Use Af1016 Facts

FORM 60 (RULE 51)
M. Kapoustin
Affidavit No. 15
Date July 9th 20001
No. S004040
VANCOUVER REGISTRY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
TRACY KAPOUSTIN, NICHOLAS KAPOUSTIN BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM
TRACY KAPOUSTIN AND MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN
PLAINTIFFS
AND:
THE HONOURABLE MURAVEI RADEV
MINISTER OF FINANCE
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
FOR
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA,
DEFENDANT
And
STEFCHO GEORGIEV, MARIO STOYANOV, EMILIA MITKOVA, KINA DIMITROVA,
IVETA ANADOLSKA, DIMITAR SHACKLE and
DEREK A. DOORNBOS,
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
AND:
MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN
RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN, the Respondent, am a citizen of Canada having a permanent place
of residence in the province of British Columbia, and one of the Plaintiffs in the two above-
captioned proceedings. As such I have personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances attested to here by me as set out below, WHEREFORE I DO MAKE
OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
That the subject matter of this, my sworn affidavit may summarised and indexed for the
convenience of the Court as follows:
The facts, the admission of which is requested are:...............................................................................34
19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 1 of 73

.A That Defendant Has The Records Concerning the Above Entitled Proceeding. ...................................34
.I Defendant, the Republic of Bulgaria ("Defendant" or "Defendant Bulgaria") had in October of
1995 seized from the Plaintiffs their personal and corporate records, including all judicial and
extrajudicial documents. That these remain in possession of the Defendant Bulgaria and a part of
its official records. The documents possed by the Defendant chronicle all the facts, the admission
of which is sought here. The documents form the basis of the controversies at issue in the above-
entitled proceeding............................................................................................................................34

.B That Defendant As A Practice Engaged In Commercial Activities........................................................34
.I The Defendant Bulgaria's activity in the Province, as connected to the Plaintiffs, involved a joint
commercial activity to develop, produce, and distribute clinical drugs or homeopathic compounds
in the Province. Some products intended to be suitable for the therapy of HIV/AIDS [see §D and
§Ebelow] and Cancer in or connected to the Province. ...................................................................34

.C That Defendant Made Representations and Promises In The Province................................................36
.I The Plaintiffs commercial activities and contracts [see §Gbelow] in or connected to the Province
with Defendant Bulgaria relied on its public, oral and written representations, and that of its
representatives. That the following are officials or employees of Defendant's government or
commercial operations on whose representations the Plaintiffs relied.............................................36

.D That Defendant's had Commercial Activities In or Connected To The Province..................................38
.I That Defendant Bulgaria agreed to produce for the Plaintiffs finished products for delivery in or
connected to the province [see §8above]. The Defendant's representatives [see §1-§19above] made
representations and concluded contracts with the Plaintiffs. In certain instances contracts were
concluded with individual or others connected to them [see, inter alio, Mladenov §30above; and
Petrunov §14above, Nenkov § 19above and Shekerdjiiski § 13above and §2below]. ...................39

.E That Defendant Received Property, Money and Investment..................................................................41
.I The Plaintiffs were required to provide property, inventories and money from the Province for
the Defendant’s or its assignees direct financial benefit and commercial activities in or connected
to the Province. This included intellectual property and the requirement to make foreign direct
investments in Bulgaria.....................................................................................................................41
.II That on February 17th 1994 Plaintiffs registered with the Defendant a $38,000 United States
Dollar ("USD") initial foreign direct investment in Bulgaria. The Defendant, Ministry of Finance
("Ministry") Republic of Bulgaria (Defendant Ministry Ref. No. M-94-000082) recorded Plaintiffs
investment as having a par value of 750,000 Bulgarian Leva Undenominated (“BGL”) [see
§7below ]on June 17th 1993.............................................................................................................42
.III That on June 16th 1995 Plaintiffs registered with the Defendant a $74,000,000 USD increase in
their direct foreign investment in Bulgaria. The Defendant's, Sofia City Court, Commercial
Register, and recorded Plaintiffs investment as having a par value of 2,000,000,000 BGL [see
Abelow as attached hereto]...............................................................................................................42

.F That Defendant Had Available From Plaintiffs Full Disclosure At All Times.......................................42
.I On May 4th 1995, at the order of the Defendant Bulgaria, Mr. Sasho Russev, Supervising
Inspector of the Bulgarian National Bank ("BNB"), Department for Bank Financial Audits Section,
contacted the Plaintiff Kapoustin in order to inspect the Plaintiffs records. BNB inspector Russev
was provided copies of Plaintiffs records, [see Abelow as attached hereto] including contracts in
or connected to the Province that relied on the Defendant's commercial activities and
representations. .................................................................................................................................43

.G That Contracts In or Connected to the Province Were Dependant on Defendant. ..............................47
.I As, in the Province the:..................................................................................................................47
.II As connected To The Province are:..............................................................................................48

.H That At Canada's Instance the Defendant Prosecuted the Plaintiff Kapoustin.....................................49
.I On May 15th 1995 the Defendant Bulgaria solicited information from codefendant Derek
Doornbos ("Doornbos") on the Plaintiffs activities and bank accounts in the Province. Codefendant
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.......................................................................................................................49
.II That on May 9th 1997 the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, did advise the
Government of Canada that the warrants for the Plaintiff Kapoustin's arrest date back to May of
1995 [see A as attached hereto].........................................................................................................50
.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. ............................................52
.IV That Defendant Bulgaria confirmed in official documents and public statements prosecuting
the Plaintiff Kapoustin at Canada's request. .....................................................................................54
.V That according to the deponent Ms, Maya Dobreva and public statements of codefendants
Stefcho Georgiev, Mario Stoyanov, [see §7-21below] Emilia Mitkova, Kina Dimitrova and Dimitar
Shackle, the arrest of the Plaintiffs assets and the Plaintiff Kapoustin by the Defendant was on
Canadian government insistence. The information and assistance provided in the Province to the
Defendant from an agency of the Government Canada provided the Defendant the motive for its
arrest of Plaintiffs property. ..............................................................................................................54
.VI That the Defendant Bulgaria can not produce an official document exchanged between it and
the Government of Canada confirming the veracity of codefendant Doornbos on the subject of the
Plaintiff Kapoustin [see A and A as attached hereto] that none exists..............................................54
.VII That the Deponent Dobreva and Defendant Bulgaria can produce no document to support the
statement of Ms. Dobreva that the Plaintiff Kapoustin attempted to and did conceal himself from
the Defendant Bulgaria. ....................................................................................................................56
.VIII That the commercial activities of the Defendant with the Plaintiffs in or connected to the
Province and relying on the Defendant made concealment of the Plaintiff Kapoustin and his
activities, as a practical matter, impossible. The Defendant's agencies or instrumentalities at all
times monitoring the Plaintiff Kapoustin, his activities, and those of others associated to him.......56

.I That Defendant Collected Private Information and Data in the Province.............................................58
.I The Defendant has never obtained permission in the Province to collect private information or
data protected by provisions of law promulgated under the Privacy Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter
165, Section 15(h), s. 30 and s. 28 with s.22 and does not avail itself of any order by a judge in the
Province or other competent court permitting its actions in the Province........................................58

.J That The Defendant Presented the Information To The Public As If Fact.............................................58
.I The there was allowed unauthorized access, collection, use and public disclosure or disposal of
unverified private information and data collected in the Province was unverified and proved later to
be inaccurate or incomplete and unreliable.......................................................................................58
.II That the above-cited public statements of the Defendant Bulgaria and information of
codefendant Doornbos appeared repeatedly in the mass media on the time and in the newspapers
cited here...........................................................................................................................................61

.K That Except For The Province No Other Judicial Jurisdiction or Venue Exists. .................................67
.I That the Defendant Bulgaria is not a party to any bi-lateral or multi-lateral treaty with Canada
where residents of the Province might litigate the contractual breaches, commercial disputes,
property or personal injury claims and torts complained of as arising in or connected to the
Province. ...........................................................................................................................................67

.L That the Defendant Denies Plaintiff Kapoustin His Right To Attend Hearings.....................................67
.I The Defendant Bulgaria refuses to consent to the conduct of Plaintiff Kapoustin to any trial or
hearing in the Province where the government of Bulgaria is a litigant or adverse party to the
Defendant..........................................................................................................................................67
.II That the Defendant's national law permits the conduct abroad and temporary transfer of
prisoners to attend trial as witnesses or litigants in proceedings outside of Bulgaria. The relevant
national laws of the Defendant Bulgaria are Articles 463(2), 464, 465, and 466 of the Criminal
Code of Procedure. That those provisions of law read as follows:...................................................67

.M That Plaintiffs Complaint to the European Court of Human Rights Is Unrelated................................68
The documents, the authenticity of which admission is requested are: ..............................................68

.A That the following are true copies of original documents with the Defendant......................................68
Part I Introduction.
Proceedings In Absentia of the Respondent
1. That I did repeatedly, according to the requirements of the national law of the
Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria (the "Defendant" or "Defendant Bulgaria"),
petition the Minister, Ministry of Justice Republic of Bulgaria, the ministry
having direct oversight over penal institutions in Bulgaria and legislated to
securing the fundamental civil rights of prisoners; And I did require it to
undertake on my behalf as its ward the necessary steps to have me conducted in
custody, at the expense of a third party, to and from the Friday July 13th 2001
hearing on the Defendant's applications before this Court (the 'Hearing").
2. That my absence at the Hearing and all other pre-trail applications as made by
me is directly consequenced by the refusals of the Defendant, to conduct me, in
custody to and from the Court.
3. That this refusal by the Defendant is consequenced by its own admission to
having withdrawn my civil rights. This was admitted to me in a letter dated May
9th 2001 by the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Dimitar Tonchev who advised
me as follows:
"[Sic]…I, being a representative of the executive authority, do not have and
may not have power to participate in negotiations for reaching any agreement
between you and the Republic of Bulgaria.
The restriction of your civil rights pointed out by you is connected namely with
the measure of detention imposed and the Ministry of Justice has no power to
determine or to alter it." [see Exhibit No. 1 ]
4. That when on May XXXX (see Radulova Affidavt § ) I rebutted the former
Minister and his Ministry on the withdrawal of my fundamental civil rights as a
violation of national and international law, and received from the Defendant on
June 25th 2001 this reply as follows:
(inser text of richard as my attorney) [see Exhibit No. 2 ]

5. I cannot explain why the Defendant advises me that its Counsel of record, in
these proceedings, Mr. Lewis, will be representing my interests before the
Court.
6. The fact that I am unable to arrange my appearance before this Court is clearly
the result of the Defendant's policy as taken towards foreign citizens
institutionalised in its penitentiaries and not a function of its law or enactment.
The former Minister Dimitar Tonchev having admitting to me that his
government considers the withdrawing or obstructions of fundamental civil
rights of prisoners a part of the fabric of its attitude to the civil rights of foreign
prisoner in general. The Defendant asserting that it is not required to assist in
securing a prisoner to appear before a tribunal as a litigant or even as a
Respondent to the applications submitted by it to a Court, whether in the
jurisdiction of this province, Canada or an international tribunal.
7. I infer from this that the Defendant will not under any circumstances agree to
conduct me in custody before this or any court in any jurisdiction where my
presence may place the interests of the Defendant at risk. And that it is not
required to provide me the fundamental right to defend my lawful interests as a
litigant from being adversely affected before this or any other Court..
8. That as a result of the above I have prepare and filed a Motion to this Court and
its Duty Master requiring inter alia that this Affidavit; the material evidence
attached as exhibits thereto, being my Factum; an Amended Outline in Part II;
the Affidavits of Mrs. Tracy Kapoustin; Mr. Robert Kap; Ms. Ada Gogova; Mr.
Robert Stewart; Mr. Anatol Lukanov and Ms. Marianna Radulova, are to be
admitted in absentia as a part of the court record and considered on the
applications of the Defendant presently before the Court.
9. I did make requests on July 9th 2001 by fax (see Radulova Affidavit §XXX ) to
the Defendant, and its legal Counsel in Vancouver, Mr. Patrick Lewis asking
that consent be given to a short adjournment of about one week to allow the
sufficient time for my filings to arrive at the Registrar and necessary to prove
the Plaintiffs case at the Hearing. The fact leading to the requirement for a short
adjournments of the application is made reasonable by the time required for the
originals to arrive by courier in time for the Court.
10. Insert the answer here.
11. That on motion to the Court I have requested an additional adjournment of 90
days of any pre-trial hearings or interlocutory motions on any issue that is or
might be considered a controversy among the litigants and effecting their lawful
interests and the final outcome of any trial in Canada.
12. My request to additionally adjourn is necessary and made reasonable by the
recent fact that the Defendant's government, therefore its "mind", has changed
and that there is a new government recently elected to the Republic of Bulgaria
and therefore a "new mind" to direct the Counsel for the Defendant in these two
proceeding.

