Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This is an application requesting the Ministry of the Attorney General ("Ministry") take immediate steps
to act on possible violations by Ministry representatives of the Applicants Charter Rights. The Attorney
General is respectfully asked to take notice that the Applicant, a Canadian, has apparently been
incarcerated by the Republic of Bulgaria as a result of investigative conclusions and a written request of
the Ministry.
The Applicant remains incarcerated and the Ministry has failed to act on the charges apparently brought
by it in the Province of British Columbia and somehow related to the Applicant's arrest.
This Application to the Ministry of the Attorney General is pursuant to Ss. 32§1 Charter obligations of
the Government of Canada, its agencies, instrumentalities or departments in Canada or abroad. In
particular the manner of their conduct in criminal and judicial matters effecting the rights of citizens in
Canada or abroad as connected to Canada. This Application is further pursuant to conduct by a defendant
in a civil law suit, the defendant obstructing the Ss. 24§1 Charter rights of the Applicant to pursue a
legal remedy for alleged violations of his S.7-S.9, S.10, Ss. 11(a) and (b), S.12 ,and S.15 Charter rights
in or connected to Canada.
Furthermore this Application to the Ministry of the Attorney General is pursuant of State obligations to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp.
(No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, entered into force Mar. 23, 1976. p.171 (the
"Covenant"). In particular the requirements provided in Article 2§1 and §3, Article 3, Article 5, Article
16, Article 17, Article 19§2 and §3(a), Article 26 Article 26, particular emphasis placed on Article 41 of
the Covenant. It is complained that the Ministry of the Attorney General has failed to act on numerous
prior complaints on Covenant violations. Including violations by Canada in co-operation with the
Republic of Bulgaria of the Applicant's rights pursuant to, inter alia, Article 14§1 and §3 abstracts (a)(c)
and (d) of the Covenant.
The Applicant is placed under a legal disability as a result of a foreign State denying him access to legal
facilities and other resources that might enable submission of more substantive argument. Evidential
materials are with held by the foreign state and the Applicant is unable to appear before a court of British
Columbia so as to demand the production of evidence. The Applicant is as a result unable to provide
relevant provisions of provincial or federal law and applicable legal precedents that might further his
application and its chances of success.
Due to his circumstances, the Applicant is unable to formulate this Application according to the style or
form common in such instances. Moreover these are complex issues and the Applicant has no resources
or opportunity to access attorneys familiar with such subject matters.
1
The burden on the Applicant to adequately express himself on law, under his circumstances as a prisoner,
is an onerous one. A task made more difficult and frustrating due to the incarcerating State's written
declaration that the Applicant has no civil rights and of the ever-present administrative threats of
sanctions or punishment for pursuit of those rights.
The Applicant therefore appeals to the Attorney General to at least indulge him as a Canadian citizen and
resident who has with great difficulty undertaken to prepare and deliver this Application. It is deserving
of consideration and reply.
The facts available appear to suggest that the Ministry of the Attorney General has directly assisted a
foreign State to, inter alia, arrest; effect searches of residences and businesses; seize of documents and
records; confiscate assets; extradite from the Federal Republic of Germany; continue to incarcerate and
attempt to convict a Canadian citizen in domestic and foreign criminal proceedings on accusations and
charges submitted by the Attorney General together with evidence collected through his agency.
The Application's factual substance relies on media releases, documented official statements, and records
of the Republic of Bulgaria. These provide reasonable grounds to form a supposition that the Applicant
had been incarcerated and charged at the direct request of the Attorney General.
It is further documented that the Ministry of the Attorney General provided to that foreign State
unverified and untrue information and data collected by it in Canada. The information and data provided
was in the form of investigative conclusions as if it they were fact when knowing them to be untrue.
Included with the information and data provided were requests that the Applicant be prosecuted on that
information in order to further an investigation of the Attorney General in the Province of British
Columbia.
It is further documented that the unverified and damaging information and data provided by the Ministry
of the Attorney General has been made massively public. This appears to have taken place with the
apparent consent of the Ministry.
