Passion Julinsey, the Complaining Party
April 15, 1998
I am upset at the events of yesterday, in which the DA was allowed to re-instate the charges against me without my attorney being present.
|
Passion Julinsey, the Complaining Party
|
Mr. Fink is not an associate of my attorney. Mr. Fink also later told me that he knows nothing about my case. He explained that he was "on duty" in this part and that he just answers the calendar call whenever the regular attorney does not show up.
Mr. Fink also later told me that your actions were entirely routine and that nothing he said would have made any difference.
I disagree. Had my attorney been present, he could have enlightened you as to the facts and circumstances of this case.
This entire proceeding is just part of a series vindictive acts by my former girlfriend, Passion Julinsey, to gain revenge on me. Passion Julinsey is a lawyer who works for a major Wall Street law firm. Yet, she continues to pursue these matters against me, matters which have no basis in fact or law.
On January 18, 1998, while I was in the bath, Passion Julinsey called the police. Two police officers, Officer Tracy Badge # 7796, and Officer Goldman, Badge # 5555, arrived just as I was getting out of the tub.
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.
You must understand that under the New York City Rent Regulations, this is a dangerous allegation. Once a person has lived in a house for 30 days, they become a tenant and cannot be evicted without a court order which takes months to get. Since this house was for sale with the understanding that I had to move out as soon as the house is sold, she could really cause a lot of trouble for the real estate company and for me by claiming herself to be a legal tenant.
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 guest.
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 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 very 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, I asked her to give me the keys to the house, as she had the only key to the top lock, so 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, she did give me the keys. 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 keys back. This was at 11:30 AM and she was late, because she was supposed to be at work by 12:00.
I came home that night at 10:00 PM. I found a lemo of the type which her law firm provides her whenever she goes home after 8:00 PM parked outside with a Pakistani driver waiting. I went inside and found her packing to leave. I went to work on my computer and told her that I would still like for her to stay, but I made no real effort to convince her not to go.
I have since found out that on February 13, 1998, she went to the police in Manhattan and gave an entirely different version of the events of January 18, 1998. The police in Manhattan referred the matter to Detective Wright of the 73rd Precinct in Brooklyn. Detective Wright called me down to the police station on February 19.
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.
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 was brought which was presented to you yesterday.
It was readily apparent that the DA who presented the charge to you yesterday did not know anything about it. He was not even sure of the statute. Also, the attorney who stood up for me admitted to me later on that he had not had time to read the "corroborating affidavit".
If you read the affidavit, you will see that it does not make out a crime. I work in a law office as a paralegal and I have looked up the statute and the relevant cases in the lawbooks. In no case has the allegations of the sort contained in the corroborating affidavit resulted in a conviction under this statute.
More than that, I have medical evidence proving that her story is untrue. 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.
I am demanding by copy of this letter to the DA that Passion Julinsey be arrested and prosecuted for making a false report and causing my false arrest. In addition, she has harassed and menaced me such as by causing a threatening letter to be sent to me, a copy of which I enclose. I also demand that medical tests be made of my medical evidence, at state expense.
You did not merely reinstate the case against me. You also issued a new order of protection without my attorney being given the opportunity to speak. The fact is that I have not seen, spoken to or communicated with Passion Julinsey since she moved out of my house on January 18. She does not need protection from me. Rather, I need protection from her.
When I protested in your court and asked for postponement so that my attorney could be present and argue the case, not only did you not grant a reasonable adjournment but you actually punished my by referring the case to the next court at an accelerated date of today. This is unfair to me, because the next judge will not know this history and the reasons why you first properly dismissed the case and then reinstated it.
According, I hereby request a rehearing by you on this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Sam Sloan