13. That I do verily believe, on best information, and it is reasonable to infer from
the election results in the Republic of Bulgaria, that this "new mind" may well
have a different attitude and approach to these two proceeding and that it is a
reasonable consideration to permit that "mind" sufficient time to become
familiar with the particulars of these two proceedings.
14. That at the time of the swearing of this, my Affidavit, the Defendant's "mind"
has not yet installed an official to its cabinet or appointed anyone to be
responsible for directing Counsel in these two proceedings. And it is difficult
for me to accept that Attorney Lewis is unable to seek guidance from a client
that has, for all practical purposes, no longer the same mind to guide.
15. That in order to save the Court time I have contacted the Defendant's
representative in Bulgaria, the Ministry of Justice, and have further advised the
newly elected heads the Defendant government of the Republic of Bulgaria and
its Counsel ( see Radulova Affidavit § XXX- §XXX ), that an adjournment by
consent would be reasonable and preferable to a Hearing until such time as the
Republic of Bulgaria forms a new government and final appointments to the
responsible ministries are made.
16. Insert reply, if any.
17. I made this request to the Court to allow sufficient time for the Defendant, the
Republic of Bulgaria (the "Defendant" or "Defendant Bulgaria") and I, to
attempt to resolve by consent or agreement what, if any enactment or law is
applicable and what interpretation can be agreed on, if at all, by the parties on
the subject matter of my attendance, in proprio persona, in custody or
electronically at any future date before this Court.
18. That I have suggested to the Court the alternative forum, that the interests of
justice require some adjournment to see if an agreement can be reached. And if
no agreement on my conduct in custody or appearance, in proprio persona
before this Court, then the Court to adjourn until such time as my leave to
appeal before the Court of Appeal on a point of law is decided (see Radulova
Affidavit §) and my application to the Ministries of the Attorney General of
Canada and British Columbia (see Radulova Affidavit § ) under the
Constitutional Questions Act and the federal courts are considered.
19. the of the opinion that justice can be served and the Respondent's Article 15(1)
Charter rights if the Court were to proceed on the Defendant, Republic of
Bulgaria (the "Defendant" or "Defendant Bulgaria") Applications, Ex Parte and
In Absentia of the Plaintiffs, in proprio persona,
20. That Counsel for the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, (the "Defendant
Bulgaria") had fixed a gearing under Rule 65, Rules of the Court (the "Rules")
for Friday July the 13th 2001 (the "Hearing").

21. I was, inappropriately and in a round about, way advised of this hearing by Ms.
Marianna Radulova, ( the "Translator" or "Ms. Radulova") an English language
expert, who had received a fax copy of the Notice and Chambers Index for the
two law suits from Mr. Patrick Lewis, Counsel for the Defendant ("Counsel" or
"Attorney Lewis" of "Mr. Lewis).
22. The translator replied to Counsel that while she was prepared to relay
correspond among the litigants to these proceedings she would not under any
circumstances accept service of any documents or Notices on their behalf in
either of the two proceedings. However, Ms. Radulova did agree to nonetheless
attempt to advise me or prison officials of the hearing (see Radulova Affidavit §
- §).
23. I became aware of the Hearing on xxx (see Radulova Affidavit § ) and
immediately advised in writing the Defendant's Respondent in Bulgaria, the
former Deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Dimitar Tonchev and the named
defendant, the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Muravei Radev, adiving the
Defendant of my wish to attend the hearings, relying on and setting out the
applicable provisions of national and international law appropriate to my
circumstances under this instance.
24. I am unable to attend the
25. That there have been brought two law suits at different times against the
Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria ( the "Defendant") and others.
26. The Defendant, a foreign state is the only one among the defendants to have
served a Statement of Defence on the Plaintiffs and to have later filed
appearance before this Court in either of the two law suits captioned above.
27. All defendants named in the two proceedings have been properly served by the
Plaintiffs according to the Requirements of Rules 11 and Rule 13, Rules of the
Court and the Hague Convention on …..are indefault of appearance and are
subject to having judgement entered against them under the Rule 17, Rules of
the Court.
28. both
29. In the second first, I know it to be true and a fact that Mr Borislav Marinov, Mr.
Dimitar Hristov and Mrs. Radka Petrova and other Plaintiffs the other Plain
30. I have not been properly served by Defendant the required at the address for
service provided Mr. Richard Lewis, Counsel for the Defendant, and as such I
am unable to attend a hearing under Rule 65, Rules of the Court presently
detained under arrest in the Republic of Bulgaria at the central penitentiary
facility located at , 21, "Stoletov" St., 1309 Sofia, Bulgaria.
31. READ TO HERE ONLY

The other Plaintiffs and I have been and continue to be permanent residents and citizens
of the Province of British Columbia (“Province”) and of Canada.
32. No Plaintiff of record has at anytime held the citizenship of another country,
most particularly not that of the Defendant Republic of Bulgaria (“Bulgaria”).
33. That due to my material poverty I commenced the above-entitled action, pro se,
on behalf of myself and the other Plaintiffs who are my wife and son.
34. I have forwarded a request to the court to grant me indigent status. I have not
yet received a reply.
35. The other Plaintiffs and I allege in our complaint to having suffered loss of
property and livelihood in the Province as a result of breeches of commercial
contracts by the Defendant Bulgaria.
36. My complaint together with the other Plaintiffs relies, in part, on written and
oral contracts with the Defendant Bulgaria.
37. I have enumerated and documented in a Notice to Admit served the Defendant
Bulgaria on XXXX. This is by reference herein incorporated and thereby made
a part hereof. Wherein I have setout certain relevant material contracts to which
the Defendant Bulgaria and the Plaintiffs are party and embody, in part, the
cause of action for the above entitled proceeding.
38. 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.
39. Each agency or instrumentality of the Defendant Bulgaria whom I have
identified as having contracted or otherwise entered in joint commercial
activities with the Plaintiffs share a common budget with the Defendant
Bulgaria. They are, to the best of my information and belief comprise a part of
the political and are directly answerable to political divisions of the Defendant
Bulgaria and its government. to the benefits of any commercial activities with
the Plaintiffs did inure to the direct benefit and full disposal and patrimony of
the Defendant Bulgaria. , together other facts.
40. All contracts the subject of my claim and those of the other Plaintiffs are
represent commercial activities of the Defendant Bulgaria as offered to residents
Plaintiffs in the Province.
41. The subject matter of the contracts is related to in pharmaceuticals, shipping,
investment and other commercially offered scientific services.

42. 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. The Defendant Bulgaria, by way of its misrepresentation, sought
to and did induce us to enter into contracts and to deliver property as well as
provide funds or make available goods to the Defendant. it make investments
and enter into contracts with the Defendant. us the contracts I have enumerated
below . as a result of breeches of contracts the Defendant Bulgaria had directly
concluded with the Plaintiffs as well as having committed other torts personal
injury
43. 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.
44. The above-entitled proceeding does not have as causus the fact that I am a
Canadian citizen who has been under pretrial arrest since 7 February 1996 and
remains so to date.
45. The other Plaintiffs and I commenced the above-entitled proceeding due to
commercial activities and representations of the Defendant Bulgaria. The as
made in the Province or otherwise directly connected to the Province or else
effecting the Plaintiffs as residents of the Province.
46. As Plaintiffs we have alleged, inbreeches of contracts,
47. The material facts of my more than 5-years in a Defendant Bulgaria penitentiary
facility; the beatings I have alleged and what has become defacto sentence in a
penitentiary facility is not a causus of the above-entitled proceeding.
48. Upon my best information and understanding The more imposed is without
benefit of due process. My best information leads to the conclusion that
procedures set out in the national law of the Defendant Bulgaria have not been
complied or those relevant provisions of international law regulating due
process requirements for any deprivation of liberty.
49. That upon my best information and belief my understanding is proper and well
grounded in final decisions of the European Court of Human Rights against
Defendant Bulgaria as supported by numerous precedents. I have filed a
separate complaint before the European Court which is unrelated to the nature
of the present

50. I and the other PLaintiffs of record have not commenced the above entitled
proceeding of any of the acts of violence I have alleged in a complaint before
the European Court before this Honourable Court in any civil court of
CanadaDespite the obvious violation of my human and civil right by the
Defendant Bulgaria
51.
52. Plaintiff's family exist 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
53. That the following is based upon my personal knowledge of certain facts and
circumstances; where relevant I have made references to provisions of
prevailing national law and enactment together with any pertinent legislation
and international agreements to which the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria (the
“Defendant”) is a contracting party; making referral only to common judicial
practice and relevant decisions of the Supreme Causation Administrative Court
(“Supreme Court”), Republic of Bulgaria (“Bulgaria”).
54. That, as a civil and criminal attorney licensed to practice law in Bulgaria, I have
made reference only to those national laws, decisions and treaties I believe to be
meaningful to this, my Affidavit, as submitted by me for consideration by this
Honourable Court; doing so in support of claims made by the Plaintiffs to this
jurisdiction being the only one proper and right to ascertain if the Plaintiffs,
being citizens and residents of British Columbia, Canada, are or are not entitled
to the relief sought for the breeches of law and other acts of the Defendants as
alleged by Plaintiffs to be connected to them in the Province of British
Columbia (the “Province”).
55. That, upon my best information and belief, after having closely examined all the
materials available to me and relevant provisions of law, I do verily believe that
the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court is proper since the particulars of the
above entitled case and the facts to which I attest to, in this my Affidavit, lead
me to believe that this Defendant is directly or vicariously responsible for the
personal injury, property loss and breeches of contract or other the torts alleged
in the Plaintiffs claim as having occurred in or otherwise somehow being
connected to the Province.
56. As to all other facts they are on my best information and belief based upon,
inter alia, the investigations made by me, including a review of various court
records and filings in various jurisdictions; my examination of numerous
official state documents of Canada and those of agencies or instrumentalities,
including political subdivisions of this Defendant; the personal records of the
Plaintiffs; the corporate and court records of the Bulgarian registered company
LifeChoice International AD and others; various published reports and news
articles; my personal interviews with the Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin and such
other persons as did provide information under oath, the nature of which I
believe relevant; upon the foregoing I have prepared to the best of my ability
this, my affidavit, and do verily believe it to represent the facts as they are and
the applicable provisions of law as know to me.
57. That I have read the 23rd February 2001 Affidavit of Ms. Maya Dobreva
(“Dobreva”) and can attest that there exists no document or other material fact
known or discovered by me or known to the Plaintiffs as having been filed with
this Honourable Court proving or otherwise establishing the legal right or
authority of Ms. Dobreva, as Minister Plenipotentiary & Consul, Embassy
Republic of Bulgaria, to retain an attorney or enter an appearance or to
otherwise act or to engage others to act or make representation in any legal or
other capacity in the Province for or on behalf of the Defendant as to material
facts or contracts or applicable national and international laws which did bind
this Defendant as a contracting party, making this Defendant subject to the
jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
58. That I am unaware of any material fact or circumstance which would lead me to
believe that Ms. Dobreva or Mr. Dimitar Tonchev, Deputy Minister, Ministry of
Justice of the Defendant, as Respondent, to having any direct or specific
personal knowledge of those events, acts, material contracts or other
transactions as concluded by the Plaintiffs with this Defendant or certain of the
Defendant’s political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities; each of the
aforementioned being separate commercial activities or transactions of this
Defendant with the Plaintiffs and having been effected among the parties, now
litigants, between the period from August 1991 up to and including the end of
December 1995; the breeches of contract and torts claimed against this
Defendant are alleged to have occurred from 31 December 1994 up to and
including 30th November 1998; these are the periods as known to me to be
relied upon by the Plaintiffs in their claim which I, as their legal counsel in
Bulgaria am familiar with and have, in part, briefly enumerated below .
59. That I am further unaware of any material fact or circumstance which would
lead me to believe, Ms. Dobreva or Mr. Dimitar Tonchev, Deputy Minister,
Ministry of Justice of the Defendant, to having any direct or specific knowledge
of those breaches of contract, torts or other acts of the Defendant or certain of
the Defendant’s political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities that are
alleged as having caused damage or loss of property, physical injury and other
material and non-material harm claimed to have been suffered by the Plaintiffs
in the Province; the nature and cause of which the Plaintiffs rely upon as their
grounds for the relief sought.
60. Setting aside the applicable legal questions of the right of Ms. Dobreva to
participate or give testimony in the above entitled proceedings on behalf of her
employer, this Defendant; or her and Mr. Tonchev’s questionable personal
knowledge of relevant material facts during the period from August 1991 up to
December 1998, the following can be said.

