By Frank Parlato
Staten Island District Attorney Michael McMahon, 67, stated in a sworn complaint filed with the NYPD that he was “afraid for his safety/life” after receiving a Substack email at his official government address.
In the complaint’s “Victim’s Emotional Impact” section, McMahon answered “YES” to the question: “Is victim fearful for their safety/life?”
The email, received at 10:51 a.m. on Sunday, July 13, was one of a series distributed by the political newsletter “Is This for Real,“ authored by Florida-based journalist Richard Luthmann, 45, and sent to more than 33,000 subscribers.
The offense listed in McMahon’s complaint is “Criminal Contempt in the First Degree,“ a Class E felony under New York Penal Law § 215.51, punishable by up to four years in prison.
McMahon alleges that the Substack email sent by Luthmann violated an order of protection issued by New York State Supreme Court Justice Marina Cora Mundy, which, according to the complaint, remains in effect through October 26, 2028.
Email Content and Legal Context
The email that prompted the criminal complaint does not mention McMahon by name. Authored by Dr. Bandy Lee, a New York-based psychiatrist, and introduced by Luthmann, it was sent to McMahon in his capacity as a public official, at his official email address: michael.mcmahon@rcda.nyc.gov.
The message contains no explicit or implied threats of violence.
The email criticizes New Jersey Superior Court Judge Jane Gallina-Mecca and calls for her impeachment. Records indicate that McMahon’s office had been receiving the newsletter since at least June 20, 2025. As with all Substack newsletters, the message included an unsubscribe link, allowing recipients to opt out at any time.
According to the complaint filed with the NYPD’s 120th Precinct in Staten Island—where District Attorney McMahon serves as the county’s top law enforcement official—Luthmann made no threats, nor was there any physical contact or injury.
The charge stems solely from an alleged violation of an order of protection via one email communication. Under New York law, criminal contempt in the first degree can apply when the protected party finds the communication threatening, alarming, or harassing.
The reported incident occurred at McMahon’s office at 130 Stuyvesant Place, Staten Island, where he opened the email on Sunday, July 13. He filed the complaint the following day, with Sergeant Detective Supervisor McGovern of the 120th Precinct.
Origins of the Conflict (2015)
In the NYPD complaint report, the section that asks whether the suspect and victim are strangers, was marked “Yes“ to indicate they were strangers.
That designation appears to contrast with their prior public and legal interactions, including a documented dispute dating back to 2015
That year, Luthmann—then a Staten Island attorney, Reform Party of New York law chair, and outspoken political commentator—created a satirical Facebook page lampooning McMahon, who was running for District Attorney. The parody, which referred to McMahon as “Smilin’ Jack” and mocked his political allies as the “Irish Mafia,” included exaggerated graphics and clear disclaimers. The page was labeled as satire and linked to McMahon’s official campaign website. It did not impersonate McMahon or claim to be authentic.
In the same 2015 District Attorney race, Luthmann publicly supported Republican candidate Joan Illuzzi, criticizing Democratic contender McMahon for what he described as a lack of courtroom experience.
Luthmann also alleged that McMahon’s campaign had submitted fraudulent designating petitions, citing multiple signatures purportedly from deceased individuals. The Staten Island Advance reported on the controversy and described the petition issue as “fraud.”
Despite the allegations, McMahon won the general election and assumed office as Richmond County District Attorney in 2016.
Luthmann also played a role in bringing public attention to a secret audio recording, allegedly captured by whistleblower, court clerk Michael Pulizotto, involving New York State Supreme Court Judge Judith McMahon, then the administrative judge for Richmond County and wife of District Attorney Michael McMahon.
Luthmann represented the whistleblower.
Judge McMahon and her husband DA Michael McMahon “conspired to develop and use Part N (the special narcotics part) as a way to steer grand jury applications away from judges who were deemed ‘defense oriented judges’ and towards the Honorable Charles Troia,” Luthmann told the New York Post in 2017.
The tape reportedly revealed Judge McMahon’s involvement in establishing a “Special Narcotics Part“ (SNP) in Staten Island criminal court. The SNP allegedly allowed her to route drug-related search warrant applications to Judge Charles Troia, who was perceived as more favorable to law enforcement, thereby bypassing Judges Mario Mattei and Wayne Ozzi, who were viewed as more skeptical and focused on due process.
According to Luthmann, this judicial routing arrangement allowed the DA’s office to secure warrants that might not have survived stricter judicial scrutiny. He alleged that the arrangement gave DA McMahon’s office a tactical advantage in obtaining search warrants, facilitated by his wife’s judicial discretion.
Following the public disclosure, the Special Narcotics Part was dismantled. The New York State Office of Court Administration demoted Judge Judith Macmahon from her chief administrative post and reassigned her to Manhattan as a trial-level judge.
