of Health.
[171] Mr. Simeon Georgiev, General Director, “Pharmacia”, City of Dupnica.
[172] Mr. Konstantinov, Director Scientific Research Institute, Sofia, Bulgaria.
[173] Mr. Minev, Vice – President, “Antibiotic”, City of Razgrad.
[174] Dr. Dimitar K. Todorov, Director, Laboratory of Oncopharmacology, National Cancer
Centre, Sofia

[175] Dr. I. Yamboliev, Faculty of Pharmacy, Higher Medical School, Sofia.
[176] Professor Dr. Petko Uzunov, M.D., Ph.D., Biology, Chief Department of Pharmacology,
The Higher Medical Institute, Sofia.
[177] Professor Dr. Dimitria Nacheva Mihailova – Kasabova, M.Ph., Ph.D. Sc., Dean
Pharmaceutical faculty, The Higher Medical Institute, Sofia.
[178] Associate Professor Dr. Asen Ivanov, M.D. Ph.D., and Chief, Departments of
Pharmacognosy and Pharmacological Botany, Sofia.
[179] Professor Dr. Zahari Raikov, M.D., Ph.D. Sc., Higher Medical Institute, Stara Zagora.
[180] Associate Professor Dr. Rahamin Daniel Shekerdjiiski, M.D., Ph.D. Sc., Head,
Department of Pharmaceutical Faculty, Sofia
[181] Professor Dr. Bogdan Petrunov, M.D., Ph.D. Sc., Chairman of Expert Commission for
Serums and Vaccines Ministry of Health, Republic of Bulgaria and director, National
Centre for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Medical Academy of Sofia, 26 Yanko
Sakazov St., Sofia.
[182] Dr. Ms. T. Kucharov, Ph.D. Chairman clinical trial commission, Ministry of Health,
[183] Prof. Dr. Ms. G. Gencheva, National Institute for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, Ministry
of Health, Republic of Bulgaria.
[184] Prof. G. Vassilev, Ph.D., D.Sc., and National Centre of Radiobiology and Radiation
Protection, Ministry of Health, Republic of Bulgaria.
[185] Dr. K. Kostov, M.D., medical manager and director of the Infectious Diseases Hospital,
Ministry of Health, Republic of Bulgaria.
[186] Dr. Plamen Nenkov, M.D., D.Sc., research manger and deputy director of National Centre
for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Medical Academy of Sofia, 26 Yanko Sakazov St.,
Sofia.
Part II Defendant's Representations In Canada

[187] My agreement and that of others in or connected to British Columbia to become involved
with the Defendant Bulgaria's commercial activities and to enter into exclusive contracts
with it in or connected to the Province relied on its public, oral and written representations
as made by its representatives.
[188] I personally organised and financed that the officials of Defendant Bulgaria were to travel
to Canada, the United States and elsewhere and were to publicly and privately make the
Defendant's representations known to others in Canada and the United States as they had
made known and represented to me in Bulgaria. Their trips were organised as follows.
[189] 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 §IX and especially §IXbelow] with the Plaintiffs.
[190] That on October 22nd, 1993 the Defendant's representatives again made similar
representations to the public at the Place Bonaventure Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
[191] That on October 24th 1993 at the Hotel Vancouver, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada,
the Defendants emissaries [see again §IIabove] visited the Province and made the similar
representations to investors and media there as at previous public presentations.

[192] 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 set out the laboratory and clinical
data of the Defendant to be presented [see 2 as ] 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.
[193] That on August 15th 1994 the Defendant, Ministry of Finance, Minister Alexandrov was
submitted by the Plaintiffs updated prospectuses and disclosures of the Defendant’s
commercial activities in or as connected to the Province [see 2 as ].
[194] 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 3 as ]. The meeting
was rescheduled again to June.
[195] 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 set out the data prepared by it for the Plaintiffs and confirmed its
commercial activities and contracts.
[196] That on June 12th 1995 representatives of the Defendant repeated these representations
[see §IIabove] before ACDDC members at Bethesda, Maryland USA.
[197] That as early as October 16th 1991 Mr. I. Dragnevski Trade Commissioner to Canada for
the Defendant Bulgaria in Toronto, Ontario, had contacted the Plaintiffs in the Province.
The Defendant's trade representative provided the Plaintiffs a copy of the Defendant's Law
on Foreign Investment as enacted on May 17th 1991 [see 5 as ]. Those assurances were
provided by Mr. Dragnevski that any commercial activities with the Defendant or
investments with Bulgaria were protected from seizure or confiscation by this law. That
there was no restriction on the Plaintiffs repatriation of profits or cash from any Bulgarian
investment. Defendant's Consul, Mr. Chavdar Georgiev Mladenov ("Mladenov"), made
similar representations.
[198] 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.
[199] That the Defendant's Consul to Canada, Mr. Mladenov, maintained regular contact with
the Plaintiffs in the Province. Mr. Mladenov later entered into commercial activities with
the Plaintiffs [see Vbelow] in Bulgaria as connected to the Province.
[200] That representative of the Defendant, as a practical matter, did not at any time undertake
to disclose to investors in Canada the provisions of Article 29, Law on Foreigners [see 5 as
] as enacted by the Defendant on November 28th 1972.
[201] The Defendant Bulgaria, according to its national law, can withdraw the right to liberty of
any foreign citizen on its territory for their breaching of a contract or a commercial debt to
the Defendant.
[202] There is no equivalent provision in the Defendant’s national law for citizens of Bulgaria.
Part III Commencement Of Commercial Activities In British Columbia

[203] My commercial activities in the province with the Defendant Bulgaria commenced in
earnest on December 31st 1991, when my family and I, together with other investors in
British Columbia and the board and management of LCP, agreed to place in the Defendant
Bulgaria's fiduciary 20 grams of the substance Dy–Alkovin [see §Iabove] at an agreed
commercial value of $90,000 Canadian dollars ("CDN") per gram [see 1 and 2]. I had this
product shipped from British Columbia to the Ministry of Health, Republic of Bulgaria by
Federal Express and provide as evidence FedX Way Bill No. 400-27831425,
[204] I had LCP include with this physical property our proprietary intellectual property and
other data necessary for the Defendant to synthesis and commercialise it, presumably for
LCP.
[205] What follows is a display of commercial activities I helped organise in British Columbia
with the participation of representatives, employees, government officials and the
agencies, instrumentalities and departments of the Defendant Government of Bulgaria.
Part IV Contracts With The Plaintiffs

[206] On 29 April, 1992, the Defendant Bulgaria agreed and I agreed to LCP having exclusive
distribution and marketing rights in the Province, Canada and elsewhere for all its
immunologically active biological products as produced by it [see 2 ].
[207] On June 30th 1993 I and the Defendant Bulgaria agreed to amend the April 29th 1992
agreement [see 2 ].
[208] I then signed contracts with officials 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.. These officials agreed to assist us 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 2 ].
[209] On October 31st, 1993, I presented the Defendant, Ministry of Finance a short form
prospectus, making full and plain disclosure of commercial activities with the Defendant
in or as connected to the Province.
[210] Afterwards the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health, signed a contract with me on
December 1st 1993, the Defendant Bulgaria contracted to conduct human clinical trials in
and outside Bulgaria of Factor-R [see §IXbelow].
[211] On January 13th 1994, I asked, Dr. Bogdan Petrunov, an official of the Ministry of Health
of the Defendant to submit to other departments of the Ministry a request for human
clinical trials to be conducted in and outside Bulgaria for Factor-R [see 2 ].
[212] On January 17, 1994 the Defendant’s representative, Ms. T. Kucharov, Ph.D., M.D.,
Chairman of the Human Clinical Trial Commission, Bulgaria, advised me that there was
no objection for human clinical trials in or outside Bulgaria [see 2].
[213] On January 18th 1994 Ms. G. Gencheva, Prof. Dr., the National Institute for
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, Bulgaria, told me and Prof. Dr. Petrunov, Chairman of
Expert Commission for Serums and Vaccines, Bulgaria and Director of its National Centre
for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, to go ahead and proceed with clinical trials for LCP
[see 2 and 2]. That the product Factor-R is approved in Bulgaria to be tested in
combination with other compounds.
[214] On April 29th 1994 the Defendant Bulgaria agreed to allow me to secure for LCP
exclusive distribution rights in the Province and internationally for immunological and
other agents as produced by it [see 2].
[215] On May 1st 1994 the Defendant, Ministry of Health Bulgaria and I signed a lease to
facility at No. 3 Kraka Road, Sofia, Bulgaria [see 2 and 2].