61. That representations made by Ms. Dobreva are unrelated to the subject matter of
the Plaintiffs law suit as set before this Honourable Court; neither are they
pertinent to the subject of this Honourable Court’s jurisdiction over the
Defendants in civil or commercial matters which are the substance of Plaintiffs
claims. The issue before this Honourable Court is one of commercial activities
conducted by this Defendant in the Province, as effected with residents of the
Province, the Plaintiffs; this Honourable Court asked to consider if this
Defendants alleged breeches of conduct; fraudulent transfers of property;
materially untrue or fraudulent commercial representations or other tortious
conducts in the province or outside the province but having a direct or vicarious
affect upon residents or others in the Province; or alternatively relating to
commercial activities to be completed in or connected to property in the
Province to which the Plaintiffs have or claim to have lawful title or rights.
62. Upon my best information and from the materials available to me it is apparent
the Plaintiffs have not claimed anywhere in their allegations that the judicial
proceeding in Bulgaria cited by Ms Dobreva is the causus for the claims made
by them or the relief sought; Plaintiffs claims against this Defendant arise from
acts organized by it of the kind as carried on by private persons, de jure
gestionis, in connection with commercial activities and certain material
contracts and transactions as entered into by this Defendant in the Province with
the Plaintiffs; who allege that breaches of contract and other torts of the
Defendant resulted in the injuries and damages being claimed;
63. That Ms. Dobreva’s assertion of Plaintiffs reliance upon official acts arising out
of government activities, de jure imperii, does not represent the truth and is not
reflected in either the originating process as served upon this Defendant. or any
subsequent pleadings or argument set before this Honourable Court
64. I am unable to determine upon what representations of the Plaintiffs or other

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.
65. I am unable to determine upon what material representations of the Plaintiffs in

their Statement of Claim or other material facts Ms. Dobreva is able to conclude
that the Plaintiffs have at any time claimed or otherwise alluded to challenge a
sovereign right to governmental activities and jurisdiction of any state to
commence the referenced by Ms. Dobreva penal judicial proceeding; or the
right of its judiciary to effect, as a sovereign state, any acts which conform to
the principles of natural law, international conventions and the national law of a
sovereign state; as long as those acts are lawful and conform to the laws of the
jurisdiction in which they were performed
66. Furthermore that it is apparent to me that the Plaintiffs law suit does not rely
upon or relate to any lawful conduct of this Defendant from 4th December 1998
to the present in the judicial hearing in Bulgaria as referenced in the written
declarations of Ms. Dobreva.
67. It is further apparent to me that there are no claims or allegation made by the
Plaintiffs against this Defendant for a new breech of contract or other tort to be
alleged after December 4th 1998; Plaintiffs claims are for activities of this
Defendant from June 1991 up to and including November 1998.
68. That upon my best information and belief and as is apparent to me from the
material facts set before me, the Plaintiffs are seeking to exercise the sovereign
right and jurisdiction of courts of the Province and Canada and seek only their
lawful right to have adjudicated for them, as lawful resource users and citizens
of the Province, their claims for relief and to do so before a Canadian court with
competent jurisdiction in commercial matters and property or personal injury
claims that are in someway connected to the Province and its residents;
Plaintiffs asking this Honourable Court to assessed upon the merit of their facts
the claims made by them; this Honourable Court applying those provisions of
Canadian law, enactment or international law as applicable in the instance case
and giving it sovereign right and jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
Plaintiffs claims..
69. Setting aside the applicable principles in Canadian and international law as are
known to me to be relevant and binding; requiring this Defendant to submit to
the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court; I can state with all certainty from
personal knowledge as attorney in Bulgaria for the Plaintiffs, and upon
documents available to me, that the representations made in Paragraph 3 of the
Affidavit of Ms. Dobreva contain the following distortions of facts as they are
and are known to me to be true; the Affidavit provided this Honourable Court
by Ms. Dobreva making the following material misrepresentations which are
false and misleading.
70. From here Anatol you have to, in a similar style attack the affidavit Para 3 and
4 each paragraph a separate point.
71. An example would be that the judicial proceeding referenced by Ms. Dobreva
started in Bulgaria on 16th April 1999, not December, that LCI was not used to
embezzle money from, etc. These are all material misrepresentation of facts
made under oath. Very serious stuff that effects the credibility of the person
making the declaration.
72. You are free to call her a liar.
73. Para 4 is also interesting and can be attacked. Changing defence lawyers, filing
to Strasbourg or writing parliament are my rights and not a thing for a state to
complain of! I’ll express that in my separate affidavit.
74. Monday Marianna needs to arrange a notary to come here.

75. I would have done more and will this evening. We can then review which points
you have covered v. those I have.
76. If NCIPD and the various science academies are state institutions (not state
owned companies then they can be treated as contracts with the Defendant state.
77. This affidavit Anatol will be, in different parts and style filed in the USA law
suits. The amounts you claim do not have to be exact or ascertained by an
expert. Also you can include a statement at the end where you fix an amount for
costs, expenses and time expended in preparing for these lawsuits.
78. I will also prepare a paragraph where you declare before the Court you intent to
enter the case as an “expert” in Bulgaria law with a Canadian lawyer if and
when arranged by the Plaintiffs.
79. Here summarise chronologically (quoting figures USD equivalents) starting

from the 1991 Fed-X shipment of “DyAlkovin” to the Ministry of Health giving
enough particulars of time date shipping number etc.. In this instance the
receiver and beneficiary is the Ministry Of Health, as would be the case with the
medicine given the infectious hospital (AZT-FACTOR-R) etc..
80. Your are permitted to express your opinion or conclusion.
81. This would include Krakra, Shuhodol, etc..
82. Also whisky was collected by Despred in Austria and transported to the free
trade zone.
83. All references should be “The Plaintiffs paid for or “advanced funds to” or “
etc””.
84. All transactions which can be considered as “commercial activity of the State”.
85. The breech of contract or injury would be the failure of the state to complete on
the contracts (Antarctic expedition, clinical research, testing etc..).
86. The chronology of events starts out from BC in 1991 and moves forward, the
connection being LCP and LCI and me. Etc..
87. Upon my best information and belief each contract or commercial activity or
tort as set out below by me and as may be amended in later pleadings by the
Plaintiffs as to the nature of the transactions or the injury suffered and the
damages or other relief to be ordered, if any; should be determined by a trial
judge and jury of this Honourable Court upon a hearing of all the facts and
provisions of relevant law; the merit of the Plaintiffs claims rely on thousands
of pages of documents and contracts with this Defendant, numerous witnesses
already deposed or to be deposed; the facts and documents in question are
required to demonstrate to this Honourable Court its jurisdiction in the subject
matter of the Plaintiffs law suit and as a result to establish this Honourable
Courts lawful jurisdiction over this Defendant.
88. Upon my best information and belief this Honourable Court cannot
meaningfully ascertained its right of jurisdiction in the above entitled
proceeding in the absence of the Plaintiffs representative, Michael Kapoustin;
without its considered and full review of all the facts, including all documents
and witnesses testimony; a short notice of motion and hearing upon a point of
law does not adequately or fairly permit a full consideration or hearing of all the
interested parties and the complex factual matrix of the above entited
proceeding.
89. Each as cited by me somehow originated from or was to be concluded in the

Province or is somehow otherwise directly related to the Province and
represents the subject of the Plaintiffs law suit and relates to damages or losses
of property or other assets, breached of contract or commercial loses, personal
injury or ill health as suffered in the Province as a result or on account of this
Defendant.
90. That upon my best information and belief upon investigation of the material
facts and documents made available to me appears to be support concluded in
the Province or elsewhere.
91. That upon my best informtion andas a result of breeches of contract by the
Defendant and other torts material contracts, property or commercial activities
having been affected by making a part of the Plaintiffs claims against having or
those acts effected by the Defendant which are directly responsible for the
personal injuries claimed to have been suffered in the Province as a result of the
Defendant’s misrepresentations, fraud and breeches of contract made in the
above entitiled civil proceeding as setout by the Plaintiffs or to otherwise have
sufficient give evidence as to facts of the above entitled proceeding.
92. That, upon my best information and belief and according to those documents
examined by me, the Plaintiffs as residents of British Columbia and citizens of
Canada, did in 1991 provide the capital necessary to form “Life Choice
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“LCP”), a Canadian federally incorporated company.
93. The principal business of the Plaintiffs and other acting as an unincorporated
association of individual investors was to provide LCP with sufficient capital to
permit it to acquire intellectual property rights to experimental proprietary
processes or patentable substances for use in the clinical treatment of cancer or
HIV/AIDS, LCP to organize their clinical testing, limited production and
marketing. Such substances to be later licensed to others for manufacture and
distribution.
94. Upon my best information and as is apparent from those materials inspected by
me the Plaintiffs, while resident in the Province of British Columbia (the
“Province”), provided or directly facilitated all or a significant part of the
financial resources necessary for LCP to acquire clinical drug research and
market development rights to, inter alia, a proprietary process for
manufacturing semi-synthetic VinBlastine and VinCristine, both well known
clinical drugs in the treatment of cancer; a new potential clinical drug, 3-4
DyhydroVinblastine, which was derived from the aforesaid proprietary process;
a proprietary process to tissue culture Tripterygium wilfordii and isolate
Triterpene acid compounds “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” having marked inhibition in
vitro on Lymphocyte proliferation and a new process to extract and purify tetra;
a proprietary process to culture and process bacterial bodies of Streptococcus
pneumonia, Neisseria catarrhalis, Streptococcus pyogenes, Haemophilus
influenzae, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Rc
mutant of E. Coli, Proteus mirabilis and Enterococcus faecalis and pentacylic
oxindole alkaloids from Uncaria tomentosa, in particular alloisopteropodine,
Isomer A having proven stimulative effect on phagocytosis.
95. According to a document dated 16 October, 1991, and upon my best

information the Plaintiffs were initially contacted by the Defendant Republic of
Bulgaria (the “Defendant”) through its agency of the Bulgarian Trade
Commission, Trade Commissioner, I. Draganski, who while at that time located
at 100 Adelaide St., West Suite 405, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, did in his official
capacity as Trade Commissioner for the Defendant provide the Plaintiffs
information about foreign investment on the territory of the Republic of
Bulgaria and made representations to the Plaintiffs as to the relevant legislation
of the Defendant.
96. In late 1991 the Plaintiffs, in association with others, developed a clinical drug
testing, manufacturing and distributing program for LCP products modeled
around certain agreements with the British Columbia Cancer Control Agency.
97. On or about September of 1991 the Plaintiffs examined the feasibility of new
product research and development, limited manufacturing and clinical drug
trials in the Republic of Bulgaria as was represented to them by agents of the
Ministries of Finance and Health, political sub-divisons of this Defendant.
98. Marianna need names to the “Then” whatever!
99. Plaintiffs had contact with the following representatives of this Defendant,
being, inter alio, Prof. Dr. Uzunov, MD, Phd., Biology, President of the Medical
Academy of Sofia Mr. Konstantin Kostov, Managing Director, Electronic and
magnetic Products, Plovdiv; Prof. Dr. Dimitrina Mihailova – Kasabova, M.Ph.,
Ph.D., Science, Faculty of Medicine, Sofia; the then Deputy Minister of Justice
Mr. …. (see Exhibit No …); the then Minister of Health Mr. … and Mr. Ivan
Kirov, Director International Connections, Ministry of Health (see Exhibit No
…); Mr. Simeon Georgiev, General Director, “Pharmacia”, City of Dupnica; Mr.
Konstantinov, Director Scientific Research Institute and Mr. Minev, Vice –
President, “Antibiotic”, City of Razgrad (see Exhibit No …); Mr. Nicholas
Angelov, Attorney at Law – Plovdiv, (see Exhibit No …); Dr. Dimitar K.
Todorov, Director, Laboratory of Oncopharmacology, National Cancer Centre,
Sofia, mostly concerning his co-operative work with Dr. G. Deliconstantious in
Phase I clinical drug trials of Thailiblastine in the United States (see publication
“Experienta” No 38, 1992, Reference pg. 587), to ascertain possible parallels to
clinical drug trials of Dy – Alkovin (see Exhibit No …) and Dr. I. Yamboliev,
Faculty of Pharmacy, Higher Medical School, Sofia (see Exhibit No …).
100. On … , 1991 LCP, to effect and proceed toward its corporate objective of
clinical drug evaluation to be conducted by agencies and instrumentalities of the
Government, did provide to the Ministry of Health, the Republic of Bulgaria, at
great expense to the limited partnership [see before § 20], 201grams of Dy –
Alkovin, at a cost of 90,000 Canadian dollars per gram (see Exhibit No …),
together with the required data for toxicological evaluation and Phase I clinical
trial approval, having forwarded the aforesaid to the Ministry of Health
representative of this Defendant, by Federal Express Courier, Way Bill No …
from Vancouver, British Columbia.
1
To date, all attempts by the Applicant to recover the 20 grams provided and research funds advanced or
to alternatively have results of tests delivered have been frustrated and proven in vain. Upon best
information and belief of the Applicant, it can be surmised that LCP funds and substances were not
utilized or applied for the purpose they were intended.
101. 25 2 "December 31, 1991" To:Ministry of Health "Shipment by
Plaintiffs of 20 grams Dy-Alkovin experimental substance and associated
technological data. Evidenced by Fed-X AWB No. 400-27831425, valued at
$90,000 USD per gram and forwarded to Dr. K. Kostov see later Tab."
102. "December 8, 1992" To:Ministry of Health See Tab No. 32 Tab No. 32
makes reference in its invoice to this contract and credits Plaintiffs with funds
paid Defendants on or about this date.
103. 18 3 "September 9, 1993" From:NCIPD Copy Cash order for $ 6000
USD of 1st payment on substance for Factor-R production and associated bank
transaction.
104. 1 2 "December 1, 1993" To: Ministry of Health Request by
Plaintiff to commence human clinical trials in and outside Bulgaria
105. 32 1 "December 24, 1993" To:Ministry of Health "Invoice of NPSK

""Farmacia"" for $10,400 USD for processing of order for Factor-R."
106. 2 2 "January 13, 1994" To: Ministry of Health Request

Defendant by Dr. Petrunov NCIPD to commence human clinical trials of
Factor-R in and outside Bulgaria
107. 3 1 "January 17, 1994" From: Ministry of Health "Letter from
Chairman clinical trial commission, Ms. T. Kucharov, Phd.N.S.D - R, Dr., that it
has no objection to human clinical trails of Factor-R, in or outside Bulgaria,
listing requirements for analysis of final product."
108. 4 1 "January 18, 1994" "From: Ministry of Health, " "Ms. G.
Gencheva, Prof. Dr, National Institute for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, to
Chairman of Expert Commission for Serums and Vaccines, Prof. Dr. Petrunov
and also to him in his capacity as Director, defendant, NCIPD"
109. 5 8 "January 18, 1994" From:Ministry of Health Extract of

Protocl No. 193 Expert Council of Serums and Vaccines session discussing and
approving Factor-R clinical trials in and outside Bulgaria
110. 33 1 "April 8, 1994" To:Ministry of Health As preceeding tab
"Bank document for payment of $6,000 USD in BGL for additional
product of Factor-R for Plaintiffs as per previous Tab 34.."
111. 28 17 "April 29, 1994" Contract NCIPD LCPBJV exclusive
international rights for distribution of all NCIPD products as produced by it.
112. 39 3 "April 29, 1994" Contract CANPOL Acquisition by

Plaintiffs of distribution rights to Bulgaria of NOVOPHARM CDN products.