For their parts, the whistleblower was punished and Luthmann faced retaliation from DA McMahon.
The District Attorney’s office led by Michael McMahon did not initiate a criminal investigation into his wife, Judge McMahon’s conduct.
Retaliation and Prosecution
Three years after Luthmann created a satirical Facebook page that lampooned then-District Attorney candidate McMahon, and shortly after McMahon’s wife, Judge Judith McMahon, was demoted, District Attorney McMahon’s office initiated criminal charges against Luthmann for his Facebook parody page.
Because McMahon stated he was the alleged victim in the case, he recused himself and sought the appointment of a special prosecutor. A judge approved the appointment. The first special prosecutor declined to pursue an indictment after reviewing the case, citing First Amendment protections applicable to parody and political satire.
McMahon then selected a second special prosecutor, Staten Island attorney Eric Nelson. Nelson ultimately brought a felony indictment against Luthmann for criminal impersonation and falsification of business records—charges stemming from the Facebook page and its contents.
Public contracting records indicate that attorney Nelson has secured additional legal work from Richmond County agencies following his appointment as special prosecutor.
Federal Case and Protective Order
During the time that District Attorney McMahon pursued criminal charges against Luthmann for a satirical Facebook page, the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of NY indicted Luthmann on federal charges involving a scrap metal fraud scheme linked to informant Guy Cardinale. Those federal charges, unrelated to McMahon, ultimately led Luthmann to enter plea agreements in both state and federal cases. He served approximately four years in federal custody on the federal matter.
Luthmann has never been convicted of a violent offense involving McMahon.
According to the current criminal complaint, McMahon does not claim any physical threat, contact, or injury. It explicitly states that no weapons were used and that the matter is not associated with hate crimes, gang activity, or stop-and-frisk enforcement. He only alleges that the single email made him afraid for his safety/life in violation of the protective order.
Luthmann maintains he was never served with the order of protection. Under New York law, a violation of a protective order generally requires that the subject had actual notice of its terms.
It remains unclear whether sending a general newsletter to a subscriber list—without direct contact, personalized targeting, or threatening language—constitutes a violation of a protective order under New York Penal Law § 215.51, which requires proof that the defendant intentionally disobeyed a clearly communicated order of protection.
The criminal complaint filed by District Attorney McMahon requires judicial authorization to issue an arrest warrant. However, according to a recorded statement by NYPD Warrant Detective John Wilkinson, judges in New York generally approve such warrants when the complainant is a sitting district attorney who claims to fear for his safety or life.
If a judge signs the warrant, the NYPD may initiate an out-of-state apprehension of Luthmann in Florida. Extradition proceedings would then be triggered, and Luthmann could be detained in a Florida county jail from 30- 90 days pending transfer.
Extradition as Punishment
Standard extradition practices often involve contracted transport services that move detainees across multiple states over a period of days or even weeks. Individuals in custody are typically handcuffed and shackled with waist chains and are transferred between various local jails overnight. The routes are rarely direct. Transport vans typically stop in multiple jurisdictions to pick up or drop off other detainees. This process can result in prolonged travel under physically uncomfortable and restrictive conditions—and result in a defendant being detained for weeks or months before any legal challenge is heard—regardless of the underlying merits of the case.
Risk to McMahon
Should the complaint be found legally tenuous or retaliatory, District Attorney McMahon could face scrutiny from the media, legal ethics panels, and oversight bodies regarding his use of prosecutorial authority against a political critic.
DA Michael McMahon m,ay not have experienced any real fear for his safety but instead might be merely looking to punish a political adversary using his office as an illegal conduit. His risk today with a growing awareness of weaponized justice is far greater than it was when he first prosecuted Luthmann.If federal authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice, determine that McMahon misused his office to retaliate, possible consequences could include criminal prosecution, civil liability, professional discipline, or removal from office. Potential criminal charges may involve 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law), a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison, and 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (obstruction of justice), a felony carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison.
The case remains open and under investigation by the NYPD.
Editor’s Note:
A Case of Weaponization of Justice?
The potential of weaponization of justice clearly exists in this McMahon criminal complaint against Luthmann and to a degree that it should be reviewed by authorities who are watching for this kind of misconduct.
It may be true that McMahon was afraid for his safety and a stranger to Luthmann or it could be outright perjury and obstruction of justice. It is gratifying that the authorities and influencers of justice might take note and find this case a texbook example of what they are trying to eliminate from America.
It will be my pleasure to bring it to their attention. If McMahon’s motives were pure he has nothing whatsover to worry about, but if his motives were pure retailiation, then he may have a problem.
Stay tuned for my continuing posts on this topic.
One of America’s greatest advocates for the ending of the weaponization of justice by prosecutors is Roger Stone.
This case will not climb under the radar.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