[216] I have signed with the Defendant, Ministry of Health Bulgaria numerous leases for other
facilities for LCP and provided options to purchase such land and buildings as were
leased. I paid for LCP all costs to make leasehold improvement.
[217] I agreed on August 4th 1994, with a representative for the Defendant Bulgaria, Prof. Dr.
Shekerdjiiski, to contract it to organise and develop an analytical method for the product
Factor-R [see 2 ].
[218] On September 21st,1994 I signed a contracted with the Defendant to LCP exclusive
distribution rights within Bulgaria for immunological products produced by it [see 2 ].
[219] On September 29th 1994 I signed contracts with the Defendant Bulgaria for it to conduct
for LCP a human clinical trials for methods in treating cancers induced by on the job
exposure to radioactive or other carcinogenic substances [see 2 ].
[220] On October 31st 1994 I agreed for LCP to provide approximately $500,00O USD in
medical products credit to the Defendant Bulgaria if it granted LCP an importation
exemption for those quantities to be shipped from Canada [see 3 ] to it in Bulgaria.
[221] On March 10th 1995 I signed a contract with the Defendant for exclusive distribution
rights in or connected to the Province for its other immunological products as produced by
it in Bulgaria [See 3 ].
[222] I was advised on March 21st 1995 that the First deputy Minister of Health, Prof. P.
Uzunov [see §Iabove] confirmed the delivery and planned clinical use of LCP's AZT and
other substances in Bulgaria.
[223] The Defendant Bulgaria, was providing my company LCP with warehousing storage space
and security for storing our equipment or goods as to be shipped to or from the Province
as follows;
1. Medical inventories were stored at the National Centre for Infectious and Parasitic
Diseases, Sofia, Bulgaria.
2. General inventory. Whisky, vodka, food, dry goods, refinery equipment and the like,
as in transit out of Bulgaria, were stored with the Defendant at, inter alia, the free
trade zone of “Dragoman” in the Province of Sofia; the free trade zone of Plovdiv,
City of Plovdiv; and the ports of Varna and Burgas, Bulgaria.
3. That Defendant Bulgaria effected contracts with the Plaintiffs to provide overland
transportation services and leasing of sea going vessels to transport the Plaintiffs
property as follows:
4. With Despred + D Transit Expedition Services and Insurance Underwriters, Sofia,
Bulgaria for overland service to and from Bulgaria.
5. With the Port Authority of Varna, City of Varna, Bulgaria and BalkanShip. Defendant
leasing a vessel and the required facilities to the Plaintiffs necessary to establish ferry
service to and from the port of Poti, Republic of Georgia and the Port of Varna,
Varna, Bulgaria.

Part V Joint Venture Companies With The Government of Bulgaria
[224] Due to the representations of foresaid representative of the Defendant Bulgaria's I advised
my LCP directors and management to proceed in agree to finance the registering of a joint
venture with the state Defendant's participation and to agree in naming it "LifeChoice
Pharmaceuticals Bulgaria Joint Venture Ltd." (“LCPBJV”). This joint venture was formed
under Bulgarian law as a limited liability company in the City of Plovdiv on February
23rd, 1992. Its principal place of business was to be in the City of Sofia, Republic of
Bulgaria.
[225] I, together with my family controlled over 60% of the voting rights and capital of
LCPBJV through our British Columbia company LCP.
[226] I directed my family's and LCP interests in LCPBJV at all times from the province.
[227] I personally conducted and therefore have knowledge of all trade activities in the province
that had engaged in a variety of ways the services of a number of unincorporated
government institutions and government corporations of the state Defendant to transport,
warehouse, market and distribute Canadian products shipped by LCP to the fiduciary of
the Defendant's institutions and agencies.
[228] I placed these products in the Defendant's care and paid the Defendant for its services.
[229] I enumerate a number of these transactions later on in my affidavit.
Part VI North American Trade Organisation Inc.

[230] I later registered another company in Bulgaria in partnership with the state Defendant's
Consul to Canada, Mr. Chavdar Mladenov an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
the Republic of Bulgaria.
[231] I, together with my wife, father and mother in the province completely financed the
formation and capitalisation of a company in Bulgaria with Consul Mladenov. We agreed
to name it the "North American Trade Organisation" (“NATO”), and to form it as a private
limited liability company registered under the laws of the Republic of Bulgaria on
September 30th, 1992 by court decision No 24560/92 of the Sofia City Court. It's place of
business was in the City of Sofia, Republic of Bulgaria.
[232] I believed, at all material times, that the then Consul to Canada, Mr. Mladenov, was
representing the commercial interests of the state Defendant in Canada and its commercial
activities connected to us.
[233] I, together with my family controlled NATO and financed its commercial activities
completely from British Columbia.
Part VIILifeChoice International Inc. (A.D.).

[234] I later incorporated in Bulgaria a second company as a subsidiary of LCP, my British
Columbia company. The company I incorporated was appropriately named LifeChoice
International AD (“LCIAD”). It was formed as a private limited liability corporation
registered under Bulgarian Law by court decision on 17 June, 1993 in the City Court of
Sofia, Decision No 15249. Having offices and a place of business in the City of Sofia,
[235] I directly controlled 75% of LCIAD shares and controlled, by proxy the other 25% of its
shares. In all I controlled 100% the unrestricted common voting stock of LCIAD.
[236] I provided the required start-up capital of $38,000 USD, from the funds of LCP in British
Columbia in exchange for 10,000 shares of LCIAD representing 100% its issued and
outstanding capital.