113. 6 4 "May 1, 1994" Contract NCIPD First version of contract to
lease and improve facilities at Kraka Number 3 belonging to Defendant.
Unsigned by Minsitry of Health
114. 7 1 "May 1, 1994" Contract NCIPD As preceeding tab
Details for improvements to Defendants property at Kraka 3 as per
contract.
115. 40 1 "June 1, 1994" CANPOL Invoice As per Tab. No. 39
"Request by CANPOL to pay $15,000 USD for distribution rights."
116. 41 2 "June 14, 1994" To:CANPOL CDN As per Tab. No. 39

Bank documents evidencing payment for the distribution rights as
aquirered by Plaintiffs so as to supply the Defendant.
117. 8 4 "June 28, 1994" From:Ministry of Health "Contract
amended and ""Anti-Dated"" by Defendant Minsitry of Health to 1 May 1995
as per original contract, see Tab No. 7"
118. 37 1 "July 18, 1994" To:NOVOPHARM CDN "Invoice for
$110,000 USD for purchase of AZT as per proposal to and agreement with the
Defendant Ministry of Health (see previous Tab No.) for use in clinical trials."
119. 38 2 "July 26, 1994" To:NOVOPHARM CDN As per Tab.

No. 37 Bank transaction documents evidencing payment for the quantity of
AZT ordered for Defendant.
120. 35 1 "August 4, 1994" To:Ministry of Health Proposal of
Defendant representative Prof. Dr. Shekerdjiisky for research work of analytical
method required for Factor-R product of Plaintiffs
121. 36 1 "August 15, 1994" To:Ministry of Health As per Tab No. 35
"Bank transaction document for $3,000 USD to effect development of
method as required by the Defendant."
122. 9 31 "September 21, 1994" Contract NCIPD Exclusive
distribution rights in Bulgaria for Respivax and Urostim
123. 29 4 "September 29, 1994" Contract NCRRP Plaintiffs undertook
to finance clinical trials and treatment of state employees exposed to radiation
and other carsensogenic substance under supervision of the National Center of
Radiobiology and Radiation Protection.
124. 30 2 "September 29, 1994" As preceeding tab Schedule of
work to be done
125. 31 2 "October 17, 1994" To:Ministry of Health "Bank transfer
documents, in BGL, of $19,675 USD for payment on 29 September 1994
contract NCRRP as per work program agreed."
126. 27 2 "October 31, 1994" To:Ministry of Health Letter requesting
importation exemptions for AZT
127. 14 2 "February 23, 1995" To: Ministry of Health "Letter to
Deputy Minister of Health about Factor-R and AZT for HIV/AIDS patients and
clinical trials in Bulgaria, as per January 18th, 1994 approvals obtained."
128. 1 "February 23, 1995" From:Ministry of Health Hand
written direction on letter of Plaintiff.
129. 10 7 "March 1, 1995" Contract NCIPD As preceeding tab
Schedules as added setting out minimum quantities amendments.
130. 24 2 "March 1, 1995" From:Ministry of Health "To: Plantiff
a receipt from Dr. K. Kostov, medical manager of the Infectious Hospital
acknowledges receipt of 1000 units Factor-R and 150 Units of AZT for clinical
tests financed by Plaintiffs"
131. 11 29 "March 10, 1995" Contract NCIPD Contract with with
Defendant and Plaintiff LCI in Canada for exclusive in substances for Factor-
R/Others
132. 12 1 "March 10, 1995" Contract NCIPD As preceeding tab
"Schedules as added setting out minimum quantities amendments.
Schedual B added, and after the fact and anti-dated to 10 March Contract"
133. 15 2 "March 13, 1995" To: Ministry of Health "Letter to
Deputy Minister of Health confirming delivery of $ 240,408 in medicines to
their infectious diseases hospital. Ref. Factor-R and AZT for HIV/AIDS patients
and clinical trials in Bulgaria"
134. 16 1 "March 13, 1995" As preceeding tab Hand
written direction on letter of Plaintiff.
135. 17 2 "March 21, 1995" From:Ministry of Health First deputy
Minister Prof. P.Uzunov acknowleding delivery and planned use of AZT
136. 13 2 "May 1, 1995" Contract NCIPD As preceeding tab
"Schedules as added later to 10 March 1995 contract, seeting pricing and
delivery of Factor-R"
137. 19 1 "May 9, 1995" To:NCIPD "Invoice No. 95024 showing
payment $1,975 for Factor-R, quantity 5,000 Units"
138. 21 1 "July 26, 1995" To:NCIPD "Bank transfer of $23,990
USD for payment on May 9 1995 order Factor-R and deposite for an additional
quantity"
139. 22 1 "July 27, 1995" From:NCIPD Copy of bank document
showing receipt of transferred amount to account NCIPD
140. 20 1 "August 3, 1995" To:NCIPD "Invoice No. 95041
showing payment $9,875 for Factor-R, quantity 5,000 Units as per May 9, 1995
order placed"
141. 26 4 "October 17, 1995" From:NCIPD "Letter, to Plaintiff from
NCIPD director, Dr. Petrunov, admitting, among other things, they are
compelled by Defendant Ministry of Health to suspend all contracts"
142. 23 1 "July 3, 1996" To:NCIPD "Invoice No. 95034 showing
payment $7,900 USD for additional qauntities of Factor-R"
143. 34 1 April 6 1994 To:Ministry of Health As preceeding tab
"Bank document for payment of $6,000 USD in BGL for additional
product of Factor-R for Plaintiffs as per previous Tab 34.."
144. As preceeding tab Hand written direction on letter of Plaintiff.

The facts, the admission of which is requested are:
.A That Defendant Has The Records Concerning the Above Entitled Proceeding.
.I Defendant, the Republic of Bulgaria ("Defendant" or "Defendant Bulgaria")

had in October of 1995 seized from the Plaintiffs their personal and
corporate records, including all judicial and extrajudicial documents. That
these remain in possession of the Defendant Bulgaria and a part of its
official records. The documents possed by the Defendant chronicle all the
facts, the admission of which is sought here. The documents form the
basis of the controversies at issue in the above-entitled proceeding.
.1 That on December 7th 2000 respondent for the Defendant, Deputy

Minister of Justice, Ms. Zlatka Rousseva, did by her own
admission, conduct an investigation of the facts, and documents
referred to here.
.2 The Defendant Bulgaria has copies or originals of all contracts and

correspondences with the Plaintiffs as referenced [see §I-
§IIbelow] here. These document its commercial activities in or
.3 That Defendant knew the Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin (“Kapoustin”)

first arrived to the Republic of Bulgaria on January 25th, 1992
Balkan Airline Flight No. 438 from Frankfurt, Germany.
.4 That the Defendant knew the Plaintiffs to be permanent residents

of the province of British Columbia (“Province”) and citizens of
Canada and to have never been citizens or residents of the
Republic of Bulgaria (“Bulgaria”).
.B That Defendant As A Practice Engaged In Commercial Activities.
.I The Defendant Bulgaria's activity in the Province, as connected to the

Plaintiffs, involved a joint commercial activity to develop, produce, and
distribute clinical drugs or homeopathic compounds in the Province. Some
products intended to be suitable for the therapy of HIV/AIDS [see §D and
§Ebelow] and Cancer in or connected to the Province.
.1 That from 1949 to 1995 the Defendant Bulgaria, had a common

practice of engaging its political subdivisions in commercial
activities for profit.
.2 That as a practical matter upto 1998, the Defendant has

maintained all its commercial activities in pharmaceutical research,
development, production, and distribution in Bulgaria. This
Includes the packaging and the direct export of such products.
.3 That among the commercial activities of the Defendant there are

offered, inter alia, goods or services from its scientific institutions;
including pharmaceutical manufacturing; medical research and
development; production and supply of raw materials for chemical,
biological and other pharmacopoeias; and the distribution of
medical products on the territory of or as connected to Bulgaria.
.4 That departments of government of the Defendant Bulgaria, from
1991 upto and including 1994 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.
.5 That as a practical matter any commercial activities in or as

connected to the Province and Bulgaria of the kind as set out in §3
and §4above had to rely on contracts or transactions with a
department of the Defendant's Ministry of Health.
.6 The Defendant Bulgaria was to develop for Plaintiffs, inter alia, a

clinical drug research and development working project for a new
semi-synthetic VinBlastine and VinCristine, clinical drugs in the
treatment of cancer; a method for low cost production and supply
of semi-synthetics as developed in the Province; the laboratory
and clinical evaluations of new substances for potential treatment
of cancer or HIV/AIDS; a working project for research and
development of 3-4 DyhydroVinblastine as derived from a
proprietary processes and materials; laboratory and clinical
evaluations of Triterpene acid compounds “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” and
a low cost method to isolate these compounds by a proprietary
process developed in the Province; develop 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. The Defendant to
develop a low cost process to extract and purify these oxindole
alkaloids.
.7 The Defendant agreed to manufactured for the Plaintiffs a ready

for consumption complex composite substance, "Factor-R", to
consist of any one or more of the aforecited or other compounds 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.
.8 That the Defendant signed contracts to produce for the Plaintiffs

“Factor-R” for use in or as connected to the Province [see below
Founders Group, et al §5, §6, §7, §9, §11, §12, §14 , and §2below]
and to clinically evaluate [see §4-§7below] that product.

.C That Defendant Made Representations and Promises In The Province.
.I The Plaintiffs commercial activities and contracts [see §Gbelow] in or

connected to the Province with Defendant Bulgaria relied on its public, oral
and written representations, and that of its representatives. That the
following are officials or employees of Defendant's government or
commercial operations on whose representations the Plaintiffs relied.
.1 Prof. Dr. Uzunov, MD, Ph.D., Biology, President of the Medical

Academy of Sofia, on behalf of the Minister of Health.
.2 Mr. Konstantin Kostov, Managing Director, Electronic and Magnetic

Products, Plovdiv.
.3 Mr. Ivan Kirov, Director International Connections, Ministry of

Health.
.4 Mr. Simeon Georgiev, General Director, “Pharmacia”, City of

Dupnica.
.5 Mr. Konstantinov, Director Scientific Research Institute, Sofia,

Bulgaria.
.6 Mr. Minev, Vice – President, “Antibiotic”, City of Razgrad.
.7 Dr. Dimitar K. Todorov, Director, Laboratory of Oncopharmacology,

National Cancer Center, Sofia
.8 Dr. I. Yamboliev, Faculty of Pharmacy, Higher Medical School,

Sofia.
.9 Professor Dr. Petko Uzunov, M.D., Ph.D., Biology, Chief

Department of Pharmacology, The Higher Medical Institute, Sofia.
.10 Professor Dr. Dimitria Nacheva Mihailova – Kasabova, M.Ph.,

Ph.D. Sc., Dean Pharmaceutical faculty, The Higher Medical
Institute, Sofia.
.11 Associate Professor Dr. Asen Ivanov, M.D. Ph.D., and Chief,
Departments of Pharmacognosy and Pharmacological Botany,
Sofia.
.12 Professor Dr. Zahari Raikov, M.D., Ph.D. Sc., Higher Medical
Institute, Stara Zagora.
.13 Associate Professor Dr. Rahamin Daniel Shekerdjiiski, M.D., Ph.D.

Sc., Head, Department of Pharmaceutical Faculty, Sofia
.14 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 Center for Infectious
and Parasitic Diseases, Medical Academy of Sofia, 26 Yanko
Sakazov St., Sofia.

