Ministry of the Attorney General Michael Kapoustin

Province of British Columbia c/o Sofia Penitentiary

Order in Counsel 13th Section
Administration Office 21, "Stoletov" St
Room 208A 1309 Sofia
Parliament Building
553 Superior Street
Victoria, British Columbia
Canada V8V 1X4

Request For Legal Aid and Assistance

To The Attorney General.

The Ministry of the Attorney General is respectfully asked to take notice that this application originates
from a citizen and permanent resident of the Province who is incarcerated in the Republic of Bulgaria. If
the Ministry of the Attorney General undertakes to investigate this Application it will discover the great
difficulty and threats of punishment that accompanied its delivery and preparation by the pro se
Applicant.

Application to the Ministry is an exercise of the Applicant's right pursuant to Article 14 §3 abstracts
(a)(c) and (d) of the International Covenant On Civil and Political Rights, U.N.T.S. No. 14668, Vol. 999
(1976), p.171 (the "Covenant") to which Canada is a party. And according to provisions of Ss. 11(a)(b)
and (f) of the Charter. The Applicant is under a legal disability and is obstructed from having access to
legal resources. As a result the Applicant is unable to submit applicable provisions of provincial or
federal law to further motivate his application.

1
WHEREUPON the Applicant must rely on the Ministry itself to identify and comply with the provisions
of applicable law and enactments of Canada when requested to undertake the following:

Part I The Crown v. Michael Kapoustin, Vancouver Jurisdiction

1. The Attorney General is required to preserve the Applicant's S. 11(a) Charter

right and to inform him in detail of the specific offenses that appear to be
outstanding [see IV through IV] and brought against the Applicant in the
Province. If the foregoing is true then:

2. The Attorney General act immediately to preserve the Applicant's S. 11(b)

Charter right to a speedy trail. The Ministry taking the necessary steps to
proceed to trial in the Province. Fixing a time and date for trial by jury
according to the provisions and requirements of the S. 11(f) Charter. That
when doing do:

3. The Ministry of the Attorney General undertake to also preserve the

Applicant's right in Covenant Article 14 §3(d) . The Attorney General to
comply thereupon by doing all things necessary and reasonable to secure the
Applicant his right to appear in person before a court of the Province at any
hearing or trial. The Attorney General insuring the Applicant's right to act in
his own behalf and thereby the Attorney General preserving the Applicant's S.
15(1) Charter right to equality at arms. The aforesaid rights of the Applicant
requiring that:

4. The Ministry of the Attorney General rely on provisions of the Extradition

Act R.S., c. E-21, s. 30, s. 31(2) and (3) and s. 32. (the "Act"). Further relying,
mutatis mutandis on s. 37 of the Act and applicable provisions of the national
law of the Republic of Bulgaria [see Vbelow] and international principle of
reciprocity.

5. The Attorney General is required to act in preserving the Applicant's rights

according to the provisions of S. 24 of the Charter. From the enclosures
provided and available prevailing facts the Charter violations appear to have
occurred as a result of investigative actions of the Ministry in the Province.
That, if the foregoing is not true or applicable:

6. The Attorney General should dismiss, if any, the outstanding provincial or

Canada wide warrants on the charges alleged to have been brought against the
Applicant in the Province.

7. The Attorney General to further advise the Applicant on what grounds the
Ministry requested on July 7th 1995 [see IV] that the Republic of Bulgaria
should prosecute the Applicant. Clarifying in the process exactly how the
Ministry had reached the investigative conclusions provided on that date to
the Republic of Bulgaria from the Province.

Part II Supreme Court of British Columbia Civil Case, Vancouver Docket S004040

1. The Attorney General is respectfully requested to act as an intervener in a

civil matter brought in the nature of a criminal proceeding [see State
Immunity Act R.S. 1985, c. S-18] for acts claimed as qualified by provisions of
S. 188, S. 3461(1), and S. 426(1)(a)(ii) and (1)(b) of the C.C.C..