A result of this damaging and untrue public disclosure, the Applicant and his family have been caused to
suffer deep emotional anguish, shame and embarrassments. It is, if not directly then at least vicariously,
the cause of the Applicant's mother and son in British Columbia having suffered personal injury, physical
pain and the family severe financial loss.
Documents reveal that on February 7th 1996 the Applicant was arrested on the written request and
unverified statements provided in evidence by a representative of the Ministry of the Attorney General of
Canada to the Republic of Bulgaria.
It is further documented that the Applicant continues to remain incarcerated as a direct result of those
representations made by the Ministry of the Attorney General to authorities of the Republic of Bulgaria.
It is as well documented that a Defendant to a civil proceeding in the Province of British Columbia
unlawfully obstructs the Applicant in his rights as a litigant.
The Defendant apparently seeks to prevent the Applicant from revealing facts and documents that
support his legal action against that Defendant. Such interference is unlawful and requires legal action
that is within the purview of the Attorney General.
The Applicant complains, and it is apparent to any objective observer, that employees of the Republic of
Bulgaria are at present directly interfering with and otherwise attempting to obstruct the Applicant in the
exercise of his rights as a litigant. Certain employees and officials of Defendant the Republic of Bulgaria
are documented to be interfering and obstructing a proceeding before a court(s) of Canada.
2
Agents of the Republic of Bulgaria, in violation of Canadian law and provisions of international
covenants, are documented to have undertaken the uttering of threats and refusals to respect the civil
rights of the Applicant. The Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Ministry of Justice as
respondent for the Defendant in a Canadian civil proceeding, has apparently undertaken a political
decision to deny a Canadian citizen his civil rights.
Insodoing the Republic of Bulgaria seeks to extend its influence to the sovereign jurisdiction of the
courts of Canada. This is setout in a May 9 th 2001 letter to the Applicant by the Ministry of Justice,
Republic of Bulgaria. The Deputy Minister D. Tonchev advising this Canadian citizen that he has no civil
rights since he is incarcerated and awaiting a final sentence.
This withdrawal of the Applicant's civil rights is inconsistent with the principles of law in a democratic
society. Civil rights are protected both constitutionally and by international laws, not withstanding that an
individual has been deprived of his or her liberty.
The Applicant is cognizant that the Attorney General is unable to act outside the jurisdiction of Canada.
However, the request embodied here requires the Attorney General to act within the jurisdiction of
Canada, not outside of it. And to do so specifically on three subjects of this Application.
First, to investigate the conduct of the office of the Attorney General, his officers, and those
others in or connected to the accusations as brought in Canada against the Applicant. The
failure to disclose to the Applicant the nature of the accusations and charges against him and to
bring the matter to a speedy to trial in a court of Canada.
Second, the Attorney General to concern herself with the actions of her officer and those others
directly connected with representation made to the Republic of Bulgaria concerning the
Applicant. Those responsible having provided untrue and false information to a foreign state,
allowed that untrue and slanderous information to be made public and requesting, on the
grounds of their information and conclusions as police authorities of Canada, that a Canadian
citizen be prosecuted abroad.
Third the Attorney General to engage herself in ascertaining the lawfulness of interfering with
or otherwise obstructing the Applicant's civil rights in a proceeding before courts of Canada.
The Applicant has brought a Charter complaint in a civil action conducted by him, as Plaintiff,
in the nature of a criminal proceeding. The Ministry of the Attorney General has failed or
alternatively refuses to intervene. By failing to do so the Ministry has permitted violation of the
Applicant's Charter rights.
The Attorney General and courts of Canada have original jurisdiction in personam over the subject
matter complained of. Any act of obstruction of a litigant's lawful rights in a judicial proceeding in
Canada, even if effected outside Canada by a foreign State, are acts de jure gestionis and subject to the
jurisdiction of Canada.
It is sine qua non, that the Charter be observed and seen to have been observed in all proceedings
conducted by officers of the Government of Canada. The Ministry of the Attorney General is no less
accountable to the protection and fostering of the principles of natural law, international covenants and
the Charter than are other agencies of Canada.
Admittedly, this application requires the Office of the Attorney General to engage itself in complex
issues embodied in numerous provisions of international law, enactments of Canada and the Republic of
Bulgaria. A review is also called for of the applicable rules of criminal and civil procedure in the
Republic of Bulgaria.
3
While unorthodox in its nature, this Application is well within the ambit of the Attorney General's
legislated authority and the jurisdiction of the courts of Canada.
The factual and legal complexity of the instance case is not adequate cause to provide an excuse for the
demonstrated apathy of the Ministry of the Attorney General. The Applicant did not author the
documents in evidence or contrive the publication of their contents. These are the documented acts of
officers of the Attorney General. These slanders and defamation are born in the fertile imaginations and
ethnic and religious discriminations of men employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General.
There is incontrovertible evidence to this fact; this makes no other rational or reasonable explanation
possible except discrimination.
This makes it reasonable that the Attorney General take the appropriate actions as an intervener for the
Applicant. It is the Applicant and his family's Charter Rights as Canadian citizens that must be
contemplated by the Attorney General. Rights which the Applicant and his family as citizens and
residents are entitled to ask the Attorney General not only to observe but also to protect.
WHEREUPON the Applicant must rely on the principles and ethics of the Office of the Ministry of the
Attorney General to engage itself in identifying what provisions of law or enactments are applicable and
support the following:
3. The Applicant demands his right to know, if any, the accusation and charges
presently against him. If any then, the Applicant demands his right to be
brought to trial on the accusations and charges.
4
provided for in provisions of the Defendant foreign State's national
Criminal Code of Procedure Articles 463(2), 464, 465 and 466 and the
principle of reciprocity among democratic States and free societies.
7. If the Ministry of the Attorney General refuses the Applicant's request for trial
or alternatively if the Applicant is no longer suspected, accused or charged by
the Attorney General as he appears to have been in July of 1995. Then the
Attorney General to then so advise the Applicant and undertake to provide an
adequate explanation of the accusations and charges embodied in those
documents which are enclosed and the other documents alluded to therein.
8. The Attorney General is required to advise the Applicant on what grounds his
Ministry had requested on July 7th 1995 [see IV] that the Republic of Bulgaria
prosecute the Applicant. Clarifying exactly how the Ministry had reached the
investigative conclusions provided on that date and later forwarded to the
Republic of Bulgaria from the Province.
9. The Applicant advises the Ministry of the Attorney General that he exercises
his legal right as embodied in the Covenant Article 14 §3(d). The Attorney
General is expected to observe and honor the Applicant's right, doing all
things necessary and reasonable to secure that right. The Applicant desires to
appear in person before a court of the Province of British Columbia at any
hearing or trial to which he is a party or required to appear as witness and
demands his S. 15(1) Charter Right to equality at arms.
10. From the enclosures provided and prevailing facts it is apparent that Charter
violations appear to have occurred. The Applicant observes that these
violations arise from the investigative actions of the Ministry in the Crown v.
Ivon Shearing et al. and the inaction of the Attorney General of Canada in the
Crown v. Kapoustin. The Ministry of the Attorney General appears to have
given the Applicant, in both cases, the character of a suspect and an accused to
a criminal proceeding in Canada.
11. The Attorney General is therefore required to act for the Applicant as an
accused in custody that is unable to act independently without support of the
Ministry. The Attorney General to secure for the Applicant a remedy before a
court of competent jurisdiction according to the provisions of S. 24 of the
Charter.
5
Part II Supreme Court of British Columbia Civil Case, Vancouver Docket S004040
3. The facts available provide a prima facie case of the Defendant(s) employees
directly or vicariously engaging in criminally interfering with and consciously
obstructing a judicial proceeding of the Province of British Columbia in
which their employer, the Defendant Republic of Bulgaria is a Defendant.
These acts are of a questionable and suspect nature and have, as their
objective, a desire to secure a favorable outcome at any hearing or trial of the
controversies at issue before the provincial court.
4. In the alternative, the Attorney General must motivate to the Applicant and his
family why they are not entitled to the protection of law under the Charter
and other applicable international law as enacted by Canada.
6
Part III Relevant Facts
2. It is apparent that the Applicant has been tried on March 13th 2001 as a result
of the investigative conclusions and materials provided in July of 1995 and
August of 1997 by investigating officers of the Attorney General [see IV
"Doornbos Submission"].
