Supplementary Notice of Appeal Alteration of Transcripts Superior Court of Justice Belleville Ontario

Court File No. 060176

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (East Region)

B E T W E E N :

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

- and -

ANDY EFREMOV

Appellant

NOTICE OF APPLICATION

TAKE NOTICE that an application will be brought on behalf of the Applicant herein on Thursday, the 18th day of January 2007, before the presiding Justice at the Court House, set out in the Superior Court of Justice, Criminal Appeals, Belleville for an Order that the self represented Appellant receive a copy of the audio transcripts of the criminal trial to which he is appealing or be allow to have access to the audio tapes of that trial.

THE GROUNDS FOR THIS APPLICATION ARE:

Numerous discrepancies between what the typed transcripts say and what the audio transcripts of the actual trial should say.

IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT RELIES UPON THE FOLLOWING:

A brief, but not totally inclusive, sampling of the nature of these discrepancies include:

1. Page 199 #7: Reads: "I ask the court to consider one thing, given that while under the conditions of be of good behaviour, to keep the peace, and have no contact with Mr. Young I racked up 16 new additional charges".

I stated during the period of time between his (Mr. Young's) arrest in November 2005 and June 2006 Mr. Young racked up approx 16 new additional charges including three more criminal harassment charges, three assaults charges and 10 violations of conditions of release. On September 19, 2006 the Crown Attorney dropped all new charges despite clear video tapes of Mr. Young committing the new criminal acts against us in lieu of pleading guilty to one initial charge of Utter Threats and one court of Fail to Comply and arbitrarily replaced my wife's Victim's Impact Statement with a different statement she had made for Mr. Young's bail hearing thus denying her the right to read her Victim Impact Statement to the Court as she had requested in writing. We had been working closely with the Victim Advocate's Office to be assured justice would be done. It was not.

2. Page 195 #20: Reads: "Ah, one thing is about the abuse that I, I was accused of, I was granted a certificate to, ah, to proceed through the courts and I chose not to."

The transcripts state that I was accused of abusing. I had been sexually abused and raped repeatedly at Rosseau Lake School at the age of 12 for a period of 2 years. I would not have suddenly stated I had been an abuser at Rosseau Lake School nor would I have stated I "chose" to not proceed with that through the courts. I was incapable of proceeding through the courts at that time since my father had just passed away and my mother had just had a diagnosis of cancer and given a prognosis of 3 to 6 months to live.

3. Page 186: Omission

#10 The Judge stated that the testimony of the Police Officer Moore was iffy and not clear when he was stating Mrs. Friolet's being more credible than anyone else. He also stated that he had two people saying it happened whereas only one (Noel) saying it didn't and used the term 2 people vs 1. During that period he negated Officer Moore's testimony that Officer Moore never did attend to the complaint of threatening Mrs Friolet with a crossbow as alleged by both Mrs Friolet and Mr. Young.

4. Page 176 in total. Examples below: (Also we believe some testimony may have been taken out of order which makes line by line analysis)

#3 Reads "On the last occasion here, Mr. Efremov, page 49 of the transcript indicated that he took pictures of the daughter and girlfriend of the daughter of Mr. Young. Were you aware of that?"

#7 Noel stated "not that I'm was aware of but if he said he did then he did."

#23 Noel doesn't not recall stating what is in the written transcript she does believe what she stated was "If he did I wasn't aware of it".

#31 Noel believes she stated that we had told them we would take pictures because at the time they were dealing drugs in the driveway.

In reference to the Judge referencing page 49 of the transcripts of which I had no copy for the second portion of the trial: I'm very sure I said "I went outside with a camera to shoo away the kids selling drugs." The referenced transcript states as fact I was taking pictures of his daughter and girlfriend. I think this has been added. Where in the transcript is there evidence that this alleged statement is a fact given the police searched my home, camera and computer and recorded in their police notes that no pictures of the daughter had been taken. I tried to enter that in evidence however the Judge did not allow it.

5. Page164- 166: Omissions

Omissions occurred during this period of time as Crown Attorney Zegouras was badgering Noel.