.15 Dr. Ms. T. Kucharov, Ph.D. Chairman clinical trial commission,
Ministry of Health, Republic of Bulgaria.
.16 Prof. Dr. Ms. G. Gencheva, National Institute for Pharmaceutical

Manufacturing, Ministry of Health, Republic of Bulgaria.
.17 Prof. G. Vassilev, Ph.D., D.Sc., and National Center of

Radiobiology and Radiation Protection, Ministry of Health,
Republic of Bulgaria.
.18 Dr. K. Kostov, M.D., medical manager and director of the Infectious
Diseases Hospital, Ministry of Health, Republic of Bulgaria.
.19 Dr. Plamen Nenkov, M.D., D.Sc., research manger and deputy
director of National Center for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases,
Medical Academy of Sofia, 26 Yanko Sakazov St., Sofia.
.20 That on October 20th 1993 at the Royal York Hotel, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, the representatives of the Defendant Bulgaria,
Prof. Bogdan Petrunov, M.D., D.Sc., Prof. Plamen Nenkov, M.D.,
D.Sc., and Prof. Rahamin Shekerdjiiski, Ph.D. and Prof. Dr. Dimitar
Todorov, M.D., D.Sc., made public representations. The
representations were made before Canadian investors as to the
Defendant Bulgaria's commercial activities in the Province [see §I
and especially §8above] with the Plaintiffs.
.21 That on October 22nd, 1993 the Defendant's representatives again

made similar representations to the public at the Place
Bonaventure Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
.22 That on October 24th 1993 at the Hotel Vancouver, Vancouver,

British Columbia, Canada, the Defendants emissaries [see again
§20above] visited the Province and made the similar
representations to investors and media there as at previous public
presentations.
.23 That on June 2nd 1994 the Department of Health & Human Service,
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland USA AIDS
Clinical Trials Group (ACDDC) submitted its requirements to
Plaintiffs and the Defendant. ACDDC setout the laboratory and
clinical data of the Defendant to be presented [see A as attached
hereto] by its representative. The Defendant Bulgaria, as per its
contract, was required to prepare its data and represent it for the
Plaintiffs to the ACDDC panel.
.24 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 A as attached
hereto].
.25 That November 23rd 1994 the ACDDC was reviewing the
Defendant Bulgaria's data as submitted for Factor-R. The ACDDC
rescheduled the Defendant’s presentation of that data for the
Plaintiffs from December 9th 1994 to March 6th 1995 [see A as
attached hereto]. The meeting was rescheduled again to June.
.26 On June 7th 1995 representatives of the Defendant Bulgaria made
representations to the Plaintiffs attorneys, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, Washington, District of Columbia USA. The Defendant
setout the data prepared by it for the Plaintiffs and confirmed its
commercial activities and contracts.
.27 That on June 12th 1995 representatives of the Defendant repeated

these representations [see §26above] before ACDDC members at
Bethesda, Maryland USA.
.28 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 A as attached hereto]. 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.
.29 That the Defendant incorporated among the regular duties of, inter
alio Trade Commissioner Mr. Dragnevski; Consul Mladenov and
others, a direction to solicit, promote or otherwise encourage the
commercial activities of or joint investments with the Defendant
Bulgaria in the Province and Canada as a whole. Defendant’s
consular and trade representatives to Canada and the Province
are in practice required to engage in identifying sources for
financing, marketing, and promoting the Defendant’s commercial
activities.
.30 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
§6below] in Bulgaria as connected to the Province.
.31 That representative of the Defendant, as a practical matter, did not

at any undertake to disclose to investors in Canada the provisions
of Article 29, Law on Foreigners [see Aas attached hereto] as
enacted by the Defendant on November 28th 1972.
.32 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.
.33 There is no equivalent provision in the Defendant’s national law for

citizens of Bulgaria.
.D That Defendant's had Commercial Activities In or Connected To The Province

.I That Defendant Bulgaria agreed to produce for the Plaintiffs finished
products for delivery in or connected to the province [see §8above]. The
Defendant's representatives [see §1-§19above] made representations and
concluded contracts with the Plaintiffs. In certain instances contracts were
concluded with individual or others connected to them [see, inter alio,
Mladenov §30above; and Petrunov §14above, Nenkov § 19above and
Shekerdjiiski § 13above and §2below].
.1 That on 29 April, 1992, the Defendant agreed to allow the Plaintiffs

exclusive distribution and marketing rights in the Province, Canada
and elsewhere for all immunologically active biological products as
produced by it [see A as attached hereto].
.2 On June 30th 1993, the Defendant Bulgaria amended the April 29th
1992 agreement [see A as attached hereto]. Director's of
departments of the Defendant, Ministry of Health, Prof. Dr. Bogdan
Petrunov, M.D., D.Sc., Prof. Dr. Plamen Nenkov, M.D., D.Sc., and
Prof. Rahamin Shekerdjiiski, Ph.D. contracted with the Plaintiffs to
assist in obtaining, inter alia, licenses to technology of the
Defendant; new patents; the transfers of technology or patents to
the Province from the Defendant; and the securing of other
distribution rights to the Defendants products for the Province or as
connected to it [see and A as attached hereto].
.3 That on October 31st, 1993 the Plaintiffs, presented the Defendant,

Ministry of Finance a short form prospectus, making full and plain
disclosure of commercial activities with the Defendant in or as
.4 That on December 1st 1993, the Defendant Bulgaria contracted to

conduct human clinical trials in and outside Bulgaria of Factor-R
[see §Iabove].
.5 On January 13th 1994, as per his contract with the Plaintiffs, Dr.
Bogdan Petrunov submitted to other departments of the Defendant
Bulgaria a request for human clinical trials in and outside Bulgaria
for Factor-R [see A as attached hereto].
.6 On January 17, 1994 the Defendant’s representative, Ms. T.

Kucharov, Ph.D., M.D., Chairman of the Human Clinical Trial
Commission, Bulgaria, advised the Plaintiffs that there was no
objection for human clinical trials in or outside Bulgaria [see Aas
attached hereto].
.7 On January 18th 1994 Ms. G. Gencheva, Prof. Dr., the National

Institute for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, Bulgaria, advised Prof.
Dr. Petrunov, Chairman of Expert Commission for Serums and
Vaccines, Bulgaria and Director of its National Center for Infectious
and Parasitic Diseases, to proceed with clinical trials for the
Plaintiffs [see A and A as attached hereto]. That the product
Factor-R is approved in Bulgaria to be tested in combination with
other compounds.

.8 On April 29th 1994 the Defendant Bulgaria agreed to allow the
Plaintiffs exclusive distribution rights in the Province and
internationally for immunological and other agents as produced by
it [see A as attached hereto].
.9 That on May 1st 1994 the Defendant, Ministry of Health Bulgaria

leased to the Plaintiffs a facility at No. 3 Kraka Road, Sofia,
Bulgaria [see A and A as attached hereto].
.10 That the Defendant, Ministry of Health Bulgaria has leased

numerous other facilities to the Plaintiffs and provided options to
purchase its land and buildings. Defendant agreeing to do so
subsequent to the Plaintiffs paying to make leasehold
improvement.
.11 That on August 4th 1994, the representative for the Defendant
Bulgaria, Prof. Dr. Shekerdjiiski, agreed to organize and develop
an analytical method for the product Factor-R [see A as attached
hereto].
.12 That on September 21st 1994 the Defendant contracted to allow

the Plaintiffs exclusive distribution rights within Bulgaria for
immunological products produced by it [see A as attached hereto].
.13 That on September 29th 1994 the Defendant Bulgaria contracted to

conduct for the Plaintiffs a human clinical trial for treating cancers
induced by on the job exposure to radioactive or other
carcinogenic substances [see A as attached hereto].
.14 That on October 31st 1994 the Defendant Bulgaria agreed to an

importation exemption for those quantities of AZT to be provided
by the Plaintiffs [see A as attached hereto] from the Province.
.15 That on March 10th 1995 the Defendant contracted to provide the
Plaintiffs exclusive distribution rights in or connected to the
Province for other immunological products produced by it [See A
as attached hereto].
.16 That on March 21st 1995 the First deputy Minister of Health, Prof.
P. Uzunov [see §1above] confirmed the delivery and planned
clinical use of the AZT and other property of the Plaintiffs.
.17 That the Defendant Bulgaria, as a commercial activity provided

warehousing and storage space to the Plaintiffs for storing
property to be shipped to or from the Province as follows;
Medical inventories were stored at the National Center

for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Sofia, Bulgaria.
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.

.18 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:
With Despred + D Transit Expedition Services and

Insurance Underwriters, Sofia, Bulgaria for overland
service to and from Bulgaria.
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.
.E That Defendant Received Property, Money and Investment.
.I The Plaintiffs were required to provide property, inventories and money

from the Province for the Defendant’s or its assignees direct financial
benefit and commercial activities in or connected to the Province. This
included intellectual property and the requirement to make foreign direct
investments in Bulgaria.
.1 That on December 31st 1991, the Defendant received from

Plaintiffs by Federal –Express Way Bill No. 400-27831425, 20
grams of the substance Dy–Alkovin [see §6above] at a cost of
$90,000 Canadian dollars ("CDN") per gram [see A and A as
attached hereto].
.2 That included with the $1,800,000 CDN of the Plaintiffs physical

property the Defendant was provided proprietary intellectual
property and other data necessary for the synthesis and
commercialization of Plaintiffs’ product.
.3 That from May 1st 1994 to July 1st 1995 the Plaintiffs provided the
Defendant in excess of $600,000 USD in leasehold improvements
and equipment to the Defendant's property at No. 3 Kraka Road
[see §9above].
.4 That on March 1st 1995 Plaintiffs provided $240,408 USD in

medical substances to the Defendant [see A as attached hereto].
.5 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 [see §8 and
§9below].
.6 That on September 6th 1993 Plaintiffs paid $ 6,000 USD in cash as

a 1st payment on raw materials [see A as attached hereto].
.7 On December 24th 1993, Plaintiffs paid $10,400 USD in cash for

processing of the raw materials [see A as attached hereto].
.8 On May 9th 1995, Plaintiffs paid $1,975 USD for processing and
packaging of product [see A as attached hereto].

.9 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 A as attached hereto].
.10 That on July 26th 1995 Plaintiffs paid $23,990 USD toward their
May 9th 1995 order for processing and packaging of finished
product [see A as attached hereto].
.11 On August 3rd 1995, Plaintiffs paid $9,875 on a May 9th 1995 order
to process and package product [see A as attached hereto].
.12 On July 3rd 1996 Plaintiffs paid $7,900 USD on an order to

process and package product [see A as attached hereto]..
.13 On April 6th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $6,000 USD on an order for
processing and packaging of product.
.14 On April 8th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $6,000 USD for processing of raw
materials
.15 That on July 26th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $110,000 USD to supply
Defendant with 80kg in finished tablets of Novopharm of Canada
AZT .
.16 That on August 15th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $3,000 USD to have the
Defendant develop a methodology demanded by the Ministry of
Health prior to approval for clinical trials of Plaintiffs' [see A as
attached hereto] Factor-R.
.17 On October 17th 1994 Plaintiffs paid $19,675 USD to develop a

work programs for clinical trials agreed to on 29 September 1994
[see A as attached hereto].
.II That on February 17th 1994 Plaintiffs registered with the Defendant a
$38,000 United States Dollar ("USD") initial foreign direct investment in
Bulgaria. The Defendant, Ministry of Finance ("Ministry") Republic of
Bulgaria (Defendant Ministry Ref. No. M-94-000082) recorded Plaintiffs
investment as having a par value of 750,000 Bulgarian Leva
Undenominated (“BGL”) [see §7below ]on June 17th 1993.
.III That on June 16th 1995 Plaintiffs registered with the Defendant a
$74,000,000 USD increase in their direct foreign investment in Bulgaria.
The Defendant's, Sofia City Court, Commercial Register, and recorded
Plaintiffs investment as having a par value of 2,000,000,000 BGL [see
Abelow as attached hereto].
.F That Defendant Had Available From Plaintiffs Full Disclosure At All Times.

.I On May 4th 1995, at the order of the Defendant Bulgaria, Mr. Sasho
Russev, Supervising Inspector of the Bulgarian National Bank ("BNB"),
Department for Bank Financial Audits Section, contacted the Plaintiff
Kapoustin in order to inspect the Plaintiffs records. BNB inspector Russev
was provided copies of Plaintiffs records, [see Abelow as attached hereto]
including contracts in or connected to the Province that relied on the
Defendant's commercial activities and representations.
.1 That the Defendant Bulgaria, BNB concluded there is no

commercial activity in banking by the Plaintiffs.
.2 The Plaintiffs had made no written representations to the

Defendant or others of banking or corresponding activities in
Bulgaria.
.3 That the company LifeChoice International Inc. (“LCI”), was an

Antigua, West Indies company incorporated in 1986 under the
laws of Antigua, having its registered and records office in St.
John, Antigua and principal place of business in the City of
Vancouver the Province of British Columbia.
Was registered in 1990 to do business in the province.
Was wholly owned by residents of the province.
The Plaintiffs had control over more than 10% of any

unrestricted issued and outstanding shares of LCI
common stock.
That the Plaintiff Kapoustin was known to have been the

representative of LCI in the Province.
The Plaintiff Kapoustin was known to have been LCI

representative to the Defendant Bulgaria.
That LCI was known to have commercial transactions

and contractual relations on the territory of the Republic
of Bulgaria.
That LCI is known to have assets and property in the

hands of the Defendant Bulgaria on the territory of the
.4 That the company LifeChoice Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“LCP”), is a

British Columbia company federally incorporated on August 9th
1991 under the Canada Business Corporations Act of Canada,
Certificate No. 274128-8. Having its registered and records office
in the City of Vancouver and its principal place of business in the
City of Richmond, Province of British Columbia.
Residents of the province wholly own LCP.

That the Plaintiffs had financial interest in and control
over 22,000,000 (twenty two million) unrestricted
common shares of LCP stock. This representing more
that 90% of the issued and outstanding capital stock of
LCP.
That Plaintiff Kapoustin is known to be the LCP

representative to the Republic of Bulgaria.
That LCP is known to have had commercial transactions

of Bulgaria.
That LCP is known to have assets and property in the

.5 That the commercial association of LifeChoice Pharmaceuticals

Bulgaria Joint Venture Ltd. (“LCPBJV”), was registered under the
laws of the Republic of Bulgaria. This is a joint venture limited
liability company in the City of Plovdiv on February 23rd, 1992 and
having its principal place of business in the City of Sofia, Republic
of Bulgaria.
That the Plaintiffs had control over more than 60% of the
voting rights and capital of LCPBJV.
That LCPBJV was beneficially controlled and principally

owned by residents of the province.
The Plaintiff Kapoustin is known to be the LCP

representative to LCPBJV in the Republic of Bulgaria.
That the Defendant Bulgaria was a minority joint venture

partner with the Plaintiffs.
LCPBJV is known to have had commercial transactions

of Bulgaria.
.6 That the company North American Trade Organization (“NATO”), is

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 principal place of business in
the City of Sofia, Republic of Bulgaria. The Plaintiffs having control
over than 100% of the voting rights and capital of NATO.
NATO was beneficially controlled and principally owned

by residents of the province.
That Plaintiff Kapoustin is known to be the Plaintiffs

representative to NATO in the Republic of Bulgaria.

