Reply in Complaint against Attorney Jon Fink

Sam Sloan
2411 Tilden Ave.
Brooklyn NY 11226

(718) 469-2831

August 27, 1998

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq., Chief Counsel
Departmental Disciplinary Committee
First Judicial District
41 Madison Avenue - 39th Floor
New York NY 10010

Re: Complaint of Mr. Samuel H. Sloan,
Docket No. 98.2688

Dear Mr. Thomas J. Cahill,

I am in receipt of the answer of Mr. Philip Katz on behalf of his law partner, Mr. Jonathan Fink. I find his letter arrogant and astounding. I cannot believe that any competent attorney would defend the obvious misconduct of Mr. Fink.

Mr. Katz summarizes by saying that my complaint is "frivolous, uninformed, and without merit."

One reason my complaint is "uninformed" is that Mr. Fink never spoke a word to me before my case was called. I did not even know who he was. When he stood up, I assumed that he was from the DA's office. I had no idea and no way of knowing that he was purporting to represent me. Also, as you can see from the transcript that I provided with my complaint, Mr. Fink never noted an appearance on the record in my case. It was only after the matter had been concluded that I was able to find out his name.

It is the most fundamental breach of ethics for an attorney to appear in a case without speaking to the client, especially where, as here, I was in the courtroom and eager to discuss my case.

Mr. Fink had a simple remedy. He could have called me over, identified himself, and asked to speak to me about the case. This would also have given me the opportunity to decide if I wanted him to represent me or not. It is obvious that I would have told Mr. Fink to get lost. Under no circumstances would I have agreed for him to represent me, especially since he then proceeded to waive my rights. A criminal defendant clearly has the right to refuse representation.

Unfortunately, the court reporter's transcript left out most of what was said before the court. I recall clearly telling Judge Kay that I wanted the case adjourned for a few minutes to give my attorney, Mr. Monteleone, time to arrive, as I had been told by his secretary that Mr. Monteleone was on his way to the courthouse. Mr. Fink objected to my request. There followed a verbal altercation between Mr. Fink and myself before the judge. Judge Kay, who perhaps did not know that Mr. Fink was a total stranger to me whom I had never even seen until the case had been called, punished me by setting the case for trial before a different judge the next day.

Mr. Fink still could have remedied the situation, as I asked him to do in the hallway a few minutes later, by going back before the judge and explaining that there had been a misunderstanding and that he was not and had never been my attorney and that the matter should be reheard. I asked Mr. Fink to do this, and indeed I demanded that he do this, and Mr. Fink refused.

It is for this reason and for his arrogant and wise-guy attitude throughout this entire affair that I believe that Mr. Fink is unfit and should be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.

In his answer, counsel for Mr. Fink says that I do not understand the difference between a dismissal on the merits and a dismissal without prejudice. How stupid does Mr. Fink think that I am? Perhaps Mr. Fink does not know that I once argued my own case orally before the United States Supreme Court and won 9-0. SEC v. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). Mr. Fink then says that a case which is dismissed without prejudice is still pending. This is not true. The DA can move to reinstate the case. Such motions can be argued and are sometimes not granted. I believe that if Mr. Fink had done what I asked him to do and go back into court and argue the matter, Judge Kay would not have allowed this obviously frivolous and meritless prosecution to proceed.

I am enclosing documents which will demonstrate what I mean. The first document is a police report written at the time the complaining witness, Passion Julinsey (my former girlfriend) had me arrested on February 19, 1998. It was prepared by Detective Wright, the arresting officer. Please take a close look at it. Observe that in box 16 it says "Deft. Related to Victim as Common-law Husband". Also, in box 11 it says that I was the complaining witness (my former girlfriend's) "domestic partner".

The complaining witness (my former girlfriend) is denying this, trying to claim that we had no such relationship. However, we did have such a relationship. None of this would matter now, except for the fact that the complaining witness (my former girlfriend) had me arrested, as a result of which the nature of our relationship is now an issue for the courts to decide.

In addition, although I do not know what the law is about common-law spousal relationships, now that there is an official governmental report on file saying that the complaining witness (my former girlfriend) was my common-law wife, this might have additional ramifications.