[237] By June 16th 1995 LCP and I, together with my family, had contributed from the
province, inter alia, funds, goods, capital equipment, intellectual property, patents and
proprietary technologies, licences and rights to LCIAD. Our contributions had an
appraised value sufficient for me to records with the state of Bulgaria, Sofia City Court
Commercial Register, an increase in the capital of LCIAD to 2,000,000,000 (two billion)
old Bulgaria Leva (“BGL”) represented by 20,000,000 common voting shares having a
par value equivalent at that time of approximately $74,000,000 (seventy four million
United States Dollars) USD.
[238] I know for a fact that our assets as held by us through LCP or directly in our joint ventures
with the state Defendant were at all times under the fiduciary of the Defendant in its
warehouses, on its land, in its buildings or other manufacturing facilities as owned or
controlled by its as the Government of Bulgaria.
Part VIIIRefinery Contracts with the Defendant

[239] I organised in British Columbia the financing and made the purchase of oil recycling and
refining equipment at a cost to my company of approximately $4,200,000 USD and
shipped this equipment to the care and fiduciary of the Defendant Bulgaria as represented
by officials of its wholly controlled commercial enterprise, "Rare Metals and Uranium
Mines Company" of the City of Tzarimir, Bulgaria. The total value of the equipment and
services we supplied to Bulgaria amounted in this one instance of in excess of $6,000,000
USD to the joint-venture of I had agreed to the Defendant Bulgaria to refine waste and
crude oils.
Part IX Medical Contracts

[240] I entered into a number of contracts for LCP were it was agreed by the Defendant the it
would manufacture for LCP clients in the province and elsewhere, a ready for
consumption complex composite bacterial substance, "Factor-R", to consist of any one or
more of the LCP proprietary compounds I previously mentions in combination with any
one or more cultured and prepared bacterial species of, inter alia, Streptococcus
pneumonia, Neisseria catarrhalis, Streptococcus pyogenes, Haemophilus influenzae,
Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Rc mutant of E. Coli,
Proteus mirabilis and Enterococcus faecalis.
[241] The Defendant signed contracts with me to produce for LCP the substance, “Factor-R” for
use in or as connected to the Province [see below Founders Group, et al §I, §I, §I, §I, §I,
§I, §I , and §IIbelow] and to clinically evaluate [see §IV-§IVabove] that product for LCP
and its investors in the province..
Section B.That Contracts In or Connected to the Province Were Dependant on Defendant.
Part I As, in the Province the:

[242] The September 10th 1992 contract with Mtskheta, a Patriarchate association of the
Orthodox Church, Mtskheta, Republic of Georgia.
[243] The October 26th 1992 contract with the University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
British Columbia and British Columbia Cancer Control Agency.
[244] The February 24th 1993 contract with Tiflis Company, Tibilisi, Republic of Georgia.
[245] The February 24th 1993 contract with the Ministry of Health, Government of the Republic
of Georgia, Tibilisi, Republic of Georgia as represented by First Deputy Minister Vladimir
Giorgadze. .
[246] The August 20th 1993 contract with Founders Group and Assignee, TBR, Kelowna,
British Columbia.

[247] The November 1st 1993, contract with Intercon Medical Consultants Inc., Austin, Texas
and LCIAD Sofia, Bulgaria.
[248] The November 19th 1993 contract with Annax Ventures Inc., Vancouver, British
Columbia.
[249] The December 7th 1993 agreement with Seagram Canada division Eastern Region &
Africa, London, GB.
[250] The December 20th 1993 contract with Silverton Corp., Worthington, Ohio USA.
[251] The January 3rd 1994 contract with Saknavtobi Georgian State Oil and Gas Company,
Deputy Chairman Mr. V. Lobzhanidze.
[252] The January 13th 1994 contract with LifeChoice Partnership, Vancouver, British
Columbia and LCIAD Sofia, Bulgaria.
[253] The January 14th 1994 contract with LifeChoice Partnership, Vancouver, British
Columbia and LCIAD Sofia, Bulgaria and Silverton Corporation, Worthington, Ohio
USA.
[254] The February 17th 1994 contract with Lead Resources, Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia.
[255] The June 10th 1994 agreement with Pajaro de Fierro Inc., Mexico City, Mexico and
Founders Group and Assignee TBR, Kelowna, British Columbia.
[256] The January 31st 1995 agreement with Royal Advent Securities, Inc. and Evans & Evans
Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia.
[257] The February 7th 1995 agreement with Lindsay R. Semple and others, Vancouver, British
Columbia.
[258] The July 14th 1995 contract with LT. And MC. Trading Company, Varna, Bulgaria.
[259] The August 31st 1992 contract with LEKO Promarket, Moscow, Russia
Part II As connected To The Province are:

[260] The April 1st 1994 contract with Green Oasis Environmental Inc., Charleston, South
Carolina USA.
[261] The April 7th 1994 contract with LifeChoice Inc., Austin, Texas USA.
[262] The August 1st 1994 contract with Green Oasis Environmental Inc., Charleston, South
Carolina USA.
[263] The August 12th 1994 contract with Mimi Co. Ltd., Tibilisi, Republic of Georgia.
[264] The August 22nd 1994 contract with Green Oasis Environmental Inc., Charleston, South
Carolina USA.
[265] The October 4th 1994 contract with Shurtleff Waste Oil Systems division of Utopia
Fabricating Ltd., Pennfield, New Brunswick, Canada.
[266] The December 8th 1994 contract with Green Oasis Environmental Inc., Charleston, South
Carolina USA.
[267] The January 4th 1995 agreement with Seagram Canada division Europe & Africa London,
GB.
[268] The January 30th 1995 agreement with Lyths & Hangers Limited, Bahamas.
[269] The February 15th 1995 contract with Green Oasis Environmental Inc., Charleston, South
Carolina USA.

[270] The March 1st 1995 contract with Green Oasis Environmental Inc., Charleston, South
Carolina USA.
[271] The June 3rd 1995 contract with MAO Ltd., Tibilisi, Republic of Georgia.
[272] The August 10th 1995 agreement with E Tech Inc., Bardstown, Kentucky USA.
[273] The October 15th 1995 contract with the Shoter Rustavelli Academy Of Theatre, Tibilisi,
Republic of Georgia.
[274] The January 31st 1996 contract with The Republic of Georgia, City of Rustavi.
Section C.That Defendant Received Property, Money and Investment.
Part I Items Paid, Delivered Or Otherwise Entrusted To Defendant

[275] 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 §IVabove].
[276] That on March 1st 1995 Plaintiffs provided $240,408 USD in medical substances to the
Defendant [see 3 as ].
[277] That by June 1st 1995 the Plaintiffs caused $6,000,000 USD in leasehold improvements
and capital equipment to be installed on the Defendant’s property at Tzarimir, Bulgaria.
[278] That on September 6th 1993 Plaintiffs paid $ 6,000 USD in cash as a 1st payment on raw
materials [see 2].
[279] On December 24th 1993, Plaintiffs paid $10,400 USD in cash for processing of the raw
materials [see 2].
[280] On May 9th 1995, Plaintiffs paid $1,975 USD for processing and packaging of product
[see 3 ].
[281] That on July 13th 1995 Plaintiffs paid $72,000 USD (seventy two thousand United States
Dollars) to the Defendant for charter lease of the ferryboat “Sofia” and to secure port
facilities in Varna, Bulgaria [see 3 .
[282] That on July 26th 1995 Plaintiffs paid $23,990 USD toward their May 9th 1995 order for
processing and packaging of finished product [see 3].
[283] On August 3rd 1995, Plaintiffs paid $9,875 on a May 9th 1995 order to process and
package product [see 3].
[284] On July 3rd 1996 Plaintiffs paid $7,900 USD on an order to process and package product
[see 4]..
[285] On April 6th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $6,000 USD on an order for processing and packaging
of product.
[286] On April 8th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $6,000 USD for processing of raw materials
[287] That on July 26th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $110,000 USD to supply Defendant with 80 kg in
finished tablets of Novopharm of Canada AZT .
[288] 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 2] Factor-R.
[289] On October 17th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $19,675 USD to develop a work programs for
clinical trials agreed to on 29 September 1994 [see 2 ].
Part II Conclusions

[290] I have on February 17th 1994 registered with the Defendant a $38,000 United States
Dollar ("USD") initial foreign direct investment in Bulgaria, 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 §VIIabove ]on June 17th 1993. This represented my investment as of June
1993 in shares acquired.
[291] I did the, on June 16th 1995 then re-registered with the Defendant a $74,000,000 USD
increase in the value of our assets and 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 5 ].
5 ChapterClaims Framed In Tort
Section K.Damage and Loss To Property - Fiduciary Breach
Part I Conversion Of Property

[292] That on August 1st 1995 the Defendant, Ministry of Finance, first converted Plaintiffs'
property in Bulgaria to its own use.
[293] That on August 14th 1995 Plaintiffs’ first complained to the Defendant Bulgaria that their
property had been unlawfully expropriated [see 3].
[294] That in October of 1995 a quantity of 7,500 /60 tablet units of the Plaintiffs’ Factor-R
product were converted by the Defendant to its own use. The property of the Plaintiffs is
valued at $1,620,000 USD.
[295] That on December 28th 1995 a quantity of 51,972/ 0.700L bottles of the Plaintiffs’
Seagram Canada scotch whisky was converted by the Defendant to its own use. The
Plaintiffs property was at the time in transit and at a customs free zone. The property of
the Plaintiffs is valued at $519,720.00 USD.
[296] That again on December 28th 1995 a quantity of 66,260/ 0.500L bottles of the Plaintiffs’
Seagram Canada vodka was converted by the Defendant to its own use. The Plaintiffs
property was at the time in transit and at a customs free zone. The property of the
Plaintiffs had a cost $198,780.00 USD.
[297] That on December 29th 1995 the Defendant converted to its own use quantities of the
Plaintiffs’ 22,194 boxes of “Villars” Swiss Chocolate valued at $66,400 USD and 9,280
bottles of .500L of Seagram Canada vodka. The Plaintiffs property was at the time in
transit and at a customs free zone. The property of the Plaintiffs valued at $27,840 USD.
[298] 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.
[299] 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.
[300] 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.
[301] That on March 13th 1996 the Defendant converted to its own use the Plaintiffs’;
[302] Daewoo Tico with registration No. C1333AA. The vehicle is valued at $4,500 USD.
[303] 40’ refrigeration trailer with registration No. C5235EB. The trailer is valued at $18,000
USD.
[304] Land Rover type 121 truck with registration No. C9521. The vehicle is valued at $23,000
USD.

[305] Land Rover jeep with registration No. C2850AA. The vehicle is valued at $17,500 USD.
[306] 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.
[307] 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.
[308] 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.
[309] That on October 1st 1996 the Defendant converted to its own use the Plaintiffs’ property
[see §Iabove] and leasehold improvements [see §IV and Iabove] in Sofia found at No. 3
Kraka Road.
[310] 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.
[311] That the Defendant converted to its own use the Plaintiffs 20 grams of Dy-Alkovin [see
§IIIabove]. The property of the Plaintiffs is valued at $1,800,000 USD.
[312] That the Defendant converted to its own use the Plaintiffs 152 /100 units of AZT and 1000
/60 units of Factor-R [see §Iabove]. The property of the Plaintiffs is valued at $240,408.
[313] The Defendant converted to its own use the Plaintiffs 1000 /100 units of AZT while in
transit and at a customs free zone. The property of the Plaintiffs is valued at $140,000
USD.
[314] 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.
Section B.Personal Injury
Part I Privacy
[315] In the first instance I know that officials of Defendant Bulgaria collected private
information or data in the Province about me that should, in right of law, be protected by
provisions of the Privacy Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter 165, Section 15(h), s. 30 and s. 28
with s.22. The Defendant Bulgaria did not avail itself of any order by a judge in the
Province or other competent court permitting its actions in the Province of gathering
information that I did not give it permission to gather from on or about February 1995
upto October 29th, 1995, after which it had begun a criminal investigation of my company
and me.
[316] I also know that the Defendant does not posses a Rogatory Request or other document
issued by it to the Ministry of the Attorney General of Canada or the Minister of Foreign
Affairs Canada directing any Government of Canada agency to take investigative
directions or to transmit private information and data on the Plaintiffs as collected in the
Province.

[317] I also know that the Defendant has never submitted any Rogatory Request to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs of Canada agreeing to comply with terms and conditions imposed in the
sending abroad of a record or thing collected in the Province.
[318] I know and have proof that the Defendant, its officials, agencies or instrumentalities made
public disclosure of the information and data collected in the Province and provided by the
defendant Doornbos.
[319] I believe the nature of the data and the words spoken and published were such that the
Defendants Bulgaria, Doornbos, Georgiev and Stoyanov would know that if they were
publicly spoken or otherwise disclosed that this information would be reproduced and
could reasonably be expected to personally injure my family, my company's businesses in
the province and elsewhere and would inevitably lead to me being maliciously prosecuted
on the false accusations and misrepresentations these words and phrases in fact were.
Part II Malicious Prosecution

[320] On May 15th 1995 the Defendant Bulgaria solicited information from co-defendant Derek
Doornbos ("Doornbos") on the Plaintiffs activities and bank accounts in the Province. Co-
defendant Doornbos identified to the Defendant $16,000,000 USD in cash in the Province
that he claimed to be connected to the Plaintiff Kapoustin. Later Defendant discovered
that these are not connected to the Plaintiff Kapoustin.
[321] That on July 7th 1995 [see 4] co-defendant Doornbos advised the Defendant that Plaintiff
Kapoustin had cash of $16,000,000 USD [see §II-§IIbelow, and §IIbelow] in the Province.
[322] That the information and data was provided to representatives of the Defendant Bulgaria,
Col. Levicharov, Director of [the] Central Service for [the] Fight Against Organised Crime
[Centralna slujba za borba s organiziranata prestapnost – CSBOP].
[323] That all information as forwarded by co-defendant Doornbos was given in the care one
Mr. Anatoli. Kosev, division “KMC” [phonetic] of Defendant’s Ministry of Internal
Affairs [Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti]
[324] That Mr. Anatoli Kosev was assigned by the Defendant as the Plaintiff Kapoustin's official
interpreter at interviews and judicial hearing. Defendant has never disclosed to the
Plaintiffs' attorneys that Mr. Anatoli Kosev's is an employee of the Defendant and an
official of its police.
[325] That the July 7th 1995 information of co-defendant Doornbos was not corroborated by
another source.
[326] That the Defendant was advised by an agency of the Government of Canada that in 1994
the Plaintiff Kapoustin had moved “4 million and 12 million USD had been transferred to
several bank accounts” in the Province.
[327] The Defendant was further advised that the accounts in the Province as connected to the
Plaintiff Kapoustin were being credited daily “with amounts of about 100,000 USD”
[328] That the Defendant and co-defendant Doornbos concluded that the money transferred and
credited to accounts in the Province are “amounts coming from the funds accumulated in
Bulgaria by KAPOUSTIN”.
[329] That co-defendant Doornbos and the Defendant Bulgaria concluded that Plaintiff
Kapoustin was transferring funds to the Province obtained “through large-scale financial
frauds carried out by his pyramidal structure “LIFECHOICE.”
[330] That Defendant and co-defendant Doornbos concluded that the funds being deposited
from Bulgaria to accounts in the Province by the Plaintiff Kapoustin are “established as
transfers going through banks in the Caribbean Islands.”