2
 2. The Attorney General is required to investigate a possible violation(s) of
criminal law by the Defendant(s) in a civil proceeding. It is alleged that the
Defendant(s) seek to and are succeeding in obstructing the Applicant's rights
under Charter provisions S. 15 and S. 24. Threats of isolation and withdraw of
international human and civil rights are recorded under the instance case.
Physical violence has been previously employed.

3. The facts provide a prima facie case of the Defendant(s) direct or vicarious
criminal interference or obstruction of a judicial proceeding in the Province in
which the Applicant is Plaintiff. The Defendant(s) having as an objective of
their acts a favorable outcome at any hearing or trial of the controversies at
issue before the provincial court.

4. In the alternative the Attorney General is to motivate why the Applicant and
his family in the Province are not entitled to protection of law under the
Charter and other applicable international law as enacted by Canada.

Part III Relevant Facts

1. The Application concerns recently revealed documents that appear to

implicate that the Applicant was arrested and prosecuted in July of 1995 [see
VIbelow] at the request of and with the assistance the Ministry of the Attorney
General [see IV"Dobreva Affidavit" §3]

2. It is now also apparent that the Applicant had been convicted on March 13th
2001 as a result of the investigative conclusions and materials provided in
July of 1997 by investigating officers of the Attorney General [see IV
"Doornbos Submission" ].

3. It appears the Applicant, a Canadian citizen and resident of the Province, had
been arrested, prosecuted and convicted to a 23 year imprisonment as a result
of investigative actions and materials of the Attorney General.

4. It also appears now the arrest and conviction of the Applicant was grounded
by the foreign State, Republic of Bulgaria, only on statements from the
Province, represented as if fact by an agent of the Ministry and is as a result of
materials having originated in the Province on investigation of the Attorney
General.

5. It appears that the investigative agents of the Ministry of the Attorney General
provided to agents of a foreign state personal options presented in the form of
police conclusions as if fact, though knowing them not to be such. The
investigative conclusions and materials of the Attorney General were as a
result made public [see VIbelow].

6. It appears that as a direct result of the Ministry the Applicant has been arrested
on February 7th 1996 by the Republic of Bulgaria and finally convicted on
March 13th 2001.

7. At present the Applicant is incarcerated and restricted in his access to

international justice. However, the requirements, setout here and the
complaint are related exclusively to acts in the Province which impact on the
legal and Charter rights of the Applicant and his family in the Province as
lawful resource users of the Province.

3
 8. It is apparent that the sentence imposed by the Republic of Bulgaria of 23
years imprisonment is for an embezzlement of funds from a company wholly
owned and controlled by the Applicant and his family from in the Province.

9. It is apparent the embezzlement conviction is motivated by the Republic of

Bulgaria on materials and conclusions provided and given in evidence a part
of investigative actions by the Attorney General.

Admittedly this application requires the Office of the Attorney

General to engage itself in complex issues of applicable provisions of
international law, enactments of Canada and provisions rules of
criminal and civil procedure. While this application is admittedly
unorthodox in its nature, the requests are still well within the ambit
of the Attorney General's legislated authority and the jurisdiction of
courts of the Province.

The factual and legal circumstances of the instance case are

unusually complex and will require an open mind on the part of the
Ministry of the Attorney General. But the documents and other
material facts conclusively support the Applicant's complaint that
violations of law have occurred in the Province or are directly
connected to the Province.

These well documented facts and the nature of the personal suffering
and injury inflicted on the Applicant and his family in the Province.
make by necessity the Province and the Attorney General the
appropriate intervener for the Applicant.

It is the Applicant and his family's Charter rights, which must be

contemplated by the Attorney General. Rights which the Applicant
and his family as citizens and residents of the province are entitled to
have protected.

The Ministry of the Attorney General is called on to protect the rights

of its citizens and to consider in personam the acts of a foreign state
in the province.

Part IV Enclosures
Enclosure No 1. A Notice to Admit facts and documents in civil proceeding S004040
Vancouver Docket.

Enclosure No 2. The July 7th 1995 correspondence of codefendant Doornbos to the

Defendant Bulgaria.

Enclosure No 3. The December 13th 1995 memorandum of Defendant Bulgaria's meeting in

scienter with codefendant Doornbos.

