EXHIBIT “D”

TO: SUPREME CASSATION PROSECUTOR’S

OFFICE
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
Prosecutor N. Kolev
Your Ref: 11838/99

COPY: EMBASSY OF CANADA

CONSULAR AFFAIRS
MR. J. BELL
BUCHAREST, ROMANIA

COPY: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AND LEGAL

EURO - NTEGRATION
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA

APPEAL
Michael Kapoustin - Citizen of Canada
Ruling by the SCP
According to Article 182 para (2) Penal Process Code

The Appellant extends his compliments to SCP Proscecutor Kolev for his letter of
23.03.2000 whereto was attached a copy of his ruling dated 16.03.2000 upon the subject
matter of the Petitioner’s criminal complaint as filed on 06.12.99.

Part I - the Appeal

It is appealed SCP Kolev reconsider his decision as set down in his Ruling. This is
merited and incumbent under the instance upon the grounds of new facts, circumstances
and materials previously not available the SCP which objectively and evidentially
establish that:
- The statutory period set down under Article 80 para (1) point 5 PC had been
preserved by the Appellant according to the allegations as qualified by him
under Article 284 para 1 PC
- There is new evidence of another crime alleged to have been committed by the
said investigator S. Georgiev which is qualified as prosecutable under article
286 para (2) in conjunction with Article 287a items 3 and 4 of the PC and 282
para (3) PC

1
 - There is new evidence of crimes alleged to have been affected by the said
investigator S. Georgiev and others which are qualified under Chapter
Fourteen Section III of the PC in conjunction in whole or in part, with the
Article 116 para (1) item 2, 5 and 6 PC, or in the alternative Articles 122 para
(2) or 123 para (2) or 124 para (1) PC. In instances where death has not
resulted the allegation would qualify under Article 128 para (2) PC.

This allegation involves 145 known victims in the United States and an
unknown number of victims within Bulgaria and elsewhere.

- The acts alleged and documented, if proven true, are of such a character as to
demand that SCP Kolev petition, the Supreme Judicial Council under Article
132 para (2) of the Constitution of RB, to lift the immunity of investigator
Georgiev and other perpetrators in order that they might be investigated and
possibly proscecuted.

A pronouncement upon this Appeal by SCP Kolev is requested within the three day
statutory period designated under Article 183 para (2) PPC.

Part II - Pleadings

The decision by SCP Kolev not to investigate or prosecute investigator Stefcho Georgiev
under Article 284 para (1) PC and 282 para (3) PC is wrong. In that the conditions under
Article 21 para (1) item 3 PPC in conjunction to Article 80 para (1) PC are not present,
and therefore cannot be applied.

The following facts under the case are in evidence and must prevail in the instance.

Documental evidence and facts establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the Appellant
had signaled the MPPO within the statutory period documented under Article 80 para (1)
PC.

It is inexplicable and beyond the competence of the Appellant to ascertain the motives of
representatives of the MPPO in not acting upon the Appellant's complaints as lodged by
him and as incumbent upon them according to law.

The Appellant will permit SCP Kolev to, himself, determine the grounds for denying the
Appellant the protection of his rights under law. The complaint as filed by the Appellant
on 06.12.99 under SCP Ref. No 11838/99 is upon the same subject matter as signaled to
the MPPO on 09.07.96, 25.07.96, 08.08.96, 19.08.96, 21.08.96 and 14.09.96 by the
Appellant and the governments of Canada and the FDRG.

The statutory period has been preserved.

2
Furthermore new crimes have been discovered and the alleged criminal misconduct of
investigator Georgiev and others have lead to serious consequences to the Appellant and
the loss of life of other victims.

These consequences represent serious breaches of national and international law by the
accused S. Georgiev and others. They further represent, in the immediate instance,
circumstances which make a fair trial impossible.

The acts as evidenced here qualify as serious crimes according to the penal code of the
RB. They have been affected by an official of the Bulgarian State in pursuit of his official
duties. The crimes in evidence were only possible to affect because of the official
character and power to the perpetrator S. Georgiev and others.

In his capacity and authority as a police investigator Georgiev did secure the physical
coercion and torture of the Appellant to conceal as well as effect crimes committed by the
investigator and others he sought to protect. The investigator did further mislead the
judiciaries of two countries and guided witnesses, providing evidence to them, in order to
obtain depositions and investigative materials and conclusions favorable to him as an
investigator under the case.

The allegations are grounded upon the following:

A.

- The Appellant has filed a formal complaint of official misconduct against the
said investigator S. Georgiev on the 8th and 19th of August 1996. This was
affected within a week of the offence as alleged and evidenced by the August
1st, 1996 "Continent" newspaper article. The Appellant makes reference to
Exhibit No 1 as attached.

- The Appellant did file the said complaints by way of Canadian and FDRG
ministries of foreign affairs to the MPPO of the BR.