[331] The Defendant was asked by co-defendant Doornbos to provide or collect any additional
information and data on the Plaintiffs in or connected to the Province as might be found in
Bulgaria. Co-defendant Doornbos directed the Defendant to formulate “even if only a
supposition whatsoever about any eventual breach of Bulgarian Law” by the Plaintiff
Kapoustin “as connected with LifeChoice that your service could submit” to the Province
“is of special importance.”
[332] That the Defendant was directed by an agency of the Government of Canada to make
every effort to bring, against the Plaintiff Kapoustin or the company LifeChoice “a
criminal prosecution of any character at all [nakazatelno proizvodstvo ot kakavto I da bilo
harakter]” and to provide “any additional data or operational information in what
direction the funds obtained by LifeChoice are being transferred out of Bulgaria” and into
the Province.
[333] That an agency of the Government of Canada advised the Defendant Bulgaria it could
make arrangements in the Province, “in Vancouver, to obtain search warrants of the office
premises and houses” of the Plaintiffs and could expropriate for the Defendant all or part
of the $16,000,000 USD in the Province together with other property.
[334] 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 4 ].
[335] That on December 13th 1995, the Defendant Bulgaria and co-defendant Doornbos held a
meeting at the offices of A. Alexandrov in Sofia, Bulgaria. Representing the Defendant
were, Mr. Anatoli Kosev, Mr. Miroslav Genov, Central Service for [the] Fight Against
Organized Crime, Mr. Roumen Andreev, deputy chief, National Investigative Service and
co defendant [sledovatel] S. Georgiev [see 4below ].
[336] That Defendant Bulgaria made public a written memorandum containing the phrase: “it is
of mutual interest for the Bulgarian and Canadian authorities to establish the entire
criminal activity of Michael Kapoustin in his large scale financial frauds and the incoming
to Canadian and Caribbean banks of millions of USD from East and West Europe” as
deposited to accounts in the Province.
[337] That at the December 13th 1995 meeting, as cited above, the co-defendant Doornbos
advised the Defendant Bulgaria that the Plaintiff Kapoustin had been charges and
convicted in Canada for sexual assaults on children and a Paedophile. This information
having later been made public by the Defendant Bulgaria [see §III and §IIIbelow].
[338] That on April 1st 1996 the Defendant received a request from co-defendant Doornbos [see
4 as] to “advise, please if your further investigation had determined end destination of the
money which Kapoustin defrauded” and transferred to the Province. And if the Defendant
Bulgaria was “able to identify offshore banking institutions, account numbers” of the
Plaintiffs. It contains the following additional phrase from co-defendant Doornbos:
“I am asking this as it is a very real possibility, as suggested in

December that some of the funds may have been eventually
transferred to Canada. If you have any information in this regard
please advise”
[339] That on July 31st 1996 the Defendant Bulgaria solicited more information concerning
Plaintiffs property and activities in or connected to the Province.
[340] That on August 14th 1996, co-defendant Doornbos again requested the Defendant
Bulgaria to “advise when or if any information is found regarding Kapoustin having
transferred monies” to the Province [see 4 ].

[341] That on August 23rd 1996, co-defendant Doornbos requested the Defendant Bulgaria [see
4 ] again provide information “with respect to Kapoustin and companies and accounts that
he had in the Caribbean” and connected to the Province. That the co-defendant is “still
very much interested in any indication he has that any of Kapoustin gains from the fraud
in Bulgaria ended up in Canada.”
[342] That on June 25h 1997 the Defendant solicited information and data in the province from
co-defendant Doornbos.
[343] That on June 26th 1997 the Defendant was advised by co-defendant Doornbos that he was
“still awaiting in writing, confirmation, information and the Rogatory Request promised”
by the Defendant Bulgaria.
[344] That the following request was made by co-defendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria
to provide him with information “regarding funds that Kapoustin transferred to Canada,
specifically to the law office of McCandless, Morrison & Verdicchio” by the Plaintiffs
[see 4 ].
[345] That on July 2nd 1997 co-defendant Doornbos personally delivered to the Defendant
documents obtained by him in the Province [see 4 ].
[346] 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 §IIabove] 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.
[347] The Republic of Bulgaria has no agreement or arrangement with the Government of
Canada for its agencies or instrumentalities to collect and exchange private information
and data on the Plaintiffs. Such an arrangement was necessary, Bulgaria not being a party
to Canada’s Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act Chapter M – 13.6 (RS 1985,
c. 30 (4th sup.)) 1988, c. 37.
[348] That at no time in the instance did the Defendant's Minister of Foreign Affairs or its
Respondent, the Minister of Justice, Republic of Bulgaria, submit a request to Canada.
The Defendant Bulgaria did not obtain any agreement from the Minster of Foreign Affairs
Canada as per Ss. 6(1) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. The
enactment requiring an "administrative arrangement" to be instituted with the Defendant
Bulgaria prior to soliciting information or data in the Province or exchanging it.
[349] That the Defendant Bulgaria has never submitted a request to Canada that complies with
provisions of its national law. The Defendant is required to seek foreign legal assistance
only under circumstances of an international treaty. That any such request must comply
with the procedural requirements of Bulgarian national law. Chapter 22 Criminal Code of
Procedure governs such requests and states the following:
Chapter 22
Section VI Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (new S.G. 64/1997)

(relevant Articles)
Article 461 (new - S.G. 64/1997)
Legal assistance under criminal cases of another country is rendered under

the circumstances of an international treaty concluded, to which Bulgaria is a
party or according to the principle of reciprocity.
The legal assistance constitutes of the following actions:
Handing in of summons and judicial papers;

Seizing and submitting of the objects with which the crime was committed or
of the property obtained through an offence; interrogation of an accused
person, defendant or a witness; appointing of an expertise and accepting its
conclusion; conducting of inspection, search and seizure; search and
identification of persons;
Submitting of material evidence, information, and documents;
Submitting information concerning the conviction of a person.
Article 462 (new - S.G. 64/1997) Legal assistance may be refused if

executing of the request might threaten sovereignty, national security, social
order or other interests, protected by law.
Article 464 (new - S.G. 64/1997)
The request (porachka) for legal assistance contains data about the authority
placing it; the subject and motive of the request; the names and citizenship of
the person to whom the request refers; the name and address of the person
to whom the papers are to be handed in; when necessary - the accusation
and short statement of the facts under it.
The request for legal assistance is to be sent to the Ministry of Justice and
Legal Euro-integration, except in cases when an international treaty to which
Bulgaria is a party provides otherwise.
[350] That Defendant Bulgaria confirmed in official documents and public statements
prosecuting the Plaintiff Kapoustin at Canada's request.
[351] That according to the deponent Ms, Maya Dobreva and public statements of co-defendants
Stefcho Georgiev, Mario Stoyanov, [see §III-IIIbelow] 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.
[352] That the Defendant Bulgaria can not produce an official document exchanged between it
and the Government of Canada confirming the veracity of co-defendant Doornbos on the
subject of the Plaintiff Kapoustin [see 4 and 4] that none exists.
Part III Misrepresentation - Defamation - Slander

[353] I believe the information collected in the province and sent from the province forms the
nexus of our complaints and is the primal causation for what later occurred.
[354] I have no doubt that there was unauthorised access, collection, use and public disclosure
or disposal of unverified private information and data collected in the Province which was
unverified and proved later to be inaccurate or incomplete and unreliable.
[355] This is an unreasonable invasion and public disclosure of my personal privacy by any
official, agency or instrumentality of the Defendant Bulgaria is a violation of its national
law. It is a violation of Canadian law and its repetition and mass publication a violation of
Canadian and Bulgarian law.