That NATO was formed in partnership with former
Bulgarian Consul Mladenov [see §30above] an official of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Defendant Bulgaria
and former Consul to Canada.
The Plaintiffs, as residents of the Province first acquired

75 percent of NATO equity and later Consul Mladenov
acquired the remaining equity of 25 percent.
That NATO is known to have had commercial

transactions and contractual relations on the territory of
the Republic of Bulgaria.
That NATO is known to have assets and property in the

That NATO acquired from LCI the right in Bulgaria for

exclusive use of the trademark “LifeChoice” as registered
by it on 27 April, 1993 and granted on 23 September,
1993.
.7 That the company LifeChoice International AD (“LCIAD”), is 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 its offices and principal place of
business in the City of Sofia, Republic of Bulgaria.
That the Plaintiffs own or have controlled on 100% the

unrestricted common shares of the stock of LCIAD.
That the startup capital of $38,000 USD, as contributed

by the Plaintiffs, was divided among 10,000 unrestricted
common voting shares of LCIAD capital stock.
That on 26 August, 1994 the capital of LCIAD was

increased with contributions of the Plaintiffs and divided
among 20,000,000 unrestricted bearer shares of LCIAD
capital stock.
That the corporate registered capital of LCIAD at present

amounts to 2,000,000,000 (two billion) old Bulgaria Leva
(“BGL”) represented by shares in its capital stock having
a nominal (par) value of 100 BGL.
That on June 16th 1995 the capital pain in by the Plaintiffs

represented a par value equivalent at that time of
approximately $ 74,000,000 (seventy four million United
States Dollars) USD.
That the Plaintiff Kapoustin is known to be the LCIAD

representative to the Defendant Bulgaria.
That LCIAD is known to have had commercial

That LCIAD is known to have assets and property in the
.8 That the company LifeChoice SA (“LCSA”) is a Greek limited

liability company incorporated in 1994 under European Community
law in the Republic of Greece, having its registered and records
office in Kavala, Greece and;
That the Plaintiffs owned or controlled 95% of the

unrestricted common voting shares of LCSA capital stock
as issued and outstanding.
That LCSA is beneficially controlled and principally

owned by residents of the province.
That the Plaintiff Kapoustin is known to be the LCSA

representative to the Republic of Bulgaria.
That LCSA is known to have had commercial

That LCSA is known to have assets and property in the

.9 That the company Canameko II AD (“CANAMEKO”) is a private

limited corporation incorporated under the Law of Commerce Act,
Republic of Bulgaria. Having its registered and records offices and
principal place of business in the City of Plovdiv.
That the Plaintiffs had financial interest on 100% of the

unrestricted issued and outstanding common voting
shares of CANAMEKO capital stock.
That CANAMEKO is beneficially controlled by residents

of the province.
That Defendant Bulgaria and CANAMEKO were joint

venture partners. The Defendant having 5% equity in the
capital of a waste management and oil refining facility in
the City of Tzarimir, Republic of Bulgaria financed by the
Plaintiffs.
The equity interest of the Defendant Bulgaria was

represented by officials of the Rare Metals and Uranium
Mines Company of the City of Tzarimir, a political
subdivision of the Defendant Bulgaria.
That the Plaintiffs contributed in cash, equipment or other

good and valuable consideration an amount in excess of
$6,000,000 USD to the joint-venture of with the
Defendant Bulgaria.

That Plaintiff Kapoustin is known to be the Plaintiffs
representative to CANAMEKO.
That CANAMEKO is known to have had commercial

That CANAMEKO is known to have assets and property

in the hands of the Defendant Bulgaria on the territory of
.G That Contracts In or Connected to the Province Were Dependant on

Defendant.
.I As, in the Province the:
.1 The September 10th 1992 contract with Mtskheta, a Patriarchate

association of the Orthodox Church, Mtskheta, Republic of
Georgia.
.2 The October 26th 1992 contract with the University of British

Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia and British Columbia
Cancer Control Agency.
.3 The February 24th 1993 contract with Tiflis Company, Tibilisi,

Republic of Georgia.
.4 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. .
.5 The August 20th 1993 contract with Founders Group and Assignee,
TBR, Kelowna, British Columbia.
.6 The November 1st 1993, contract with Intercon Medical

Consultants Inc., Austin, Texas and LCIAD Sofia, Bulgaria.
.7 The November 19th 1993 contract with Annax Ventures Inc.,

Vancouver, British Columbia.
.8 The December 7th 1993 agreement with Seagram Canada division

Eastern Region & Africa, London, GB.
.9 The December 20th 1993 contract with Silverton Corp.,

Worthington, Ohio USA.
.10 The January 3rd 1994 contract with Saknavtobi Georgian State Oil
and Gas Company, Deputy Chairman Mr. V. Lobzhanidze.
.11 The January 13th 1994 contract with LifeChoice Partnership,

Vancouver, British Columbia and LCIAD Sofia, Bulgaria.

.12 The January 14th 1994 contract with LifeChoice Partnership,
Vancouver, British Columbia and LCIAD Sofia, Bulgaria and
Silverton Corporation, Worthington, Ohio USA.
.13 The February 17th 1994 contract with Lead Resources, Inc.,
Vancouver, British Columbia.
.14 The June 10th 1994 agreement with Pajaro de Fierro Inc., Mexico
City, Mexico and Founders Group and Assignee TBR, Kelowna,
British Columbia.
.15 The January 31st 1995 agreement with Royal Advent Securities,
Inc. and Evans & Evans Inc., Vancouver, British Columbia.
.16 The February 7th 1995 agreement with Lindsay R. Semple and
others, Vancouver, British Columbia.
.17 The July 14th 1995 contract with LT. And MC. Trading Company,
Varna, Bulgaria.
.18 The August 31st 1992 contract with LEKO Promarket, Moscow,
Russia
.II As connected To The Province are:
.1 The April 1st 1994 contract with Green Oasis Environmental Inc.,
Charleston, South Carolina USA.
.2 The April 7th 1994 contract with LifeChoice Inc., Austin, Texas USA.
.3 The August 1st 1994 contract with Green Oasis Environmental Inc.,
.4 The August 12th 1994 contract with Mimi Co. Ltd., Tibilisi, Republic
of Georgia.
.5 The August 22nd 1994 contract with Green Oasis Environmental

Inc., Charleston, South Carolina USA.
.6 The October 4th 1994 contract with Shurtleff Waste Oil Systems
division of Utopia Fabricating Ltd., Pennfield, New Brunswick,
Canada.
.7 The December 8th 1994 contract with Green Oasis Environmental

.8 The January 4th 1995 agreement with Seagram Canada division

Europe & Africa London, GB.
.9 The January 30th 1995 agreement with Lyths & Hangers Limited,
Bahamas.
.10 The February 15th 1995 contract with Green Oasis Environmental

.11 The March 1st 1995 contract with Green Oasis Environmental Inc.,
.12 The June 3rd 1995 contract with MAO Ltd., Tibilisi, Republic of
Georgia.
.13 The August 10th 1995 agreement with E Tech Inc., Bardstown,
Kentucky USA.
.14 The October 15th 1995 contract with the Shoter Rustavelli
Academy Of Theatre, Tibilisi, Republic of Georgia.
.15 The January 31st 1996 contract with The Republic of Georgia, City
of Rustavi.
.H That At Canada's Instance the Defendant Prosecuted the Plaintiff Kapoustin.
.I On May 15th 1995 the Defendant Bulgaria solicited information from

codefendant Derek Doornbos ("Doornbos") on the Plaintiffs activities and
bank accounts in the Province. Codefendant 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.
.1 That on July 7th 1995 [see Abelow as attached hereto] co-

defendant Doornbos advised the Defendant that Plaintiff Kapoustin
had cash of $16,000,000 USD [see §5-§13below, and §IIIbelow] in
the Province.
.2 That the information and data was provided to representatives of

the Defendant Bulgaria, Col. Levicharov, Director of [the] Central
Service for [the] Fight Against Organized Crime [Centralna slujba
za borba s organiziranata prestapnost – CSBOP].
.3 That all information as forwarded by codefendant Doornbos was

given in the care one Mr. Anatoli. Kosev, division “KMC” [phonetic]
of Defendant’s Ministry of Internal Affairs [Ministerstvo na
vatreshnite raboti]
.4 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.

.5 That the July 7th 1995 information of codefendant Doornbos was
not corroborated by another source.
.6 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.
.7 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”
.8 That the Defendant and codefendant Doornbos concluded that the

money transferred and credited to accounts in the Province are
“amounts coming from the funds accumulated in Bulgaria by
KAPOUSTIN”.
.9 That codefendant 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.”
.10 That Defendant and codefendant 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.”
.11 The Defendant was asked by codefendant 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.
Codefendant 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.”
.12 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.
.13 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.
.II That on May 9th 1997 the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
did advise the Government of Canada that the warrants for the Plaintiff
Kapoustin's arrest date back to May of 1995 [see A as attached hereto].

.1 That on December 13th 1995, the Defendant Bulgaria and
codefendant 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 Abelow as attached hereto].
.2 That Defendant Bulgaria made public [see §Jbelow] 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.
.3 That at the December 13th 1995 meeting, as cited above, the

codefendant Doornbos advised the Defendant Bulgaria that the
Plaintiff Kapoustin had been charges and convicted in Canada as
child molester and Pedophile. This information having later been
made public by the Defendant Bulgaria [see §9and §11below].
.4 That on April 1st 1996 the Defendant received a request from

codefendant Doornbos [see A as attached hereto] 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 codefendant
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”
.5 That on July 31st 1996 the Defendant Bulgaria solicited more

information concerning Plaintiffs property and activities in or
.6 That on August 14th 1996, codefendant Doornbos again requested

the Defendant Bulgaria to “advise when or if any information is
found regarding Kapoustin having transferred monies” to the
Province [see A as attached hereto].
.7 That on August 23rd 1996, codefendant Doornbus requested the

Defendant Bulgaria [see A as attached hereto] again provide
information “with respect to Kapoustin and companies and
accounts that he had in the Caribbean” and connected to the
Province. 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.”
.8 That on June 25h 1997 the Defendant solicited information and

data in the province from codefendant Doornbos.

.9 That on June 26th 1997 the Defendant was advised by
codefendant Doornbus that he was “still awaiting in writing,
confirmation, information and the Rogatory Request promised” by
the Defendant Bulgaria.
.10 That the following request was made by codefendant 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
A as attached hereto].
.11 That on July 2nd 1997 codefendant Doornbos personally delivered

to the Defendant documents obtained by him in the Province [see
A as attached hereto].
.III On July 17th 1995 the Defendant Bulgaria, on the order of “M”, as
countersigned by “MV” , commenced to “Take legal Action” [Da se zavede
delo] [see §13above] against the Plaintiff Kapoustin and the company
LifeChoice. The Defendant Bulgaria ordered on that date the arrest of the
Plaintiff [see §IIabove] and property of the Plaintiffs in Bulgaria.
.1 That on August 1st 1995 the Defendant, Ministry of Finance, first

converted Plaintiffs' property in Bulgaria to its own use.
.2 That on August 14th 1995 Plaintiffs’ first complained to the

Defendant Bulgaria that their property had been unlawfully
expropriated [see Aas attached hereto].
.3 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.
.4 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.
.5 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.
.6 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.
.7 That on February 2nd 1996 the Defendant converted to its own use
32 of the Plaintiffs’ 20’ sea going containers. The Plaintiffs property
was at the time in transit and at a customs free zone. The property
of the Plaintiffs is valued at $48,000 USD.
.8 That on March 3rd 1996 the Defendant converted to its own use the
Plaintiffs’ Land Rover jeep, registration No. C9522CM. The vehicle
is valued at $17,500 USD.
.9 That on March 8th 1996 the Defendant converted to its own use
the Plaintiffs’ oil refining installation and equipment with leasehold
improvements at Tzarimir, Bulgaria. The equipment and leasehold
improvements are valued at $ 5,750,000 USD.
the Plaintiffs’;
Daewoo Tico with registration No. C1333AA. The

vehicle is valued at $4,500 USD.
40’ refrigeration trailer with registration No. C5235EB.

The trailer is valued at $18,000 USD.
Land Rover type 121 truck with registration No. C9521.