Several of the items in this police report are redacted. This was done by the police or by the DA, and not by me.

The next document is a police report dated January 18, 1998. This report was prepared by Officer Tracy, who was one of the two officers who came to our home after the complaining witness (my former girlfriend) called the police at 10:00 AM on that date. The complaining witness did not come home at all on the night of January 16, nor did she leave a message as to where she was or that she was not coming home. I was beginning to fear that she might be dead or in the hospital, and her mother was calling asking me to call the police, when she finally showed up at 6:00 PM on January 17.

To this day, the complaining witness (my former girlfriend) has never apologized for this egregious misconduct, which also involved leaving me locked out of my own house, because she had the only key to the top lock. I had only recently installed a new lock, because she had expressed fear that she might be raped. I had not made a duplicate. I had given one key to Passion and the other to the building owner, who unfortunately was not available on the fateful day that Passion disappeared.

I was extremely anxious to get this matter behind us. All she had to do was say "I'm sorry" and the matter would have immediately been forgotten. However, she did not say that. Instead, she attacked me verbally that night and renewed her attacks the following morning when I was still in bed with her and not even fully awake. Then, she called the police.

As you can see, in line seven of the police report it says: "Case Status Closed". It also says that there were no visible injuries. In fact, the two police officers spent more than one hour talking to the complaining witness (my former girlfriend). They repeatedly told her that no crime had been committed and that there was no basis to make an arrest.

Those two police officers were undoubtedly correct. The complaining witness (my former girlfriend) is not the victim of any crime. I am the victim. Ever since, for the past eight months, the complaining witness has repeatedly gone down to the police and to the District Attorney's office, insisting that I be prosecuted, when I have done nothing remotely wrong to her.

Next are the phone bills, because after the complaining witness (my former girlfriend) moved out of my house on January 18, 1998, she continued to charge her personal telephone calls to my telephone calling card. Frankly, I must tell you that when I first saw this, I was happy. My interpretation was that she still considered herself to be with me and therefore it was all right for her to make calls on my phone card.

However, I really wonder what her motivation was for doing this. Perhaps instead she did it to gain what she calls revenge.

It is noteworthy that almost all of the calls she charged to my bill were to her mother or to her sister. I wonder what the significance of this is. I am aware that she has not been getting along well with her mother.

Here are some of the calls. Note that most of them come from (212) 785-0933, which is the number of Hawkins, Delafield & Wood where she works, or from a similar number. Others come from (212) 245-9818, which is a pay telephone located in St. Joseph's Home where the complaining witness (my former girlfriend) now lives. In fact, I did not know that she lived there until I dialed that number, as it appears on my telephone bill, to find out what that number was. Here are the calls:

Date from to Time

Feb 16 (212) 785-0933 DENTON TX (940) 565-1245 05:39 PMG
Feb 17 (212) 245-9818 WOODMERE NY (516) 295-5246 12:03 AMR
March 7 (212) 785-0933 DENTON TX (940) 565-1245 02:10 PMG
March 7 (212) 785-0933 RICHARDSON TX (972) 669-9663 02:17 PMG
March 7 (212) 785-0933 AUSTIN TX (512) 370-0510 06:30 PMG
March 7 (212) 785-0933 BROOKLYN NY (917) 879-9265 06:34 PMR
March 7 (212) 785-0933 BROOKLYN NY (917) 879-9265 07:44 PMR
March 8 (212) 245-9818 TENAFLY NJ (201) 567-8309 01:22 PMG
March 8 (212) 245-9818 BROOKLYN NY (718) 852-3367 01:24 PMR
March 16 (212) 785-0932 RICHARDSON TX (972) 669-9663 08:02 PMG
March 18 (212) 785-0337 DENTON TX (940) 565-1245 10:57 AMG
March 24 (212) 785-0933 DENTON TX (940) 565-1245 10:53 PMG
March 29 (212) 785-0932 DENTON TX (940) 565-1245 05:36 PMG

The number in Denton, Texas which she called several times, (940) 565-1245, is the number of her mother, Ampun Howell. The number in Richardson, Texas, (972) 669-9663, is the number of her sister, Puncheep Wongsrikul, and her sister's husband. I also stayed at that number during the period when I was living with Passion Julinsey in her sister's apartment in Texas, before she moved to New York.

In addition to these 13 calls, all of which were clearly made by the complaining witness (my former girlfriend), there were a number of other telephone calling card calls which I do not remember making nor do I recognize the numbers of the people called. I am sure she made all of those calls, as I never used the telephone calling card during this period. I do not even remember the password. I do not have the telephone bill for the previous month, and presumably there are more calls on that bill.

On April 1, 1998, I moved and was given a new telephone number. My telephone calling card number was also changed. For that reason, the complaining witness (my former girlfriend) was no longer able to make calls on my account after that date.

Furthermore, the complaining witness (my former girlfriend) has sent bulk e-mails all over the world telling even complete strangers that I tried to rape her. As a result, I have received threatening letters from people whom I have never met. I enclose two such letters.

This has placed me in great fear and apprehension. I am not so much worried about the people who wrote me threatening letters as I am about the unknown numbers who have received letters from her and who might do something to me.

She often brags that two of her uncles are generals in Thailand who have the power to take over the Thai government any time they want. (Thailand has frequently experienced military coups.) Her father is a top police official in Thailand. She believes that with her education, which few Thai women have, her uncles will bring her to power some day and that Passion Julinsey will become the ruler of Thailand. This has made me fearful of traveling abroad.

It is outrageous that this crazy young woman who happens to have an American law degree and who took the New York State bar exam again just a few days ago is able to menace, threaten and harass me and yet I can do nothing about it.

It was Mr. Fink's job, if he was to be my attorney, to bring all of these matters to the attention of the court. He did not do so because he did not know anything about any of this. He did not know anything about any of this because he had never discussed the case with me.

Counsel for Mr. Fink says that I was provided with a written copy of the new charges. The document which I received is only a boilerplate recitation of the law. It does not set forth what I am accused of doing. It is particularly noteworthy that my girlfriend frequently changes her story. For example, when the police first came, for more than one hour, the two police officers, Officer Tracy Badge # 7796, and Officer Goldman, Badge # 5555, interviewed first her and then me and finally both of us together.

The first story she told the police was that she was working in my house as a cleaner in exchange for rent and that I was harassing her and trying to force her to move out and she had nowhere to go.

When the police asked me about this, I told them that she did not work for the real estate company, but that I did. I further told them that she had no relationship with that company, had never met them and that she was in the house only as my girlfriend and my guest, and that she paid no rent.

After that, she changed her story several times. Finally, her allegation was that I had touched her which, she said, was battery. The police replied that battery is not an arrestable offense in New York (which it is not, as I subsequently found when I looked it up in the law books).

When asked about this, I said that of course I had touched her, because there is only one sleeping area in the house and we were both sleeping in the same bed together. Naturally, when two people of the opposite sex sleep in the same bed together, they touch each other.

She told the police that the reason we sleep in the same bed together is that we have only one electric blanket and it is too cold at night to sleep in separate beds.

Finally, one of the police officers took me aside for a private conversation. He said that fortunately for me she had not accused me of doing anything which constituted grounds for arrest. In addition, they could see that she was lying because she had already changed her story three times. He also said that a lot of police discretion has been taken away from them, and that if she makes certain allegations, they would be required to arrest me even if they knew her allegations to be untrue. He therefore told me that this woman is dangerous and, as she has already lived in this house for more than 30 days, there is no legal way I could get her out, but he advised me to try to get her to move out as quickly as possible.

After this conversation, the two police officers left. As they were getting ready to leave, she told them that she wanted them to make a police report. They said that they could not make a police report because she had not alleged anything which constituted a crime and, without such an allegation, they had nothing to report. Finally, at her insistence, they made a report that I had harassed her, after telling her that they could not arrest me for that.

