Reverend Father William J. Lombardy

12 Stuyvesant Oval, Apartment 6-B

New York, NY 10009

November 4, 2015

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

First Judicial Department

Departmental Disciplinary Committee

61 Broadway, 2nd Floor

New York, NY 10006

An Open letter to Members of the “Disciplinary” Committee:

The American public has little respect for lawyers. And with ample reasons. As far back as the 17th Century, William Shakespeare said, “First, kill all the lawyers!” Benjamin Franklin noted in both caricature and text that, “one should firmly avoid lawyers and stay out of courts entirely if possible.” Gilbert and Sullivan wrote a play critical of lawyers, and even in the Roman Empire (over the course of 1,500 years), the lawyers could never claim a clean slate as their reputation. Not only were the emperors highly suspicious of “the click” known as the legal community, they were roundly criticized and they knew that there was already the danger that the lawyers could use the laws for their own agenda, which your bar association is ready to do by the very fact that you refuse to accept the criticism outlined in a clear document by my side, which states (without any error) exactly the defects in his behavior. These were defects because we pointed out that they were not only defects, they were serious fraud, and he paid no attention to the requests of his client, except by a patronizing manner in every letter he wrote.

Every letter he wrote to this elderly clergyman (Reverend Father William J. Lombardy, M.A., M.Div., M.A.) who was previously proud that a religious man (an orthodox jew) was representing him, reminded me of the apparently mentally defective Reverend Father William J. Lombardy, M.A., M.Div., M.A. that “the reason I took your case was to prevent your eviction.” Stuff and nonsense!

It seems to me, the very reason Mr. Rubin Englard (member of the New York State Bar) took the case and likely the only reason was that he was getting ample compensation, monetarily. He gets guaranteed money by taking clients who are indigenous to poverty. Just as the swearing of the hippocratic oath as a person enters the medical field as Doctor of Medicine does not guarantee his or her ethic, so to does a member of the bar who has sworn to be ethical cannot guarantee to the public that he or she will not violate his or her oath.

The violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct is technically, and actually, a violation of law, and the bar association full well knows that. Apparently, the evidence we presented versus Mr. Englard apparently was not sufficient in their confusion. We presented you with one fact after another that Mr. Englard perpetrated.

The Reverend Father William J. Lombardy, M.A., M.Div., M.A. knew from experience, study and valid evidence, that the representative of the landlord (the only representative that we are aware) was acting fraudulently. Now it is imminently clear that I do not use words emptily. He was perpetrating a fraud.

Not once did Mr. Englard even object to the fact that the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) — which keeps records on what landlord’s charge their tenants for rent — has no record of my being in my apartment for the last 15 years!

After filing a complaint with the “Departmental Disciplinary Committee” stating fact after fact: violation of procedure, law and ethical code, and after receiving your patronizing response, I no longer wonder why lawyers have incurred so much reasonable criticism over the centuries.

Shakespeare was correct; there are nearly no lawyers on this planet who will live by the standards of moral and professional decency most citizens (and non-citizens) have come to expect from salaried professionals, and my knowledge of history (which is rather extensive), including the 1,500 years of Roman history; the lawyers were somewhat better than they are now. Nowadays lawyers are in the habit of doing anything they please because they don’t expect to be corrected.

You have been accustomed to having your way, and when you see that a lawyer is not having his way and is severely threatened with criticism your association that once had some respect simply has lost even that. You do not wish to take into account the shavy behavior of a comrade in arms, and react like a spoiled child, closing ranks to protect a member of your crowd.

You forget that when you take an oath to pass the bar that the violation of an oath is a crime. But, you passed off our list of crimes as if they were a list of meaningless gibberish and not to be taken seriously, when the proof is there before your very eyes. You reacted by closing rank to protect your ever-so-admirable buddy: Childish behavior, when it concerns accusation of crime, by, of all people, a legal association. This is not a street gang that protects it’s own or a crime family.

So, you mock my person as if I were purveying to you a revelation of my ignorance, when, instead, I can prove (and I have already told you in my complaint) that I gave you chapter and verse of the violations that are well enough documented by any schoolboy. If you exhibited such behavior in a courtroom before a judge as “trivial,” you would already be behind bars. Therefore, you have forfeited any respect your bar association once held by your own casual treatment of reprehensible action. Furthermore, there to protect me, Rubin Englard was instead there to protect the landlord and I can certainly prove that.

Furthermore, let us note that the actions of lawyers in our modern age in our modern country are longer capable of meriting that respect I say you have forfeited.

Forbes magazine (January 18, 2013) says “It’s OK to Hate Lawyers.” The author of this article is a lawyer, herself, and she says that “Cronyism runs law firms.” Cronyism rather obviously runs the “Disciplinary Committee,” too!  Your decision proves it! Huffington Post (July 12, 2011) asks and answers: “Why We Dislike Lawyers.”  The latest Harris poll “puts attorneys way down at the bottom of the list of the public’s general perception of occupations that have the most honesty and integrity.”

That I can provide substantial evidence to you of my lawyer’s abject incompetence and his obvious bias in favor of my profiteering opponent and you do nothing about it, suggests (in the very least) an unconscious bias (and taking pleasure in the rape of my person — which my attorney knew of, fast moving into two years by my landlord — while my life is on hold while my lawyer loves the landlord) in you towards your own profession, not the decency you supposedly value.

If Rubin Englard were a heart surgeon, he would have murdered me on the operating table by ripping my heart to shreds with a meat clever and you would have applauded his “fine surgery” as a miracle of modern science.

How else can I describe Mr. Englard’s dubious failure to deliver on his noble (but unfulfilled) promise to help me receive SSDI whilst my income dwindles so dangerously low? How else can I describe Mr. Englard’s abject failure to demand real and solid evidence that I did not pay legitimate rental charges? How else can I describe Mr. Englard’s princely demand that I (a disabled senior) meet up with him and he, thereafter, is the one who fails to show up? The list goes on and on and you—a “disciplinary committee”—can do nothing but applaud his professional lack of diligence.

I’m afraid you have left me with no choice but to go public with my evidence!

CNN reports in a segment titled “Dr. Oz Suit is Another Reason People Hate Lawyers.” (March 25, 2013) Who knows what CNN will say after my Second Circuit Appeal is rendered public? The New York Post has already interviewed me for several hours.

Your recent decision not to reprimand Mr. Englard, my attorney of some six (6) months, will not simply disappear like a puff of smoke into the wind, most especially when the day may shortly arrive when the populace rises up against you and takes to heart Shakespeare’s bloody advice.

Since you took over six (6) months to reach a conclusion, and, even then, you were wrongly defending the guilty — but that would be standard operating procedure for your profession, now wouldn’t it? — so much so that you rather praise the guilty than discipline them, as the title you purport to sponsor (Disciplinary Committee) demands by pure logic you do as you say.

Should I not hear from your committee with a more reasonable conclusion, given the evidence provided you, I will be forced to reveal to the greater public (through my own resources and connections) the reprehensible decision you made to honor the guilty rather than discipline him as you should properly do.

As a priest with much forgiveness in my heart for even the most foul sinner, I pray for your souls that soon you might become enlightenment to the fact that the guilty need not always be defended with swords of selfish reason.

Committee Members! Your vile and repugnant defense of Mr. Englard won’t go unnoticed. The public shall hear of this villainy protecting villainy. I pray that you recognize the foolishness of defending such a morally bankrupt attorney as Rubin Englard before you meet your Creator, whom I have spent many decades getting to know, mind you.

If we can say anything with great assurance it is this, my fellow creatures: Our Loving Creator does not smile upon those who would so easily dishonor and disrespect the “least of us” for mere profit. Mr. Englard and you (as a “Disciplinary Committee”) are profiteering off the backs of disabled and impoverished tenants batting a corrupt Housing Court and professional landlords that will (apparently) stop at nothing to throw rent-paying tenants out of their apartments. Why? To replace them with deep pockets who are willing to pay double and triple what loyal tenants have paid for decades (so as to remain in their apartments under protection of “law”).

In God’s Holy name I pray your misguided souls find redemption in rectifying your repugnant response to my legitimate complaint,

Reverend Father William J. Lombardy, M.A., M.Div., M.A.