Page 164 #0 Mr. Zegouras repeatedly emphasized was our N. Baptiste Lake property recreational property, not just once as written transcript indicates. He was firing questions but often not allowing her to complete her answers to the point where even he couldn't remember the initial question.

Page 166: Noel repeatedly stated regarding the alleged crossbow incident "nothing happened", and "if something happened then I wrote it down, nothing happened that day".

6. Page 159: #32 Omissions

Noel also stated we had lots of pictures we had taken of Mr. Young and that we had given them to the police. That these incidents had occurred after the initial arrest and then looked at the Judge and said "we were not allowed to bring that up here".

7. Page 153: #25 Reads: "About the threats, I continually, every time that the threats were made I told the police and no one"

Noel stated "and no one - no one would do anything.

#28 Should read Officer Mihell not Officer McCall.

8. Page 138 #5-10 "I was made aware of the accusation of the crossbow the night of the alleged fire assault. That is when Mr. Young told me I believe.' (This is Officer Moore referring to his notes). Q. (Crown) This was November the? A. "The 4th. Q. "The fourth."

We believe there may be a discrepancy there because both Mr. Young and Mrs. Friolet claim Officer Moore attended on or about 12 Oct 2005 and further, per Mrs. Friolet, "seizing the crossbow".

9. Page 119 (on or about) Omission

I asked Mrs. Friolet "Did you ever see your husband damaging one of our fence posts". She answered "No".

I asked this because we have a video of her watching Mr. Young harassing me do this as she was standing on her back porch watching and listening to him doing these things.

Also on page 119 #18 Reads "john boy, fag, or sally boy". Should read "jew boy, fag or sally boy". This is an example of just one word change can completely change the meaning.

10. Page 29 #1-4 Reads: A. I went in, downstairs, sat down, had a beer, up and out. Q. Okay A. Did I scan your house? No, I did not. Q. The question was were you ever in my-"

When Mr Young was caught in a lie, i.e. he states in his disclosure given to us by the Crown, that he had never been in my home, he corrected himself by saying what he meant was he was never actually in my basement. I had found this strange that a person only feels he has been in a person's home after he has been in ones basement. Mr Young states that he went downstairs, this is false. I know this because my basement was being used only to dry lumber from my sawmill and make gemstones. Seeing as I built the machine to make gemstones and would not allow anyone to see my trade secrets including several folks who asked to see it, it is not possible I would have let Mr Young view it. Not only did Mr Young say no as is attributed to him, he had never been in my basement.

11. Page 24 #11 Reads: "I don't know what it was, but it was definitely a handgun."

This makes no sense. What happened was Mr Young turned to the Judge and said "I think he has a hand gun". I clearly remember this as this was the only time I came close to losing my composure. Mr Young was making up another wild and unbelievable story. These fabrications were taken as facts, putting me in the position of having to prove they were lies. Given this, I spoke out in a loud manner challenging this wild new allegation. I believe I said "oh come on". Mr Young's statement has been altered and my statement deleted.

IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT RELIES UPON THE FOLLOWING:

The above alterations, omissions and deletions of the written transcripts, along with similar occurrences during the testimonies of Officer Moore, Mrs. Friolet and Mr. Young hinders our reliance on these written transcripts to complete the grounds for which we are appealing the wrongful conviction and sentence.

THE RELIEF SOUGHT IS:

We request a Court Order that we have access to the audio tape transcript of the trial, or at best receive a copy of the audio transcript of the trial so we may continue with our factum and appeal.

Further as we discussed in our previous hearing under the Honorable Judge Hackland we have completed our application for legal aide so we may obtain a legal aide attorney to take over our Appeal process. We were notified on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 that our application will be approved or disapproved by the Legal Aide Office on January 23, 2007.

_______________________________
Andy Efremov
PO Box 1936
Bancroft Ontario K0L 1C0
Telephone:
Fax:

TO: Lee Burgess
Counsel for the Respondent.

Return to Home Page

View Selected Transcripts Section