To: Sofia Criminal Court of

Appeals
The Chairman
Docket No:
From: Michael Kapoustin
Deprived of Liberty
“ЗО „ Kachichene”

URGENT MOTION TO ADMIT

A SECOND ADDENDUM
IN THE APPEAL OF MICHAEL
KAPOUSTIN
As First Filed on 13 March 2008
and
AGAINST A RULING
OF THE SOFIA CRIMINAL CITY COURT 14TH JUDICIAL MEMBERSHIP
Docket No.

Your Honors,
This URGENT MOTION to the Chairman comes on the heels of the Applicant on
19.03.2008 having obtained a certified copy of the Court Trial Record from March 6th
2008 and held before the 14th Judicial Membership of Sofia City Criminal Court.
After reviewing the COURT’S WRITTEN RECORD the Applicant now adds the
following to his originating appeal;
1. That I did not make statements attributed to me in the CORT RECORD of
March 6th 2008.
2. That the Judge of the SCC 14th judicial membership DID NOT ALLOW ME TO
MAKE A STATEMENT on the Record;
3. That the above being true would mean that the presiding Judge of the Sofia City
Criminal Court 14th Judicial Membership did with pre-meditation fabricate
and falsely attribute on the COURT RECORD to me words and statements that
I did not speak during the trial of 06.03.2008
4. THAT AN INTERPRETER WAS PRESENT BUT MADE NO SUCH
STATEMENRTS ON MY BEHALF;

1|Page
5. That the Judge of the SCC 14th judicial membership also falsely attributed
words and statements to the Representative of the Sofia Prison Warden
ORASHARSKI, WORDS AND STATEMENTS that he did not speak. The Warden
having prepared a written statement from which he read and forcefully indicated on
the RECORD that no lawful purpose could be achieved with my continued detention
in prison;
6. That the foregoing is FACT and independently supported by the sworn
statements of those present inter alio two (2) independent observers present during
the trial. This can also be confirmed by the English language interpreter present at
trial.
7. The Applicant also believes that the Representative for the Ministry for Justice,
Warden ORASHARKI will confirm that that Applicant WAS NOT ALLOWED TO
SPEAK;
8. The only logical explanation for the false attributing of words and statements to
KAPOUSIN ON THE COURT RECORD of 06.03.2008 by of the Sofia City
Criminal Court 14th Judicial Membership is the following. To conceal the gross
procedural violations committed by the presiding Judge and against the Applicant
KAPOUSTIN and his fundamental legal right to a fair trial and to be paroled. This
why the RECORD WAS ALTERED .
REQUESTS
9. To have an OPEN hearing and to call witnesses.
For a fair appellate review the Sofia Criminal Court of Appeal must call and
interview those independent observers and others present at the judicial hearing.
10. To Consider a Question of a Crime against Justice
If the record is false as this Applicant and others are confirming to this court, the
Sofia Criminal Court of Appeals must then act on this fact and consider and
answer the following question;
Is the creation of a false Court Record and the manufacturing of statements
a crime against Justice committed by a member or official of the Court?
Independently Confirmed Facts
11. The trial of March 06 2008 was held at the court room of the Sofia Central Prison.
The public was denied access to the court, this in violation of s.20 CCP.
12. Present at the trial were two independent observers;
a. Mr. Radoslav Iovchev Attorney for the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee,
and
b. Mr. Ivodor Kovachev, Prison Pastor.
13. Also present at the trial was an English language interpreter called by the Court,
Ms. Marietta Glouharova. Anything said by the Applicant had to be spoken to the
Court and through the interpreter, the Applicant not able to speak to the court directly.
14. Also present were employees of the Correction Services Main Directorate, office of

2|Page
 the Sofia prosecution and representatives for the Ministry for Justice. These
employees do NOT have the status of “independent observers”.
15. The order of speaking was as follows;
a. The Petitioner for Parole and Representative of the Ministry for Justice
Warden Orasharki who was in favor of the paroling of KAPOUSTIN. Warden
Orasharki stating on the RECORD inter alia that the continued detention of
KAPOUSTIN served no remedial or social benefit and contracted correctional
practices;
b. The Respondent and representative for the Sofia City Prosecutors Office
against parole, no reason is provided on the RECORD of why KAPOUSTIN
poses a threat to the public or what more can be accomplished with his
continued detention in prison;
c. The Judge. She turns to a person seated among those present, a representative
for the Sofia City Probation Services Ms. MINKOVA. The Judge asks
MITKOVA her opinion on a possible probation of KAPOUSTIN. The Judge
DOES NOT PLACE Ms. MINKOV UNDER OATH TO TELL THE
TRUTH. As a result;
d. Ms. Minkova FALSELY testified that KAPOUSTIN has no registered address
in Bulgaria. Something which is not true;
e. In replica the Representative of the Ministry for Justice Warden Orasharki
confirms inter alia is AGAINST the continued detention of KAPOUSTIN
because it serves no purpose;
f. The Judge then IMMEDIATELY ANNOUNCES on the RECORD that
she finds the “motion for parole as without grounds”.
g. The Judge then announced that her “RULING” is subject to Appeal within 7
days”. At NO TIME did the Judge allow KAPOUSTIN to speak;
h. The ONLY statements made by KAPOUSTIN and this three times and
through the interpreter are the following;
(1) “Will the court please identify to me the section of law or RULE that
allows appeal”;
(2) “I advise this court that s. 440 ss. 2 CCP gives the Prosecution a right
of protest, nowhere is there a right of appeal for the offender, AGAIN
please identify the section of law or rule you are relying on”;
(3) “Again I am asking the Court to identify the RULE that permits right
of appeal by the offender, otherwise my appeal is inadmissible on
procedural grounds”.
The Judge refused to identify to KAPOUSTIN the procedural RULE
allowing appeal.
The hearing ended.
16. On 06.03.2008 the Sofia City Criminal Court 14th Judicial Membership explained to

3|Page
 every offender appearing before it that they had the right of appeal, something that the
Judge knew or should have known not to be true.
Conclusions
17. This Applicant realizes that the established practice of the Sofia Criminal Court of
Appeals will be to REFUSE to examine the questions of fact and law raised and
possible crime against justice and this REFUSAL shall rely solely on a procedural
RULE that does not create a right of appeal id est s. 440 ss. 2 CCP.
18. However, the Appeals Court refusing to accept jurisdiction does not alter the injustice
committed in this case and the Applicant suspects many others and will make it any
less a fact that City Criminal Court 14th Judicial Membership has committed a crime
against justice by authoring the alteration to a Court RECORD that is false and
untrue.
19. While the first instance Court may attempt to discredit the Offender, this Applicant, it
cannot discredit those witnesses present as observers. The Court Record of
06.03.2008 is false and untrue.
20. The Sofia Criminal Court of Appeals avoiding jurisdiction or confronting the
first instance court will only further indict the “justice” to be found in Bulgaria.
If criminal court judges cannot be counted on be truthful and knowledgeable
about law then where is justice?

Michael Kapoustin
March 19th 2008

4|Page