3. It is apparent from the documents released that the Ministry of the Attorney
General and the Republic of Bulgaria where apparently influenced against the
Applicant due to his Jewish ancestry, the Kaballa, Kabbalistic traditions and a
"pseudo-religious" organization in Canada unconnected to the Applicant or
Judaism. These appear as factors in the Applicants arrest on February 7th 1996,
his long period of incarceration and beatings, and the popular politicizing of
his case. This is best expressed in an August 1 st 1996 press release of the
Republic of Bulgaria.
5. It also appears now the arrest and conviction of the Applicant was grounded
by the foreign State, Republic of Bulgaria, only on statements from Canada,
represented as if fact by an agent of the Ministry and the result of materials
originated in Canada and provided from an investigation of the Attorney
General.
6. It appears that the investigative agents of the Ministry of the Attorney General
provided to agents of a foreign state personal options presented in the form of
police conclusions as if fact, though knowing them not to be such. The
investigative conclusions and materials of the Attorney General were as a
result made public [see VIbelow] on hundreds of occasions in the mass media.
7. It appears that as a direct result of the Ministry the Applicant has been arrested
on February 7th 1996 by the Republic of Bulgaria and finally convicted on
March 13th 2001.
7
8
Part IV Enclosures
Enclosure No 4. The April 1st 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria.
Enclosure No 6. The August 14th 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.
Enclosure No 7. The August 23rd 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.
Enclosure No 8. The September 12th 1996 extract news article Frankfurter Rundschau, page
3.
Enclosure No 9. The May 23rd 1997 Case Note Government of Canada indicating the July of
1995 warrants for arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin.
Enclosure No 10. The July 2nd 1997 correspondence of codefendant Doornbos to the
Defendant Bulgaria.
Enclosure No 11. The July 9th 1997 copy of receipt signed in Bulgarian language by
codefendant Doornbos delivering documents from the province and giving
evidence against the Plaintiff Kapoustin.
Enclosure No 12. The December 15th 1999 reply Ref. No. 99-H-111/96 of the Defendant
Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice, advising Plaintiffs attorney that the
Defendant Bulgaria never attempted to contact the Plaintiffs directly or for
that matter the Government of Canada.
Enclosure No 13. The January 3rd 2000 Affidavit of Attorney Anastasios S. Koimtzidis that no
subpoena was attempted to the Plaintiffs in Greece.
Enclosure No 14. The February 23rd 2001 Affidavit of Ms. Maya Dobreva.
9
Chapter 22
Seizing and submitting of the objects with which the crime was
committed or of the property obtained through an offence;
interrogation of an accused person, defendant or a witness;
appointing of an expertise and accepting its conclusion; conducting
of inspection, search and seizure; search and identification of
persons;
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.
10
(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.
11
.3 That all information as forwarded by codefendant Doornbos was
given in the care of one Mr. Anatoli. Kosev, division “KMC”
[phonetic] of Defendant’s Ministry of Internal Affairs [Ministerstvo
na vatreshnite raboti]
12
.13 That an agency of the Government of Canada advised the
Defendant Bulgaria it could make arrangements in Canada, “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 Canada together with other
property.
II. That on May 9th 1997 the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
did advise the Government of Canada that the warrants for the Plaintiff
Kapoustin's arrest date back to May of 1995 [see IV as attached hereto].
13
.7 That on August 23rd 1996, codefendant Doornbos requested the
Defendant Bulgaria [see IV as attached hereto] again provide
information “with respect to Kapoustin and companies and
accounts that he had in the Caribbean” and connected to Canada.
That the codefendant is “still very much interested in any indication
he has that any of Kapoustin gains from the fraud in Bulgaria
ended up in Canada.”
III. On July 17th 1995 the Defendant Bulgaria, on the order of “M”, as
countersigned by “MV” , commenced to “Take legal Action” [Da se zavede
delo] [see §13above] against the Plaintiff Kapoustin and the company
LifeChoice. The Defendant Bulgaria ordered on that date the arrest of the
Plaintiff [see §IIabove] and property of the Plaintiffs in Bulgaria.
.
14