Through the respective governments diplomatic notes the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs RB was notified to advise the MPPO of the alleged therein violations
as committed by the investigator under the case. The Investigator being
responsible for the arrest of the Appellant by Interpol. Concerns were
conveyed by the respective governments of Canada and the FDRG as to the
motives and truthful character of allegations made by the said investigator S.
Georgiev. Reference is made to Exhibit No 2 as provided here.

- The Interpol section of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police contacted

Bulgarian authorities on August 21st, 1996 concerning the public slander of
the Appellant by the said S. Georgiev. Wherein Canadian police authorities
stated that the August 1st, 1996 “Continent” articles’ allegations as well as
other articles appearing prior to and after the date, were untrue, misleading and
false. In their so doing the "RCMP" did ground the Appellant’s claims of
3
 criminal misconduct on the part of supervising investigator S. Georgiev. Your
attention is drawn to Exhibit No3, page 2, last paragraph.

- Subsequent to the Appellant’s extradition to the RB on 07.09.96, he did

undertake to and did file, with the Government of Canada, from the hospital
facilities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs RB, a written protest where on
page 3, paragraph 3 and 4 thereof he cited that no action had been undertaken
concerning the malfeasance of the investigator under the case, S. Georgiev,
towards the Appellant. The SCP is referred to Exhibit No 4 as attached.

- This Sept. 17, 1996 letter was the last such letter the Appellant was able to
smuggle out from arrest without fear of the intervention of the investigator and
the beatings which this Appellant would later be subjected to once moved
under the exclusive physical control of the investigator herein accused.

- SCP attention is further drawn to Exhibit No 5 as provided here and appearing

on page 56 file volume 44 of cccc1403/98. The document issued by the
MPPO, Ref. No. 5274.96.111 on 17.10.96 establishes that on 09.07.96 and
26.07.96 the Appellant has signaled MPPO Proscecutor Topourov that he, as
the accused under arrest in Frankfurt, Germany, had good reason to believe
that investigator S. Georgiev was misrepresenting the facts, releasing false and
misleading information to the mass media and harboured ill will.

Furthermore, there exists new evidence of other crimes and official

misconduct qualified under penal Articles 282 para (3) and 286 para (2).

- There exists under the official court record of 14.01.2000, of cccc1403/98

evidence that the said Georgiev, in order to falsely accuse and incriminate the
Appellant did distribute company financial documents as officially seized and
possessed by him as investigator under the case and this to numerous persons,
in large quantities, with the objective to utilize the said documents to
incriminate the Appellant. These documents, identified under the case as "Gold
Certificates" were given to witnesses interrogated by investigator S. Georgiev
and in contact with him. The said "Gold Certificates" have been expressed
under case cccc1403/98 as the evidence establishing the amount for which the
Appellant should be incriminated under the instance and as representative of
the fraud alleged under the case.

- This act, as expressed above, in conjunction with those acts further cited, do
collectively by their nature and their intended purpose, express a premeditated
plan to falsely accuse and imprison the Appellant. Consequently each instance
of misrepresentation by the said investigator S. Georgiev before a judicial
authority of Bulgaria and the FDRG qualifies as a prosecutable offence under
Article 286 para (2) PC.

- The suppositions of criminal misconduct and ulterior motives of the

supervising investigator under the case are as well grounded upon official
4
 documents offered by him to the FDRG, which contained untrue and
misleading statements. The most outstanding of which was the representation
of the supervising investigator to the FDGR of being a "judge"
("untersuchungsrichter") and "chief judge" ("hauptuntersuchungsricher") of
the "Sofia City Investigative Court". This and other bluntly untrue
representations were affected to facilitate the Appellant’s arrest and extradition
by the FDRG.

- This successful official deception of the FDRG by S. Georgiev, a police

investigator, in collusion with others, is documented in the rulings of the
FDRG and their diplomatic notes wherein references to "Judge Georgiev" and
his "orders of detention" proliferate.

- The deception as evidenced in these documents was knowingly instituted, with

forethought, by the investigator as accused, in order that he might circumvent
the requirements of international law as incumbent under Article 12 para 2
item (a) of the ECE in conjunction with Article 25 ECE. Wherein it is clearly
cited that a signature of a "judge" upon an order of arrest or detention is
incumbent upon members nations of the European Council and obligatory
according to the superceding law of the ECHR under Article 5 para1 abstract
(b).

- The said S. Georgiev misrepresented to the FDRG his legal and judicial
competence as legislated under international treaties in order to secure an
arrest and extradition which he was not authorized under the ECE or ECHR to
affect.

- This act, as cited above, is qualified as a prosecutable offence under 282 para
(3) PC in that he misrepresented and exceeded his legal authority.

B.

- The consequences of criminal misconduct as alleged herein against the person

of the Appellant are grave. But the crimes evidenced constitute not only crimes
against justice but crimes against humanity, for which there exists no statutory
limit for proscecution.