The vehicle is valued at $23,000 USD.
Land Rover jeep with registration No. C2850AA. The

vehicle is valued at $17,500 USD.
the Plaintiffs’ Daewoo Tico automobile with registration No.
C7673CX. The vehicle is valued at $4,500 USD.
.12 That on July 29th 1996 the Defendant Bulgaria converted by to its
own use the quantity of 18,144. 0.700L. bottles of Seagram
Canada scotch whisky belonging to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
property was at the time in transit and at a customs free zone and
valued at $181,440.00 USD.
.13 That on August 15th 1996 the Defendant to its own use converted
456 items of property of the Plaintiffs. The value of the items is
$450,000 USD.
.14 That on October 1st 1996 the Defendant converted to its own use
the Plaintiffs’ property [see §1above] and leasehold improvements
[see §9 and 3above] in Sofia found at No. 3 Kraka Road.
.15 That on May 25th 1998 the Defendant converted to its own use and
divided Plaintiffs’ private land in the municipality of Bankia, the
province of Sofia, Bulgaria. The land is valued at $65,000 USD.
.16 That the Defendant converted to its own use the Plaintiffs 20
grams of Dy-Alkovin [see §1above]. The property of the Plaintiffs is
valued at $1,800,000 USD.
.17 That the Defendant converted to its own use the Plaintiffs 152 /100
units of AZT and 1000 /60 units of Factor-R [see §4above]. The
property of the Plaintiffs is valued at $240,408.

.18 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.
.19 July 27, 1998 the Defendant converted to its own use the Plaintiffs
property at No. 3, "Kraka" Road Sofia. The ground floor of the
building consists of 580 square meters of improvements by the
Plaintiffs and other offices of 57 square meters and a separate
premise of 35 square meters as built by the Plaintiffs on a second
level. The Defendant transferred title was to itself by an Act for
State Property No. 001047. The new owner of the Plaintiffs
property is District of Sofia, a political subdivision of the Defendant
Bulgaria. Defendant Bulgaria has not compensated the Plaintiffs
for rent as prepaid or the funds invested. April 15th, 1999
Defendant Bulgaria by executive Order No 011003 issued by the
District Manager of Sofia handed over the Plaintiffs property to the
Regional Union of the Social-Democratic Party.
.IV That Defendant Bulgaria confirmed in official documents and public

statements prosecuting the Plaintiff Kapoustin at Canada's request.
.V That according to the deponent Ms, Maya Dobreva and public statements
of codefendants Stefcho Georgiev, Mario Stoyanov, [see §7-21below]
Emilia Mitkova, Kina Dimitrova and Dimitar Shackle, the arrest of the
Plaintiffs assets and the Plaintiff Kapoustin by the Defendant was on
Canadian government insistence. The information and assistance provided
in the Province to the Defendant from an agency of the Government
Canada provided the Defendant the motive for its arrest of Plaintiffs
property.
.VI That the Defendant Bulgaria can not produce an official document
exchanged between it and the Government of Canada confirming the
veracity of codefendant Doornbos on the subject of the Plaintiff Kapoustin
[see A and A as attached hereto] that none exists.
.1 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.
.2 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.

.3 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.

.VII That the Deponent Dobreva and Defendant Bulgaria can produce no
document to support the statement of Ms. Dobreva that the Plaintiff
Kapoustin attempted to and did conceal himself from the Defendant
Bulgaria.
.VIII That the commercial activities of the Defendant with the Plaintiffs in or
connected to the Province and relying on the Defendant made
concealment of the Plaintiff Kapoustin and his activities, as a practical
matter, impossible. The Defendant's agencies or instrumentalities at all
times monitoring the Plaintiff Kapoustin, his activities, and those of others
associated to him.
.1 The Defendant, in providing the Plaintiffs their visas [see §3above]

and registering their commercial activities [see §II, §III, §4, §6 and
§7above] maintained as a result, inter alia, a record of the Plaintiffs
permanent residence address in the Province, registered
addresses in Bulgaria and legal addresses of all commercial
enterprises connected to the Plaintiffs.
.2 That on October of 1993 and again August 15th 1994 [see A as

attached] Plaintiffs provided Defendant Bulgaria, the Minister and
Ministry of Finance, details of all joint commercial activities in or
connected to the Province with Defendant.
.3 The Defendant's, Bulgarian National Bank's inspectors were also

provided full disclosure [see A as attached hereto].
.4 That the Defendant knew the Plaintiffs' auditors at the time to be

are KPMG Peat Marwick AE, Athens, Greece; Price Waterhouse,
St. John, Antigua; Cashuk, Wiseman and Goldberg, CPA’s, San
Diego, California, USA and Finex CPA’s, Sofia, Bulgaria.
.5 That the Defendant knew the Plaintiffs; attorneys at the time to be

Mr. Anastasios S. Koimtzidid, Esq., Kavala, Greece; Mooney &
Associates, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA and McCandless, Morrison
& Verdicchio, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. With lead in
house legal counsel being Ms. Mila Popova.
.6 That the Defendant knew Plaintiffs' legal addresses in the

Province, the United States, Bulgaria and Greece, from October
16th 1991 upto the present, are a part of the official record of the
Defendant, government of Bulgaria and publicly assessable [see A
as attached hereto].
.7 The Defendant recorded Plaintiffs movements throughout Bulgaria

and controlled their movement in or out of Bulgaria.
.8 The Plaintiff Kapoustin had permission from the Defendant

Bulgaria to stay in Bulgaria only up to September 29th, 1995. This
is according to records of the Direction of the People's Police
Bulgaria, Passports Department.
.9 That the National law of the Defendant Bulgaria required Plaintiff

Kapoustin leave Bulgaria on or before the September 29th, 1995
date.

.10 The Plaintiff Kapoustin legally departed Bulgaria on or about
August 1st 1995.
.11 That Defendant Bulgaria, at no time attempted to deliver or forward

a subpoena or any other such document by a method prescribed
in the Defendant’s national law that demanded an appearance
before a judicial authority of Bulgaria [see again A and A as
attached hereto].
.12 That on October of 1994 the Defendant, Ministry of Finance

required, at the request of the Bulgarian National Bank had
Supreme Court Prosecutor, Mr. Topurov, consult with legal
representatives of the Plaintiffs as to the commercial activities in or
as connected to the Province and Bulgaria.
.13 That the Plaintiffs where represented by attorney Mila Popova and
another attorney who met Mr. Topurov in October of 1994 at the
offices of Supreme Court Prosecutor Topurov, Room 59A, Floor 4
of the Courts of Justice, Sofia, Bulgaria.

.I That Defendant Collected Private Information and Data in the Province.
.I The Defendant has never obtained permission in the Province to collect

private information or data protected by provisions of law promulgated
under the Privacy Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter 165, Section 15(h), s. 30
and s. 28 with s.22 and does not avail itself of any order by a judge in the
Province or other competent court permitting its actions in the Province.
.1 The Defendant has not produced 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.
.2 The Defendant has in the instance case 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.
.3 That the Defendant its officials, agencies or instrumentalities public

disclosure of the information and data provided by codefendant
Doornbos, if publicly disclosed could reasonably be expected to,
inter alia, deprive the Plaintiffs of the right to a fair or impartial
adjudication.
.J That The Defendant Presented the Information To The Public As If Fact.
.I The there was allowed unauthorized access, collection, use and public
disclosure or disposal of unverified private information and data collected
in the Province was unverified and proved later to be inaccurate or
incomplete and unreliable.
.1 That the unreasonable invasion and public disclosure of the

Plaintiffs' personal privacy by any official, agency or instrumentality
of the Defendant Bulgaria is a violation of its national law.
.2 That the Defendant's national law makes plain that its is unlawful
to make public information in a record or thing that would unfairly
expose a person or company to financial or other harm by
damaging their reputation.
.3 That the Defendant, its officials, agencies or instrumentalities did

intentionally make public the information and data collected in the
Province and provided by the codefendant Doornbos.
.4 That the information made public by the defendant consisted of

personal recommendations, character references or evaluations
and conclusions indicating the Plaintiff Kapoustin's racial or ethnic
origins, sexual orientation or religious or political beliefs or
associations.

.5 That the Defendant fails to produce any document issued by a
judicial authority of Canada or Bulgaria authorizing or exerting
control over the collection of private information and data on the
Plaintiffs in the Province.
.6 That 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 [see
§12above] that he had good reason to believe that codefendant S.
Georgiev was making fraudulent public statements and
misrepresenting his official in 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.
.7 That 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
That this is untrue.
.8 That in the above cited edition of Continent the codefendant
Stefcho Georgiev, in his capacity on behalf of the Defendant
Bulgaria called the Plaintiff Kapoustin an “International swindler”,
and "is a well known fraud for Interpol according to the Canadian
Government "
.9 That the Defendant Bulgaria goes on to state to the public that the
Plaintiff Kapoustin has “effected sexual offences against minors
[infants, child abuses] according information from the Canadian
authorities” in the Province ( [] inserted by translator.
.10 That the Defendant goes on to publicly state that the Plaintiff
Kapoustin was already ”deceiving others in Georgia” and had
criminal cases in the Province there "are old and unclear" in
Canada.
.11 The Defendant states that the Plaintiff Kapoustin "did not form
LifeChoice and didn’t dare to lie to people that insolently" in the
Province where the Plaintiff Kapoustin also “Played games of
happiness" as he engaged in "sexual assaults against minors,
according to the data of the Canadian authorities".

.12 That the Defendant had brought accusations against Plaintiff
Kapoustin for "cheating 12,000,000 USD" from the company
LifeChoice International A.D.
The Plaintiffs own 100% of all issued
and outstanding shares of that
company [see §7above].
.13 The Defendant Bulgaria publicly stated that according to Canadian

authorities the money from Bulgaria citizens was "sent to the
Caribbean islands".
.14 That the Defendant publicly stated that the Plaintiff "Kapoustin
should be responsible for over 18,000,000 USD, which he
managed to steal away from Bulgaria".
.15 That Defendant Bulgaria publicly stated it was prosecuting the

Plaintiff Kapoustin as a foreigner [see §31above].
.16 That the codefendant Georgiev stated publicly for the Defendant
Bulgaria "which country is not going to collect its taxes from the
foreigners who are doing business in the country? Kapoustin was
importing from Canada cigarettes, beer, whisky, vodka for the
purpose of trade, but he did not fill up exact tax declarations. With
which he injured the state budget, the Sofia City community and
the tax department with millions.”
.17 That the Defendant had the Plaintiff Kapoustin arrested as a

foreigner that "fills in false tax declarations thus defrauding the
Budget.”

.18 The Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Finance at all times knew that
the Plaintiff Kapoustin had not personally imported any of the
aforestated in § 16above goods and had not filled in a false
declaration. The Plaintiff is not a citizen or resident of Bulgaria and
as such not required to declare to the Defendant Bulgaria his
income outside of Bulgaria.
.19 That the Defendant publicly stated the refining equipment

delivered to Bulgaria and installed at the premises in Tzarimir,
Bulgaria [see § 8, §9, §5, §1, §3, §5, §7, §10, §11 and §15above]
as leased, was "bought as a second hand installation. It cannot
bring the dreams of 10,5 million USD."
.20 That the Defendant publicly stated that the improvements and
equipment at No. 3 Kraka Road were paid for by the Plaintiffs [see
§3above]. The Defendant represented that the Plaintiffs "made
some improvements".
The Defendant however continued to

represent that these improvements
and equipment were "on the account
of the Ministry of Health and the
National Center of Parasitic and
Infectious Diseases [a department of
the Defendant Ministry of Health]."
.21 The Defendant stated that the drug "Factor –R is sold without a
permission of the Bulgarian authorities" [see §Iabove].
.II That the above-cited public statements of the Defendant Bulgaria and
information of codefendant Doornbos appeared repeatedly in the mass
media on the time and in the newspapers cited here.
.1 Newspaper articles:
 January, 1995, Newspaper "Cash" No 14, p.12
 March 14-20, 1995, Newspaper "Monopoly"
 April 12, 1995, Newspaper "Trud"
 April 19, 1995, Newspaper "Democracia" (Democracy)
 April 10-16, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"
 August 1, 1995, Newspaper "Trud"
 April 17-23, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"
 May 17-23, 1995, Newspaper "Nosten Zhivot" (Night Life)
 June 7, 1995, Newspaper "Trud"
 June 19-25, 1995, Newspaper "Capital"
 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

.2 That the Government of Canada has never confirmed to the
Defendant the veracity of any information and data made public by
the Defendant Bulgaria.
.3 That on August 9th 1996, the Defendant Bulgaria was provided by

the Government of Canada a “Note Verbale” [see A as attached
hereto] that reads:
“… [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.
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.”
[ ] inserted

.K That Except For The Province No Other Judicial Jurisdiction or Venue Exists.
.I That the Defendant Bulgaria is not a party to any bi-lateral or multi-lateral

treaty with Canada where residents of the Province might litigate the
contractual breaches, commercial disputes, property or personal injury
claims and torts complained of as arising in or connected to the Province.
.L That the Defendant Denies Plaintiff Kapoustin His Right To Attend Hearings.
.I The Defendant Bulgaria refuses to consent to the conduct of Plaintiff

Kapoustin to any trial or hearing in the Province where the government of
Bulgaria is a litigant or adverse party to the Defendant.
.II That the Defendant's national law permits the conduct abroad and
temporary transfer of prisoners to attend trial as witnesses or litigants in
proceedings outside of Bulgaria. The relevant national laws of the
Defendant Bulgaria are Articles 463(2), 464, 465, and 466 of the Criminal
Code of Procedure. That those provisions of law read as follows:
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 Bulgaria 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.
.1 That the Defendant Bulgaria is advised that the Plaintiff Kapoustin
is acting pro se.
.2 That the Plaintiff Kapoustin is a ward of the Defendant Bulgaria,

Ministry of Justice, Respondent.
.3 That the Plaintiffs have requested the Defendant provide for the
appearance of the Plaintiff Kapoustin as a witness and litigant to a
hearing or trial date to be fixed by the litigants.
.4 The Defendant is advised that the Plaintiffs are indigent and

unable to afford legal counsel.
.5 The Defendant is advised that the Plaintiff Kapoustin is to

represent himself and other Plaintiffs at any hearings or trial.
.M That Plaintiffs Complaint to the European Court of Human Rights Is Unrelated.
.1 That the Plaintiff Kapoustin has a pending action against the

Defendant Bulgaria under European Court of Human Rights
("ECHR") File No. PN6650/2000.
.2 That the causus of the above-entitled action against the Defendant

is unrelated to the causus before the ECHR.
.3 That the Plaintiffs' human rights action represents one of more

than 700 pending cases before the European Court of Human
Rights, none of which have, as their causus a commercial activity
or a contract or a tort by a Defendant State in the Province or any
other jurisdiction outside Bulgaria.
The documents, the authenticity of which admission is requested are:
.A That the following are true copies of original documents with the Defendant.
Exhibit No 1. December 31st 1991 letter to the Defendant Bulgaria, Academy of

Science.
Exhibit No 2. December 31st 1991 Federal Express waybill No. 400 2783 1425.