After the police officers left, she remained with me in the house. I asked her to give me the key to the house, as she had the only key to the top lock, so that I could make a duplicate. She protested, saying that she was going to move out and would give me the keys when she left. Finally, however, she did give me the key. I went outside and made a duplicate. As she was late to work, I met her on the street on her way to the subway and gave her the key back. This was at 11:30 AM and she was late, because she was supposed to be at work at Goldman, Sachs by 12:00 noon.

One month later, when I was called down to the police station, Detective Wright, who had obviously spoken to Officer Tracy Badge # 7796 and Officer Goldman, Badge # 5555, told me that he agreed with them that her claim was "bullshit" and that he did not believe her story. However, she said that he was arresting me on a charge of sending her an abusive e-mail.

There was nothing abusive about the e-mails I sent her. One of my e-mails she complained about expressed concern that she might be pregnant with our child. I wanted her to keep the child and not to kill it. She had often said that if she became pregnant with our child, she would have an abortion. I believe that this may have happened. She had obviously gained weight and there were other apparent signs that she might be pregnant, plus she had not taken birth control pills, even though she had previously taken them when she had been with other men. If feel fairly certain that she was pregnant, in fact. This would explain why she attacks me so viciously.

The charge of the abusive e-mail has never been presented to any court, as it was obviously without merit. However, after numerous changes in her story, the charge I faced when I finally appeared in court on February 20 was that of attempted rape.

Under these facts, the charge of rape or of attempted rape cannot be sustained under New York Law, for the following reasons:

It is universally established in every jurisdiction that a charge of rape or of attempted rape must be made promptly. "Courts have held that any considerable delay after the commission of the offense in making complaint, without an excuse that the law recognizes, is grounds for excluding the evidence of such complaint. Thus, statements made a day or several days or more after the commission of the offense, or even the same day if some time after the alleged offense, have not been treated as part of the res gestae." 65 Am Jur 2d Rape, Sec.82, page 809, citing People v. O'Sullivan, 104 NY 481, 10 NE 880.

"The rule with respect to prompt outcry in cases of forcible rape is that the complaint of injury should be made promptly or at the first suitable opportunity by the injured woman." People v. Gonzalez, 517 N.Y.S.2d 530 (Second Dept. 1987).

I think you will find it startling to learn that the author of two threatening letters I have received is not a low class thug. Rather, he is a prominent and important international businessman from the Philippines, who tours the world in his various business ventures. He is the editor and publisher of Business Horizons magazine. He is exactly the kind of man that Passion Julinsey likes to get involved with.

The fact that he is a married man is not of the slightest concern to her. While she was living with me, Passion Julinsey said that she wanted to go to bed with the top partners in her law firm, Hawkins, Delafield & Wood. She complained bitterly that none of them had asked her out. She was thinking of changing jobs because of this.

The author of the two letters, Gus Mercado, has only physically met Passion Julinsey once or twice, as I recall. She sought him out after reading a personality profile about him in a magazine. They have been corresponding by e-mail since.

The fact that Passion Julinsey would tell a virtual stranger such as him that I tried to rape her is just the tip of the iceberg. She has been writing dozens of letters all over the world to people who do not really know her, making this accusation. Her obvious purpose in doing this is to stir up enmity and hostility towards me. Her clear objective in this international campaign against me is to induce someone to cause me serious physical harm and injury and possibly even my death.

Of course, she never mentions that she was my regular girlfriend and that we were sleeping in the same bed together nearly every night. She tries to play upon this aurora of total innocence she manifests. None of the people with whom she corresponds could imagine her true character.

I have shown these e-mails both to the local police and to the DA's office. They have refused to do anything about these clear physical threats, while at the same time continuing to prosecute me, when it can be demonstrably proven that I am not guilty of anything.

I also need to clarify one important point. The story that Passion Julinsey is telling to the police, to the DA's office and to everybody else is that we had a Platonic Relationship and that, although we lived together, we had never had sex. For this reason, my medical evidence, which I still have, of a used condom which, when tested, will show DNA from both my sperm and her vaginal fluids, will prove conclusively that we have had sex together and that she is lying.

The Medical Examiner's Office has informed me that they are prepared, equipped, qualified and ready to perform this test. However, the DA has refused to agree to it. Since this evidence will prove who is lying, me or her, I believe that this is obstruction of justice.