- The Appellant is only one highly visible public victim of the said investigator
S. Georgiev and other perpetrators. The crimes alleged in fact involve
numerous victims. The modus operandi and the available corpus delicti of the
acts alleged to have been affected on 145 American citizens, and 36 Bulgarian
citizens are materially in evidence and are qualified as prosecutable offences
according to Penal Code, Chapter Fourteen, Section III. Each act is
individually prosecutable under Articles 116 para (1) items 2, 5 and 6 or the
alternative supposition under Articles 122 para (2) or 124 para (1) of the PC.

5
 - The individual instances of each act, where death has not resulted as a
consequence of the act, the act is still proscecutable according to Article 128
para (2) PC.
- The said investigator S. Georgiev and other perpetrators are directly
responsible for the suffering and death of those victims named in Exhibit 6 as
attached hereto as has been provided to the European Court of Human Rights
and the Attorney General of the State of Texas. The circumstances of the
crimes alleged together with the classification of the victims yet to be
identified under the instance are cited therein and presently under
consideration by these judicial authorities.

The aforestated facts as alleged and substantiated under the case of Kapoustin, et al vs the
Republic of Bulgaria, Defendant, as submitted to the jurisdiction of the court of Human
Rights Strasbourg (Ref. No PN6650), and the civil action affected in the United States
under Article 1605 (a) subparagraph 5 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, make
any decision of the SCP under Article 70 in conjunction with Article 132 para (1) of the
Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria meritless.

It is incumbant upon the SCP to consider the merits of a request under Article 132 para
(2) CRB to the Supreme Judicial Council to lift the immunity of the said Georgiev and
others potentially responsible for the criminal misconduct as alleged. And to immediately
institute an in-depth investigation.

C.

The SCP Kolev is further reminded that from 07.09.96 until or about 21.08.98 the
Appellant was under the severe physical coercion and threat of the herein accused
investigator S. Georgiev, his associates and colleagues at the "Nassar" facilities of the
National Investigative Service at 42, “G.M. Dimitrov” Blvd, Sofia. During which time:

- All contacts and correspondence with attorneys and visiting diplomats were
monitored. This circumstance made impossible any complaints by the
Appellant against the investigator, S. Georgiev, since he had the Appellant
under his physical control.

- The Appellant has been subjected, on the order of Georgiev and others, to
repeated beatings and drugging during the period of his physical coercion
under the direction of Georgiev. There was no question that any comlpaints
undertaken by the Appellant against Georgiev and others would result in
additional beatings and torment.

- These circumstances an adequate deterrent under the instance to pre-empt the

Appellant from undertaking any legal action during the period of his physical
coercion at the order of S. Georgiev.

6
 - The Government of Canada had requested, as had the Appellant, repeatedly, a
physical examination by Canadian doctors in that there was substantial cause
for concern for the health and well being of the Appellant. The requests are
well documented at the ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs of the RB.
These requests were rejected. Had they been honored, the Appellant’s beating,
torture and drugging would have been apparent from these examinations.
Exhibit 7 demonstrates this undertaking of the Government of Canada as early
as October, 25, 1996. Several weeks after the beatings and torture began.

- The degree of physical and psychological coercion affected against the

Appellant was severe and was employed by investigator S. Georgiev in order
to ensure the Appellant’s silence concerning the crimes committed by the
investigator and other perpetrators as alleged herein.

- Investigator S. Georgiev sought to further force the Appellant’s co-operation in

locating and collecting substantial sums of money believed to be in the
Appellant’s care or alternatively his control. Beating, druggings and starvation
were instituted to disorient and subdue the Appellant in order to secure the
sought after sums of money. It is apparent, under the circumstances, that the
Appellant has been, during his detention under the direct order of the said S.
Georgiev, incapable of lodging any further complaints against either the
investigator or others without risking his physical safety and life under the
case.

Such circumstances clearly mitigate the issue of statutory limits as incumbent and
considered under Article 80 para (1) PC. This is grounded in that the crimes committed
against the person of the Appellant and others were still in progress up to including
August 1998.

This being the instance under the case makes the period, in which to report the crimes not
effectively expiring until August 2000.

An investigation must be instituted in that all the requested conditions are prevalent
according to Articles 187, 188 and 199-192a of the PPC.

Should the SCP elect the alternative, as has been the practice, then any verdict of guilty in
case cccc 1403/98 will be grounded upon evidence fabricated and altered during the
investigation by the supervising investigator S. Georgiev.

More disturbing the SCP will be condoning these crimes alleged under Chapter Fourteen,
Section III of the Penal Code should it refuse to institute a perliminary investigation upon
the matter of a crime against humanity.
Wherein not only will the SCP and Republic of Bulgaria be endorsing violations of the
Appellant’s right to fair trial under Article 6 para (1) of the ECHR. But the SCP refusal to
investigate will, de facto, grant the right to its officials to violate the right to life and
property without torment with impunity against citizens of other nations.

7
Respectfully submitted this twenty-fourth day of April 2000.

Michael Kapoustin