[356] However, I discovered that public officials in Bulgaria have absolute immunity from
criminal and civil prosecution. This is both a function of law and a matter of practice. It is
virtually impossible to bring a public official before a court of law in Bulgaria, ether as a
defendant or a witness. I support my statement with the affidavit of Anatol Lukanov with
copies of my attempts to civilly and criminally prosecute the defendant Georgiev in
Bulgaria, these may be found in 5.
[357] I find it plain that it 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.
[358] I believe the conduct of the Defendant shows that its officials, agencies or
instrumentalities did intentionally make public the information and data collected in the
Province and provided by the co-defendant Doornbos.
[359] I believe that the hundreds, if not thousand of reproductions of the information originating
from and making reference to British Columbia was made public by the defendant. To
deny it would be absurd.
[360] The "facts" contained in the information consisted of personal recommendations,
character references or evaluations and conclusions indicating the my family's racial or
ethnic origins, my sexually deviant behaviour and our religious or political beliefs or
associations. Needless to say the information provided from the province calls me a
criminal of international proportions.
[361] Yet the Defendant fails to produce any document issued by a judicial authority of Canada
or Bulgaria authorising or exerting control over the collection of private information and
data on the Plaintiffs in the Province.
[362] There is a document issued by the Defendant, Ref. No. 5274.96.111 on 17.10.96
establishing that on 09.07.96 and 26.07.96 the Plaintiff Kapoustin advised Mr. Topurov
that he had good reason to believe that co-defendant S. Georgiev was making fraudulent
public statements and misrepresenting official documents. The information and data the
Defendant Bulgaria was making public was false and misleading. That this can is found on
page 56-file volume 44 of cccc1403/98.
[363] On August 1st 1996 the Defendant Bulgaria released to the newspaper “Continent” the
following statement:
“that Canada and Bulgaria will struggle which country is going to bring action against him
[the Plaintiff Kapoustin]"
[ ] inserted
[364] This is untrue.
[365] That in the above cited edition of Continent the co-defendant Stefcho Georgiev, in his
capacity on behalf of the Defendant Bulgaria calls me:
“International swindler”,
" a well known fraud for Interpol according to the Canadian Government "
[367] The Defendant Bulgaria goes on to state to the public that I have;
“effected sexual offences against minors [infants, child abuses] according information
from the Canadian authorities” in the Province ( [] inserted by translator.

[369] I know that the Government of Canada has never confirmed to the Defendant the veracity
of any information and data made public by it, although the Defendant government makes
repeated references to the involvement of Canada. Ms. Dobreva's affidavit continues in
this same vein.
[370] As proof I make reference to a August 9th 1996 diplomatic note to the Defendant Bulgaria
as provided by the Government of Canada a “Note Verbale” [see 4 as ] that reads:
[371] “… [sic] …
The Canadian Embassy would also like to draw to the attention of the Foreign Ministry an
article that was published in the Bulgarian newspaper Continent on 01 August 1996 which
quotes the Chief of the Economic Crimes department of the National Investigation
Department, Mr. Stefcho Georgiev, as stating that Michael Kapoustin ‘committed sexual
assaults against minors, according to information received from the Canadian authorities’.
This statement is not substantiated.
[372] The department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada has consulted
Canadian and International police authorities, and confirm there are no records of this
nature in Canada regarding Mr. Kapoustin.”
[373] [ ] inserted
[374] That the Defendant goes on to publicly state that I was:

"already deceiving others in Georgia”
and had criminal cases in the Province that:
"are old and unclear" in Canada.
[376] The Defendant states that the I:
"did not form LifeChoice and didn’t dare to lie to people that insolently [in the Province]"
and:
"Played games of happiness"
While I allegedly engaged in
"sexual assaults against minors, according to the data of the Canadian authorities".
[378] The interview foes on to say that Bulgaria:
"..had brought accusations against Plaintiff Kapoustin for cheating 12,000,000 USD from
the company LifeChoice International A.D."
[380] I control own 100% of all issued and outstanding shares of that company [see §VIIabove].
[381] The Defendant Bulgaria publicly stated that according to Canadian authorities the money
from Bulgaria citizens was:
"sent to the Caribbean islands"
[383] The interviewer is told that I:
"Kapoustin should be responsible for over 18,000,000 USD, which he managed to steal
away from Bulgaria".

[385] That Defendant Bulgaria publicly stated it was prosecuting me as a foreigner [see
§IIabove].
[386] The Defendant's representative goes on to state Bulgaria does not know:
"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.”
[388] That I was arrested as a foreigner that:
"fills in false tax declarations thus defrauding the Budget.”
[390] The Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Finance at all times knew that the Plaintiff Kapoustin
had not personally imported any of the aforestated in § IIIabove goods and had not filled
in a false declaration. I am not a citizen or resident of Bulgaria and as such not required to
declare to the Defendant Bulgaria my income outside of Bulgaria.
[391] The Defendant publicly stated the refining equipment delivered to Bulgaria and installed
at the premises in Tzarimir, Bulgaria [see §I, §II, §II, §II, §II, §II, §II and §IIabove] as
leased from me, was:
"bought as a second hand installation. It cannot bring the dreams of 10,5 million USD."
[393] The Defendant goes on to say that the improvements and equipment at No. 3 Kraka Road
which I paid more than $600,000 USD for [see §Iabove] were represented only as:
"made some improvements".
[394] I am thankful at least that defendant Georgiev admits to the fact that these improvements
and equipment were:
"on the account of the Ministry of Health and the National Centre of Parasitic and
Infectious Diseases [a department of the Defendant Ministry of Health]."
[395] If I understand this admission correctly, then it shows the Ministry of Health, a
government department is the beneficiary of the equipment and improvements it has not
yet paid my company in the province, or me.
[396] The Defendant's representative goes on to say that the drug:
"Factor –R" is sold without a permission of the Bulgarian authorities"
[398] The above-cited untrue, deeply humiliating, misleadingly false and offensive statements
were publicised over and over again by the Defendant. It made repeated public statements
and produced numerous official documents containing these injuriously false and
damaging words. As a result the slander and libel represented by these words appeared
repeatedly in the mass media as I list in part as follows.
Part IV Reproductions of the Slander and Libel - 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"
 June 26, 1995, Newspaper "Trud"
 July 8, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
 July 13, 1995, Newspaper "Continent"
 July 18, 1995, Newspaper "Pari" (Money)
 July 19, 1995, Newspaper "Cash" No 19
 July 24-30, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"
 August 1, 1995, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
 October 15, 1995, Newspaper "Weekly Standard"
 December 5, 1995, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
 December 23, 1995, Newspaper "Pari" (Money)
 Newspaper "Nedelen Novinar" ?
 July 14,1995, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
 July 18, 1995, Newspaper "Pari" (Money)
 July 19, 1995, Newspaper "Cash" No 29
 July 24, 1995, Newspaper "Business Trud"
 July 24-30, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"
 August 8, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"
 September 5, 1995, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)

 October 15, 1995, Newspaper "Weekly Standard"
 December 23, 1995, Newspaper "Pari" (Money)
 February 14, 1996, Newspaper "Standard"
 June 25-27, 1996, Newspaper "Cash" No 25
 August 1, 1996, Newspaper "Continent"
 August 21, 1996, Newspaper "Novinar"
 August 21, 1996, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
 August 22, 1996, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
 November 11, 1996, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
 November 23, 1996, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
 February 23-March 1, 1998, Newspaper "Banker"
 May 25-31, 1998, Newspaper "Banker"
 December 7-13, 1998, Newspaper "Banker"
 March 5, 1999, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
 March 5, 1999, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
 April 14, 1999, Newspaper "Duma" (Word)
 April 16, 1999, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
 April 17, 1999, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
 May 3-9, 1999, Newspaper "Banker"
 October 18-24, 1999, Newspaper "Banker"
 December 15, 1999, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
 December 16, 1999, Newspaper "Cash"
 January 11, 2000, Newspaper "Monitor"
 January 11, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)