I happen to have seven children. Everybody who knows me knows that I would not sleep in the same bed every night with a beautiful 24 -year-old girl like Passion Julinsey for three months and never have sex with her. Yet, this is what she is alleging.

I believe that Passion Julinsey is a menace to society. She is a law school graduate who will be admitted to the New York Bar.

Having a law license in the hands of a person such as her who is determined to use it to destroy the life of a person such as myself who was totally devoted to her, who lived with her, who loved her, who did everything I could possibly do for her and who never did anything remotely wrong to her, creates a serious problem for all society.

If there was ever a case where a woman should obviously be criminally prosecuted for bringing a false charge against her former lover, this is it.

This is an easy case. The first suitable opportunity came when Passion Julinsey spoke after the incident of which she now complains of attempted rape to Officer Tracy Badge # 7796 and Officer Goldman, Badge # 5555. However, she never told them that I had tried to rape her. If she had said that, they would have arrested me on the spot. She made a wide variety of allegations against me and changed her story three times, but she never alleged rape, attempted rape or sexual misconduct of any kind. When one of the officers pointed out to her that there was only one bed in the house and we had obviously been sleeping in the same bed together, she told them that the reason we sleep in the same bed together is that we have only one electric blanket and it is too cold at night to sleep in separate beds.

Moreover, when the police officers left the house at about 11:00 AM, she did not request their protection, nor did she leave with them. To the contrary, she stayed with me alone in the house. She did move out at about 11:00 PM that evening, however.

Finally, she is not a child or an imbecile. She is a bright and mature woman who has a degree in law.

I have reviewed the cases under the headings of rape and attempted rape. In no reported case has a conviction ever been obtained on facts in any way similar to those presented here.

The first time she made a complaint of attempted rape was one month later. By then, she had been to the police several times and had made a wide variety of allegations against me, none of which were sufficient to get me arrested. It is apparent that she wanted me to be arrested by any means possible and she brought this charge only after all else had failed.

This explains why Detective Wright refused to arrest me on that charge on February 19. He only arrested me on a charge of sending an abusive e-mail.

Thereafter, Passion Julinsey went over the heads of the police and went to the DA's office. In all probability, the DA did not realize that two police officers had been called to the scene of the so-called crime and had found no basis to make an arrest at that time. As a result, Passion Julinsey got the DA's office to bring a charge which the police were not willing to bring.

The "superseding information", which Mr. Fink says informed me if the charges, does not do so. If you will read it, you will see that it does not make out a crime. I have looked up the statute and the relevant cases in the law books. In no reported case has allegations of the sort contained in the superseding information resulted in a conviction.

What it describes is the sort of thing which frequently happens between husband and wife and between boyfriend and girlfriend. When understood in the context that Passion Julinsey was my regular girlfriend, that we had been sleeping in the same bed together almost every night for three months, that we had been regularly having sexual intercourse together, that we had not yet gotten out of bed on 10:00 AM that Sunday morning and were in bed together when the incident of which she now complains occurred, and that there is no allegation that I hit her, hurt her, injured her in any way, had sexual intercourse with her on this occasion or even touched her on her sexual parts such as the breast or vagina, it becomes readily apparent that the "superseding information" fails to set forth a legally cognizable criminal complaint under New York State Law.

More than that, I have medical evidence proving that her story is untrue. What I have is a used condom, left over from the time we last had sexual intercourse on January 16. A testing of this used condom by the Medical Examiner's Office will show DNA from both my sperm and her vaginal fluids. This will prove that we have had sexual intercourse in the past. I have attempted several times to present this medical evidence to the Medical Examiners office at 28th Street and First Avenue in Manhattan, to the DA's office and to Detective Wright. In each case, they have refused to accept and test this evidence. I have also called the DA's office and the police demanding that Passion Julinsey be prosecuted, and they have refused.