Enclosure No 4. The April 1st 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant Bulgaria.

Enclosure No 5. The August 9th 1996 Note Verbale Government of Canada.

Enclosure No 6. The August 14th 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.

4
 Enclosure No 7. The August 23rd 1996 fax of codefendant Doornbos to the Defendant
Bulgaria.

Enclosure No 8. The September 12th 1996 extract news article Frankfurter Rundschau, page
3.

Enclosure No 9. The May 23rd 1997 Case Note Government of Canada indicating the July of
1995 warrants for arrest of Plaintiff Kapoustin.

Enclosure No 10. The July 2nd 1997 correspondence of codefendant Doornbos to the
Defendant Bulgaria.

Enclosure No 11. The July 9th 1997 copy of receipt signed in Bulgarian language by
codefendant Doornbos delivering documents from the province and giving
evidence against the Plaintiff Kapoustin.

Enclosure No 12. The December 15th 1999 reply Ref. No. 99-H-111/96 of the Defendant
Bulgaria, Ministry of Justice, advising Plaintiffs attorney that the
Defendant Bulgaria never attempted to contact the Plaintiffs directly or for
that matter the Government of Canada.

Enclosure No 13. The January 3rd 2000 Affidavit of Attorney Anastasios S. Koimtzidis that no
subpoena was attempted to the Plaintiffs in Greece.

Enclosure No 14. The February 23rd 2001 Affidavit of Ms. Maya Dobreva.

Part V Extracts of applicable provision of Republic of Bulgaria law.

Any such request by the Ministry of the Attorney General must comply with
the procedural requirements of Bulgarian national law legislated in Chapter
22 Criminal Code of Procedure. The law permits the conduct abroad and
temporary transfer of prisoners to attend trial as witnesses or litigants in
proceedings outside of Bulgaria. The relevant codes are Articles 461, 462,
463(2), 464, 465, and 466 of the Criminal Code of Procedure. That those
provisions of law read as follows:

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;

5
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.

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
6
 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.
Part VI Extracts of Enclosures.
1. 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 IVabove as attached hereto] co-

defendant Doornbos advised the Defendant that Plaintiff Kapoustin
had cash of $16,000,000 USD [see §5-§8below, 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.

7
 .5 That the July 7th 1995 information of codefendant Doornbos was
not corroborated by another source.

1. 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.

2. 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”

3. 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”.

4. 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.”

5. 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.”

6. 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.”

7. 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.

8. 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 IV as attached hereto].

8
.6 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 IVabove as attached hereto].

.7 That Defendant Bulgaria made public [see §] 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.

.8 That at the December 13th 1995 meeting, as cited above, the

codefendant Doornbos advised the Defendant Bulgaria that the
Plaintiff Kapoustin had been charged and convicted in Canada as
child molester and Pedophile. This information having later been
made public by the Defendant Bulgaria [see §and §].

.9 That on April 1st 1996 the Defendant received a request from

codefendant Doornbos [see IV 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”

.10 That on July 31st 1996 the Defendant Bulgaria solicited more
information concerning Plaintiffs property and activities in or
connected to the Province.

.11 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 IV as attached hereto].

.12 That on August 23rd 1996, codefendant Doornbos requested the

Defendant Bulgaria [see IV as attached hereto] again provide
information “with respect to Kapoustin and companies and
accounts that he had in the Caribbean” and connected to 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.”

.13 That on June 25h 1997 the Defendant solicited information and
data in the province from codefendant Doornbos.

9
 .14 That on June 26th 1997 the Defendant was advised by
codefendant Doornbos that he was “still awaiting in writing,
confirmation, information and the Rogatory Request promised” by
the Defendant Bulgaria.

.15 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
IV as attached hereto].

.16 That on July 2nd 1997 codefendant Doornbos personally delivered

to the Defendant documents obtained by him in the Province [see
IV 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 §8above] 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.
.

Dated: Tuesday, May 15, 2001

Applicant
Cc: Mr. Gar Pardy
Mr. Robert Kap
Ms. Tracy Coburn
Ms. Sofia Jordan

10