 January 11, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
 January 12, 2000, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
 January 12, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"
 January 12, 2000, Newspaper "Monitor"
 January 18, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"
 January 25, 2000, "Democracia" (Democracy)
 February 29, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)
 March, 3, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)
 March 17, 2000, Newspaper "Cash", No. 11
 April 8, 2000, Newspaper "Monitor"
 April 11, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"
 April 11, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)
 April 11, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"
 June 6, 2000, Newspaper "Duma" (Word)
 June 6, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
 July 4, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"
 July 4, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"
 July 4, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
 July 7, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
 Sept. 5, 2000, Newspaper "24 Chasa" (24 Hours)
 September 5, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"

 September 5, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)
 September 5, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"
 September 8, 2000, Newspaper "Monitor"
 September 26, 2000, "Democracia" (Democracy)
 September 2000, Magazine "Society and Law", No. 3
 October 24, 2000, Newspaper "Standard"
 October 24, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
 October 24, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"
 October 24, 2000, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)
 October 24, 2000, Newspaper "Monitor"
 November 22, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"
 November 22, 2000, Newspaper "Trud" (Labour)
 November 24, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"
 December 6, 2000, Newspaper "Novinar"
 December 22, Newspaper "Cash", No. 51
 January 6-12, 2001, Newspaper "Banker", No. 1
 January 13-19, 2001, Newspaper "Capital"
 January 18, 2001, Newspaper "Standard"
 January 20-26, 2001, Newspaper "Banker", No. 3
 February 3-9, 2001, Newspaper "Banker", No. 5
 February 17, 2001, Newspaper "Novinar"
 March 14, 2001, Newspaper "Monitor"
 March 14, 2001, Newspaper "Standard"

 March 14, 2001, Newspaper "Novinar"
 March 14, 2001, Newspaper "Sega" (Now)
 March 16, 2001, Newspaper "Cash", No. 11
 March 17-23, 2001, Newspaper "Capital"
 March 17-23, 2001, Newspaper "Banker", No. 11
Documents Given In Evidence
1 Chapter
Tab No 1. January 2nd 2001 Motion in form of praecipe Rule 41(16.3) Rules of Court
requesting an Order that the plaintiff Kapoustin be permitted to proceed by
affidavit and in writing before the court in these proceedings pursuant to the
provisions of Rule 40 and Rule 59.
Tab No 2. April 2nd 2001 Motion in form of praecipe Rule 41(16.3) Rules of Court
requesting an Order that all documents be exchanges among the parties
pursuant to Rule 13(12)(c).
Tab No 3. April 6th 2001 Motion in form of praecipe for declaration of indigence and the
necessary affidavit and exhibits as provided the court.
Tab No 4. April 18th 2001 Hague Convention application to Ministry of Justice for legal
assistance.
Tab No 5. April 24th 2001 Reply of Defendant's official, Ms. Roumiana Bidjeva, Ministry of
Justice, to Kapoustin application of April 18th.
Tab No 6. April 26th 2001 Response of Kapoustin to Defendant and the said official
Bidjeva letter of April 24th.
Tab No 7. April 26th 2001 Cover letter of resubmission for legal assistance application by
Kapoustin to Defendant Bulgaria.
Tab No 8. May 04 2001 complaint of Kapoustin to the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of

Justice, in having on April 28th 2001 permitted the defendants Emilia Mitkova,
Dimitar Shackle and Kina Dimitrova to order that the said plaintiff Kapoustin be
prevented from having any outside contact to pursue these two, or any other,
proceedings against the defendants.
Tab No 9. May 9th 2001 Reply to Kapoustin of Defendant Bulgarian, Ministry of Justice,
Deputy Minister Dimitar Tonchev, as he then was.
Tab No 10. May 11th 2001 Response by Kapoustin to the Defendant, Ministry of Justice,
Deputy Minister's letter of May 9th.
Tab No 11. May 15th 2001 Reply of Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice, the said Ms.
Bidjeva, to the Kapoustin resubmission for legal assistance and international
access to justice.
Tab No 12. May 28th 2001 Notice of Appeal from a decision of the Duty Master made
before His Lordship Justice Edwards, and requesting an order pursuant to
provisions of Rule 40(4) or alternatively Rule 59(3)(4) the Court.

Tab No 13. June 14th 2001 request by Kapoustin to Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of
Justice, the Minister again requesting and providing argument for legal
assistance and access to international justice in these proceedings. Attached
is a copy of the Notice of Hearing for July 13th 2001.
Tab No 14. June 25th 2001 Reply by Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice, Deputy
Minister Dimitar Tonchev, advising Kapoustin that he has attorney's in Canada
under these proceeding and so his legal rights shall not be affected.
Tab No 15. June 28th 2001 Response of Kapoustin to Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of
Justice reply of June 25. Pointed out are factual and legal contradictions.
Tab No 16. July 4th 2001 Correspondence to Court of Appeal and Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis, together with affidavits as provided.
2 Chapter
Tab No 1. December 31st 1991 letter to the Defendant Bulgaria, Academy of Science.
Tab No 2. December 31st 1991 Federal Express waybill No. 400 2783 1425.
Tab No 3. April 29th, 1992 exclusive License Agreement with the Defendant Bulgaria,
Ministry of Health department, National Centre of Infectious and Parasitic
Diseases ("NCIPD") [English only text].
Tab No 4. June 30th 1993 amendments to the April 29th ,1992 License Agreement with
Defendant Bulgaria.
Tab No 5. June 30th 1993 Agreement with representatives of Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry
of Health, Doctors Petrunov, Nenkov and Shekerdjiiski.
Tab No 6. July 1st 1993 $3,000,000 USD assignment of April 29th 1993 license to
LifeChoice International AD.
Tab No 7. August 20th 1993 Memorandum of Agreement for purchase and delivery of
Factor-R in the Province with Founders Group and Assignee, Kelowna, BC..
Tab 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.
Tab No 9. November 19th 1993 Irrevocable Letter of Intent with Annax Ventures,
Vancouver, British Columbia for purchase and delivery of Factor-R in the
Province.
Tab No 10. November 19th 1993 Memorandum of Agency Agreement with Annax Ventures,
Vancouver, British Columbia.
Tab No 11. December 7th 1993 agreement for bottling in Bulgaria with Seagram Canada,
Eastern Region & Africa.
Tab No 12. December 20th 1993 Memorandum of Agreement with Silverton Corp. of
Worthington, Ohio or purchase and delivery of Factor-R as connected to the
Province.

Tab 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.
Tab No 14. January 3rd 1994 Contract No. 1 with Saknavtobi, Georgian State Oil.
Tab No 15. January 13th 1994 Irrevocable Letter of Intent with LifeChoice Partnership,
Vancouver, BC or purchase and delivery of Factor-R in the Province.
Tab No 16. January 13th 1994 Memorandum of Agreement of LifeChoice Partnership,

Vancouver, BC.
Tab No 17. January 13th 1994 submission to the Defendant, Ministry of Health, official Prof.
Genka Gencheva, Ph.D., [Bulgaria and English Transcript].
Tab No 18. January 14th 1994 Memorandum of Agreement of LifeChoice Partnership,

Vancouver, BC and Silverton Corp., Worthington, Ohio.
Tab No 19. January 17th 1994 submission to the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health.
Tab No 20. January 18th 1994 Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health approving clinical
trials for Factor-R.
Tab 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].
Tab 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.
Tab No 23. April 29th 1994 Distribution Agreement Canpol Investment Corporation,
Woodbridge, Ontario and Novopharm Limited, Canada
Tab No 24. May 1st 1994 lease agreement with the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health
for No. 3 Kraka Rd., Sofia, Bulgaria.
Tab No 25. May 1st 1994 lease agreement as endorsed by the Defendant Bulgaria,
Minister of Health Dr. T. Gougalov.
Tab No 26. June 2nd, 1994 letter of direction from National Institutes of Health, Maryland,
USA, to the Plaintiffs.
Tab 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.
Tab No 28. August 1st 1994 offer by Defendant Bulgaria for analytical investigation of
Plaintiffs product Factor-R.
Tab No 29. August 15th 1994 correspondence to Defendant Bulgaria, Minster of Finance
Alexandrov as to investment disclosures made to Ministry of Finance.