"It is the generally accepted rule that in prosecutions for rape it is permissible for the defendant to show that the prosecutrix had indulged in previous intercourse with him, for the purpose of raising the implication of consent. Such evidence bears directly on the question whether, having yielded once to the sexual embraces of the defendant, she would not be likely to yield again to the same person. In other words, it affords the accused a probability that he did not obtain by force what he might have obtained by persuasion or for money. The principle assumes that it is improbable that one who has procured what he desires without committing a felony to get it would commit crime to obtain it." 65 Am Jur 2d 811, Rape Sec. 84.

In this case, I did not have sexual intercourse with Passion Julinsey merely once but indeed did so more than 30 times. I met her for the first time in my life on October 2, 1997. She had come from Dallas to New York to look for a job and, since I work in a law office and she had newly obtained her law degree, her aunt (not really a biological aunt but her mother's friend from Thailand) introduced us to each other with the idea that I would help her find a job. I spent the next two days introducing her to my friends in Wall Street and in the field of investment banking where she was hoping to work and, at 10:00 AM on the morning of the third day, October 4, she came over to my house.

We did not have sexual intercourse on that occasion. All that happened between us that day was that I picked her up and laid her down on the floor and there followed hugging and heavy kissing. She had to catch a flight back to Dallas at 1:00 PM, which neither of us wanted her to miss. Yet, while walking her back to her aunt's house, which was near to mine, she started talking about calling the police on me.

She did not do this. Instead, over the next week, she sent me several e-mails inviting me to come to Dallas and stay with her. I accepted her invitation and arrived in Dallas on October 12. Within less than ten minutes after arriving in her sister's apartment for the first time (her sister had gone away on a Mediterranean cruise for her honeymoon) I was in her bed having sexual intercourse with Passion Julinsey.

I have been demanding to the DA that Passion Julinsey be arrested and prosecuted for making a false report and for causing my false arrest. In addition, she has harassed and menaced me such as by causing threatening letters to be sent to me, copies of which I enclose. I have also demanded that medical tests be made of my medical evidence, at state expense.

I have reasons for believing that she has a history of making false charges such as the charge she is making here. For example, when she was packing to move out of my house on the evening of January 18, she said "I am going to get revenge on you. I always get my revenge."

I replied, "Revenge for what? I have done nothing wrong to you."

"Yes, you did. You made me move out of here," she said.

I replied, "I am not making you move out of here. I would prefer for you to stay."

Her statement, "I always get my revenge" is one of several reasons why I believe that she has a history of doing this.

Other reasons are that, although she is an attractive and personable young woman who, according to her own statements, has had "less than 20" lovers in the past, none of her former lovers seem to want to have anything to do with her. She was distraught when one of her former boyfriends from Germany for whom she still carries a torch came from Germany and passed through New York on the way to Boston, without ever contacting her.

She has told me detailed stories about her former lovers. However, no man who had previously been involved with her ever called during the three months that she was living with me. Yet, she attracts men. On one weekend alone, seven different men called and asked her for a date. These were all men she had recently met. None of them knew her background or history.

Passion often said that her step-father, Bill Howell, had either molested her, tried to molest her, or at least had made a pass and tried to sleep with her when she was 13 years old. She often professed deep hatred of Bill, who died in 1996. The story she often told me was that in 1987 Bill, who was in his late 50s, had wanted to marry her sister, who was then 16. Bill had sent airplane tickets for Passion, her sister and their mother to come from Thailand to Dallas. However, after arriving, Passion's sister had decided that she did not want to marry Bill, so their mother had married Bill instead! As result, Bill, instead of getting a wife who was 16 years old, got a wife who was 46!

Passion's mother has confirmed most of this story to me. However, she says that Bill Howell was a good man who did a lot for the family. As to the claim that Bill tried to go to bed with Passion, the mother says that Bill once touched Passion on the leg and Passion immediately told her mother about it. The mother told Bill not to do it again, and Bill never did.

Passion's mother has admitted to me that her daughter, Passion, is "disturbed". The mother, Ampun Howell, called me numerous times after I was arrested trying to resolve the problem which she believed existed between me and her daughter. She also sent me money, because Passion never paid me any rent, apparently believing that this would help. When Passion found out about this, she threatened to break relations entirely with her mother if she did not stop contacting me.

On the second day that I knew Passion, she told me that Thailand has the highest rate in the world of penis detachment cases. Passion explained to me that when a Thai woman wants to get revenge on her lover, she cuts off his penis. Over the three months that I knew and lived with Passion, she mentioned this fact again and again, bringing it up about a dozen times.

The question arises: Why am I providing all this information in a letter to the Grievance Committee of the Bar, when it should properly be brought out at trial?

The problem is that, as anyone who reads the newspapers realizes, it is becoming increasingly difficult to present a defense in cases of this sort. In the highly publicized Oliver Jovanovic Case, Judge Wetzel ruled that e-mails exchanged between Mr. Jovanovic and his alleged victim could not be admitted into evidence. In one of those e-mails, the prosecutrix had directly said, "`hey i'm a sadomasochist'". Judge Wetzel ruled that this statement by the complaining witness was inadmissible.

Had the jury known about this statement, there is little doubt that Jovanovic would have been acquitted. More than that, the complaining witness denied under oath before the jury that she had ever made such a statement, even though she had.

I realize that Judge Wetzel sits in Manhattan and will presumably not be the judge in my case. However, the judge I get might be worse. My defense requires that Officer Tracy Badge # 7796 and Officer Goldman Badge # 5555 be called. My attorney might be afraid to call them, not knowing what they might say. Other items are the e-mails Passion and I exchanged before we became lovers. If Judge Wetzel's rulings are followed, these will be inadmissible. Another item in my defense is the used condom. Already my attorney says that it will be too dangerous to bring this up. It could easily backfire. Everyone has commented that it seems weird that I have preserved a used condom. In fact, the reason this happened was that Passion herself insisted that I throw it in the trash, or fear of stopping up the toilet.

In short, all the defenses which I have could easily evaporate. What will remain is a complaining witness who is a charming young woman who looks like the epitome of sweetness and total innocence. Most people who have met her believe that Passion is a virgin. Detective Wright and many others have been incredulous, not believing that I have slept with this woman, and having a hard time imagining that she even knows what sex is. The only details which might tip them off to the truth is that her name is Passion and she is from Thailand. In addition, investigators and the courts might have a difficult time learning about her background, because she recently changed her name to Passion Julinsey and moved to New York, where she has never been before.

However, the DA has unlimited opportunities to interview the various police officers who spoke to her plus other witnesses. By now, the DA must know that they do not have a case. At one court date, they offered a "violation", provided I agree to sex counseling. A more prudent man than I would have taken this offer. Later, they offered an ACD. However, I am recklessly insisting on a total dismissal of the charge.

It is clear that what the DA is now doing is trying to get me to agree to something to get the DA's office off the hook on a false arrest charge. As a result, I have to go to court again and again, and to devote time, resources and money to prepare my defense.

An attorney who puts a witness on the stand whom he knows will lie under oath can be the subject of sanctions, including disbarment. A case was decided by the Second Circuit only last month about this, Mackler Productions Inc. v. Cohen. The only way that I can be convicted is through the testimony of Passion Julinsey, and it can be proven that Passion Julinsey lies all the time, a fact of which the DA's office by now must be aware. Passion Julinsey was fired by Goldman, Sachs only a few days after she moved out of my house when they caught her in a lie.

It is entirely improper for the DA's office to hold me hostage when they by now know that I am not guilty and that there is no way that they can obtain a valid conviction. I realize that they have a problem. They probably want to get out of this case. They have offered an ACD, which I have refused.

All of this should have been presented to the court of Judge Kay, who had previously dismissed the case. Instead, without consulting me, Mr. Fink even waived the reading of the charges, something to which I would never have agreed. As a result, I still do not know what I am accused of doing, and the broad allegation of "attempted sexual misconduct" is unhelpful. In addition, Mr. Fink agreed to an order of protection against me when there is no basis for this and, in reality, I need an order of protection from her.

For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Jonathan Fink should be permanently disbarred from the practice of law.


Very Truly Yours,


Sam Sloan


What do you think of Passion Julinsey? Express your opinion in the guestbook!


Here are links:
Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: Sloan@ishipress.com