Exhibit No 3. April 29th, 1992 exclusive License Agreement with the Defendant
Bulgaria, Ministry of Health department, National Center of
Infectious and Parasitic Diseases ("NCIPD") [English only text].
Exhibit No 4. June 30th 1993 amendments to the April 29th ,1992 License
Agreement with Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 5. June 30th 1993 Agreement with representatives of Defendant

Bulgaria, Ministry of Health, Doctors Petrunov, Nenkov and
Shekerdjiiski.
Exhibit No 6. July 1st 1993 $3,000,000 USD assignment of April 29th 1993 license
to LifeChoice International AD.
Exhibit 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..
Exhibit No 8. September 9th 1993 payment of $6,000 USD to the Budget of the
Defendant Bulgaria, for delivery to the Province of 5,000 units of
Factor-R.
Exhibit No 9. November 19th 1993 Irrevocable Letter of Intent with Annax

Ventures, Vancouver, British Columbia for purchase and delivery of
Factor-R in the Province.
Exhibit No 10. November 19th 1993 Memorandum of Agency Agreement with Annax
Ventures, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Exhibit No 11. December 7th 1993 agreement for bottling in Bulgaria with Seagram
Canada, Eastern Region & Africa.
Exhibit No 12. December 20th 1993 Memorandum of Agreement with Silverton

Corp. of Worthington, Ohio or purchase and delivery of Factor-R as
Exhibit No 13. December 24th 1993 receipt that Defendant Bulgaria provided for the
$10,400 USD received into its budget for the processing of raw
materials into 8,000 units of finished product Factor-R for the
Province.
Exhibit No 14. January 3rd 1994 Contract No. 1 with Saknavtobi, Georgian State
Oil.
Exhibit No 15. January 13th 1994 Irrevocable Letter of Intent with LifeChoice
Partnership, Vancouver, BC or purchase and delivery of Factor-R in
the Province.
Exhibit No 16. January 13th 1994 Memorandum of Agreement of LifeChoice

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

Exhibit No 18. January 14th 1994 Memorandum of Agreement of LifeChoice
Partnership, Vancouver, BC and Silverton Corp., Worthington, Ohio.
Exhibit No 19. January 17th 1994 submission to the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of
Health.
Exhibit No 20. January 18th 1994 Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health approving
clinical trials for Factor-R.
Exhibit No 21. January 18th 1994 Protocol No. 193 of the Defendant Bulgaria,
Ministry of Health session of the Expert Council of Serums and
Vaccines [Bulgaria and English Transcripts].
Exhibit No 22. April 1st 1994 contract for $475,000 USD with Green Oasis
Environment, Charleston, South Carolina for the delivery of refining
equipment to the Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 23. April 29th 1994 Distribution Agreement Canpol Investment

Corporation, Woodbridge, Ontario and Novopharm Limited, Canada
Exhibit No 24. May 1st 1994 lease agreement with the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry
of Health for No. 3 Kraka Rd., Sofia, Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 25. May 1st 1994 lease agreement as endorsed by the Defendant
Bulgaria, Minister of Health Dr. T. Gougalov.
Exhibit No 26. June 2nd, 1994 letter of direction from National Institutes of Health,
Maryland, USA, to the Plaintiffs.
Exhibit No 27. August 1st 1994 Contract for $600,000 USD with Green Oasis
Environment, Charleston, South Carolina or the delivery of refining
equipment to the Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 28. August 1st 1994 offer by Defendant Bulgaria for analytical
investigation of Plaintiffs product Factor-R.
Exhibit No 29. August 15th 1994 correspondence to Defendant Bulgaria, Minster of

Finance Alexandrov as to investment disclosures made to Ministry
of Finance.
Exhibit No 30. September 21st 1994 contract of the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of
Health department of National Center for Infectious and Parasitic
Diseases, Sofia, Bulgaria [English Language Copy] for exclusive
distribution in Bulgaria for its products of Respivax, Urostim and
Dentavax.
Exhibit No 31. September 29th 1994 contract with the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry
of Health department of National Center of Radiobiology and
Radiation Protection, Sofia, Bulgaria [English Language Copy].
Exhibit No 32. October 4th 1994 notice for the shipping of oil recycling equipment
for the Defendant Bulgaria from Utopia Fabricating Ltd., Pennfield,
NB

Exhibit No 33. October 31st 1994 correspondence of Plaintiffs to the Defendant
Bulgaria, Minister of Health [English and Bulgaria Text].
Exhibit No 34. November 23rd 1994 letter of the National Institutes of Health
rescheduling AIDS Clinical Drug Development Committee
("ACDDC") presentation by representative of the Defendant Bulgaria
for the Plaintiffs.
Exhibit No 35. January 4th 1995 Plaintiffs agreement with Seagram Canada,
Europe & Africa Division, London, GB.
Exhibit No 36. January 18th 1995 Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health

requirements concerning importation of Factor-R manufactured
abroad.
Exhibit No 37. January 30th 1995 purchase agreement concluded in the Province
for Plaintiffs product "PROTEC" to be manufactured for the Plaintiffs
by the Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 38. February 7th 1995 Amended Offer to Purchase in the province
6,100,000 common shares of LifeChoice Inc., Utah, USA from Mr.
Lindsey Semple.
Exhibit No 39. February 23rd, 1995 direction of Defendant Bulgaria Minister of

Health to free from import duty and taxes the aforecited AZT.
Exhibit No 40. March 1st 1995 receipt of the Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health
department of Infectious Diseases Hospital of Sofia signed by Dr. K.
Kostov. The document acknowledges receipt from the Plaintiffs of
$217,000 USD in Factor-R and $23,408 USD in AZT for use in
clinical trials conducted by the Defendant.
Exhibit No 41. March 10th 1995 exclusive Trade License Agreement with the
Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health department of National
Center for Infectious and Parasitic Diseases.
Exhibit No 42. March 21st 1995 letter (Ref. No. 47-22-215) of the Defendant
Bulgaria, First Deputy Minister, Prof. P. Uzunov, Ministry of Health to
the Plaintiffs concerning their transfer of the balance of AZT
inventory shipped to Bulgaria. This inventory was provided to the
Defendant Ministry of Health department Infectious Diseases
Hospital of Sofia.
Exhibit No 43. March 23rd 1995 AWB No. 020-6920-3816/01 for 80kg of AZT
shipped to Bulgaria and collected by the Defendant.
Exhibit No 44. May 4th 1995 letter of Mr. Todd Rohling, on behalf of Plaintiff to Mr.
Sasho Russev on behalf of Defendant.
Exhibit No 45. May 4th 1995 receipt of the Defendant, Ministry of Finance,
Bulgarian National Bank, Department for Financial Audit, Inspector
Sasho Russev on delivery of Plaintiffs corporate records.

Exhibit No 46. 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.
Exhibit No 47. June 3rd 1995 purchase agreement with M.A.O. Ltd., Tibilisi,
Republic of Georgia.
Exhibit No 48. July 7th 1995 correspondence of codefendant Doornbos to the

Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 49. July 13th 1995 bank transfer of $72,000 USD to the budget of the
Defendant Bulgaria, BalkanShip, Varna, Bulgaria
Exhibit No 50. July 26th 1995 bank transfer of $23,990 USD to the budget of the
Defendant Bulgaria, Ministry of Health for delivery to the Province of
10,000 units of Factor-R.
Exhibit No 51. August 3rd 1995 invoice No. 95041 of $ 9,875 USD paid to the
budget of the Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 52. August 14th 1995 complaint to the Defendant Bulgaria of illegal
seizure of property in transit..
Exhibit No 53. October 15th 1995 contract with Shoter Rustavelli Academy of
Theatre.
Exhibit No 54. December 13th 1995 memorandum of Defendant Bulgaria's meeting

in scienter with codefendant Doornbos.
Exhibit No 55. January 31st 1996 Letter of Intent with the Government of the
Republic of Georgia, City of Rustavi for acquisition of recycling and
refining equipment of Plaintiffs.
Exhibit No 56. April 1st 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 57. July 3rd 1996 Invoice No. 95034 of $7,900 USD payment to the
budget of the Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 58. August 9th 1996 Note Verbale Government of Canada.
Exhibit No 59. August 14th 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 60. August 23rd 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 61. September 12th 1996 extract news article Frankfurter Rundschau,
page 3.
Exhibit No 62. May 23rd 1997 Case Note Government of Canada indicating the July
of 1995 warrants for arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin.
Exhibit No 63. July 2nd 1997 correspondence of codefendant Doornbos to the

Defendant Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 64. 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.
Exhibit No 65. December 15th 1999 reply Ref. No. 99-H-111/96 of the Defendant
Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice, advising Plaintiffs attorney that the
Defendant Bulgaria never attempted to contact the Plaintiffs directly
or for that matter the Government of Canada.
Exhibit No 66. January 3rd 2000 Affidavit of Attorney Anastasios S. Koimtzidis that
no subpoena was attempted to the Plaintiffs in Greece.
Exhibit No 67. The Law on Foreigners Stay in the Republic of Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 68. The Law on Foreign Investments in the Republic of Bulgaria.
Exhibit No 69. The Sofia City Court commercial register, corporate statistics
showing the par value of LifeChoice International A.D. at
2,000,000,000 (two billion) Bulgarian Leva as of June 16th 1995,
equivalent at the time to $74,000,000 USD investment by Plaintiffs
in the capital stock of the corporation.
Dated: Thursday, January 04, 2001

________________________
Michael Kapoustin
pro se Plaintiff

Use Af1016 Facts

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 Af1016 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FORM 60 (RULE 51)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

The facts, the admission of which is requested are:...............................................................................34

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 1 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 2 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 3 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 4 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 5 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 6 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 7 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 8 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 9 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 10 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 11 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 12 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 13 of 73

The documents, the authenticity of which admission is requested are: ..............................................68

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 14 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 15 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 16 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 17 of 73

31. READ TO HERE ONLY

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 18 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 20 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 21 of 73

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 23 of 73

64. I am unable to determine upon what representations of the Plaintiffs or other

65. I am unable to determine upon what material representations of the Plaintiffs in

72. You are free to call her a liar.

74. Monday Marianna needs to arrange a notary to come here.

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 25 of 73

79. Here summarise chronologically (quoting figures USD equivalents) starting

80. Your are permitted to express your opinion or conclusion.

81. This would include Krakra, Shuhodol, etc..

89. Each as cited by me somehow originated from or was to be concluded in the

95. According to a document dated 16 October, 1991, and upon my best

98. Marianna need names to the “Then” whatever!

105. 32 1 "December 24, 1993" To:Ministry of Health "Invoice of NPSK

106. 2 2 "January 13, 1994" To: Ministry of Health Request

109. 5 8 "January 18, 1994" From:Ministry of Health Extract of

112. 39 3 "April 29, 1994" Contract CANPOL Acquisition by

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 30 of 73

116. 41 2 "June 14, 1994" To:CANPOL CDN As per Tab. No. 39

119. 38 2 "July 26, 1994" To:NOVOPHARM CDN As per Tab.

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 33 of 73

.I Defendant, the Republic of Bulgaria ("Defendant" or "Defendant Bulgaria")

.1 That on December 7th 2000 respondent for the Defendant, Deputy

.2 The Defendant Bulgaria has copies or originals of all contracts and

.3 That Defendant knew the Plaintiff Michael Kapoustin (“Kapoustin”)

.4 That the Defendant knew the Plaintiffs to be permanent residents

.B That Defendant As A Practice Engaged In Commercial Activities.

.I The Defendant Bulgaria's activity in the Province, as connected to the

.1 That from 1949 to 1995 the Defendant Bulgaria, had a common

.2 That as a practical matter upto 1998, the Defendant has

.3 That among the commercial activities of the Defendant there are

.5 That as a practical matter any commercial activities in or as

.6 The Defendant Bulgaria was to develop for Plaintiffs, inter alia, a

.7 The Defendant agreed to manufactured for the Plaintiffs a ready

.8 That the Defendant signed contracts to produce for the Plaintiffs

19177444.docCreated on 15/06/2005 00:23:00 Page 35 of 73

.I The Plaintiffs commercial activities and contracts [see §Gbelow] in or

.1 Prof. Dr. Uzunov, MD, Ph.D., Biology, President of the Medical

.2 Mr. Konstantin Kostov, Managing Director, Electronic and Magnetic