Complaint to the Grievance Committee of the Bar

Sam Sloan
153 Remsen Street
Brooklyn NY 11201

(718) 469-2831

June 26, 1998

Robert H. Straus, Chief Counsel
Grievance Committee for the 2nd
and 11th Judicial Districts
Municipal Building - 12th Floor
210 Joralemon Street - Room 1200
Brooklyn NY 11201

Re: Robert Pritchard

Dear Mr. Straus,

I hereby request that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against Robert Pritchard, Assistant District Attorney in the Sex Crimes Unit at 210 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn NY 11201.

The circumstances are as follows:

I am a defendant in a criminal case brought in Brooklyn Criminal Court by my former girlfriend, Passion Julinsey, who, incidentally, is a graduate of SMU Law School and a candidate for admission to the New York State Bar, although she failed her bar exam in February.

Passion Julinsey

The case against me was brought on February 19, 1998, but then was dismissed on March 24, 1998 without any objection from the DA. However, I subsequently received a call from my attorney, John Monteleone, who said that an ADA named Robert Pritchard wanted to reinstate the case and that I should appear in court at 2:30 PM on the afternoon of April 14, 1998.

The case against me is utterly frivolous and without merit, and demonstrably so. There is no way under the facts of this case to obtain a valid criminal conviction. This charge cannot be sustained under existing law and does not form the basis for a good faith modification of law. As a result, the prosecution of this case is sanctionable and could and indeed should result in disbarment of the attorney involved.

The circumstances of this case are is follows: Passion Julinsey was my regular girlfriend. We were living together in my house at 1813 New York Avenue, Brooklyn NY 11230, starting on November 11, 1997, the date she arrived from Dallas to live with me. We slept in the same bed together almost every night and had sexual intercourse regularly.

The last time we had sexual intercourse was on the morning of Friday, January 16, 1998. There was no problem between us that day. I had no basis to suspect that something was wrong. Indeed, that morning we had the best sex that we had had in weeks.

After that, she left for work, but she did not come home that night, nor did she call and leave a message on the machine that she was not coming home. No word was heard from her until 6:00 PM the following evening. By that time, I believed that she was either dead or in the hospital. Her mother, who had been calling from Denton, Texas to find out what had happened to her daughter, was frantic and hysterical, fearing that the worst had happened.

To make matters worse, Passion had the only key to the top lock of our house. I had recently installed a top lock, because she had said that she was afraid that she might be raped. I had given her one of the keys and had given the other key to the owner of the building, without leaving a key for myself. It had never occurred to me that she might not come home. As a result, when I returned from a shift as a taxi driver at 6:00 AM on the morning of January 18, I found that she was not home and I was locked out of my own house. In addition, the owner of the building was Orthodox Jewish and, as this was a Saturday, I could not call him to tell him that I was locked out of his building. I stood outside of my house all day long waiting for her to come home with the only key. Finally, at about 5:30 PM, I got a neighbor to climb from the roof of his house to the roof of my house and come down through the skylight and open the door. Passion came home a few minutes later. She arrived just after dark. I believe that she was waiting for it to get dark so that she would not be noticed entering my house.

She almost immediately started an argument with me, complaining that I should not have told her mother that she had gone missing. She said that I should have lied to her mother and said that everything was okay, even though it was not. She did not call her mother to tell her that she was all right. She waited for her mother to call, which she did, about one hour later.

Realizing that my girlfriend was obviously deeply disturbed about something, I decided not to argue and that we should just go to bed, which we did. As usual, we slept in the same bed together that night, which was the night of January 17.

I do not remember clearly what happened the next morning, because the main events took place when I was just waking up and not fully awake. I remember that the phone rang, which was not unusual, because Passion was constantly receiving phone calls. The phone was a few feet from our bed, so she answered it and then got back into bed with me. I do not remember exactly what she said next except that I remember that she told me that she was not moving out of my house because it was a too good a deal and she could not find a better place to live. I do not recall how this subject came up, but in view of the fact that she had not come home the previous night, the question would naturally arise that she might be planning to move out of my house.

A few minutes later, she told me that I smelled bad and should take a bath. I followed her advice, got out of bed, ran the bath water, and got in the tub.

Just as I was about to get out of the tub, I heard the police come in the door. She had called the police while I was in the bath.

For the next 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.

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 was sold, she could 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 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 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.

I came home that night at 10:00 PM. I found a lemo of the type which Goldman, Sachs 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 63rd 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.

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.

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).

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.

I am enclosing a copy of the "superseding information". If you will read it, 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 law books. In no 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 sex 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. Her story is that we had a "Platonic Relationship" and had never had sex. 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 sex 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 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 that. 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 on September 18, 1995. The story she often told me was that in 1987 Bill, who was 60, 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 the last court date, they offered a "violation", provided I agree to sex counseling. A more prudent man than I would have taken this offer. 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 yesterday 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. However, I have the solution:

Mr. Robert Pritchard should be permanently disbarred from the practice of law. I note that his boss, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes, is a candidate for Governor of New York State. I therefore ask that Mr. Hynes be disbarred as well.

Very Truly Yours,

Sam Sloan

Here are links:

Contact address - please send e-mail to the following address: