Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FORM 125(Rule 65) - Outline as Respondents

FORM 125(Rule 65) - Outline as Respondents

Ratings: (0)|Views: 62|Likes:
Published by Michael

More info:

Published by: Michael on Aug 29, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
FORM 125 (RULE 65)Dated: March 19
th
2001
No. S004040
VANCOUVER REGISTRY
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
TRACY KAPOUSTIN, NICHOLAS KAPOUSTIN BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEMTRACY KAPOUSTIN AND MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN
PLAINTIFFSAND:
THE HONOURABLE MURAVEI RADEVMINISTER OF FINANCEIN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITYFOR REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA,
DEFENDANT
andSTEFCHO GEORGIEV, MARIO STOYANOV, EMILIA MITKOVA, KINA DIMITROVA,IVETA ANADOLSKA, DIMITAR SHACKLE andDEREK A. DOORNBOS,
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTSAND:
REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
 
Muravei RadevMinister Of Finance
PETITIONERSAND:
MICHAEL KAPOUSTIN et al.
RESPONDENTS
OUTLINE
PART II
1.
Position of Respondent:1.1.The outline is provided this Honorable Court is to the best of limited time andabilities of the Respondents as
 pro se
Plaintiffs . As a result of their indigent statusand the Plaintiff Kapoustin being incarcerated pending final sentence, it isrequired Respondent represent himself in the above entitled proceeding. It is pleaded to this Honorable Court and the presiding Judge to be patient with theawkwardness inherent when a lay person, by his or her circumstances, is requiredto rely, as is this Respondent, on self representation. The following is relied upon.1.2.That there exists at this time no objective possibility for fair or full hearing on thesubject matter of the relief applied for by the Petitioner. The Respondent and other  parties of record are presently under a legal disability.
/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch1/21517096.doc08/29/09Created by M. Kapoustin
1
 
1.3.It is submitted to this Honorable Court’s consideration that the granting, at thistime, of Petitioner’s motion for a hearing would deny the Respondents, as lawfulresource users, their right to due process and the exercise of their legal rights aslitigants in the province. The rendering of justice becomes doubtful as a result.1.4.Petitioner’s dependence on Rule 65, Rules of the Court, is inappropriate andcontributes further to placing Respondents under a legal disability. Reliance onthis chambers pilot project is not proper as it does not provide all the Plaintiffs or interested party as intervener an adequate forum for a full display of the factsnecessary for a fair and comprehensive hearing of the controversy at issue or thoserequired to proceed on hearing on a complex point of international and nationallaw.1.5.Further the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance,is responsible for placing all parties of record and the Respondents under a legaldisability. This arises from a written direction to officials of the Defendant’sCentral Authority, the Ministry of Justice, that in matters pertaining only to thePlaintiffs, its officials are not to observe their national law or the relevantenactment for service of foreign judicial or extrajudicial documents on theterritory of the Republic of Bulgaria.1.6.This Honorable Court should not grant any relief sought by the Petitioner whilethe Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance,knowingly persists in violating provisions of the Defendant’s national law andrelevant international treaties. Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei RadevMinister Of Finance should first remove any cause and end whatever conduct of those officials of its agencies or instrumentalities who are responsible for obstructing the Plaintiffs and the Respondents from the full and adequate exerciseof their legal rights as litigants. The Petitioner thereby satisfying the requirementof relevant Canadian and international law.1.7.That it is impossible, in the time fixed by provisions of subrule 65(13), Rules of the Court, as relied upon by the Petitioner, to fully and fairly lay before thisHonorable Court all the information necessary to enable it a proper assessment of Plaintiffs claims that this Honorable Courts jurisdiction is proper and just over theDefendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev, Minister Of Finance in theabove entitled proceeding.1.8.That further, the time fixed and relied upon by the Petitioner does not provideRespondents sufficient opportunity to submit adequate evidence to this HonorableCourt to permit it an objective assessment of why the request for immunity byDefendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance, is withoutlegal merit.1.9.That the alternative relief requested by the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria,Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance, to have this Honorable Court decline its jurisdiction is further without legal cause or factual merit. The material facts anddocuments available overwhelmingly support both the principle of original or alternatively supplemental jurisdiction of this Honorable Court over thecontroversy in that the above entitled action.1.10.That, given adequate time by this Honorable Court, Respondents are able toassemble sufficient evidence of property loss, breeches of contract, personal injuryand other tortious acts suffered in the province as a direct or vicarious result of theDefendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance.
/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch1/21517096.doc08/29/09Created by M. Kapoustin
2
 
1.11.Are that the material facts document a clear connection observably flowing fromacts of the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria. Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance,into and demonstrably in connection with residents and property rights in the province. Such facts are consistent and sufficient for jurisdictional requirements asto permit a claim for relief,
in personam
, with respect to which a foreign state isnot entitled to immunity.1.12.That the Petitioner is required to provide proper notice and adequate time this,
 sine quo non
, a right of all parties of record and those known to have a legalinterest in the above entitled proceeding. This period should have been, but isobservably at this time not, sufficient to permit an opportunity for all the parties of record to marshal relevant facts and law to oppose the application of theDefendant, Republic of Bulgaria. Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance or to permit organizing the attendance of all the litigants at the hearing.1.13.The observable fact is that the Respondents’ representative and numerous othe parties of record are presently outside of Canada. His or Her Honor mindful of thegeographic distances, languages as well as the physical and legal constraintsobstructing the Respondents ability to comply with the time fixed by Rule 65,Rules of the Court..1.14.Is to respectfully submit that the application for the relief sought by the Petitione be set aside for a period of time to be determined by this Honorable Court.Mindful that there is no obvious question of urgency which represents a relevantfactor in the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria, Muravei Radev Minister Of Finance refusing to consent to extending the time under Rule 65 or for directingofficials of its Central Authority to violate international treaties and local rules for service of foreign judicial or extrajudicial documents on the territory of theRepublic of Bulgaria.1.15.Respectfully this Honorable Court is asked to recall that the observableinternational character of this proceeding imposed certain responsibilities upon the parties to exercise a special due diligence and care in insuring that the rights of alllitigants or interested parties in and outside the province or Canada are clearlyobserved. Each party of record responsible to making best efforts in preserving the principle of 
equality at arms
before this Honorable Court.1.16.As a result of the aforestated it is respectfully submitted as just and convenient for this Honorable Court to dispense with Rule 65, this rules application inappropriatefor the above entitled proceeding in that there exist numerous parties of record andcomplex factual and legal matrixes that are best resolved through a process of discovery and finally trial.1.17.Alternatively should the Honorable Court proceed to a hearing despite theRespondents previous observations and objections the relief sought by theDefendant, Muravei Radev, Minister Of Finance should still not be granted on thegrounds set out as follows.1.18.The Petitioner’s application has erred with respect to advancing the argument thatthis Honorable Court has no jurisdiction over the Defendant, Republic of Bulgaria,Muravei Radev, Minister Of Finance.
/opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch1/21517096.doc08/29/09Created by M. Kapoustin
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->