Tab No 30. September 21st 1994 contract of the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health
department of National Centre for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Sofia,
Bulgaria [English Language Copy] for exclusive distribution in Bulgaria for its
products of Respivax, Urostim and Dentavax.
Tab No 31. September 29th 1994 contract with the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health
department of National Centre of Radiobiology and Radiation Protection, Sofia,
Bulgaria [English Language Copy].
3 Chapter
Tab No 1. October 4th 1994 notice for the shipping of oil recycling equipment for the
Defendant Bulgaria from Utopia Fabricating Ltd., Pennfield, NB
Tab No 2. October 31st 1994 correspondence of Plaintiffs to the Defendant Bulgaria,

Minister of Health [English and Bulgaria Text].
Tab No 3. 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.
Tab No 4. January 4th 1995 Plaintiffs agreement with Seagram Canada, Europe & Africa
Division, London, GB.
Tab No 5. January 18th 1995 Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health requirements

concerning importation of Factor-R manufactured abroad.
Tab No 6. January 30th 1995 purchase agreement concluded in the Province for Plaintiffs
product "PROTEC" to be manufactured for the Plaintiffs by the Defendant
Bulgaria.
Tab No 7. February 7th 1995 Amended Offer to Purchase in the province 6,100,000
common shares of LifeChoice Inc., Utah, USA from Mr. Lindsey Semple.
Tab No 8. February 23rd, 1995 direction of Defendant Bulgaria Minister of Health to free
from import duty and taxes the aforecited AZT.
Tab No 9. 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.
Tab No 10. March 10th 1995 exclusive Trade License Agreement with the Defendant
Bulgaria, Ministry of Health department of National Centre for Infectious and
Parasitic Diseases.
Tab No 11. 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.
Tab No 12. March 23rd 1995 AWB No. 020-6920-3816/01 for 80kg of AZT shipped to
Bulgaria and collected by the Defendant.

Tab No 13. May 4th 1995 letter of Mr. Todd Rohling, on behalf of Plaintiff to Mr. Sasho
Russev on behalf of Defendant.
Tab No 14. 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.
Tab No 15. May 9th 1995 invoice No. 95024 of the Defendant Bulgaria evidencing payment
to its budget of $ 1,975 USD for delivery to the Province of 5000 units of
Factor-R to the Province.
Tab No 16. June 3rd 1995 purchase agreement with M.A.O. Ltd., Tibilisi, Republic of
Georgia.
Tab No 17. July 13th 1995 bank transfer of $72,000 USD to the budget of the Defendant
Bulgaria, BalkanShip, Varna, Bulgaria
Tab No 18. 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.
Tab No 19. August 3rd 1995 invoice No. 95041 of $ 9,875 USD paid to the budget of the
Defendant Bulgaria.
Tab No 20. August 14th 1995 complaint to the Defendant Bulgaria of illegal seizure of
property in transit..
Tab No 21. October 15th 1995 contract with Shoter Rustavelli Academy of Theatre.
4 Chapter
Tab No 22. July 7th 1995 correspondence of co-defendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.
Tab No 1. December 13th 1995 memorandum of Defendant Bulgaria's meeting in scienter

with co-defendant Doornbos.
Tab No 2. 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.
Tab No 3. April 1st 1996 fax of co-defendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria.
Tab No 4. July 3rd 1996 Invoice No. 95034 of $7,900 USD payment to the budget of the
Defendant Bulgaria.
Tab No 5. August 9th 1996 Note Verbale Government of Canada.
Tab No 6. August 14th 1996 fax of co-defendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria.
Tab No 7. August 23rd 1996 fax of co-defendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria.
Tab No 8. September 12th 1996 extract news article Frankfurter Rundschau, page 3.
Tab No 9. May 23rd 1997 Case Note Government of Canada indicating the July of 1995
warrants for arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin.

Tab No 10. July 2nd 1997 correspondence of co-defendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.
Tab No 11. July 9th 1997 copy of receipt signed in Bulgarian language by co-defendant
Doornbos delivering documents from the province and giving evidence against
the Plaintiff Kapoustin.
Tab No 12. 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.
5 Chapter
Tab No 1. January 3rd 2000 Affidavit of Attorney Anastasios S. Koimtzidis that no
subpoena was attempted to the Plaintiffs in Greece.
Tab No 2. The Law on Foreigners Stay in the Republic of Bulgaria.
Tab No 3. 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.
Tab No 4. The Law on Foreign Investments in the Republic of Bulgaria.
Tab No 5. December 7th 2000 defence as provided by the Ministry of Justice for the
Tab No 6. Application, reply and appeal to Main Public Prosecutor of the Republic of
Bulgaria to lift immunity and allow prosecution of the defendant Georgiev.
Dated:
________________________
Michael Kapoustin
pro se Plaintiff

USE Kapoustin Affidavit No. 15, Tabbed Amended

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

USE Kapoustin Affidavit No. 15, Tabbed Amended

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FORM 60 (RULE 51 (2) AND (6))

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 1 of 50

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 2 of 50

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 4 of 50

Section B.Obstruction Complaints.

Part I Proceeding In My Absence

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 5 of 50

Part II Background of the Problem

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 6 of 50

Part III Applications To Bulgaria To Attend

Part IV Restrictions of My Civil and Fundamental Rights

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 7 of 50

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 8 of 50

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 9 of 50

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 10 of 50

Part V Conclusion - Bulgarian National Law.

"Appearance of Witness and Expert before a Foreign Court.

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 11 of 50

Part VI Appeal Of Master's Decision

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 12 of 50

Section C.Commercial Activities

Part I On Bulgaria Government Assertions

Part II Involvement In Commercial Activities

Part III The Affidavit Of Dobreva Is Untrue

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 13 of 50

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 14 of 50

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 15 of 50

Part I No Proper Ex Juris Notice or Service

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 16 of 50

Part I To Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Part II To Proceed In Writing

Section C. Exchange of Documents In Bulgaria Service

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 17 of 50

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 18 of 50

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 19 of 50

Section F.Nature of Plaintiffs' Proceedings

Part I What Official, Agencies and Instrumentalities

Part II Subject Matter of Contracts

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 20 of 50

Section G.Commercial Activities of Bulgaria

Section A. British Columbia Companies and Investors

Part I LifeChoice Pharmaceuticals Inc.

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 21 of 50

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 22 of 50

Part I Official Representations By Defendant

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 23 of 50

Part II Defendant's Representations In Canada

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 24 of 50

Part III Commencement Of Commercial Activities In British Columbia

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 25 of 50

Part IV Contracts With The Plaintiffs

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 26 of 50

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 27 of 50

Part VI North American Trade Organisation Inc.

Part VIILifeChoice International Inc. (A.D.).

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 28 of 50

Part VIIIRefinery Contracts with the Defendant

Part IX Medical Contracts

Section B.That Contracts In or Connected to the Province Were Dependant on Defendant.

Part I As, in the Province the:

21516978.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:12:00 Page 29 of 50

Part II As connected To The Province are: