LUTHMANN NOTE: The Kenner case is not compelling because a convicted man says the government wronged him. Federal prisons are filled with men making that claim. It is compelling because the documents refuse to behave. Lawsuits, judgments, bank records, witness statements, and federal exhibits keep dragging Kenneth Jowdy back into the center of the story. The government won its verdict. Kenner lost his appeal. But verdicts do not erase contradictions, and bureaucracy does not transform disputed evidence into settled truth. Now cancer is running the clock. The system says the story ended years ago. The file keeps saying otherwise. This piece is “Shadows of the Syndicate,” first available on NY News Press.

By Richard Luthmann and Fernando Jiménez Burke

The First Collision

(CENTRAL ISLIP, NEW YORK) – Every good scandal begins with two stories that cannot both be true. In one version, Kenneth A. Jowdy is the polished visionary behind Diamante Cabo San Lucas, the founder-CEO who turned raw Baja coastline into a luxury golf empire, beginning with the 2009 opening of the Dunes Course and later expanding into a Tiger Woods-designed showcase.

In the other version, preserved in litigation long before the Philip Kenner trial became federal history, Jowdy is a magnet for investor fury: a developer sued in 2009 in Los Angeles Superior Court by a roster of former and current NHL players, including Tyson Nash, Bryan Berard, Jere Lehtinen, Sergei Gonchar, Michael Peca, and others, for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and accounting.

That second story alleged Jowdy solicited professional athletes and failed to carry out the most basic elements of the promised business plan.

The split-screen is where this chapter should live. Philip Kenner is not compelling because he says he was cheated. Half the federal docket is crowded with men saying somebody cheated them.

He is compelling because his story collides with public documents showing Jowdy was not some phantom later invented to dodge blame, but a real, litigated, money-soaked figure standing at the center of the Cabo project from the beginning.

That contradiction comes in hot: not as polite background, but as the first crack of thunder. On one side, the brochure. On the other, the summons.

And in the middle, a pile of vanished money big enough to turn partners into witnesses, witnesses into enemies, and a development dream into something far darker.

Shadows of the Syndicate: Where the Money Turned

The strongest version of this story does not ask anyone to accept a conspiracy before the receipts arrive. It walks the money.

One of the most useful public markers is a Nevada judgment involving Glenn Murray and Jowdy. In findings entered after trial, a Clark County court concluded that Jowdy had asked Kenner and another intermediary to help obtain roughly $800,000 in short-term financing, that Glenn Murray’s money was wired to escrow in August 2005, and that a contract existed under which Jowdy was to repay the principal plus a 10 percent return within 30 to 45 days.

The court found Jowdy failed to do so.

That matters because it places Kenner and Jowdy together not in rumor, but in documented financing relationships tied to real money, real dates, and real judicial findings.

The later federal record makes the same terrain impossible to ignore. In denying Kenner’s post-trial motions in 2017, Judge Joseph Bianco repeatedly addressed Kenner’s argument that Hawaii-project money sent to Jowdy was reflected as “loans” to the Jowdy Diamante development; the court rejected Kenner’s legal theory, but only after acknowledging that the Jowdy loan issue sat inside the evidentiary spine of the case.

That is the reality: Kenner cannot oversell what the courts proved, and he cannot underplay what they unmistakably show. Jowdy was not scenery. He was a major financial node.

Kenner’s public theory casts him as the straw man in a larger protected machine. The government’s theory casts him as a recipient of unauthorized diversions.

Either way, the money does not drift to Cabo by accident. Somebody moved it, somebody signed for it, and somebody built a kingdom while the paper trail kept bleeding.

NY News Press

Shadows of the Syndicate: The Government Won the Verdict but Not the Entire Argument

The federal government’s version is not ambiguous. After a nine-week trial, the Eastern District of New York convicted Phillip A. Kenner in July 2015 of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, multiple wire-fraud counts, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

In 2020, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced that Kenner had been sentenced to 17 years in prison, with the court imposing a forfeiture money judgment of about $17 million and ordering forfeiture of, among other assets, his interest in an oceanfront resort in Mexico, real property in Hawaii, and a Falcon 10 jet.

In July 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed. The appellate court even said the district court’s interested-witness jury charge was erroneous under later Second Circuit precedent, but held the error harmless in light of what it described as overwhelming testimonial and documentary evidence.

On the perjury issue, the court also addressed Kenner’s claim that witness John Kaiser falsely denied advance knowledge of Jowdy-related transactions; the panel held that the handwritten interview notes, standing alone, were not “incontrovertible evidence” that Kaiser had testified falsely. The Supreme Court later denied certiorari.

All of that is the law of the case, and no one duck it for one second. But neither should it pretend the official win erased every unresolved pressure point.

The same public decisions keep returning to the Jowdy transactions, the investor-authority dispute, and the ferocious fight over whether those transfers were theft, loans, or a rearranged narrative after the collapse.

That is why the file still breathes. Public docketing shows 1100+ entries. This was never a neat courtroom morality play.

It was a trench war with verdict sheets, forfeiture orders, appellate affirmance, and a residue of unanswered questions that Kenner has refused to bury.

Shadows of the Syndicate: The File Reopened as a Cancer Clock

The most haunting turn in the Kenner saga is that the old fraud war has now fused with a prison-medical story. Kenner’s current fight is not a pardon campaign, but rather a survival battle, arguing that his compassionate-release filings describe years of delayed cancer diagnosis, interrupted treatment, and a Bureau of Prisons bureaucracy that controls the calendar of whether he lives long enough to keep litigating.

Kenner’s allegations land harder because an official Department of Justice watchdog report in May 2025 found broad colorectal-cancer screening and follow-up failures inside the BOP: among the inmates sampled, the Office of the Inspector General found an average wait of eight months between a positive colorectal screening and a colonoscopy, and also found gaps in follow-up care and wide variation across facilities.

That official report does not prove Kenner’s specific account on its own. But it does give a verified institutional backdrop for why his medical allegations cannot be waved away as theatrical self-pity.

The Kenner story has shifted from financial noir to mortality timer. Because once the story becomes a cancer clock, every delayed scan feels like more than negligence. It feels like process as punishment.

The old question was who stole the money. The new question is who benefits if the man still accusing the powerful runs out of time before the record is fully aired.

That is not a courtroom finding. Not yet. It is, however, the dark pulse driving the latest round of federal court filings.

The File That Refuses Burial

The Kenner story begins where the best federal thrillers all begin: with a body of evidence, a body in custody, and a body politic that has lost faith in tidy explanations.

The most explosive version of the story places former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former FBI agent Matthew Galioto, John Kaiser, and Jowdy inside a long-running architecture of protection, retaliation, and narrative control.

Public appellate rulings do not explicitly endorse the broader cabal theory. But those rulings also do not erase the documented financial relationships with Jowdy, the athlete litigation, the Nevada judgment against Jowdy, the repeated post-trial fights over the Jowdy transfers, or the sheer size of the post-conviction paper war.

That is the first breach charge against an old institutional wall, bolstered by lawfare and weaponized justice. Kenner, in this rendering, becomes the man who would not die on schedule, would not shut up on command, and would not let the file be buried beneath verdict forms and bureaucratic dust.

Ken Jowdy becomes the gleaming resort-builder whose name keeps surfacing wherever the money trail bends toward Cabo.

And the system itself becomes the third character: sometimes prosecutor, sometimes jailer, sometimes witness, always insisting the story is already over while the docket says otherwise.

The reckoning has not yet arrived, but the lock on the evidence room is rusting through.

The fog has not cleared. It has started to tear. And once that happens, the men who lived safely inside the blur begin to look less like titans and more like targets.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Italian-American culture does not need to be preserved beneath glass like some museum relic. It lives because Italians argue about it, laugh at it, and defend it with the intensity of a five-hour Sunday sauce. Greg Maresca’s original column worked because the jokes came from inside the family. That distinction matters. Satire without affection is mockery. Satire grounded in shared history is recognition. The Coal Region Italians he roasted descend from miners, builders, parishioners and mothers who could feed 20 people without measuring anything. Their pride survived the mines, economic collapse and assimilation. It can survive a few jokes about Ragu. This piece is “Leave the Gravy Alone,” also available on NY News Press.

By Greg Maresca

Last year’s column on Pennsylvanian‑Italians, written with fondness for the people of Kulpmont, Shamokin and Mount Carmel where the scent of peppers and onions lingers in the parish halls, deserves a second look on the annual San Marziale’s festival weekend.

Not because it was provocative, but because it was, at its core, a celebration.

A celebration wrapped in satire, but a celebration, nonetheless.

The piece was written in the spirit of comedian Jeff Foxworthy’s renowned “You might be a redneck …” routine. It is a comedic device that works because it is rooted in affection for the community.

Having grown up among Italian-Americans, I know the cadence of the community and the difference between gravy that simmers for five hours and a jar of Ragu that should never see the light of day. This from someone whose mother bore the grand surname – Ferraiuolo – a name that sings its own Italian aria.

The column’s satire was not a dismissal of Pennsylvanian-Italians. It was a reminder that Italian-American identity is not monolithic. New York Italians, Pennsylvania Italians, New Jersey Italians are each a branch of the diaspora that nurtures its own customs, its distinct culinary traditions, and its own lexicon of endearments and insults, along with its own distinct accent.

This diversity is no weakness.

It is the very thing that made Italian‑American culture so durable, so adaptable and so beloved.

NY News Press

The column highlighted something deeper: the historical divide between Northern and Southern Italians, a divide that predates Ellis Island by centuries. The comparison to America’s own North/South tensions contextualized it. The Italian migration was not a single wave of identical families arriving with identical stories. It was a mosaic of regions, dialects, and traditions that collided, blended, and eventually became the Italian-American identity we know today.

And nowhere is that mosaic more poignant than in Pennsylvania’s Coal Region.

The Italian descendants of those “Coal Cracker” miners who clawed anthracite from the earth carry a heritage forged in danger, sacrifice, and unshakeable loyalty. These were the folks who sent the coal that powered the steel mills that built New York City. They were the backbone of an industrial chain that stretched from the mines of Northumberland County to the skyscrapers of Manhattan. To tease them about plastic-wrapped furniture or mispronounced Italian dishes is not to diminish them. It is to acknowledge the fullness of their story: the grit, the humor, the stubbornness, the pride.

The column paid tribute to the immigrant experience itself: Italian, Polish, Lithuanian, Irish, Slovak, Ukrainian and every other nationality that carved out a life in the hardscrabble Coal Region towns. It recognized that these communities did not merely survive hardship; they transformed it into culture, into cuisine, into faith, into family. They built churches, raised children, buried their dead, and kept traditions alive even when the mines closed and the world moved on.

Satire is a mirror angled just enough to make the truth uncomfortable. Taken literally, it sounds absurd. Taken contextually, it hits like a confession. The problem isn’t satire missing the mark; rather, it is readers missing the wink.

Satire, when done well, is an act of affection. It is a way of saying: I know you. I see you. I am one of you. It honored the Coal Region’s Italian‑American heritage by celebrating its quirks, its contradictions, and its enduring spirit.

In the end, the piece was not a jab; rather, it was a toast. A toast to the Zanellas, the DeFrancescos, and the various ways you spell Scicchitano. To every family that keeps a pot of gravy simmering on Sunday morning even as the world outside is collapsing. A toast to the shared heritage that binds New York Italians and Pennsylvania Italians far more than it divides them.

Vittoria Italiana, indeed.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Eric Sanders wants to be judged by the accusations he makes against everyone else, never by the record attached to his own name. Too bad. Ethics is not branding. It is conduct. It is what remains after the press conference ends, the cameras shut off and the court papers are opened. Sanders can deny the labels, split hairs over the word “arrest” and run from every uncomfortable question. But the record keeps pace. And the sirens keep getting louder. This piece is “The Sirens Follow Eric Sanders,” first available on NY News Press.

By Rick La Rivière and Richard Luthmann

(NEW YORK, NEW YORK) – Eric Sanders says he’s built a brand around one word: ethics. He presents himself as the righteous lawyer, the civil-rights crusader, the man who arrives with cameras rolling and accusations flying.

He regularly appears on The Sal Greco Show, lecturing institutions about misconduct, retaliation and abuse.

Then the record shows up.

Published reporting has documented Sanders’ own history of disciplinary trouble, bankruptcy litigation, civil contempt and a pregnancy-discrimination and retaliation judgment involving a former employee. A federal judge reportedly ordered him jailed after repeated noncompliance in proceedings tied to collection of that award.

Sanders objects to calling that an arrest.

Of course he does. He calls everything he dislikes a smear.

Lawyers love word games when the facts become inconvenient. “Taken into custody.” “Committed.” “Civil confinement.” Pick the euphemism. Federal authorities took him from his home and put him in jail.

The public does not need a law-school seminar to understand what happened.

Sanders’ repeated insistence that he was never “arrested,” despite reports that federal authorities took him into custody and jailed him pursuant to a civil-contempt order, raises a serious Rule 8.4 question.

New York Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c) prohibits lawyers from engaging in conduct involving “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation,” while Rule 8.4(h) reaches conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer’s fitness.

If Sanders knowingly presents a materially false version of his arrest and confinement to reporters or the public—not merely a defensible technical distinction—his wordplay could look less like advocacy and more like professional misrepresentation.

NY News Press

Whether discipline is warranted belongs to the appropriate grievance authority, but an attorney who sells ethics while publicly distorting a documented custodial episode is inviting scrutiny under the very rules he expects others to obey.

Sanders also rejects the label “ambulance chaser.” That denial has all the credibility of a siren insisting it is merely background music.

No lawyer advertises himself as an ambulance chaser. The label comes from the pattern: scandal breaks, cameras gather, lawsuits loom, and suddenly Eric Sanders is standing at the microphone selling himself as the conscience of New York.

That is why the satire jingle works. The sirens are not decoration. They are the point.

They follow the lawyer who calls himself ethical while ducking his own record. They follow the lawyer who wants every accusation against others treated as sacred truth, while every documented fact about him becomes an unfair attack.

Sanders is free to represent controversial clients. He is free to dispute reporting. He is free to deny every label thrown at him.

He is not entitled to a scrubbed biography.

A lawyer who weaponizes ethics must expect his own conduct to be examined. A civil-rights attorney with a discrimination judgment in his past does not get to order the press to look away. A public figure who makes morality part of his sales pitch does not get immunity from scrutiny.

That is not harassment.

That is journalism.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Kevin Barry Love remains presumed innocent. No public record proves that he bought or sold narcotics, cooperated with law enforcement, or received special treatment. NYC Council Whip Kamillah Hanks and NYPD First Deputy Commissioner Tania Kinsella have not been charged with misconduct. But government cameras are indifferent to political rank, carefully prepared talking points, and disappearing paperwork. The NYPD says it expects to respond to the bodycam request on or about November 30. Sources say Internal Affairs and the Richmond County District Attorney’s Office have already reviewed the footage. If that is accurate, the evidence is not lost or undiscovered. It is sitting inside government systems while officials refuse to explain the basic timeline. The tape may clear everyone. It may show weak evidence, lawful release, mistaken identity, or ordinary police procedure. It may also reveal who called, who arrived, what officers said, and whether Love’s treatment changed after political machinery began moving. November 30 is not the end of this story. It is the opening bell for the disclosure fight. Release the footage. Preserve the vouchers, calls, logs, and communications. By Christmas, let the cameras—not the political class—tell New Yorkers what happened. This piece is “Kevin Barry Love’s Christmas Goose,” first available on NY News Press.

By M. Thomas Nast and Richard Luthmann

The Clock Now Runs To November

(STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK) – The NYPD has finally put a date on the Kevin Barry Love bodycam mystery, and it lands like a political time bomb: November 30, 2026.

In an acknowledgment sent Friday morning, the Department confirmed receipt of FOIL Request FOIL-2026-056-22040 and said a response could be expected “on or about Monday, November 30, 2026.” The matter has been assigned to Associate Investigator Johnston.

From: donotreply@records.nyc.gov <donotreply@records.nyc.gov>
Date: On Friday, July 17th, 2026 at 9:56 AM
Subject: [OpenRecords] Request FOIL-2026-056-22040 Acknowledged
To: richard.luthmann@protonmail.com <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has acknowledged your FOIL request FOIL-2026-056-22040.

You can expect a response on or about Monday, November 30, 2026.

Your request has been assigned to Associate Investigator Johnston (None) of this office.

Please visit FOIL-2026-056-22040 to view additional information and take any necessary action.

That request seeks body-worn-camera footage and related records concerning Love’s reported seizure, detention, transportation, property inventory, and precinct processing following the July 10 narcotics sweep at the McDonald’s at 501 Bay Street on Staten Island.

November may sound like bureaucratic eternity. In politics, it is the blink before the blade falls.

Six months is long enough for administrations to change strategy, witnesses to lawyer up, alliances to fracture, and political protectors to discover sudden amnesia. But it is also a drop-dead window for Love, his wife—New York City Council Majority Whip Kamillah Hanks—First Deputy Commissioner Tania Kinsella, and every official who may have touched the case after Love reportedly entered the 120th Precinct.

By Christmas, the public could see what the cameras saw.

Sources say the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau and the Richmond County District Attorney’s Office have already reviewed the relevant bodycam footage. That claim has not been independently confirmed by either agency. But if true, the footage is not lost, missing, or undiscovered. It is already known to the institutions now refusing to explain the basic facts.

That means the silence is no longer about finding the evidence.

It is about deciding when—and whether—the public gets to see it.

Kevin Barry Love’s Christmas Goose: What The Cameras May Show

The bodycam could settle nearly every major question surrounding Love’s reported detention:

• Did officers approach Love as part of a planned narcotics operation?

• Was he treated as a buyer, seller, witness, target, source, or something else?

• Was he searched? Handcuffed? Questioned?

• Did police recover narcotics, cash, a cellphone, or other property?

• Was he transported to the 120th Precinct and placed in a holding cell? What did he say? What did officers say about him?

• Who called the precinct after he arrived?

Most importantly: How did Kevin Barry Love walk out?

A routine case should produce a routine explanation. Perhaps officers lacked probable cause. Perhaps prosecutors declined charges. Perhaps the suspected substance was not contraband. Perhaps Love received a desk-appearance ticket or release under ordinary rules. Every one of those possibilities can be documented without exposing confidential investigative tactics.

But the silence has created darker possibilities.

Sources previously alleged that Hanks contacted senior NYPD officials after Love was detained, including possible outreach involving Kinsella. Those allegations remain unproven. Internal Affairs nevertheless logged a related complaint under IAB No. 2026-24243, establishing that the Department formally received the claims.

Now sources say Internal Affairs itself has watched the footage.

If that is accurate, IAB already knows whether command-level officers appeared at the precinct, whether telephone calls changed the tone of the encounter, whether officers discussed political pressure, or whether Love received treatment unavailable to an ordinary detainee.

The Richmond County District Attorney’s Office, sources say, has also viewed the footage. If prosecutors saw it, they likely know why Love was detained, what evidence existed, and why no public prosecution trail has surfaced.

The bodycam may exonerate everyone.

It may also show exactly where the machinery began moving.

NY News Press

Kevin Barry Love’s Christmas Goose: Six Months Is A Political Eternity

The November deadline creates danger for every public figure connected to this story because it freezes the issue in place through the summer, fall, and election season.

Hanks cannot credibly pretend the matter will evaporate. Kinsella cannot assume the chain of command will remain hidden forever. The 120th Precinct cannot rely on vague references to an active matter while footage, logs, vouchers, and dispatch records sit inside government systems. Richmond County District Attorney Michael McMahon’s office cannot indefinitely avoid saying whether Love was presented for prosecution, treated as a witness, or connected to a sealed proceeding.

The delay gives everyone time to prepare explanations. It also gives journalists time to test them.

Two FOIL filings now target the record trail. The original request seeks the bodycam, arrest records, property vouchers, precinct video, dispatch traffic, and communications. The amended request, FOIL-2026-056-22186, corrects the incident date to July 10 and demands records from the alleged narcotics sweep, including arrest-team rosters, operation plans, prisoner lists, court references, evidence handling, prosecutor communications, and any record showing whether Love was treated as a defendant, target, witness, confidential informant, or cooperating source.

The government may invoke exemptions. It may redact faces, private data, confidential techniques, or active-investigation material. What it cannot lawfully do is convert every record into a black hole merely because the subject is politically connected.

And politically, November 30 is not the end. It is the beginning of the disclosure fight.

If the NYPD produces footage, the public will examine every frame. If it withholds the footage, the exemption will be challenged. If it claims no footage exists, the Department will have to explain how sources say IAB and prosecutors already reviewed it.

By then, every inconsistency becomes evidence of its own.

Kevin Barry Love’s Christmas Goose: Will Kevin Get Carved?

Kevin Barry Love remains presumed innocent. No public record presently proves that he possessed narcotics, purchased narcotics, sold narcotics, cooperated with law enforcement, or received political favors. Hanks and Kinsella have not been charged with misconduct. Source claims require corroboration, and the bodycam could destroy the entire theory of preferential treatment.

But that is precisely why the footage matters.

If Love was merely caught in the wrong place, release the relevant video and clear his name. If officers detained him without sufficient grounds, say so. If prosecutors declined a weak case, disclose the administrative disposition. If Love entered treatment, his private medical information should remain private—but the legal basis for police custody does not disappear. If he cooperated with authorities, the government may protect legitimate confidential information while still accounting for the public exercise of police power.

What cannot continue is the fiction that nothing happened.

A man was reportedly swept into a narcotics operation, transported to a precinct, placed in a cell, and had his property vouchered. Then the public trail went dark. A sealed docket surfaced. Press questions went unanswered. Internal Affairs logged a complaint. Two FOIL requests followed. Now the NYPD has admitted the records process will run until the doorstep of December.

That date belongs on every political calendar in Staten Island.

By Christmas, Kevin Barry Love’s goose may be cooked—not because reporters declared him guilty, but because government cameras do not care who his wife is, who called whom, or what story political operatives agreed to tell afterward.

The footage either supports the official silence or exposes it.

Release the bodycam. Preserve every record. Let the tape speak.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Kevin Barry Love remains presumed innocent. A source account, a sealed docket screen, and unanswered press inquiries do not prove that Love committed a narcotics offense, became a confidential informant, received political protection, or entered rehabilitation. But the questions are now unavoidable. A multi-person drug sweep leaves records: bodycam footage, dispatch traffic, arrest worksheets, prisoner logs, property vouchers, prosecutor contacts, and disposition papers. Yet Love’s reported trail vanishes after he allegedly entered the 120th Precinct. The public docket is inaccessible. The NYPD is silent. Love and Kamillah Hanks are reportedly unavailable, while her office allegedly says they will not return until August. Was Love released because no crime could be proven? Was he sent for treatment? Did political pressure alter ordinary procedure? Or was he converted from defendant to cooperating source? The government does not have to reveal confidential operations. It must explain the lawful basis for taking a politically connected man into custody and what happened afterward. Two FOIL requests—FOIL-2026-056-22040 and FOIL-2026-056-22186—now seek the bodycam footage, narcotics-operation records, vouchers, court references, and communications. The amended filing specifically asks whether Love was treated as a defendant, target, witness, confidential informant, or cooperating source. Release the records. Explain the sealed docket. Let facts—not political access—decide the story. This piece is “Sealed After The Sweep,” first available on NY News Press.

By M. Thomas Nast and Richard Luthmann

The Date Moves Back – and the Story Moves Forward

(STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK) – The reported arrest of Kevin Barry Love, the politically connected husband of New York City Council Majority Whip Kamillah Hanks, is now placed on Friday, July 10, 2026—not July 11, as first reported. That correction is not cosmetic. It opens a more specific window into what sources describe as a narcotics sweep at the McDonald’s at 501 Bay Street on Staten Island, where police allegedly took both buyers and sellers into custody.

According to a source who says he was swept up in the same operation, Love was among those detained, transported to the 120th Precinct, placed in a cell, and separated from property that was inventoried or vouchered.

Love remains presumed innocent. The source account has not yet been independently corroborated through an arrest report, criminal complaint, body-camera recording, desk-appearance ticket, or public court file. But it is now detailed enough to demand an official answer.

A multi-person narcotics operation does not happen in a vacuum. It generates dispatch traffic, bodycam footage, arrest-team rosters, prisoner logs, property vouchers, command notifications, prosecutor contacts, and disposition records.

Somewhere inside the NYPD’s systems, there should be a clear timeline explaining who was stopped, who was arrested, what was recovered, what charges were considered, and how each person left police custody.

An amended OpenRecords filing now directs the NYPD to search for records from July 10 through July 12 and requests records of the sweep, Love’s reported detention, precinct processing, property handling, release, and any communications with prosecutors, elected officials, or outside agencies.

The filing also specifically asks whether Love was handled as a defendant, target, witness, source, confidential informant, or cooperating witness.

The Source Points to a Sealed Docket

The newest and most consequential detail concerns the court docket. The source says his own name appeared on a July 10 Richmond County docket and claims Kevin Barry Love’s name appeared there as well. The public-facing NYSCEF search does show several July 10 entries concealed behind repeated notices stating that the cases are not available to the public online and that the court must be contacted for access.

But the visible screen does not identify Love, the source, the case numbers, or the nature of those hidden proceedings. It proves only that sealed or otherwise inaccessible matters existed on that filing date—not that Love was necessarily a party to one of them.

Still, the sealed entries matter because they line up with the source’s account of a sweep, detention, and rapid disappearance into official silence:

• Was Love charged in a sealed matter?

• Was the case declined before public arraignment?

• Was he issued a desk-appearance ticket? Was the arrest voided or administratively altered?

• Was he processed as a witness or cooperating source rather than a defendant?

• Was there a warrant proceeding, grand-jury matter, or broader narcotics investigation whose secrecy lawfully shields the records?

Those are all possible explanations. None has been confirmed.

The amended FOIL demand seeks the administrative breadcrumbs: arrest and complaint numbers, CAD records, command logs, prisoner entries, property vouchers, court references, bodycam footage, operation plans, prosecutor communications, and the authority for Love’s release or transfer.

If the NYPD cannot produce them, it should certify what systems and commands were searched. If it possesses them but withholds them, it should identify the legal basis.

NY News Press

RAT and Rehab Questions Cannot Be Ignored

Now come the questions certain people will call unfair simply because they do not want it asked: Is Kevin Barry Love cooperating with law enforcement? Or was he sent to Rehab?

These are not accusations dressed up as fact. No federal, state, or city agency has confirmed that Love is an informant, confidential source, or cooperating witness. There is no public cooperation agreement, debriefing memorandum, sealed plea document, or judicial finding establishing such a relationship.

But journalism is not limited to repeating what government chooses to announce. When a politically connected man is reportedly swept into a narcotics operation, taken to a precinct, placed in a cell, and then disappears into sealed records and unanswered press inquiries, the informant possibility belongs on the board.

The comparison to Henry “Bobby Digi” Olisa is unavoidable. Digi, the husband of politically connected former City Council member and cultural-affairs official Laurie Cumbo, was previously described by sources as an FBI informant.

The FBI and DOJ have previously scrutinized his business connections, notably early potential investors in a failed Staten Island restaurant and pub on Minthorne Street. According to FBI reports and DOJ filings, these connections were labeled as allegedly having mafia ties, raising alarms over the integrity of Digi’s dealings.

That reporting raised a larger institutional warning: law enforcement can turn compromised operators into protected assets, use them against bigger targets, and then allow those assets to accumulate influence, immunity, and menace. The government catches one fish and creates a shark.

Is that happening again?

Love’s relationship to Hanks does not prove protection. His political relationships do not prove cooperation. The sealed docket does not prove federal involvement. Yet the combination of narcotics exposure, disappearing records, official silence, and access to the political class creates a legitimate investigative theory.

Perhaps the explanation is mundane: no charge, insufficient evidence, mistaken identity, or routine sealing. Perhaps it is political favoritism. Perhaps Love provided information and walked. Perhaps Kevin was a buyer.

In light of everything, Hanks and Love are nowhere to be found.

“Kevin and Kamillah have to explain why they’ve disappeared, and why their office is saying they won’t be back until August,” Richard Luthmann said. “This may all be a smokescreen for Rehab. If Kamillah, Diane, Scott, and others think he has a problem, Kevin should get the help he needs.”

The problem is that the NYPD and prosecutors possess the facts and continue to offer nothing. Silence does not prove he is a government RAT or in Rehab. It only ensures the question will grow louder.

Two FOILs, One IAB Log, No Answers

The government has now been placed on formal notice from multiple directions. The original FOIL request, FOIL-2026-056-22040, sought the bodycam footage, arrest records, property vouchers, precinct surveillance, dispatch records, and communications associated with the initially reported July 11 incident.

The amended filing, FOIL-2026-056-22186, corrected the primary date to July 10 and expanded the search to include narcotics-operation records, arrest-team documents, prisoner lists, evidence testing, prosecutor communications, sealed-case references, and any records identifying Love as a defendant, target, witness, source, informant, or cooperating person.

A separate complaint alleging possible political intervention was logged by the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau as IAB No. 2026-24243. That number is not proof that Hanks called anyone, that senior police officials intervened, or that Love received preferential treatment. It proves only that the allegations were formally submitted and entered into the Department’s complaint system.

That is enough to demand preservation.

Every body-camera file, McDonald’s surveillance recording obtained by police, property voucher, dispatch call, command-log entry, arrest worksheet, prosecutor email, prisoner record, text message, and executive notification from July 10 through July 12 should be frozen against deletion.

The public does not need operational secrets or the identity of confidential sources. It needs the basic truth:

• Was Kevin Barry Love arrested?

• For what?

• What happened to the case?

• Why is the docket hidden?

• Who authorized his release?

• Did political influence enter the process?

• Did cooperation with law enforcement change his status?

The longer the government refuses to answer, the less this looks like ordinary secrecy and the more like political insulation.

Kevin Barry Love is presumed innocent. But innocence does not require erasing the arrest trail. Release the records. Explain the sealed docket.

Let the facts decide whether this was routine justice—or another monster manufactured and protected by the lawfare-political machine.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Tom Dundon had every right to celebrate his family privately. He did not have to turn the Stanley Cup into the world’s most expensive refrigerator magnet. The Cup is not a billionaire’s vanity plate. It belongs symbolically to the players, coaches, trainers, equipment managers and staff who survived the grind and delivered the championship. Carolina even stopped at 53 names when 55 were permitted. That means this was not simply a brutal numbers game. It was a choice. Dundon placed family privilege at the front of the line while actual contributors were left behind. Merit built the championship. Privilege hijacked the engraving. This piece is “Hockey’s Holiest Trophy Hijacked,” also available on NY News Press.

By Greg Maresca

When tradition is treated as an inconvenience rather than an inheritance, people drift without an anchor. Tradition is not nostalgia but the torch that tells us who we are and what is expected of us.

Which is precisely why the Stanley Cup matters.

The Cup is not a prop, not a branding opportunity, not a family scrapbook in silver. It is the NHL’s greatest monument of achievement.

When NHL champion owner Tom Dundon engraved the names of his wife and five children, none of whom hold any formal role with the Carolina Hurricanes, he cut against a century‑old tradition that defines what the Stanley Cup represents – merit, sacrifice, and the people who actually earned their place in history. His children, the youngest being seven, contributed nothing to the Hurricanes’ championship.

Their inclusion is not a recognition of effort; it is a display of privilege and arrogance.

This break from tradition was confirmed by multiple major news organizations, including Yahoo Sports, WRAL in Raleigh, Forbes and AOL’s syndicated coverage. Each outlet reports the same core facts: the Dundon family occupies the first two lines of the Cup’s engraving. Their inclusion displaced longtime staff and contributors who traditionally appear on the trophy.

Such arrogance has sparked widespread criticism for elevating family privilege over the people who actually built the championship.

NY News Press

The Cup’s engravings have always been governed by a simple unwritten code that the names are earned, not gifted. Players earn their place through the grind of an 82‑game grind of a season and four long playoff rounds. Coaches earn it through strategy, leadership and the pressure of guiding a team through adversity. Equipment managers, trainers, scouts and operations staff earn it through years of unseen labor that keeps the machine running. Even owners, when listed, are included because they shoulder financial risk and organizational responsibility.

Moreover, there is a 55-name limit.

When the first two lines of the Hurricanes’ engraving are consumed by the Dundon family, it displaces those who shaped the team’s success. Bobby Gorman, a longtime equipment manager whose service dates back to the Hartford Whalers era, was left off. Joel Nystrom, who played 38 games, nearly half a season, was left off. Even the team’s minority owners were omitted. These are individuals who contributed materially to the Hurricanes’ championship run, yet their names were sacrificed for the owner’s children.

That inversion of priorities is precisely what TSN’s Eric Macramalla meant when he warned of an “owner‑first culture.” The NHL has always resisted that mentality. The sport prides itself on the concept that no one is bigger than the crest on the jersey. The Cup’s engraving tradition reflects that ethos. It is why players are listed before executives. It is why support staff are included. It is why the Cup has crossed out names in the past when they were added improperly because the integrity of the engraving matters.

The Dundon engraving sets a troubling precedent. The NHL’s review process is supposed to prevent this kind of dilution, yet the league approved the Hurricanes’ list without comment. That silence only reinforces the concern that the Cup’s standards are slipping.

Tradition matters in hockey, and the Stanley Cup is at the top of the list. When its engravings become a canvas for personal indulgence rather than earned achievement, the meaning of the Cup erodes.

The Hurricanes won a championship; nothing can take that away.

However, the decision to place the Dundon family ahead of players, coaches, and staff diminishes the honor that championship represents. It is a choice that goes against tradition, against the spirit of the game, and against the very purpose of engraving the Cup in the first place.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Kevin Barry Love is presumed innocent. Kamillah Hanks and Tania Kinsella have not been charged with wrongdoing, and NYPD Internal Affairs Log No. 2026-24243 is not proof of misconduct. But political power cannot become a precinct privilege card. Sources reported Saturday that Love was taken into custody at the McDonald’s on Bay Street, Staten Island, placed in a cell at the 120th Precinct, and had his property vouchered. By Sunday, the information flow had collapsed. The NYPD offered no substantive explanation, and several Staten Island elected officials and public officials reached by this outlet said they were receiving little or nothing. So what happened after Love entered that cell? Was he issued a routine desk-appearance ticket? Was he treated differently because his wife is the City Council majority whip? Was the matter quietly downgraded, transferred, sealed, or buried? Or does Love have some undisclosed cooperation relationship with state or federal law enforcement? That last possibility remains unproven. But when a politically connected man enters a precinct under formal custodial conditions and then disappears into an official information fog, journalists must ask whether he is protected, cooperating, or both. The NYPD must preserve every call, text, voucher, command log, and arrest record. Release the timeline. Release the disposition. Let the public determine whether this was ordinary justice—or political insulation. This piece is “Love In The Lockup,” first available on NY News Press.

By Rick LaRivière and Richard Luthmann

(STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK) – Kevin Barry Love, the politically connected Staten Island real-estate developer and husband of New York City Council Majority Whip Kamillah Hanks, was taken into NYPD custody Saturday and held inside the 120th Precinct, according to multiple sources familiar with the developing matter.

Sources say that Love was seized by police at the McDonald’s on Bay Street near Wave Avenue, on Staten Island’s North Shore.

Sources further say Love was transported to the 120 Precinct, placed in a precinct cell, and that officers inventoried and vouchered his personal property, a significant step that suggests his detention went beyond a voluntary interview or routine conversation with police.

The NYPD has not publicly identified the alleged offense, disclosed the legal basis for the detention, or confirmed whether Love was formally arrested, issued a desk-appearance ticket, held on a warrant, transferred for arraignment, or later released without charges.

As of publication, no publicly accessible criminal complaint, arrest record, or official NYPD statement had been located.

The story escalated Saturday evening when the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau assigned Log No. 2026-24243 to a complaint raising questions about possible political intervention in Love’s treatment. At 8:58 p.m. on July 11, Sgt. Nichols of the Internal Affairs Bureau Command Center responded to a detailed press inquiry and complaint submitted by this reporter with a direct acknowledgment: “Your IAB Log number is 2026-24243.”

That response establishes that Internal Affairs received and logged the allegations, creating a formal departmental record of concerns that a senior elected official may have attempted to use political access while her husband was being processed inside a Staten Island precinct.

Love In The Lockup: A Precinct Cell, Vouchered Property, and No Public Explanation

The latest information is that Love was physically placed inside a cell and that his belongings were collected and vouchered by NYPD personnel. Property vouchering typically creates a formal departmental record of items taken from an individual for safekeeping, evidence, arrest processing, or another police purpose.

That indicates that police exercised official control over Love and his property.

The unanswered questions are now unavoidable. What incident brought police to Love? Was he taken into custody on a new complaint, an outstanding warrant, an alleged violation of an order, or some other legal process? Was he fingerprinted and photographed? Was an arrest number created? Did the Richmond County District Attorney’s Office review any prospective charge? Was Love issued a desk-appearance ticket, taken for arraignment, transferred elsewhere, hospitalized, or released?

The NYPD has been asked to confirm each of those points, along with the time of detention, the legal basis for holding him, and the disposition of the matter. No substantive response had been received before publication.

Love is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Being confined in a precinct cell and having property vouchered does not establish that he committed a crime.

It does, however, make continued silence from the Department more consequential, particularly where the person being held is married to a powerful member of the City Council, and allegations have surfaced that political calls were made while police were processing him.

Love In The Lockup: Allegations of Calls From Kamillah Hanks

Sources have alleged that Council Member Hanks began contacting people within the NYPD after Love was taken into custody. The most serious claim is that Hanks contacted, or attempted to contact, First Deputy Commissioner Tania Kinsella, the Department’s second-highest-ranking official. The alleged purpose, according to sources, was to seek assistance, intervention, or favorable treatment for her husband.

A spouse or family member always has every right to ask whether a family member is safe, seek the name of an attorney, inquire about medical needs, or request basic information.

But the public-interest line is crossed when political office, governmental power, or personal access is used to influence police discretion, alter normal procedures, suppress information, expedite release, reduce charges, or secure treatment unavailable to an ordinary person in custody.

That is why Hanks and the NYPD were asked direct questions.

• Did Hanks contact the 120th Precinct, Kinsella, Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, a borough command, or any other official?

• Did she ask only for information, or did she seek Love’s release, expedited processing, changed custodial conditions, special access, reduced charges, or suppression of the event?

• Did anyone acting on behalf of Hanks or Love make similar requests?

• Did any senior official then contact the precinct, the arresting officers, the detective squad, or the desk officer?

Those questions remain unanswered.

NY News Press

Love In The Lockup: Why Tania Kinsella’s Name Matters

The reported involvement of Tania Kinsella raises the stakes because of both her rank and her connection to Staten Island. Kinsella serves as First Deputy Commissioner of the NYPD, directly beneath the police commissioner in the Department’s command structure. She also has longstanding ties to Staten Island and the 120th Precinct.

A call from a council member to Kinsella automatically constitutes misconduct. Senior officials routinely receive calls from elected leaders, community organizations, attorneys, and members of the public.

The issue is what happened next. If Hanks or a representative contacted Kinsella while Love was sitting in a precinct cell, the questions abound:

• Did Kinsella call the 120th Precinct?

• Did she ask questions, request updates, suggest a course of action, or issue any instruction?

• Did anyone within the command interpret her involvement as pressure?

• Were officers told to delay, alter, downgrade, seal, suppress, or otherwise handle the matter differently?

Kinsella’s position makes transparency essential.

This outlet sent an inquiry to the NYPD, including Kinsella, and copied elected officials. Only the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau responded. Here is what was said:

From: IABCMDCNTR <IABCMDCNTR@nypd.org>
Date: On Saturday, July 11th, 2026 at 8:58 p.m.
Subject: Re: URGENT PRESS INQUIRY: Kevin Barry Love Custody and Alleged Political Intervention
To: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>

Your IAB Log number is 2026-24243.

Sgt. Nichols

COMMAND CENTER, INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU

This e-mail message and any attachment(s) is intended only for the person and/or entity to which it is addressed and may contain CONFIDENTIAL or PRIVILEGED material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is strictly prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete/destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately. Please treat this and all other communications from the New York City Police Department as LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE / FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. NO REPORT OR SEGMENT THEREOF MAY BE RELEASED TO ANY MEDIA SOURCES.

From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2026 8:10 p.m.
To: TANIA.KINSELLA@nypd.org, MELD.Extensions@nypd.org, User123456@nypd.org, district19@council.nyc.gov, FirstDep@nypd.org, DG_Lic-HandgunRenewals@nypd.org, communityaffairs@nypd.org, HandgunNewApps@nypd.org, district49@council.nyc.gov, info@rcda.nyc.gov, fallc@nyassembly.gov, kevinblove@gmail.com, laline@siadvance.com, SALAMIR.TAYLOR@nypd.org, IABCMDCNTR@nypd.org, jessica.tisch@nypd.org, commissioner@nypd.org, 120PCTYCO@nypd.org, 120PCTDVO@nypd.org, NYPDIG@doi.nyc.gov, professional.development@nypd.org, DCPI.DCPI@nypd.org, ny1desk@charter.com, tips@ny1news.com, errol.louis@ny1news.com, Ashleigh.Owens@rcda.nyc.gov, DCarr@council.nyc.gov, correspondence@council.nyc.ny.us, Morano@council.nyc.gov, fmorano@council.nyc.gov, khanks@council.nyc.gov, frank@moranoforcouncil.com, AskJB@council.nyc.gov, correspondence@council.nyc.gov, AskKalman@council.nyc.gov, vfossella@statenislandusa.com, dmaster@statenislandusa.com, tallon@cityandstateny.com
Cc: RALafontaine@protonmail.com, RickLaRiviere@proton.me, frankiepressman@protonmail.com, mthomasnast@protonmail.com, greg_m@newsitem.com, mvolpe998@gmail.com, frankparlato@gmail.com, caracastronuova@yahoo.com, cjcinvestigates@gmail.com, jt@liquidlunchtv.com, news12bkln@news12.com, news@pix11.com, richard@nynewspress.com
Subject: URGENT PRESS INQUIRY: Kevin Barry Love Custody and Alleged Political Intervention

CAUTION! EXTERNAL SENDER

STOP WHEN UNSURE. Never click on links or open attachments if sender is unknown, and never provide user ID or password. Suspicious? Please report to this email address: reportphishing@nypd.org

NYPD Deputy Commissioner, Public Information:

This is an urgent press inquiry concerning Kevin Barry Love, the husband of New York City Council Member Kamillah Hanks.

Multiple sources have confirmed that Love was taken into NYPD custody today, placed in a cell at Staten Island’s 120th Precinct, and had his personal property vouchered by the Department.

We have also received information that Council Member Hanks has been contacting individuals within the NYPD in an effort to intervene on her husband’s behalf or obtain favorable treatment. Specifically, sources report that Hanks contacted—or attempted to contact—First Deputy Commissioner Tania Kinsella.

This allegation raises an obvious and serious question: Is a sitting member of the New York City Council attempting to use political access to influence the treatment, processing, charging, release, or custodial conditions of her husband?

The concern is heightened by First Deputy Commissioner Kinsella’s longstanding connection to the 120th Precinct. Department records state that Kinsella previously served as its executive officer and later as its commanding officer.

Please provide immediate answers to the following:

1. Was Kevin Barry Love taken into NYPD custody on July 11, 2026?

2. Was Love placed in a cell at the 120th Precinct?

3. Was his property inventoried and vouchered?

4. At what time was he taken into custody, and what was the legal basis for that custody?

5. Has Love been formally arrested, issued a desk-appearance ticket, charged with an offense, held on a warrant, or transferred to another facility?

6. What charges, if any, are pending against him?

7. Did Council Member Kamillah Hanks contact the 120th Precinct, First Deputy Commissioner Tania Kinsella, Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, any borough command, or any other NYPD official regarding Love?

8. Did any representative, employee, political associate, attorney, or intermediary acting for Hanks or Love contact the Department?

9. Did Hanks request Love’s release, expedited processing, altered custodial treatment, access to him, suppression of information, or any other accommodation unavailable to an ordinary member of the public?

10. Did First Deputy Commissioner Kinsella communicate with Hanks concerning Love’s custody?

11. Did Kinsella contact the 120th Precinct or any officer involved in Love’s arrest or detention?

12. Has Kinsella issued, suggested, requested, or discussed any direction concerning Love’s processing, charging, detention, release, property, or access to counsel or visitors?

13. Has the NYPD taken steps to insulate the arresting officers, desk officer, detective squad, and precinct command from political interference?

14. Has the Department referred any attempted intervention to Internal Affairs, the Department of Investigation, the Conflicts of Interest Board, or another oversight authority?

15. Will the NYPD preserve all telephone logs, text messages, emails, Signal or WhatsApp communications, duty logs, command-center records, body-camera footage, arrest paperwork, property vouchers, visitor logs, and communications involving Hanks, Love, Kinsella, and the 120th Precinct?

16. Has any member of the Department been instructed to withhold, delay, alter, downgrade, seal, or otherwise manipulate information concerning this matter?

17. Will First Deputy Commissioner Kinsella recuse herself from any involvement because of her prior command relationship with the 120th Precinct and the reported personal outreach from Hanks?

This is not a request for privileged investigative material. It is a request for accountability concerning whether political power is being used to obtain preferential treatment inside an NYPD precinct.

An ordinary New Yorker whose property has been vouchered and who has been placed in a precinct cell does not have a City Council majority whip calling the Department’s second-highest-ranking official. If such calls occurred, the public is entitled to know who made them, who received them, what was requested, and what action followed.

Please treat this inquiry as time-sensitive. We request a substantive response as soon as possible today. Please state clearly which facts the Department confirms, denies, or declines to address.

Absent a response, our reporting will state that the NYPD was presented with detailed questions concerning alleged political intervention in Love’s custody and did not answer before publication.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Regards,

Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
Tips or Story Ideas:
(239) 631-5957
richard.luthmann@protonmail.com
LINKTREE
Muck Rack Profile
Substack: This is For Real.
Editor-In-Chief: FLGulf.news
Editor-In-Chief: NYNewsPress.com
Editor-In-Chief: TheFamilyCourtCircus.com
Contributor: Frank Report
Contributor: Sun Bay Paper
Follow Me on Facebook X Instagram LinkedIn TRUTH Rumble Newsbreak SPOTIFY YouTube

The Internal Affairs Bureau logged a complaint based on the email that specifically asked whether Kinsella communicated with Hanks, contacted the precinct, discussed Love’s custody or release, or should be recused from any review of the matter.

The email also requested preservation of telephone logs, emails, text messages, Signal and WhatsApp communications, command-center records, duty logs, visitor logs, body-camera footage, arrest paperwork, property vouchers, and all communications involving Hanks, Love, Kinsella, and the 120th Precinct.

Internal Affairs Creates a Formal Record

The IAB acknowledgment is the first independently documented development beyond the source reporting. Internal Affairs confirmed receipt of the complaint and assigned Log No. 2026-24243. That number does not prove corruption, interference, or preferential treatment, but it shows that the allegations have entered the Department’s official complaint system and that NYPD Internal Affairs has been formally placed on notice.

The complaint alleges that a sitting City Council majority whip may have sought intervention from the Department’s second-ranking official while her husband was confined inside a precinct cell. That allegation now exists in an official NYPD record.

No major news organization or law-enforcement agency has publicly confirmed Love’s arrest. The IAB response does not independently confirm the underlying detention, but it does confirm that the Department received a detailed complaint identifying Love, Hanks, Kinsella, the 120th Precinct, and the alleged effort to obtain special treatment.

That is a real and verifiable development.

Love In The Lockup: Who Is Kevin Barry Love?

Love is a Staten Island developer and longtime political figure who has operated largely behind the scenes of Hanks’ political organization. He has been described in court filings and prior reporting as Hanks’ husband, adviser, fundraiser, and political operator.

He has also become a controversial figure because of allegations involving unpaid campaign obligations, threatening communications, pressure on developers, and the alleged use of political relationships to intimidate adversaries.

Love and Hanks are defendants in litigation brought by journalist and former attorney Richard Luthmann arising from work connected to Hanks’ unsuccessful 2017 City Council campaign. The dispute began over approximately $86,000 in allegedly unpaid legal, political, and campaign-related services. Love denied the debt allegations and called them a “vulgar lie.”

Subsequent filings expanded the case into allegations of political interference, threats, campaign misconduct, and efforts to frustrate the litigation.

Prior reporting has also described a recorded collections-related telephone call in which Love allegedly invoked the FBI, the Department of Justice, and political allies while responding to demands for payment. Separate reporting has alleged that Love referenced government contracts, discretionary funding, development approvals, and Hanks’ political influence while communicating with Staten Island developers.

The 120th Precinct serves Staten Island’s North Shore, including much of the territory represented by Hanks. The location also carries a personal connection for Love: his late father, retired NYPD officer John B. Love, previously served at the precinct.

Kamillah Hanks and the Power Question

Hanks represents District 49 on Staten Island’s North Shore and serves as Council majority whip. Her office participates in constituent services, legislative work, land-use advocacy, neighborhood development, and discretionary-funding recommendations. There is no allegation that Hanks was arrested, and no evidence presently establishes that she committed a crime.

The issue is narrower and more serious: Did she use her position to influence what happened to her husband after police placed him in a cell?

An ordinary New Yorker may call a precinct and ask about a loved one. An ordinary New Yorker does not necessarily have direct access to the First Deputy Commissioner. That difference does not establish corruption. It is precisely why the NYPD must disclose whether political influence entered the process.

The Department should answer whether Love was arrested, why he was held, whether his property was vouchered, whether Hanks contacted senior officials, whether Kinsella contacted the precinct, and whether any officer received instructions outside the normal chain of command. Internal Affairs should also disclose, when appropriate, the status of Log No. 2026-24243.

The NYPD does not owe the press confidential evidence or sensitive investigative strategy. It does owe the public confidence that a precinct cell is not governed by political rank.

DEVELOPING: NY News Press is continuing to seek comment and documentation from the NYPD, the Internal Affairs Bureau, the Richmond County District Attorney’s Office, Council Member Kamillah Hanks, First Deputy Commissioner Tania Kinsella, Kevin Barry Love, and their representatives. This report will be updated as additional verified information becomes available.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Philip Kenner got the cage. The protected men got the fog. That is the through-line of this entire series. The first installment does not pretend to prove every buried document in one swing. It frames the battlefield: Freeh, Galioto, Kaiser, Jowdy, Bhatti, Clemens-world pressure, steroid-era media, EDNY narrowing, and the Bureau of Prisons cancer clock. The public was handed a villain. Now it deserves the machinery behind the villain-making. If federal power was used to protect insiders and bury the full money trail, then this is not old news. It is unfinished business. This piece is “Kenner Got The Cage: Is Tarantino Available?,” first available on NY News Press.

By Richard Luthmann and Fernando Jiménez Burke

The Movie They Never Wanted Made

(EAST ISLIP, NEW YORK) – Some stories do not belong in sterile government press releases, sealed exhibits, or sanitized appellate footnotes. Some stories belong on a Tarantino set, where the blood on the floor cannot be airbrushed, the crooked cops do not get flattering lighting, and every man who thought the badge made him bulletproof eventually has to sit across the table from the truth.

The Philip Kenner story is one of those stories. It has athletes, bankers, lawyers, dead-end prosecutions, government protection, media cutouts, missing money, dying defendants, and enough federal shadow play to make a Star Chamber look like traffic court.

This is not the cartoon version of the case sold to the public through selective leaks and favored scribes. This is not the government-friendly morality play where prosecutors are always noble, federal agents are always clean, and the defendant is always the beginning and end of the crime. This is the darker version, the version buried under court records, financial trails, investor files, Bureau of Prisons medical history, and two decades of narrative manipulation.

This is the version that asks why Philip Kenner became the face of the fraud while other men with badges, power, access, and documented proximity to the money kept walking around like extras in somebody else’s indictment.

At the center of this story sit former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former FBI Special Agent Matthew Galioto, former NYPD figure John R. Kaiser, financial strawman Ken Jowdy, Lehman Brothers commercial lender Masood Bhatti, and a constellation of sports-world, media-world, and legal-world operators who helped transform a financial wreck into a federal narrative war. Kenner became the cage. The others became the fog. Now the fog is starting to lift.

Kenner Got The Cage: The Star Chamber Above The Law

In the shadowed corridors of power, originating from the upper reaches of the Hoover Building, justice was supposed to reign. Instead, according to the Kenner record and the allegations now demanding public review, a quiet corruption festered like an undetected wound. Under Freeh’s polished image of institutional virtue, the storyline was not merely investigated. It was managed. Narratives were changed. Diversions were set. Targets were selected. Media slander and defamation campaigns were deployed like tactical weapons. And the ordinary expectations of judicial oversight were treated like obstacles to be routed around, not safeguards to be honored.

This is the Star Chamber at the heart of the Kenner saga: federal power operating in the dark, protected actors receiving “above the law” favors, and inconvenient evidence being redirected, minimized, or buried while the chosen villain was marched into the spotlight. The Bureau, once sold to the American people as a beacon of integrity, became in this telling a weapon for those who understood a simple rule of modern power: control the storyline, and you control reality. Control reality long enough, and you can decide who goes to prison, who gets protected, and who gets erased.

America can only pray that a new FBI headquarters brings something more important than new concrete, glass, and ribbon-cutting speeches. It must bring honor back into the bloodstream of federal law enforcement. Buildings do not clean agencies. Press releases do not restore trust. Only truth does that. If the Kenner file proves anything, it is that the public should never confuse institutional prestige with institutional honesty. The badge is not a sacrament. The badge is a trust. And when that trust is sold, weaponized, or used to protect a cabal, the public has every right to demand names, dates, documents, and consequences.

Kenner Got The Cage: Galioto, Kaiser, And The Street-Level Machine

Central to this machinery was former FBI Special Agent Matthew Galioto, cast in the Kenner narrative as an operator moving with unusual autonomy, unusual access, and far too little meaningful oversight. Galioto was not some paper-pushing bureaucrat lost in the file room. He was the institutional muscle, the man with the federal gloss, the one whose presence could make weak facts look official and private pressure look like law enforcement. In the wrong hands, that kind of authority is not investigation. It is narrative manufacture with a badge clipped to the belt.

Beside him, according to the allegations, stood John R. Kaiser, a former NYPD figure with street knowledge, old contacts, financial desperation, and a willingness to cross lines that honest cops are supposed to die before crossing. Kaiser provided the ground game. Galioto provided the federal canopy. Together, they formed the practical machinery of pressure, intimidation, and narrative discipline. This was not just a financial case. This was a campaign. It targeted investors, dissidents, skeptics, and anyone threatening to look past the approved script and ask who really touched the money.

The mission, according to Kenner’s side of the story, was to protect Ken Jowdy, the strawman placed near massive flows of investor money, sports money, and development money. Jowdy’s role was not incidental. It was central. The money trail runs through names and projects that are too important to wave away: Diamanté Cabo San Lucas, Laurel Cove in Tennessee, Boot Ranch in Texas, Lehman Brothers, Masood Bhatti, Roger Clemens, Brian McNamee, Mindy McCready, Bryan Berard, NHL investors, Manhattan lawyers, favored reporters, and federal contacts. The allegation is not merely that money vanished. The allegation is that the system protected the wrong men after it vanished.

Kenner Got The Cage: Lehman, Bhatti, And Financial Resurrection

In September 2008, as Lehman Brothers collapsed into the ash heap of American financial arrogance, Masood Bhatti became one of the many faces leaving the wreckage. To the casual observer, it was another image from the great banking implosion. To anyone following the Kenner file, it reads differently. Bhatti, a Lehman Brothers commercial lender, has been identified in the Kenner narrative as a critical financial actor connected to diverted funds from the Diamanté Cabo San Lucas, Laurel Cove, and Boot Ranch projects between 2006 and 2008. That does not make him scenery. It makes him part of the map.

The Kenner camp’s allegation is that Bhatti was valuable precisely because he understood the banking architecture, the loan channels, the paper trails, and the resurrection tricks available to connected insiders after collapse. When ordinary Americans lose money, they get foreclosure notices, ruined credit, and lectures about personal responsibility. When protected insiders lose or move money inside an elite network, the story changes. Files disappear into complexity. Blame gets outsourced. The public is handed a villain. The connected players are handed time.

That is where this case leaves the ordinary world of fraud and enters something uglier. A private financial dispute can be litigated. A corporate collapse can be investigated. But when money vanishes inside an ecosystem of federal access, sports celebrity, media leverage, law-enforcement protection, and carefully curated public scandal, the result is not simply a case. It is a controlled demolition. According to Kenner’s side, that demolition had a target. His name was Philip Kenner. The real question now is whether he was the architect of the wreckage or the man selected to stand inside it when the charges came down.

NY News Press

Kenner Got The Cage: Media As Weapon And Shield

The public version of Philip Kenner did not appear from thin air. It was built, brick by brick, leak by leak, headline by headline. Selective information was fed to friendly outlets. Anonymous sources were treated like gospel. Sensational accusations were amplified while inconvenient financial questions were left in the dark. Media lanterns were lit and pointed exactly where the operators wanted the public to look. Investors, regulators, and the public were left chasing phantoms while the deeper money trail slid beneath the surface.

This is where the steroid-era press machine becomes central. New York Daily News writers, already embedded in the Roger Clemens, Brian McNamee, Ken Jowdy, and Tom Harvey universe, were not outsiders to the power web. Their work around American Icon opened a window into the Clemens-McNamee-Jowdy-Harvey orbit, including the pressure, manipulation, congressional drama, and narrative warfare that surrounded the Mitchell Report and Clemens’s later perjury trial. But the Kenner allegation goes further. It claims that after gaining insight into that world, those same media channels helped circulate narratives that protected the cabal while burying the government-documented misconduct of better-connected actors.

That is how media becomes both weapon and shield. As weapon, it destroys the target’s reputation before a jury ever sees evidence. As shield, it protects the operators who fed the story in the first place. Kenner was not merely prosecuted in court. He was prosecuted in print, by insinuation, leak, smear, and repetition. The public was told where to look. The public was not told what to see. And when the press becomes stenography for protected power, it stops being the Fourth Estate and becomes the public-relations division of the Star Chamber.

The Clemens-Jowdy Orbit

The Roger Clemens orbit matters because power always protects itself first. Ken Jowdy was not a random name on a stray ledger. He was tied to Clemens. He was near Brian McNamee. He was near Mindy McCready. He was near attorney Tom Harvey. He was near the steroid-era earthquake that shook Major League Baseball, Congress, the Mitchell Report, and the federal courthouse in Washington. That orbit had money, fame, secrets, panic, and motive. It also had powerful incentives to control any story that threatened to drag financial misconduct into the steroid scandal’s public glare.

According to the Kenner side, stolen investor money was used to keep people quiet, maintain alliances, and keep Jowdy away from deeper criminal scrutiny. Payments, favors, narrative discipline, and selective protection functioned as the glue holding the operation together. Roger Clemens survived his perjury trial. Jowdy avoided the full force of scrutiny Kenner’s camp says he deserved. The media had its storyline. The government had its defendant. Philip Kenner had the cage.

That should bother anyone who still believes justice is supposed to follow evidence, not influence. The question is not whether the Clemens orbit was famous. Fame is irrelevant. The question is whether fame distorted the investigation. The question is whether federal actors ignored documented misconduct because the wrong names were attached to it. The question is whether Kenner was turned into the useful villain because he lacked the same protective architecture. If that is what happened, then this was not law enforcement. It was narrative laundering with a federal case number.

Berard, Kaiser, And Visible Muscle

Every operation needs a public face. Every pressure campaign needs men willing to carry the message. In the Kenner narrative, John Kaiser supplied one form of visible muscle. Former NHL player Bryan Berard supplied another. Berard was no ordinary sports-world figure. He was an NHL name and the only American hockey player suspended by the U.S. Olympic Committee for steroid use. That history matters because this story sits at the crossroads of sports celebrity, steroid-era scandal, investor money, reputational fear, and federal leverage.

According to allegations from the Kenner side, Berard and Kaiser helped pressure investors and skeptics who refused to accept the approved version of events. The message was blunt: side with the cabal, or risk criminal consequences. In that kind of environment, truth does not need to be defeated on the merits. It only needs to be made expensive, dangerous, and lonely. People with families, jobs, reputations, and limited resources often retreat when powerful men start waving criminal threats around like baseball bats.

Galioto provided the institutional cover. Kaiser provided the street-level pressure. Berard supplied sports-world credibility and intimidation value. Freeh ensured that the broader machinery continued to hum. And Jowdy, the strawman, remained strangely insulated while Kenner absorbed the punishment. This is why the case smells wrong. It does not smell like a clean prosecution. It smells like choreography. It smells like men protecting their own. It smells like a case where the visible defendant may not have been the deepest villain, only the most convenient body to drag before the cameras.

Kenner Got The Cage: EDNY And The Judicial Fog

When the case reached the Eastern District of New York, the government had a duty to follow the money wherever it led. Not halfway. Not selectively. Not only until the trail reached protected names. The public was owed a full accounting of the financial flows, the development projects, the sports-world payments, the Lehman connections, the Jowdy role, the Bhatti role, and the law-enforcement interference. Instead, according to Kenner’s side, prosecutors adopted the already-scripted version of reality and pushed the case through the federal machinery.

The courtroom then became another narrative-control venue. Evidence was framed. History was narrowed. Blame was concentrated. Larger money trails were minimized or pushed offstage. A complicated financial and institutional scandal was reduced to a defendant-centered morality play. That is how federal prosecutions can become dangerous. Not because juries are evil. Not because judges are evil. But because once the government controls the frame, ordinary people inside the system may never see what has been excluded from view.

Now, after more than a decade of litigation and a two-decade war over the truth, the file is not dead. U.S. District Judge Nusrat Choudhury now sits in a position to examine what earlier actors would not. Her oversight may finally force daylight into a case that has spent too long inside institutional shadow. The question is not whether Philip Kenner was perfect. That is a child’s question and a prosecutor’s favorite distraction. The adult question is whether the government told the whole truth. If it did not, then the public deserves to know who narrowed the frame, who benefited, and who paid the price.

Kenner Got The Cage: The Cancer Clock Behind Bars

The Philip Kenner story became more urgent because federal custody eventually became something worse than punishment. It became a cancer clock. His medical filings and related narrative have described a brutal struggle with serious illness inside the Bureau of Prisons, where delay, transfer, cancellation, administrative exhaustion, and bureaucratic indifference can become their own form of sentence. A man fighting cancer does not have the luxury of waiting for government systems to rediscover humanity at their preferred pace. Every missed appointment matters. Every delayed scan matters. Every ignored request matters. Time itself becomes evidence.

That is why the compassionate-release and medical-care dimension cannot be separated from the larger scandal. If Kenner was simply another convicted defendant, the government still owed him lawful custody and adequate medical care. If he was also the selected fall guy in a larger protected-money operation, then the moral stakes become far higher. It means the same system that narrowed the case may now be slow-walking the life of the man who can expose the buried record. That is not merely harsh. That is obscene.

Kenner is not asking history to pretend he was never convicted. He is asking history to look at the whole machine. His case forces a basic question: What happens when the government destroys a man’s public name, buries disputed evidence, protects better-connected figures, and then warehouses the target through life-threatening illness? At that point, the system is not just broken. It is weaponized. The cancer clock is not a side issue. It is the ticking sound beneath the entire story.

Bring Out The Gimp

So yes, maybe this story needs Tarantino. Not because it is fiction, but because the truth is too grotesque for polite institutional language. A crooked-cop epic. A federal Star Chamber. A financial strawman. A steroid-era sports scandal. A dead country singer. A fallen investment bank. A cancer patient in a federal cage. A former FBI Director’s shadow. A former FBI agent’s fingerprints. A former NYPD operator’s pressure tactics. A courthouse file that refuses to stay buried. This is not a subplot. This is the movie they prayed nobody would finance.

The formerly protected cabal may feel safe for now. They may still believe the old shields are intact: federal prestige, media relationships, legal complexity, public fatigue, and the assumption that nobody will spend twenty years pulling thread from the same rotten sweater. But the facts in evidence continue to surface publicly. The deep-state protection that once insulated these men may not hold forever. The lawfare-media cartel is not as strong as it once was. The public has learned too much about selective prosecution, institutional lying, narrative control, and the permanent political class’s favorite trick: accuse the target of everything the machine itself is doing.

On a Tarantino set, destruction, theft, death, and departure can be exposed in the proper medium. In federal court, crooked cops may finally see a defense table. Men who spent years shaping stories may have to answer questions under oath. Men who hid behind badges may have to explain the money. Men who fed headlines may have to face documents. Justice may have been blind for decades, but the lantern is swinging now. And when it lands on the right faces, somebody may finally have to answer.

Bring out the gimp.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Justice must not merely be internally sincere. It must be publicly credible. That is the whole ballgame. Morales-Minerva may believe she can be fair. That is not enough anymore. The case now involves a journalist-plaintiff investigating the courts, a Manhattan Democratic power household, a Council Majority Whip, a sitting judge-defendant reportedly moved into the same county courthouse, NYSCEF integrity questions, and OCA silence. If the file is clean, certify it. If the judge saw everything, say it. If the system has two sets of books, expose it. But do not insult the public by pretending this still looks normal. This piece is “Judicial Pinball Explodes.”

By Rick LaRiviere, Frankie Pressman, and Richard Luthmann

The Recusal Fight Just Went Nuclear

Richard Luthmann’s latest supplemental filing in Luthmann v. Hanks et al., New York County Supreme Court Index No. 100012/2024, does not politely ask Justice Emily Morales-Minerva to step aside. It builds a public-integrity pressure cooker and dares the New York court system to explain why the lid should stay on.

Filed July 10, 2026, the supplemental CPLR 2106 affirmation says the issue is not whether Morales-Minerva privately believes she can be fair. The issue is whether a reasonable member of the public, fully informed of the facts, would question her continued role in a politically radioactive case brought by a journalist now reporting directly on her courthouse ecosystem, NYSCEF integrity, court-file manipulation allegations, and Manhattan judicial politics.

The filing says the answer is obvious: yes. Luthmann leans on Justice Brendan Lantry’s prior recusal as the benchmark. Lantry, according to the filing, stepped aside because his impartiality “may be questioned” due to personal relationships and political activity involving defendant Ronald Castorina Jr.

Luthmann argues that if Lantry’s attenuated connections required recusal, Morales-Minerva’s situation is worse: her husband, Domenico “Nico” Minerva, chairs the Manhattan Democratic Party, and the case involves Democratic power players, a City Council Majority Whip, a sitting judge-defendant, and now Luthmann’s own published investigation of New York County court machinery.

This is no longer just an old fee dispute. It is a courthouse legitimacy test.

Judicial Pinball Explodes: Luthmann Says Journalism Changed The Case

The new filing’s strongest pivot is press status. Luthmann says he is not merely a pro se plaintiff trying to collect an old $86,000 legal bill. He is a bona fide journalist and publisher whose work is protected by New York Civil Rights Law § 79-h, Article I, § 8 of the New York Constitution, and the First Amendment.

The filing says he regularly publishes on New York courts, family courts, lawfare, court corruption, political retaliation, institutional misconduct, and public-integrity issues through TheFamilyCourtCircus.com, Luthmann.Substack.com, NYNewsPress.com, and related platforms.

That matters because on July 9, 2026, Luthmann published “The File Is The Weapon,” a direct investigative piece alleging NYSCEF irregularities and court-file manipulation in the Amsterdam Key Associates v. Queen Mother Delois Blakely case, a matter involving Justice Morales-Minerva.

In the supplemental affirmation, he argues that any ruling by Morales-Minerva in his own case will now be viewed through a new public lens: if she rules against him, critics may see retaliation against a journalist investigating the courts; if she rules for him, critics may see institutional damage control. Either way, he argues, the appearance of neutrality is gone.

The attached exhibits show the article was filed into NYSCEF as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, complete with the headline, the “two sets of justice” poster, and the allegation that NYSCEF may be a public storefront while internal court systems hold the real file.

NY News Press

Judicial Pinball Explodes: The NYSCEF Question – Is The Judge Seeing The File?

The most dangerous part of the filing is not the political argument. It is the NYSCEF question. Luthmann’s article and exhibits hammer Louann Larsen’s allegation that New York’s public-facing court docket may not match the internal court-management system judges actually use.

In the Blakely exemplar, Larsen alleges no affidavit or affirmation of service for the summons and complaint, an unsigned summons, “zero” motion numbers, a judgment marked “received” rather than publicly accessible in ordinary filed form, pro se filings allegedly visible in NYSCEF but not processed internally, metadata concerns, and a same-day “disposed” case after emergency relief was submitted.

The exhibits include screenshots showing the Blakely docket with Motion #001, #002, and #003 prefixes; a judgment entry described as “Judgment — signed by Court to County Clerk”; and docket activity surrounding the May 19, 2026 emergency filings.

The press inquiry to OCA, sent to Al Baker and Arlene Hackel, asked the question every litigant should want answered: can every NYSCEF user be assured that every filed document is transmitted to and available for review by the assigned judge? It also asked whether a document can appear on the public docket while failing to appear in UCMS, CourtNet, or another internal judge-facing system.

As of the article, OCA had not answered. That silence is not a footnote. It is gasoline.

A court system that will not explain whether judges see the same file the public sees cannot keep demanding trust.

Judicial Pinball Explodes: Castorina’s Manhattan Move Makes The Optics Worse

Then comes the courthouse grenade: Ronald Castorina Jr., a named defendant in Luthmann’s case and a sitting New York State Supreme Court Justice, has reportedly been transferred from Richmond County Supreme Court to New York County, where he is expected to handle Manhattan matrimonial matters.

The supplemental affirmation says this materially worsens the appearance problem because the Court is now being asked to let Morales-Minerva, a New York County Supreme Court Justice, rule in a case involving a judge-defendant reportedly moving into the same courthouse ecosystem.

Exhibit E frames the transfer bluntly: Castorina is leaving Staten Island’s courthouse world and entering one of Manhattan Supreme Court’s most sensitive lanes, matrimonial litigation, where custody, high-net-worth divorce, financial disclosure, and judicial discretion collide.

Luthmann argues no ordinary litigant should have to wonder whether his claims against a sitting judge-defendant are being judged by another judge who may now share courthouse administration, personnel, meetings, or institutional loyalties with him.

Add Manhattan Democrat politics, and the room gets hotter. Morales-Minerva’s husband remains the Manhattan Democratic Party chair. Defendant Kamillah Hanks is a New York City Council Majority Whip. Hanks is politically aligned with Speaker Julie Menin’s orbit, and Menin operates inside the same Manhattan Democrat ecosystem Nico Minerva leads.

Luthmann’s answer to the expected defense cry that he “chose the venue” is simple: venue is assessed at filing; recusal is assessed as facts develop.

The facts have overtaken the original filing decision.

The Only Cure is Sunlight

In the end, Luthmann’s supplemental filing leaves New York’s court system with a choice it can no longer dodge. Either Justice Emily Morales-Minerva steps aside, and the case is reassigned beyond the reach of courthouse politics, or every ruling that follows carries the stink of the machine.

Either OCA explains whether NYSCEF filings actually reach judges in the same form the public sees, or the silence becomes part of the story.

Either Castorina’s sudden Manhattan landing is irrelevant, and the courts can prove it, or it becomes one more piece of the judicial pinball pattern.

This is not about one angry litigant. It is about whether a journalist can investigate court corruption while litigating in the same system without being punished, buried, or routed into procedural fog.

Justice must satisfy the appearance of justice. Right now, the appearance is a mess.

The only cure is sunlight: recusal, reassignment, file certification, NYSCEF audit, and answers under oath.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Bombadiko is right to see something larger here. Norway is not Africa, and Haaland is not carrying Morocco’s flag. But the pattern is unmistakable. The old football establishment keeps mistaking tradition for entitlement. Morocco built a world-class football culture. Egypt nearly buried Argentina. Cape Verde dragged giants into deep water. Now Norway has thrown Brazil out of the castle window. This is not a cute underdog story. It is a market correction. The World Cup hierarchy is cracking because hungry nations are no longer asking permission to matter. Morocco is Africa’s last lion. Norway is the new axe at the gate. This piece is “The Castle is Cracking,” first available on NY News Press.

By Abbas Bombadiko with Matt “Sully” Sullivan

Are you hearing me now?

For years, I warned the football aristocracy that the castle is cracking. I said Africa was coming. I said Morocco was not a miracle, not a guest, not a charity story for lazy broadcasters hunting for romance between betting ads. Morocco was the evidence. Morocco was the institution. Morocco was the roar from a continent that had been patted on the head by the football establishment while Europe and South America treated the World Cup like inherited property.

Now Egypt has fallen. My heart hurts for the Pharaohs. They had Argentina wounded, staggering, and staring at the abyss before Lionel Messi and the old champions clawed their way out of Atlanta with a 3-2 comeback that felt less like victory than survival. Egypt is gone. Africa has only one flag left in the tournament.

Morocco.

My beloved Morocco.

And yet, from the cold north, another hammer has hit the castle gate.

Norway — yes, Norway — has sent Brazil home.

The Seleção, the five-star empire, the yellow-shirted mythology machine, the nation that once made the ball look like it had a soul, has been dragged into the modern age by a Viking with ice in his veins and a nation that refused to bow.

In New Jersey, under the lights, Norway beat Brazil 2-1 in the Round of 16. Erling Haaland scored twice in the second half, taking his tournament total to seven. Ørjan Nyland stood in goal like a fjord wall, stopping Bruno Guimarães from the penalty spot and swallowing Brazilian panic until Neymar finally converted late. That goal felt less like a comeback than a curtain call. Brazil did not leave like kings. Brazil left like a corporation that had lost its market share.

The accountants will scream about expected goals. They will tell you Brazil finished with 2.73 xG to Norway’s 0.84. Good. Let them cling to spreadsheets like life rafts. Numbers can explain chances. They cannot explain hunger. They cannot explain why Brazil, with all its pedigree, looked heavy, nervous, and entitled while Norway looked like a country discovering that history does not have to ask permission.

This was not samba. This was a foreclosure.

Carlo Ancelotti’s Brazil looked like a museum exhibit with expensive lighting. Norway looked alive. Haaland did not wait for FIFA’s blessing. He did not need the old powers to include him in their soft-focus commercial about football heritage. He kicked the door open with both boots and walked through wearing a horned helmet in spirit.

And now I must confess something dangerous.

Norway is far, far from my home. It is not Morocco. It is not Casablanca. It is not Rabat. It is not Marrakech. It does not smell like mint tea, sea air, dust, smoke, and history. These men look like they were dressed for Winterfest in Oslo and accidentally conquered a World Cup knockout round.

But I recognize the spirit.

I recognize the disrespect.

I recognize the refusal to stay in the assigned seat.

That is why Norway matters. Not because Norway is Africa. It is not. Not because Haaland is carrying some global-south banner. He is not. Norway matters because the same old football hierarchy that underestimated African football also underestimated anyone outside its approved mythology. The old order always has room for the same faces, the same brands, the same television darlings, the same “proper” football nations. Then Morocco arrived. Then Cape Verde dragged Argentina to the edge. Then Egypt nearly buried the defending champions. Now Norway has taken Brazil’s crown jewels and tossed them into the Hudson.

This is bigger than one upset.

This is the 21st century roaring.

NY News Press

FIFA’s permanent palace class should be sweating. For decades, the structure of world football has favored the rich, the famous, and the familiar. Marketing campaigns built gods out of aging stars while entire continents had to prove the same thing twice. Refereeing controversies were waved away. Scheduling advantages were dressed up as logistics. Development gaps were discussed like natural law instead of policy choices. The aristocrats smiled from the luxury box and called it tradition.

Tradition just got body-checked by a Viking.

Africa’s charge has been the moral center of this tournament. Morocco carried the memory of 2022 into 2026 and turned it into an institution. Egypt showed that Africa’s second wave was not afraid of Argentina, Messi, or the weight of defending champions. Cape Verde showed the world that a smaller nation can still punch a hole through the script. Even in defeat, Africa has not looked like an undercard. It has looked like a continent demanding its proper place on the marquee.

But now the burden is clear.

Morocco stands alone.

No more hiding in the crowd. No more “Africa is rising” as a slogan. It is Morocco now. The Atlas Lions are the last roar from the continent, the last red-and-green flag carrying all the bruises, all the doubts, all the condescension, and all the belief. That is pressure. That is glory. That is the price of becoming more than a story.

And maybe, just maybe, I will adopt these Vikings for a few days.

Not as family. Let us not get carried away.

As cousins in rebellion.

Because Norway did what emerging football nations must do. It ignored the brochure. It ignored the bloodline. It ignored the old medals hanging on the wall. Brazil had the mythology. Norway had the moment. The moment won.

That is the lesson FIFA hates.

The game belongs to those who fight for it now, not those resting on 20th-century glory. It belongs to Morocco when Morocco builds a world-class football culture and refuses to apologize for ambition. It belongs to Norway when Haaland turns a knockout match into a raid. It belongs to every nation told to clap politely while the old powers take their usual seats at the table.

Brazil is gone.

Egypt is gone.

Africa has one lion left.

Norway has its Viking axe raised.

The castle is shaking.

Are you hearing me roar yet?

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Bombadiko was not selling romance. He was standing in front of a cathedral while everyone else saw scaffolding. Morocco is not merely a team on a run. It is an institution now — a world-class football culture built with identity, infrastructure, discipline, development, diaspora genius, and national belief. That is what makes this so stunning. The Atlas Lions are not borrowing anybody else’s model. They have built their own. Canada saw it in Houston. France gets the next revelation in Boston. The media class keeps calling African excellence a “fairy tale” because it cannot process the truth: Morocco did not crash the party. Morocco built a palace next door. The world had better look up in awe. This piece is “Lions At The Gate.”

By Abbas Bombadiko with Matt “Sully” Sullivan

I have spent years screaming into the void.

A former Moroccan national team player who watched our beautiful game get reduced to condescending footnotes, lazy scouting reports, and tired “African football” stereotypes, I begged, pleaded, warned, and demanded that the global football establishment recognize what Morocco was building.

For too long, they smirked.

They patted us on the head after every brave performance, after every “spirited” showing, after every almost-moment, then went right back to worshipping the same old European and South American powers as if world football were a private club with a permanent guest list.

No more.

Morocco is no longer the plucky outsider. Morocco is no longer the romantic story. Morocco is no longer the surprise guest at somebody else’s banquet.

Morocco is the real deal.

After the Atlas Lions shocked the world by reaching the semifinals in Qatar in 2022, after Morocco’s Under-20 heroes lifted the FIFA U-20 World Cup trophy in 2025, and now after the senior national team has reached the World Cup quarterfinals for the second straight tournament, I am finished asking for respect.

I am demanding an apology.

On Saturday in Houston, Morocco beat co-host Canada 3-0 and marched into the quarterfinals again. The scoreline was clean. The statement was louder. Canada came hard. Canada pressed. Canada had the early energy, the home-continent adrenaline, and the first-half momentum. They pushed Morocco backward. They created chances. They tried to turn the day into a North American coronation.

But tournaments are not won by noise. They are won by nerve.

Morocco survived the first-half storm, adjusted, and then punished Canada like a mature football nation does. That is what separates a good story from a serious contender.

In the 50th minute, Achraf Hakimi helped unlock the match from a set-piece routine, and Azzedine Ounahi supplied the finish. It was not panic football. It was not hopeful football. It was designed, drilled, and delivered. Ounahi struck again in the 82nd minute, this time after Brahim Díaz found him in transition. Then, deep into stoppage time, Díaz opened Canada up once more, and Soufiane Rahimi buried the third.

Three goals. No answer. No apology yet.

But one is owed.

The old football establishment called Morocco’s 2022 run a fairy tale because that was easier than admitting the world had changed. A fairy tale can be dismissed as magic. A fairy tale can be put back on the shelf. A fairy tale does not force uncomfortable questions about scouting arrogance, media bias, federation-building, diaspora development, tactical discipline, and African football’s rising seriousness.

But this is not a fairy tale.

This is infrastructure. This is identity. This is investment. This is a nation that looked at the global hierarchy and refused to bow.

Morocco did not stumble into this moment. It built toward it. It built academies. It built belief. It blended European club experience with Moroccan pride. It turned diaspora talent into national purpose. It married defensive discipline with technical quality. It refused to apologize for winning ugly when necessary and refused to shrink when the world finally started watching.

That is what Canada learned in Houston.

That is what the Netherlands learned before them.

NY News Press

That is what France must now confront in the quarterfinals.

Yes, France is France. The name still carries weight. The shirt still scares people. Kylian Mbappé remains one of the most dangerous players alive, and the French machine does not need permission to dominate a tournament. But Morocco has seen this movie before. In 2022, France ended Morocco’s dream in the semifinals. That match was treated by much of the world as the natural order restoring itself.

Now comes the rematch, and the terms are different.

Morocco is not arriving with wonder in its eyes. Morocco is arriving with receipts.

This time, the Atlas Lions do not need to prove they belong. They already have. This time, the question is not whether Morocco can share the field with France. The question is whether France can handle a Moroccan side that has stopped believing in ceilings.

To the FIFA suits, the European media darlings, and the pundits who spent decades treating African football as emotional, chaotic, athletic, raw, unfinished, or merely “promising,” where is your apology?

You celebrated Morocco’s 2022 run as beautiful. Fine. But did you understand it? You praised the fans. You praised the passion. You praised the flag-waving and the tears and the noise in the streets. But too many of you missed the football.

You missed the organization.

You missed the intelligence.

You missed the project.

Now the project is standing in another quarterfinal.

Morocco is the first African nation to reach the World Cup quarterfinals more than once. That is not symbolism. That is history. And history does not ask politely to be noticed. It kicks the door open.

The African continent has waited too long to be treated as a serious football power, not a development charity case. Morocco is not carrying that burden alone, but Morocco is carrying the flag at the front of the march. The message is no longer “watch out someday.” The message is now.

Africa is here.

Morocco is here.

Bombadiko was right.

The world stayed silent too long, and the silence now sounds ridiculous. Morocco is not just competing. Morocco is winning. Morocco is not visiting the world stage. Morocco is becoming one of its central characters.

And if the football world still cannot bring itself to clap properly, that is its problem.

The Atlas Lions have stopped waiting for permission.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: African football is showing something real at this World Cup. Not a cute underdog pulse. Not a lucky bounce. Not a sentimental postcard for FIFA’s diversity reel. Something real. Bombadiko has been saying it for years: the talent was always there, the hunger was always there, and now the structure is catching up. Cape Verde scared Argentina. Egypt broke through. Morocco is back in the deep water and looks like it belongs. But the question now gets sharper: can Africa close strong? Can the Lions, Pharaohs, and dreamers turn breakthrough into blood sport when the pressure doubles? The cage is open. Now comes the hunt. This piece is “Bombadiko’s Boys Have Arrived! ROAR!,” first available on NY News Press.

By Abbas Bombadiko with Matt “Sully” Sullivan

Listen up, you suits in Zurich and all you European glory-hunters who have feasted on FIFA’s golden goose for decades. I am Abbas Bombadiko, former Moroccan international, a warrior who bled on pitches where African football was handed scraps while the usual suspects were served banquets.

I have had enough.

The bitterness still burns in my chest like a late tackle from behind. But today, I roar with joy because the tide has turned. Africa is not begging for respect anymore. Africa is taking it. Cape Verde proved it. Egypt proved it. Morocco just thundered into the Round of 8 and made the old football aristocracy feel the ground shake beneath their polished shoes.

This World Cup is not business as usual. This is the beginning of the end of the private little club.

Cape Verde gave the world the warning shot. The island warriors did not come to bow before Argentina, the defending champions, the almighty Albiceleste, the Messi machine, the global brand in blue and white. Cape Verde came to fight. They took Argentina into extra time, traded blows with the kings, and forced the champions to survive a 3-2 thriller that will live far longer than many victories.

Let that sink in. Cape Verde — a nation of roughly half a million people, smaller than some European academy pipelines — dragged the defending world champions to the cliff edge. They pressed. They battled. They defended with pride and attacked with belief. They made Messi and company work for every breath. No walkover. No ceremonial goodbye. No cute underdog story for the television packages.

Cape Verde left with defeat on the scoreboard but victory in the imagination of every young African footballer watching from Praia, Dakar, Lagos, Cairo, Rabat, Johannesburg, and beyond. They did not merely participate. They announced that the so-called minnows have teeth.

Then came Egypt.

The Pharaohs marched into the Round of 16 and put another African flag into the knockout conversation. This is not a fluke. This is a pattern. From the Nile to the Atlantic islands, from the Atlas Mountains to the Cape, African football is no longer surviving on raw talent alone. It is adding structure, discipline, coaching, fitness, patience, and tournament steel.

The world should have seen this coming. For decades, Europe imported African legs, African lungs, African creativity, African courage, and African hunger. They praised the talent once it wore European shirts or played under European club crests. Now the source nations are organizing. Now the academies are maturing. Now the national teams are learning how to suffer, strike, and close.

And then — my Morocco.

Roar.

The Atlas Lions are not waiting for applause. They are collecting scalps. First, Morocco survived the Netherlands in the Round of 32, holding the Dutch to a 1-1 battle and winning the penalty shootout 3-2. That alone would have been enough to rattle the old order. But Morocco was not finished. On July 4 in Houston, the Lions ripped through co-host Canada 3-0 and marched into the World Cup quarterfinals.

Round of 8. Say it slowly.

Morocco did not sneak in through the back door. Morocco kicked it open.

Azzedine Ounahi struck twice. Soufiane Rahimi added the finishing blow in stoppage time. Canada came with host-nation energy, crowd noise, and belief. Morocco answered with composure, punishment, and tournament cruelty. That is what elite teams do. They absorb pressure. They wait. They strike. They make opponents pay for every missed chance.

NY News Press

This is no longer a romantic story about 2022. This is a football program.

Morocco’s senior team shocked the world four years ago by becoming the first African nation to reach a World Cup semifinal. The doubters called it magic. The analysts called it a run. The old guard called it a moment.

Wrong.

It was infrastructure. It was identity. It was investment. It was diaspora. It was youth development. It was tactical maturity. It was the sound of a football nation deciding it was done asking permission.

And if anyone still doubts the pipeline, look at the young blood. Morocco lifted the 2025 FIFA U-20 World Cup, beating Argentina 2-0 in the final. That was not an accident. That was a warning label. The next generation is not coming from the same old factories. New training grounds are producing new killers. New countries are writing new football scripture.

Longtime insiders have been whispering it for years: Argentina is not invincible. Messi has carried more than a team; he has carried an empire of expectation. Cape Verde exposed the strain. Egypt now waits for Argentina in the Round of 16. Morocco waits in the quarterfinals for the France-Paraguay winner. More coverage on Morocco’s Round of 8 warpath is coming, and it deserves its own battlefield.

But today belongs to the awakening.

FIFA can keep its rankings. The European press can keep its patronizing adjectives. The old powers can keep pretending African football is still raw, emotional, undisciplined, and naïve.

The pitch says otherwise.

Cape Verde showed courage. Egypt showed progress. Morocco showed power.

To my African brothers: keep fighting. Keep believing. Keep building. The world is watching now. Soon, they will not be watching with curiosity. They will be watching with fear.

The Lions are roaring.

The cage is broken.

And the future of football is no longer locked inside Europe’s trophy room.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Self-styled civil rights lawyer Eric Sanders says, “The work continues.” Good. So does ours. Sanders tried to respond like a courtroom tough guy and landed like a press-release pratfall. He attacked Luthmann, ignored LaRivière, dodged Nast, and left a pregnant Mary Rocco sitting untouched in the middle of the room. “Good standing” is not a washing machine. A $15 million verdict is not a magic eraser. A credit-score flex is not a contempt-order rebuttal. Sanders wants grace, context, and nuance for himself, but scarlet letters for everyone else. That is not civil rights. That is brand management with a bar card. The work continues — and clowns like Eric Sanders keep making our work easier. This piece is “Eric Sanders Ducks His Record,” first available at NY News Press.

By Rick LaRivière and M. Thomas Nast with Richard Luthmann

Sanders Throws A Tantrum, Not A Rebuttal

(NEW YORK, NEW YORK) – Self-styled civil rights attorney Eric Sanders finally responded, just not to the questions.

Not to the Mary Rocco pregnancy-discrimination and retaliation matter. Not to the reported $175,000 award. Not to whether an appellate court upheld it. Not to whether Rocco was paid promptly. Not to whether a contempt order was vacated. Not to whether bankruptcy was used while a former employee tried to collect.

Not to whether Quathisha Epps actually worked every hour of the massive NYPD overtime that made her the department’s highest-paid employee.

Instead, Sanders did what weak lawyers do when the record gets ugly. He made personal attacks against Richard Luthmann, one of the contributors to the reporting.

That was the tell. The article Sanders attacked was by Rick LaRivière and M. Thomas Nast with Luthmann as a minor contributor. Sanders did not rebut LaRivière’s reporting. He did not engage the ten detailed questions sent before publication. He did not produce the records requested. He did not answer the hard questions about Epps, Maddrey, overtime, retaliation, payroll, or his own troubled history.

He simply tried to make Luthmann the story. That is not a rebuttal. That is a diversion.

Sanders’ piece was dressed up as a “public-record response,” but it functioned like a smoke grenade. He used Luthmann’s controversial past as a shield to avoid his own. That may work on social media. It does not work in journalism. Public records do cut both ways. That is exactly why Sanders was asked about his own public record in the first place.

The question was never whether Luthmann has a criminal past. He does, and he has publicly discussed it for years while talking about second chances.

The question is whether Sanders, as Quathisha Epps’ lawyer and public spokesman, can answer the credibility issues now sitting in his own lap.

So far, the answer is no. The work continues.

Eric Sanders Ducks His Record: The Rocco Problem Still Sits On The Table

Sanders’ central dodge is obvious. He wants readers to focus on Richard Luthmann’s federal conviction rather than on the employment discrimination against Mary Rocco, who was terminated because she was pregnant.

“Go make babies,” Sanders said.

Mary Rocco is the issue Sanders will not answer. According to the New York Post’s 2013 reporting, Sanders was arrested at his Melville, Long Island home after a federal bankruptcy judge had enough of missed court dates and failure to make required payments. The same report said Sanders had been found liable for retaliating against and firing former employee Mary Rocco because she was pregnant. The state Division of Human Rights awarded Rocco $175,000, and the award was reportedly upheld on appeal.

That is the contradiction at the center of the Sanders problem. He markets himself as a civil-rights lawyer, representing clients in discrimination, retaliation, sexual-harassment, and workplace-abuse matters. He now represents Quathisha Epps in a case built around allegations of sexual coercion, retaliation, and institutional misconduct.

Yet his own file includes a reported pregnancy-discrimination and retaliation matter involving his own former employee. That is not stale gossip. That is directly relevant hypocrisy.

Sanders had the chance to say the Rocco award never happened. He did not. He had the chance to say the award was vacated. He did not. He had the chance to say the contempt order was reversed. He did not. He had the chance to say Rocco was paid promptly. He did not. He had the chance to produce records showing the New York Post got the story wrong. He did not.

Instead, he screamed about Luthmann. That is what guilty narratives do when the facts are inconvenient. They change the channel.

Sanders may be licensed and an attorney “in good standing.” Sanders may have won cases. None of that answers the Mary Rocco problem.

The record remains on the table, untouched. The work continues.

Eric Sanders Ducks His Record: “Good Standing” Is Not A Washing Machine

Sanders repeatedly says he is licensed, “in good standing,” and has never been professionally disciplined. Fine. Report it. No one is hiding it.

But Sanders wants to turn “no attorney discipline” into “no adverse facts.” That is nonsense.

A lawyer can remain in good standing and still have a troubling public record. A grievance committee can decline discipline without erasing a discrimination award. A bar committee can say “no action warranted” without deciding that every underlying fact was false. Good standing is not a magic wand. It does not make contempt disappear, reverse a human-rights award, prove bankruptcy was clean, or answer whether Mary Rocco was forced to chase money she was owed.

Sanders knows this. He is a lawyer. He understands the difference between professional discipline and factual accountability. That is why his response is so slippery.

He wants readers to believe the only question is whether the bar took his license. That was never the question. The question is whether the public should evaluate his credibility when he publicly sells Quathisha Epps as a victim, attacks the NYPD, attacks Maddrey, and tries to bury the overtime scandal under the word “retaliation.”

The answer is yes.

A lawyer’s public role matters. When a lawyer becomes part of the media operation, his credibility becomes part of the story. Sanders is not quietly filing motions in a private employment dispute. He is shaping a public narrative involving sex, power, payroll, federal investigators, the NYPD’s highest levels, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in disputed overtime.

In that role, “I still have my license” is not enough. The public is allowed to ask whether the civil-rights lawyer carrying the microphone also carries baggage.

Sanders’ own response proves he does. The work continues.

NY News Press

Eric Sanders Ducks His Record: Bankruptcy “Strategy” Still Needs An Answer

Sanders says the bankruptcy story is a lie. Then he admits he filed for bankruptcy protection. That is not a denial. That is a rebranding exercise.

His explanation is that bankruptcy was a “legal strategy” to protect a client, not evidence that he was drowning in personal debt. Maybe. But that does not answer the public question. The question is whether bankruptcy was used while Mary Rocco, a former employee with a reported discrimination and retaliation award, was trying to collect money owed to her.

The question is whether the bankruptcy filing delayed, blocked, complicated, or frustrated collection. The question is why a federal bankruptcy judge reportedly held Sanders in civil contempt and why he spent six days in custody.

Sanders wants to talk about his credit score. Who cares? A high credit score does not answer why a discrimination creditor allegedly had to chase payment. In fact, it makes the contradiction worse. If Sanders had strong finances, stable income, and “A-1 credit,” why was Rocco still fighting for money years after the reported award? Why did the matter reach contempt? Why did he end up in federal custody? Why did the Post report that Judge Dorothy Eisenberg ordered him jailed until he paid $181,666 with interest?

Those are specific questions. Sanders’ answer is vibe. He talks about being housed with murder suspects, about inmates and guards respecting him, and about carrying himself with dignity. That may be interesting autobiography, but it is not a legal rebuttal.

It does not explain the contempt order. It does not explain the payment history. It does not produce the docket. It does not produce the satisfaction.

A lawyer who demands accountability from the NYPD should understand accountability when it knocks on his own door.

Sanders still has not opened it. The work continues.

Eric Sanders Ducks His Record: Civil Rights Lawyer’s Attack On Journalism Is The Ugly Irony

The most revealing part of Sanders’ response is not his attack on Luthmann. It is his contempt for the journalism itself.

Sanders tried to dismiss the reporting as a hit piece, a smear, a fraudster’s project, and a sideshow. But the article was published under the bylines of Rick LaRivière and M. Thomas Nast with Richard Luthmann as a minor contributor. Sanders did not seriously engage Rick LaRivière’s questions. He did not treat independent journalism as legitimate. He treated it as something to be sneered at, mocked, and erased.

That is rich coming from a Black civil-rights lawyer.

New York City has publicly recognized that journalists of color are underrepresented and that local reporters play an essential role in elevating voices and holding power accountable. City Hall announced a journalism scholarship initiative aimed at students of color precisely because newsrooms do not reflect the communities they cover. Black Americans are about 12 percent of the U.S. population but only about 6 percent of journalists.

So what does Sanders do when confronted by independent Black journalism? He tries to delegitimize it.

He does not answer the Black journalist’s questions. He does not respect the inquiry. He does not respond with records. He instead tries to reduce the whole project to Richard Luthmann’s past, as if a Black independent journalist cannot stand on his own reporting, ask his own questions, or publish his own investigation unless Sanders approves the messenger.

That is not civil rights. That is professional arrogance. Sanders is free to fight. He is free to criticize. But a Black civil-rights lawyer attacking independent Black journalism while claiming to defend accountability is hypocrisy so thick it should come with a warning label.

He wants the microphone when it helps his career.

He wants to break the microphone when it questions him. The work continues.

Eric Sanders Ducks His Record: Second Chances For Me, But Not For Thee

Sanders’ response is also hypocritical on second chances. The country has spent years recognizing that people can change, rebuild, and contribute after incarceration. More than 400,000 people leave state and federal prisons every year and face barriers to employment, housing, education, health care, and social reintegration. The entire point of reentry work is that a conviction should not automatically erase a person’s future.

FAMM’s second-chance advocacy rests on a simple truth: people change.

Sanders knows this world. Civil-rights lawyers live off the idea that people are more than the worst thing alleged against them. They argue context, rehabilitation, and opportunity. They argue against permanent civic death.

But when it comes to Richard Luthmann, Sanders suddenly turns into the prosecutor of eternal damnation. He does not argue the facts. He argues the label. Fraudster. Disbarred lawyer. Convict. Prison. Restitution. Forfeiture.

That is the whole move. Not because those facts are hidden. They are not. But because Sanders wants Luthmann’s past to disqualify the journalism without Sanders having to answer the questions.

That is not principle. That is convenience. The same society Sanders invokes when he wants civil-rights credibility is built on second chances. Reentry is not just a slogan for grant applications and panel discussions. It means allowing people to work, write, report, build, expose, and participate after paying their debt.

Sanders does not have to like Luthmann. But he does not get to pretend that a past conviction bars someone from asking present-tense questions about him.

The hypocrisy is glaring. Sanders wants grace for his own record, context for his own contempt, nuance for his own bankruptcy, and respect for his own career.

But for others, he offers only a scarlet letter. The work continues.

Eric Sanders Ducks His Record: The $15 Million Verdict Does Not Answer The Questions

Sanders also points to his 2016 $15 million federal jury verdict for Black NYPD Officer Larry Jackson, who alleged he was beaten and falsely arrested by police officers. That verdict is part of Sanders’ record. It should be acknowledged.

It still does not answer the questions. Winning a civil-rights verdict does not erase a reported pregnancy-discrimination and retaliation award involving a former employee. Trying cases does not vacate contempt. Representing a Black officer does not answer whether Mary Rocco was paid.

A good result for one client does not make a lawyer immune from scrutiny in another scandal. This is the same sleight of hand again.

Sanders keeps pointing to everything except the hole in the wall. He says he is in good standing. Fine. Was the Rocco award entered?

He says he won a $15 million verdict. Fine. Was the Rocco award upheld?

He says he fought police brutality. Fine. Was he jailed on civil contempt?

He says Luthmann went to prison. Fine. Was the bankruptcy connected to collection efforts?

He says he kept working. Fine. Was Rocco paid?

He says he is not broken. Fine. Did Epps work every hour?

That is how you know he is dodging. Nobody claimed Sanders never won a case. Nobody claimed Sanders never helped a client. Nobody claimed Sanders lacks courtroom ability. The issue is not whether Sanders has some wins.

The issue is whether Sanders’ own credibility problems matter when he becomes the public face of Epps’ case against Maddrey. They do. A lawyer can have victories and still have baggage. Sanders’ mistake is believing the victories make the baggage disappear.

They do not.

They simply make his refusal to answer more insulting. The work continues.

Eric Sanders Ducks His Record: The Epps Questions Are Still Unanswered

Sanders’ response also fails Quathisha Epps. If Sanders wanted to protect his client’s credibility, he should have answered the overtime questions with facts. Did Epps work every hour? Who approved the overtime? Were the records complete? Were approvals lawful? Did she sign her own slips? Were any slips backdated? When did she first complain about Maddrey? Did she complain before or after overtime scrutiny began? Did she have a consensual relationship with Maddrey? If she says coercion began, when did she document it?

These are not cheap-shot questions. They are the heart of the case.

Epps was reportedly the highest-paid NYPD employee while working in Maddrey’s office. The NYPD reportedly sought to claw back more than $231,000 in overtime. Maddrey has denied coercion and characterized the relationship as consensual. Epps alleges abuse, retaliation, and institutional misconduct. Federal investigators have entered the picture. The stakes are enormous.

Sanders had the chance to provide clarity. He gave readers a personality attack. That is not advocacy. That is malpractice by press release.

A strong lawyer meets damaging facts head-on. A weak public narrative throws mud at a third party and hopes the audience forgets the questions. Sanders wants everyone talking about Richard Luthmann because he does not want everyone talking about Quathisha Epps’ overtime, Mary Rocco, civil contempt, bankruptcy, NYPD discipline, and the unanswered documentary record.

But those issues remain. The public deserves more than insults. The public deserves records.

If Epps worked the hours, show the proof. If the overtime clawback is retaliation, show the timeline. If the Rocco matter has been misreported, show the orders. If the contempt story is false, show the reversal. If Sanders has answers, publish them.

Until then, the silence is louder than the tantrum. The work continues.

Conclusion: Sanders Made Himself The Story

Eric Sanders says the lawyer attack does not answer the Maddrey/Epps facts. He is right.

So why did he answer with a lawyer attack?

That is the contradiction sitting in the middle of his response like a smoking crater. Sanders accuses others of distraction while producing a document built almost entirely on distraction. He complains that critics are attacking the lawyer rather than the facts, then attacks Richard Luthmann instead of addressing the facts.

He claims to defend accountability, then dodges accountability.

He calls for scrutiny of institutions, then cries foul when scrutiny lands on him.

That is not strength. That is exposure. Sanders made himself the story because he is the one publicly selling the Epps narrative. He is the one asking readers to dismiss the overtime cloud as retaliation. He is the one using his civil-rights brand as moral leverage. He is the one standing between the public and the documents. He is the one refusing to answer direct questions about his own record.

So here is the score.

Richard Luthmann’s past is public. Sanders’ insults are public. But neither one answers the Mary Rocco problem. Neither one answers the contempt problem. Neither one answers the bankruptcy problem. Neither one answers Sanders v. Safir. Neither one answers whether Quathisha Epps worked the overtime. Neither one answers who approved it. Neither one answers why the NYPD sought to claw back more than $231,000. Neither one answers the timing of Epps’ claims.

Sanders can keep swinging at Luthmann if he wants. That may impress the internet. It does not answer journalism.

Rick LaRivière and M. Thomas Nast asked the questions. Eric Sanders dodged them.

That is the story. The work continues.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Eric Sanders wants the public to see him as the civil-rights hammer in Jeffrey Maddrey’s grand scandal. But the hammer looks bent, and after eighteen-plus months the scandal looks stale. Sanders is trying to sell Quathisha Epps as the clean victim in a case already drowning in overtime questions, payroll smoke, and credibility problems. Meanwhile, Sanders’ own file reads like an opposition researcher’s starter kit: NYPD discipline, reported arrest, bankruptcy, contempt, and a pregnancy-discrimination and retaliation award involving a former employee. That is not legal strength. That is weakness in a suit. Sanders looks less like a feared advocate and more like an ineffective damage-control ambulance chaser trying to roll his own baggage past the jury box before anyone notices. This piece is “Maddrey Accuser’s Lawyer Exposed,” first available on NY News Press.

By Rick LaRivière and M. Thomas Nast with Richard Luthmann

The Lawyer For The Troubled Accuser Comes With Baggage

(NEW YORK, NEW YORK) – The Jeffrey Maddrey story has been sold to the public as a clean NYPD morality play. Powerful chief. Helpless subordinate. Sex-for-overtime scandal. Federal raid. Forced resignation. Cue the media orchestra.

But the case was never that clean. And after over eighteen months of a very public federal investigation into Maddrey, no charges have been laid.

At the center of the controversy stands former NYPD Lt. Quathisha Epps, the administrative officer in Maddrey’s office who became the highest-paid employee in the department while sitting inside the orbit of the chief of department.

Around her sits a massive overtime cloud.

Beside her stands attorney Eric Sanders, a former NYPD officer turned civil-rights lawyer who now presents Epps as the victim of sexual coercion, retaliation, and institutional abuse.

That is the public pitch. The record is messier.

Sanders is not just a courtroom technician quietly filing papers. He is part of the public narrative. He speaks for Epps. He frames the overtime scandal as retaliation. He attacks the NYPD machine. He asks the public to trust his client’s claims and to view the payroll issue as a distraction from the real misconduct.

That makes Sanders’ own record fair game. And his record has problems.

Sanders has a confirmed history of NYPD disciplinary action. According to the New York Post, he was arrested in 2013 and jailed on civil contempt. Bankruptcy records and the Post’s reporting place him in a bankruptcy fight while a former employee was trying to collect a discrimination award against him. That former employee’s case was not some ordinary fee dispute or business disagreement. It was a pregnancy-discrimination and retaliation matter.

That silence matters. Because when a lawyer helps drive a public takedown of a former NYPD chief, his own credibility does not get immunity.

Maddrey Accuser’s Lawyer Exposed: Quathisha Epps Was Never A Normal Whistleblower

Before Quathisha Epps became the face of the Maddrey scandal, she was already the face of another scandal: astronomical overtime inside the NYPD.

Epps was not working dangerous midnight tours in East New York. She was not chasing guns in the Bronx. She was not grinding in a violent precinct with endless mandatory tours. She held an administrative role inside Maddrey’s office.

Yet public reporting placed her total fiscal-year compensation above $400,000, including more than $200,000 in overtime. That made her the highest-paid employee in the entire NYPD.

That fact alone should have triggered hard questions. The highest-paid employee in America’s largest police department was not the commissioner, not the chief of department, not a detective commander, not a street-crime boss, and not a precinct commander drowning in chaos. It was Lt. Quathisha Epps, working inside headquarters.

Then came the Internal Affairs scrutiny. Reports said investigators were looking into whether Epps’ overtime was legitimate, whether she worked the hours claimed, whether slips were backdated, whether approvals were rubber-stamped, whether she signed off on her own time, and whether she arrived late, left early, or failed to appear while collecting overtime.

Epps then claimed the overtime scrutiny was retaliation tied to her allegations against Maddrey. That may be her position. It does not erase the payroll problem. It makes the timeline central.

A person can be a real victim and still have credibility problems. A person can make serious allegations and still be under legitimate scrutiny. A person can accuse a powerful boss and still have to answer for public money.

The media’s mistake has been treating Epps as a one-dimensional whistleblower rather than a complicated figure in a complicated scandal. The public deserves the full picture, not the press-release version.

Maddrey Accuser’s Lawyer Exposed: The Overtime Cloud Is The Heart Of The Case

The overtime issue is not a side plot. It is the heart of the Maddrey-Epps fight. Epps alleges Maddrey used power, sex, overtime, and retaliation as tools of control. Her allegations are explosive. If true, they describe predatory command abuse at the top of the NYPD and a culture willing to turn payroll into private currency. Those claims deserve investigation.

But Maddrey has denied coercion and sexual misconduct. Through counsel, he has reportedly characterized the relationship with Epps as consensual and rejected the sex-for-overtime narrative. His side argues that Epps’ allegations emerged as her own overtime exposure intensified. That is not a minor factual dispute. That is the collision point of the case.

The NYPD moved to claw back more than $231,000 in overtime from Epps. Epps and Sanders call the move retaliatory. The department’s side treats the money as compensation for work not performed.

Those two stories cannot be reconciled by slogans. Somebody is selling the public a distorted version. The press should not pretend otherwise.

If Maddrey coerced Epps, it would be a major scandal. If Epps collected overtime she did not earn, that is also a major scandal. If Maddrey enabled or approved inflated overtime as part of a personal relationship, that is an even bigger scandal. If Epps used sex-harassment claims to reframe payroll exposure, that would be a scandal too.

And if pieces of all of it are true, then One Police Plaza has a rot problem deeper than any single headline.

That is why Sanders’ role matters. He is not merely defending a client in private. He is helping frame the public’s understanding of the case.

And the public has a right to know whether the man selling the morality play has his own credibility baggage.

NY News Press

Maddrey Accuser’s Lawyer Exposed: Sanders’ Civil-Rights Brand Meets The Mary Rocco Problem

Eric Sanders’ professional brand is built for this kind of fight. He markets himself as a civil-rights and employment lawyer, a former police officer, and an advocate against discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and institutional misconduct. On paper, that makes him the perfect lawyer for Quathisha Epps.

But the Mary Rocco matter cuts directly against that brand.

According to a 2013 New York Post report by Larry Celona and Selim Algar, Sanders was arrested at his Melville, Long Island home after a federal bankruptcy judge had enough of missed court dates and failure to make required payments. The Post reported that Sanders had been found liable for retaliating against and firing former employee Mary Rocco because she was pregnant.

Read that twice.

The civil-rights lawyer. The discrimination lawyer. The workplace-retaliation lawyer. The lawyer now publicly advancing claims of workplace coercion and retaliation against Jeffrey Maddrey. According to the Post, he was himself found liable in a pregnancy-discrimination and retaliation matter brought by his own former employee.

The reported facts are ugly. The state Division of Human Rights found that Sanders and his partner wrongfully discriminated against Rocco and awarded her $175,000 in 2010. The Post reported that an appellate court upheld the ruling in 2011, but that Rocco still had not been paid by 2013.

Rocco’s attorney described the “terrible irony” of Sanders publicly holding himself out as a civil-rights champion while being found liable for violating his employee’s civil rights.

That is not a footnote. That is a credibility crater.

Sanders was asked to address whether the award was entered, whether it was upheld, whether Rocco was paid, reasons for the delay, whether the contempt order was reversed, and whether the judgment was satisfied. He did not provide answers for publication.

Maddrey Accuser’s Lawyer Exposed: Arrest, Bankruptcy, Contempt, And The Unanswered Questions

The Sanders issue is not merely that he once had a bad employment case. It is the reported sequence that makes the matter newsworthy. A former employee wins a discrimination award. The award is reportedly upheld. Collection efforts follow. Sanders reportedly files for bankruptcy. A federal bankruptcy judge reportedly orders him jailed on civil contempt until payment is made.

That sequence collides violently with Sanders’ public brand.

The Post reported that after Sanders boasted to a newspaper about securing a $500,000 settlement in another matter, Rocco’s attorney moved to seize Sanders’ portion. Sanders then filed for bankruptcy, claiming he could not pay despite reported law-firm income and an NYPD pension.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dorothy Eisenberg reportedly ordered him jailed on civil contempt until he paid $181,666, with interest still owed to Rocco. He was held in jail for six days for noncompliance with court orders.

Those facts are directly relevant to the public’s assessment of Sanders’ role in the Epps case.

A lawyer who has reportedly been jailed on civil contempt over an unpaid discrimination award does not get to stroll into a sex-harassment controversy wearing an untouched civil-rights cape.

A lawyer who reportedly filed bankruptcy while a former employee chased a pregnancy-discrimination judgment does not get automatic moral authority when he calls another institution abusive.

A lawyer who builds his business suing over discrimination and retaliation must expect scrutiny when an adverse discrimination-and-retaliation history surfaces in his own file.

If Sanders contends the bankruptcy was merely a legal strategy, that still does not end the inquiry. The public question is whether the filing delayed or frustrated collection of a civil-rights award owed to a former employee. A strategic bankruptcy can still be newsworthy when the strategist is a civil-rights lawyer whose own former employee was chasing a discrimination judgment.

Moreover, if Sanders later points to the absence of attorney-discipline sanctions, that does not erase the public-record issue. A grievance committee decision declining professional discipline is not the same as a finding that the underlying events never happened.

It does not vacate a discrimination award. It does not reverse a contempt order. It does not answer whether Rocco was paid promptly. It means only that the disciplinary body did not impose lawyer discipline.

Sanders was asked whether he disputes the Post’s reporting, whether the bankruptcy filing followed collection efforts, whether the contempt order was vacated, and whether the Rocco judgment was ultimately satisfied. He did not answer for publication.

That omission does not prove guilt beyond the record. But it leaves the public-record questions standing.

Maddrey Accuser’s Lawyer Exposed: Sanders’ Own NYPD Discipline Also Belongs In The File

The Rocco matter is the largest Sanders credibility problem, but it is not the only one. Sanders also has confirmed NYPD discipline in his past.

In Matter of Sanders v. Safir, the Appellate Division, First Department confirmed an NYPD disciplinary determination against Sanders, then a police officer. The charge was discourtesy to a police sergeant. The penalty was forfeiture of 15 vacation days. The appellate court found substantial evidence supported the determination, including corroborating testimony from police officers, and held that the penalty did not shock the court’s sense of fairness.

That is not anonymous gossip. It is not a whisper from police headquarters. It is an appellate decision confirming an NYPD internal disciplinary finding.

Is discourtesy to a sergeant the worst misconduct ever committed by a police officer? Of course not. But the issue is not severity in isolation. The issue is credibility and public posture.

Sanders sells his NYPD background as part of his authority. He presents himself as a man who understands the department, its discipline machinery, its power structure, and its retaliation culture. Fine. Then the full record comes in, not just the flattering pieces.

Before Sanders became a professional critic of NYPD discipline, he had his own NYPD discipline affirmed by the courts. That does not disqualify him from representing Epps. It does not make Maddrey innocent. It does not prove Epps wrong. But it does complicate the righteous posture Sanders now assumes in public.

Sanders was asked whether he disputes that the case concerned him and whether he contends the disciplinary finding was wrong. He did not provide a response for inclusion.

Again, the silence leaves the court record to speak for itself.

Maddrey Accuser’s Lawyer Exposed: Sanders Fails to Respond

Attorney Sanders was given an opportunity to respond to detailed questions about these issues before publication. He did not provide a response for inclusion. Here is what we asked:

From: Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>
Date: On Monday, June 29th, 2026 at 1:40 PM
Subject: Media Inquiry: Eric Sanders, Quathisha Epps, Jeffrey Maddrey, and Prior Adverse Records
To: esanders@thesandersfirmpc.com <esanders@thesandersfirmpc.com>
CC: RALafontaine@protonmail.com, ralafontaine@protonmail.com, frankparlato@gmail.com, frankiepressman@protonmail.com, mvolpe998@gmail.com, mthomasnast@protonmail.com, richard.luthmann@protonmail.com, richard@nynewspress.com, rluthmann@flgulfnews.com, Joey@YourDaddyJoey.news, joey@yourdaddyjoey.news, joey@joeycamp2020.com, joeycamp2020@gmail.com

Attorney Sanders,

We are independent journalists preparing a news article for publication concerning your representation of former NYPD Lt. Quathisha Epps in connection with her allegations against former NYPD Chief of Department Jeffrey Maddrey, the related NYPD overtime controversy, and the federal investigation that has followed.

Because this story involves serious public allegations, substantial public money, the leadership of the NYPD, and your public role as counsel for Lt. Epps, we are giving you a full and fair opportunity to respond before publication.

The working premise of the article is straightforward: the lawyer publicly advancing the claims of a troubled and heavily scrutinized NYPD complainant has his own significant history of adverse public records, including NYPD discipline, a pregnancy-discrimination/retaliation matter involving a former employee, bankruptcy proceedings, contempt, and arrest reporting.

We invite your response to the following.

First, your client, Quathisha Epps, was publicly reported as the NYPD’s highest-paid employee in fiscal year 2024, earning more than $400,000, including more than $200,000 in overtime, while working in an administrative role in Chief Maddrey’s office. The reporting further states that she was under Internal Affairs scrutiny over her overtime, was suspended without pay, retired early, and that the NYPD later sought to claw back more than $231,000 in overtime.

Please state your position on whether Lt. Epps actually worked all overtime hours for which she was paid. If you contend she did, please provide any records, timesheets, assignments, supervisor approvals, electronic access logs, calendar records, or other documentation supporting that position.

Second, please explain the timing of Lt. Epps’ sexual-harassment and retaliation claims in relation to the NYPD’s scrutiny of her overtime. Did Lt. Epps make any formal internal complaint against Chief Maddrey before the overtime investigation began? If so, please identify when, to whom, and in what form. If not, please explain why the public should not view the allegations as intertwined with the overtime investigation and potential clawback exposure.

Third, Chief Maddrey has reportedly denied coercion and characterized the relationship with Lt. Epps as consensual. Please state whether your client denies any consensual romantic or sexual relationship with Chief Maddrey. If she alleges that any relationship was coerced, please identify when the coercion began, when she first documented it, and whether she continued receiving overtime approvals during the alleged period of coercion.

Fourth, we are also examining your own public credibility as a central figure in the story.

In Matter of Sanders v. Safir, reported at 726 N.Y.S.2d 844, the Appellate Division, First Department confirmed an NYPD disciplinary determination finding you guilty of discourtesy to a police sergeant and upholding a penalty of forfeiture of 15 vacation days. Do you dispute that this case concerned you? Do you contend the disciplinary finding was wrong? Please provide any explanation you wish to include.

Fifth, the New York Post reported on October 15, 2013, in an article by Larry Celona and Selim Algar titled “Lawyer representing DC crash mom arrested,” that you were arrested at your Melville, Long Island home after a federal bankruptcy judge held you in civil contempt in connection with failure to make mandated payments to former employee Mary Rocco.

The Post reported that Rocco had prevailed in a pregnancy-discrimination and retaliation matter against you and your partner, that the New York State Division of Human Rights awarded her $175,000 in 2010, that an appellate court upheld the ruling in 2011, and that she still had not been paid at the time of the article.

Please state whether you dispute any portion of that reporting.

Sixth, the same Post report quoted Rocco’s attorney, Tracey Bernstein, as saying: “The terrible irony here is that Sanders holds himself out publicly as a champion of civil rights and yet was found liable for violating my client’s civil rights and has refused to honor the judgment against him.”

Please provide your response to that statement.

Seventh, the Post further reported that after you allegedly boasted to a newspaper about scoring a $500,000 settlement in another case, Bernstein moved to seize your portion of that settlement, and that you then filed for bankruptcy while claiming that, despite a reported NYPD pension and monthly law-firm income, you were unable to pay Rocco. Please state whether that reporting is accurate. If you dispute it, please provide the specific correction.

Eighth, the Post reported that U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dorothy Eisenberg ordered that you remain jailed on civil contempt until you paid $181,666 with interest still owed to Rocco. Please state whether you were jailed on civil contempt, whether the amount reported was accurate, and whether the Rocco judgment was ultimately satisfied. If satisfied, please state when and under what terms.

Ninth, because you now represent Lt. Epps in a matter involving allegations of workplace sexual misconduct, retaliation, abuse of power, and institutional accountability, please explain why your own reported history involving workplace pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, bankruptcy, contempt, and arrest should not be considered relevant to the public’s assessment of your credibility and role in this matter.

Tenth, please identify any legal filings, public records, orders, transcripts, appellate decisions, settlement documents, or other materials you believe fairly rebut, contextualize, or correct the above issues.

Our coverage will distinguish allegations, media reporting, court-confirmed facts, and disputed claims. It will also include your response in substance, and where appropriate.

Please provide any response as soon as possible so it may be considered before publication. If you respond after press time, we will incorporate your comments into a follow-up.

Thanks,

Rick LaRivière
Independent Journalist

Sanders had a chance to answer the hard questions before publication. He did not. If Sanders later provides documentation or a substantive response, a follow-up report will update the readership.

That leaves the record: Quathisha Epps was under a massive overtime cloud; Jeffrey Maddrey denies coercion; the NYPD reportedly sought to claw back more than $231,000; federal agents recently searched Maddrey’s home in an investigation that has been ongoing since December 2024; and Sanders, the lawyer selling the public on Epps’ victim narrative, carries his own troubled file. NYPD discipline. Arrest. Contempt. Bankruptcy. Pregnancy-discrimination and retaliation award.

This is not a clean hero-villain tale. This is One Police Plaza with all the lights turned on.

The Media Should Stop Sanitizing This Scandal

The Maddrey affair is a credibility knife fight inside a payroll scandal wrapped in sex-harassment allegations and dragged through federal law enforcement. Epps has issues. Sanders has issues. The NYPD has issues. The press has issues. Maddrey draws the witch hunt.

That is the story. The public should reject the cartoon version.

In the cartoon, Epps is only a victim, Maddrey is only a monster, Sanders is only a heroic civil-rights lawyer, and the overtime scandal is only retaliation.

Real life is harder. Epps was the highest-paid employee in the NYPD while holding an administrative post in Maddrey’s office. The department reportedly sought to claw back a staggering amount of overtime. Maddrey has denied coercion and misconduct. Epps alleges abuse and retaliation. Federal agents searched Maddrey’s home. Sanders is carrying his own adverse record while driving the public legal narrative. Some critics wonder whether he’s “driving the ambulance.”

All of that matters.

This is not an attack on a lawyer because critics cannot answer the facts. Sanders’ record is one of the facts. When an attorney becomes a public spokesman in a case involving sex, power, public payroll, retaliation, and institutional credibility, the attorney’s own history with workplace discrimination claims, contempt, bankruptcy, arrest reporting, and police discipline becomes newsworthy.

No one is entitled to a sanitized file. Epps’ claims deserve investigation. Maddrey’s denials deserve reporting. The NYPD’s overtime records deserve forensic scrutiny.

Sanders’ advocacy deserves to be heard. But his history deserves inspection too.

The lawyer for the troubled accuser in the Maddrey witch-hunt has his own troubled file. That does not make Maddrey innocent. It does not make Epps a liar.

It makes the story bigger, darker, and far less suitable for the one-sided media morality play currently being sold to the public.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Tip of the hat to Abbas Bombadiko. He has been saying it all along. Morocco did not sneak into the room. Morocco kicked the door open. The old football class kept treating the Atlas Lions like a cute tournament chapter, a sentimental African surge, a postcard story wrapped in red and green. Bombadiko saw something else: a football nation hardening into a football power. The 2022 semifinal run was not nostalgia, emotion, or lightning in a bottle. It was the warning flare. Against the Netherlands, Morocco showed late-game nerve, penalty-box courage, goalkeeper steel, and national belief. The applause is late. The respect is overdue. Bombadiko was early. This piece is “Morocco Owns The Moment,” first available on NYNewsPress.com.

By Abbas Bombadiko with Matt “Sully” Sullivan

Morocco Is No Longer Just A Beautiful Story

For years, they laughed when I said Morocco was no longer just a beautiful football story. It was becoming a football empire.

They smiled politely. They patted me on the back. They told me to enjoy the memories. They called me emotional. They called me patriotic. They said I was living in the past, wrapped in red and green, too proud to see football reality clearly.

Now I ask them one question. Who is smiling now?

Morocco has always given the world beauty. The cities. The mountains. The markets. The coast. The culture. The people. The colors. The sound of a nation that feels ancient and alive at the same time.

But now Morocco is giving the world something else. A football team nobody can dismiss without looking foolish.

For two straight World Cups, the Atlas Lions have forced the football world to confront a truth it spent decades trying to dodge: Morocco does not arrive at the world’s biggest tournament hoping someone notices anymore. Morocco arrives expecting respect.

And if respect is not offered?

Morocco takes it.

Morocco Owns The Moment: The Dutch Learned The Hard Way

Look at what just happened against the Netherlands.

This was not some ordinary opponent. This was one of world football’s old powers, a nation with legends in its bloodstream, academies that print talent, and history written across generations of World Cup heartbreak and brilliance.

But when the final whistle came, and when the penalty drama ended, Morocco stood taller.

The Dutch had the résumé. Morocco had the nerve.

The Dutch had the famous shirt. Morocco had the stronger belief.

The Dutch had the lead. Morocco had the refusal to die.

Morocco trailed late, dragged the match back from the cliff, survived extra time, and then walked into the penalty shootout like a country that had already decided it belonged in the next round. Issa Diop’s stoppage-time equalizer was not merely a goal. It was a national declaration. Ismael Saibari’s winning penalty was not merely a kick. It was the sound of every doubter swallowing his notes.

This was not luck. This was not a Cinderella story. This was not another cute African run for commentators to sentimentalize between commercial breaks.

This was destiny meeting preparation.

NY News Press

Morocco Owns The Moment: The Map Has Been Redrawn

I have been shouting this from every rooftop I could find. Morocco has changed.

Our players fear no flag. They do not measure themselves against famous jerseys, expensive transfer fees, or old European mythology. They measure themselves against greatness because they believe they belong beside it.

That is the part the traditionalists never understood. Morocco’s 2022 semifinal run was not the peak. It was the foundation. It was not lightning in a bottle. It was the first flash of a storm.

The youth academies. The discipline. The diaspora pipeline. The tactical maturity. The national pride. The supporters who turn every stadium into Casablanca with floodlights. This is not random. This is infrastructure. This is culture. This is belief hardened into a football system.

The old FIFA dinner-party crowd always seems to need one more excuse before giving an African nation its flowers. They praise Morocco after every victory, then quietly return to discussing the same handful of football aristocrats.

The same favorites. The same predictions. The same refusal to admit the center of gravity has shifted.

Well, perhaps now it is time to admit the map has been redrawn.

Morocco Owns The Moment: Respect Is Something Morocco Collects

People called it arrogance when I said Morocco was building something permanent.

No.

It was vision. And today those words echo louder than any stadium chant.

These players carry themselves with discipline, courage, and unity. They fight for every blade of grass as if the history of an entire continent rests beneath their boots. That spirit cannot be manufactured in a press conference. It cannot be bought with a federation slogan. It is inherited, sharpened, and carried into battle.

Morocco is no longer waiting for applause.

Morocco has been waiting, and waiting, and waiting, while the football world caught up to what the Atlas Lions already knew.

So to every pundit who dismissed Morocco, every analyst who overlooked us, and every traditionalist who insisted the established powers would always remain untouchable, I offer no anger.

Only an invitation.

Watch more carefully. Because what you are witnessing is not a surprise. It is the continuation of the revolution I promised was coming.

Respect is no longer something Morocco requests. It is something Morocco collects.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Brian Adams is not above accountability. Nobody is. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the NYPD has one standard or two. If Adams gets fired over alleged time abuse while Richie Taylor repays money, keeps rank, and survives the machine, the public has every right to demand answers. Add the Police Foundation money trail, the Tisch family connection, and Andy Zhu’s bribery case, and this becomes more than an employment dispute. It becomes a public-integrity test. NYPD leadership does not need more spin. It needs receipts, comparators, disclosures, and sunlight. This piece is “NYPD’s Two-Tier Justice,” first available on NY News Press.

By M. Thomas Nast and Richard Luthmann

The Community Affairs Purge Looks Too Selective

(NEW YORK, NEW YORK) – Outside the NYPD Community Center at 127 Penn, the message was not subtle: “Take your hands off Brian Adams.” Supporters gathered around a man they call a community champion, a longtime bridge between cops and the neighborhoods City Hall always claims it wants to reach.

But behind the rally signs and blue-and-gold graphics is a much uglier fight inside One Police Plaza — a fight over selective discipline, race, rank, harassment allegations, stolen-time probes, and the private-money pipeline surrounding the New York City Police Foundation.

Brian Adams was fired. Richie Taylor was spared. Paul Saraceno was pushed out. Andy Zhu was arrested.

Now, Jessica Tisch sits at the center of a department where every disciplinary decision raises the same dangerous question: is this accountability, or is this the machine protecting its own? She’s sold the firing of Brian Adams as a clean disciplinary action, but it lands in a dirty room.

Adams, a civilian director in the NYPD’s Community Affairs Bureau, was reportedly terminated after an internal probe accused him of submitting unworked hours, misusing a department vehicle, and lying to investigators. The department says the earlier sexual-harassment allegations against him were separate from the firing.

Fine. Put every allegation on the table. Test it. Prove it. Apply the rules.

But the question is not whether Brian Adams is above accountability. He is not. Nobody at One Police Plaza should be. The question is whether accountability is being applied evenly, or whether Adams became the public sacrifice while uniformed brass with similar or worse time-abuse issues were protected, transferred, pension-cushioned, or quietly rehabilitated.

That is where Deputy Chief Richie Taylor becomes impossible to ignore. Taylor reportedly lost his Community Affairs post after investigators said he collected pay for unauthorized work hours and agreed to repay thousands. Yet he was not marched out as a symbol of corruption.

He was moved. He kept rank. He survived the machine.

So what is the standard? If alleged stolen time destroys a Black civilian director, why does a deputy chief get a softer landing? If the misconduct is “misappropriation of hours,” then the rule should not bend according to shield, rank, race, politics, or proximity to power.

Community Affairs is supposed to build trust. Instead, the NYPD has produced the oldest trust-killer in government: one rule for insiders, another rule for everyone else.

NYPD’s Two-Tier Justice: Harassment Allegations Cannot Become A Smokescreen

The harassment allegations around Brian Adams make the story more volatile, but they should not make it less precise. Reports say Adams had previously been accused of sexual harassment by two women. One lawsuit was reportedly settled earlier this year, and another complaint was withdrawn.

An NYPD source said those allegations were not the basis for Adams’ dismissal. That distinction matters.

If Adams engaged in harassment, the department should say what it proved, when it proved it, what discipline was imposed, and why. If the harassment claims were not part of the firing, the NYPD should not allow those allegations to float in the media fog as character-assassination seasoning for a time-and-vehicle case.

This is how bureaucracies launder narrative. They fire a man for one stated reason, let another uglier accusation hover nearby, and count on the public to stop asking procedural questions.

The same department has been drowning in scandals involving sex, overtime, retaliation, and executive privilege. Former Chief of Department Jeffrey Maddrey resigned after explosive sexual-misconduct allegations tied to overtime. Lieutenant Quathisha Epps alleged sexual coercion and retaliation.

Later investigation shows the allegations to be a “nothing burger.” The Feds are still digging on Maddrey to save face— but they are wary that no jury would buy a used car from their “star witnesses,” Epps and Detective Ada Reyes, according to sources with knowledge.

Deputy Chief Paul Saraceno was later pushed out after allegedly approving old overtime slips for Epps.

The whole structure screams for a single standard, meaning Adams’ supporters are right to demand transparency, but they should demand it cleanly. Not “no discipline.” Not “hands off because he is popular.” The real demand is equal discipline.

Show the evidence. Show the comparators. Show why Adams was fired while Taylor survived. Show why some people get terminated, and others get transferred.

The civil-rights question is not sentimental. It is structural: did NYPD discipline become selective, retaliatory, discriminatory, or politically convenient?

NY News Press

NYPD’s Two-Tier Justice: The Police Foundation Conflict Question

Then comes the money problem. The New York City Police Foundation sits in the background of NYPD power like a velvet rope around public policing. It raises private money for public-safety initiatives. It hosts commissioners, honors donors, and partners with the department.

That arrangement may be legal. It may even fund useful programs. But in a city where police leadership has been hit by scandal after scandal, private money near public power deserves sunlight, not polite applause.

Jessica Tisch is not merely another commissioner. She is a member of one of New York’s richest and most connected families. The Police Foundation’s own board materials list Andrew H. Tisch among its trustees. The Foundation also publicly hosts Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch as the central public official whose department benefits from Foundation support.

That creates at least an appearance problem. The commissioner runs the NYPD. The Foundation raises money around the NYPD. A Tisch family name appears on the Foundation board. The public deserves to know where the lines are.

Who approves Foundation-funded projects? Who screens donors? Who decides access? What recusals exist when donors have business before the city, seek influence, want police proximity, or become subjects of criminal inquiry? Does the commissioner have any role, direct or indirect, in Foundation priorities? Are family-board relationships disclosed to ethics officials? Are there written firewalls?

This is not about assuming guilt. It is about preventing the ruling-class machine from saying, “Trust us,” while the same machine disciplines little people, protects big people, and wraps private influence in nonprofit letterhead. If NYPD leadership wants credibility after the Adams-era scandals, it cannot treat the Police Foundation as a donor lounge immune from scrutiny.

NYPD’s Two-Tier Justice: Andy Zhu And The Question Nobody Wants Asked

The Andy Zhu case makes those questions unavoidable. Yan Po “Andy” Zhu, a developer also known as Andy Zhu, was arrested in a federal bribery case involving former top Eric Adams adviser Frank Carone. Prosecutors allege a bribery scheme tied to a migrant shelter contract.

Zhu has pleaded not guilty. That presumption matters. But so does the public record of influence.

Reports say Zhu donated tens of thousands to law-enforcement nonprofits, including the New York City Police Foundation, and the figure being discussed publicly is $50,000. If that is accurate, the next question is not optional: what access, recognition, meetings, invitations, or credibility did that money buy?

Nobody is claiming that the Tisch family was involved in Zhu’s alleged bribery scheme. That would be reckless. But it is not reckless to ask whether the Police Foundation’s donor structure has been properly audited in light of Zhu’s arrest.

It is not reckless to ask whether any donor connected to a federal bribery case received police-adjacent influence, social legitimacy, or proximity to NYPD brass.

It is not reckless to ask whether Jessica Tisch, her department, and any family-linked Foundation trustee should publicly disclose all relevant guardrails.

Brian Adams’ firing is therefore bigger than Brian Adams. It is a window into NYPD’s discipline-and-influence machine.

A Black civilian director gets terminated. A deputy chief accused in a similar time issue keeps rank. Another deputy chief is ousted over overtime approvals. A politically connected donor is arrested in a bribery case after giving money around law enforcement. The commissioner’s family name appears inside the Police Foundation ecosystem.

That is not a conspiracy theory. That is an accountability roadmap.

The public does not need another scripted NYPD statement. It needs receipts.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: The Ryan Flynn case has the stink of Buffalo machine politics all over it. A politically connected former district attorney gets accused by his own cousin of childhood sexual abuse. The cousin ends up jailed on a felony theory the grand jury rejects. The case collapses to a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, John Flynn is installed as Tonawanda supervisor and, according to sources, may glide into the special election without a Republican opponent. Maybe that is all coincidence. Maybe it is law working itself out. Or maybe this is exactly how the permanent political class handles family scandals, public offices, and inconvenient accusers. This piece is “Law or Buffalo Back-Room Politics?” first available on Frank Report.

By Frank Parlato

Ryan Flynn Released as Felony Case Collapses; Questions Swirl Over a Backroom Deal

(BUFFALO, N.Y.) — Ryan Flynn walked out of the Erie County Holding Center last week, after roughly eight months in custody, and was picked up by his uncle. The felony case against him is gone. What remains is a single misdemeanor.

Flynn, 32, is the man who accused his cousin, former Erie County District Attorney John Flynn, of sexually abusing him as a child. John Flynn is now the appointed supervisor of the Town of Tonawanda.

A grand jury declined to indict Ryan Flynn on the felony charges prosecutors had sought — criminal contempt and aggravated harassment tied to an anonymous social-media post the state said placed John Flynn’s wife in fear. Ryan Flynn said the post was not his and noted the account kept posting after he was jailed and had no internet access. He testified before the grand jury for hours.

The panel was not persuaded that he had committed a felony.

The remaining misdemeanor, false reporting, stems from an April 2025 call in which Ryan Flynn asked Tonawanda police to check on John Flynn, saying his cousin was using cocaine and had become suicidal. John Flynn denied it and called the request harassment.

Sources told this publication that Ryan Flynn’s release may be connected to a private arrangement between Erie County Democratic chairman Jeremy Zellner and his Republican counterpart, under which John Flynn would face no Republican challenger in the November special election. What, if anything, was promised in return is not known. The arrangement could not be independently confirmed.

The theory advanced by Ryan Flynn and his supporters is blunt: once the seat was secured and a challenger removed, there was no longer any reason to keep the cousin who accused him behind bars.

John Flynn was appointed in May 2026 to fill the seat vacated by Joseph Emminger. The November special election decides only the remainder of Emminger’s term, which expires at the end of 2027. To hold the office for a full term, Flynn would have to run again in 2027.

Ryan Flynn had been held on roughly $100,000 bail since his October 2025 arrest. Under New York’s bail law, non-qualifying misdemeanors such as false reporting generally do not support cash bail, raising the question of why he was held as long as he was.

NY News Press

In September 2025, Erie County forensic evaluators found Flynn incompetent to proceed, characterizing his belief that John Flynn was using the legal system against him as persecutory thinking. The same county evaluators later found him competent, according to Flynn. The judge who initially jailed him, J. Mark Gruber, has since recused himself.

The case has drawn scrutiny because of John Flynn’s record as district attorney. In December 2021, Flynn charged former Erie County Democratic Party chairman G. Steven Pigeon — a longtime political rival — with predatory sexual assault against a child, a class A felony carrying a potential life sentence. The case rested on a single accuser with no DNA and no corroborating witnesses. Flynn told reporters he believed the accuser and did not need corroboration. “This is big boy stuff here,” he said. “This is rape.” Pigeon ultimately pleaded to a reduced count and served about eight months, without admitting guilt.

A growing number of critics now say the Pigeon case should never have been brought and are calling on John Flynn to move to exonerate him, arguing that the prosecution rested on an uncorroborated account that has not held up under scrutiny.

The sexual abuse allegations Ryan Flynn has made against John Flynn remain unproven and contested. John Flynn has not been charged.

Analysis: Law or Buffalo Back-Room Politics?

Even if prosecutors believed the evidence showed John Flynn abused his then-prepubescent cousin, the statute of limitations has likely run. As a result, John Flynn is not expected to face criminal charges.

So the record stands like this: John Flynn secured a child-sex-crime indictment against a political enemy on an uncorroborated account that his critics, and this publication’s reporting, say should never have been charged. Now Flynn himself faces strikingly similar allegations from his cousin. But those allegations appear time-barred.

He is now the unopposed supervisor of the Town of Tonawanda — a middle-class Buffalo suburb that, given the choice, might have little appetite for any of this. The trouble, for those voters, is that they may not get the choice. But the choice may have been made before it reached them.

A challenger disappeared from the race. The accuser was jailed. The office was secured.

There will be an election in 2027. Then the voters will decide whether Flynn should continue in office.

And perhaps, by then, they will know what happened before the choice was theirs.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: This case was not just about New York State judges wanting more years on the bench. It was about whether New York’s Equal Rights Amendment is real law or political theater. Judge Leventhal made the clean textual argument: one constitutional provision cannot ban age discrimination while another commands it. The Court of Appeals refused to go that far, preserving the retirement rule because it is old, specific, and constitutionally embedded. But the concurrence matters. Judge Troutman warned the ERA created enforceable rights. Translation: the judges lost this round, but the next ERA collision may look very different. This piece is “Judicial Retirement Rule Survives,” first available on NY News Press.

By Richard Luthmann

The ERA Argument Hit the Constitutional Wall

(ALBANY, NEW YORK) – Retired Judge John Leventhal and the Aidala Bertuna & Kamins team went to the New York State Court of Appeals with a clean, aggressive argument: New York voters added “age” to the state Constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment, and that should mean something.

Not symbolism. Not window dressing. Not a bumper sticker for progressive ballot language.

Their clients were three New York State Judges facing mandatory retirement because of their age: Robert J. Miller, Richard J. Montelione, and Orlando Marrazzo Jr.

The legal position was direct. If Article I, Section 11, now says the State cannot discriminate in civil rights on the basis of age, then Article VI, Section 25(b), which forces judges out at 70 and ends certified service at 76, cannot continue operating as if nothing happened.

It was a strong textual punch. Judge Leventhal argued that the Constitution cannot prohibit age discrimination with one hand and command age discrimination with the other. He said the ERA contains no carve-out for judges, no “subject to Article VI” escape hatch, and no grandfather clause preserving old constitutional age bars.

He also pressed the bigger point: once age was elevated into the Constitution’s protected classes, courts should apply strict scrutiny to laws that classify people solely by age.

The Court of Appeals did not bite.

In a per curiam decision, New York’s highest court held that the mandatory judicial retirement provision survived the ERA. The court’s answer was not that Judge Leventhal’s argument lacked force. It was that constitutional change by implication is disfavored, especially when the targeted provision has been in the Constitution for more than two centuries.

If voters wanted to abolish judicial retirement, the court said in substance, they needed to say so directly by constitutional amendment.

Judicial Retirement Rule Survives: Judge Leventhal Said Conflict; The Court Said Harmony

The central fight was over whether the two constitutional provisions could coexist. Judge Leventhal said no. Article I, Section 11, as amended by the ERA, says no person shall be subjected to discrimination in civil rights because of age by the State pursuant to law. Article VI, Section 25(b) says judges must retire because of age.

One provision forbids age discrimination; the other orders it. That was the appellants’ battlefield.

The Court of Appeals chose a different map. It treated Article I as a broad equality provision and Article VI as a specific judicial-eligibility rule. That distinction drove the outcome. The court leaned on the canon that specific constitutional provisions control over general ones unless the opposite intent is clearly shown.

In plain English, the court said the ERA speaks broadly to civil rights, while the retirement clause speaks narrowly to a particular class of public officers: judges and justices.

That was fatal to Judge Leventhal’s implied-repeal theory. He argued that the later constitutional command — the ERA — should control as the newest expression of the People. The court answered that implied repeal is not favored and that nothing in the ERA expressly mentioned judicial retirement, Article VI, Section 25(b), Judiciary Law Section 23, or Judiciary Law Section 115.

This was not a close-the-books ruling on the ERA’s future. It was a containment ruling. The court preserved the old age wall by refusing to read the new equality language as a silent wrecking ball against a specific, older constitutional command.

NY News Press

Judicial Retirement Rule Survives: The Court Refused to Constitutionalize the Move

The Court of Appeals was clearly bothered by the mechanism of the challenge. Judge Leventhal’s argument depended on the idea that the ERA, by adding “age” to Article I, implicitly wiped out or subordinated the mandatory retirement provision. The court saw that as too much constitutional surgery through too little textual notice.

That concern was sharpened by history. New York has had a judicial retirement age since 1777. The age started at 60, moved to 70 in 1869, and was later extended to allow certain certified retired judges and justices to serve up to 76.

In 2013, voters rejected an amendment that would have raised the retirement age to 80. No ballot measure has ever asked voters to eliminate the age requirement altogether.

That history mattered. The high court essentially said: New Yorkers know how to vote on judicial retirement when it is placed before them. They have done it before. If the People wanted to repeal the retirement mandate, the natural way was to amend Article VI directly, not hide the repeal inside a broad civil-rights amendment.

The court also pointed to post-ERA legislative activity. Three months after voters approved the ERA, lawmakers proposed amending Article VI, Section 25(b), to raise the judicial retirement age to 76.

The court treated that as practical evidence that even lawmakers did not think the ERA had already killed the retirement rule. If Judge Leventhal was right, the court reasoned, the proposed amendment would have been unnecessary — and perhaps unconstitutional itself.

Judicial Retirement Rule Survives: Judge Troutman’s Concurrence Kept the ERA Fuse Burning

The judges challenging the age rule lost. But Judge Troutman’s concurrence made clear that the ERA is not dead, decorative, or legally toothless. She agreed with the result, but she criticized the majority for failing to say more forcefully that the ERA created enforceable constitutional rights.

That concurrence is where the future fights live. Judge Troutman warned that the Court should not treat the ERA as some vague aspiration to be rolled out slowly and cautiously. In her view, the amendment created real rights, and lower courts need clear direction that those rights are self-executing and enforceable without having to borrow power from another statute or doctrine.

So the final decision gives the State the win, but not total victory. The mandatory judicial retirement age survives. Leventhal’s arguments did not persuade the court to blow open Article VI by implication. The old constitutional machinery remains in place.

But the ERA still walks out of the courthouse alive. The majority protected the judicial retirement clause because it was old, specific, and constitutionally embedded. Troutman signaled that future litigants challenging ordinary statutes or government actions may find a very different battlefield.

For now, New York judges still face the age clock. The court did not say age equality means nothing. It said this was not the vehicle to topple a two-century-old constitutional command.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: The permanent political class always believes it can manage the radicals. It invites them into committees, gives them slogans, lets them win symbolic fights, and assumes the adults will still run the counting room. New York City just tested that theory again, and the results should make regular Democrats sweat. The socialist wing is not content being the conscience of the party. It wants the wheel, the keys, and the deed. The Working Families Party may have thought it owned the left lane. Mamdani’s movement just showed that lane can be seized, repaved, and renamed without permission. Mamdani now has effective control of a critical mass of the NYC Democrat Party machinery, which will be further secured by federal dollars, party patronage, and judicial nominations in the years to come. This piece is “The Socialist Takeover of NYC,” first available on NY News Press.

By Rick LaRivière and Richard Luthmann

The Breach in Manhattan

The old guard in Manhattan did not just lose a race. It watched the wall get breached.

For years, the permanent political class treated New York City like a managed estate. The donors had their people. The clubs had their people. The unions had their people. The editorial boards had their language. The consultants had their invoices.

The machine did not always win clean, but it usually survived because everyone understood the deal: radicals could yell, activists could march, reformers could posture, and then the grown-ups would count the votes.

That deal is cracking.

Zohran Mamdani’s sweep through the congressional primaries was not a protest vote. It was an occupation.

Brad Lander took down Dan Goldman in NY-10, a district that includes Lower Manhattan power corridors and Brooklyn liberal wealth. Darializa Avila Chevalier toppled Adriano Espaillat in NY-13, punching through Upper Manhattan and the Bronx with a campaign tied to the new socialist energy. Claire Valdez won in NY-7, replacing the old progressive-labor lane with something harder-edged, younger, and far less interested in asking permission.

The Manhattan Democratic establishment used to decide how far left was safe. Now the socialist wing is deciding how much establishment residue it is willing to tolerate. That is the difference between influence and takeover. Influence asks for a seat. Takeover picks the menu, fires the waiter, and tells the owner the restaurant has been collectivized.

New York Democrats are waking up to a brutal truth: the insurgents are no longer outside the gates. They are inside the counting room.

The Socialist Takeover of NYC: The Working Families Party Problem

The Working Families Party has spent decades selling itself as the left flank with discipline, ballot access, labor muscle, and enough institutional respectability to scare Democratic incumbents without becoming a complete political circus. That model worked when the WFP could play kingmaker between regular Democrats and the activist left. It could threaten a primary, broker a deal, deliver a line, and claim moral custody of “working people” while still dining with the insiders.

Now it looks painfully close to political impotence.

The problem is not that the left is losing. The problem is that the left is winning without needing the WFP as the central brain.

In NY-7, the WFP listed Antonio Reynoso as its candidate. Mamdani-backed Claire Valdez beat him. That is not a scheduling problem. That is a power problem.

In NY-10, the WFP had Brad Lander, but his victory was not read as a WFP triumph. It was read as part of the Mamdani sweep. When your winner belongs more to somebody else’s narrative than your own, you are no longer the engine. You are trim on the vehicle.

The WFP used to be the pressure valve. It gave angry progressives a structure, a ballot line, and a way to feel insurgent while still remaining inside the Democratic family compound. But Mamdani and the DSA current offer something more intoxicating: direct confrontation, ideological certainty, and a movement that does not need to apologize for sounding radical.

That leaves the WFP in an ugly spot. Too moderate for the socialists. Too left for the moderates. Too absorbed into the machine to be revolutionary. Too revolutionary to be trusted by the machine.

NY News Press

The Socialist Takeover of NYC: No Country for Regular Democrats

The most endangered creature in New York politics may now be the regular Democrat. Not the Republican. Not the socialist. The regular Democrat.

There used to be political real estate for the liberal who wanted rent relief but not revolution, criminal justice reform but not police abolition, compassion for migrants but not open-border theology, criticism of Netanyahu but not a campus encampment foreign policy. That Democrat could talk about affordability, schools, public safety, Israel, labor, taxes, and competence without needing to salute every activist slogan that came down the assembly line.

That space is shrinking fast.

The Democratic primary electorate in New York City is becoming a sorting mechanism. On one side is the old machine: donors, district leaders, legacy names, congressional incumbents, lobby-friendly progressives, and institutional liberals who know how government actually works.

On the other side is the Mamdani-DSA bloc: younger, ideological, online, anti-establishment, anti-Israel, anti-police, and convinced that the old Democratic Party is not a vehicle for reform but an obstacle to justice.

Regular Democrats are trapped between them. If they move right, they get called corporate, racist, Zionist, carceral, neoliberal, or bought. If they move left, they lose the normal voters who still want cops on subway platforms, schools that teach instead of indoctrinate, and a city government that can pick up the garbage without issuing a manifesto.

There is no easy middle lane when every primary becomes a purity tribunal.

That is the deeper meaning of the sweep. Mamdani did not merely endorse winners. He helped redraw the emotional map of Democratic politics. The old question was whether a Democrat was progressive enough.

The new question is whether a Democrat is revolutionary enough.

The Socialist Takeover of NYC: The City as Warning Shot

New York City has always been a laboratory for bad ideas with national ambitions. Rent control, sanctuary governance, soft-on-crime prosecution, identity politics, public-sector union domination, and bureaucratic bloat all got polished here before being sold elsewhere as moral progress. Now the socialist takeover is entering its export phase.

That is why Washington is watching. Mamdani’s people did not just win obscure neighborhood jobs. They won congressional nominations. They sent a message to Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer, Kathy Hochul, and every consultant who thought the Democratic establishment could absorb the left without being eaten by it.

The absorption went the other way. The activist class did not become more normal. The normal Democrats became less relevant.

Republicans should not misunderstand this. The socialist wave in deep-blue New York does not automatically translate to Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, or Arizona. A DSA-branded candidate may win Brooklyn and bomb in a battleground suburb.

But the national danger for Democrats is obvious. If New York becomes the face of the party, then every swing-district Democrat gets chained to the most radical statement, candidate, slogan, and policy demand coming out of the city. The messaging is simple: The Squad is growing.

That is the gift New York’s socialist insurgency may hand the GOP. Not because Republicans built something brilliant, but because Democrats may have allowed their loudest faction to seize the microphone.

The old guard thought it owned Manhattan. The WFP thought it owned the left lane. Regular Democrats thought there would always be room for them in the family business.

Tuesday said otherwise. The socialists are not knocking anymore. They have keys.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

NY News Press

LUTHMANN NOTE: Forbes should not get to crown billionaires without asking harder questions about the numbers underneath the crown. Radovan Vítek may be rich. He may even be very rich. But when CPI Property Group is drowning in debt, downgraded to junk, selling assets, and defending appraisals challenged by short sellers, the public deserves more than a glossy net worth estimate. The real issue is not envy of wealth. It is accountability. If pension funds, insurers, and bondholders are exposed to a debt machine built on inflated values, the press should follow the collateral before the collapse, not after. This piece is “Forbes’ Radovan Vítek Problem.” This piece first appeared on Art Voice.

By Frank Parlato

Is Vítek Even a Billionaire?

In March 2026, Forbes published its annual list of the world’s billionaires. Radovan Vítek has been on the list for 12 years.

His Forbes-reported net worth is $7.2 billion, making him the 542nd richest person in the world, according to Forbes, and the 6th richest in his native Czech Republic.

His main source of wealth: CPI Property Group, a real estate development and holding company with more than 600 commercial properties in Europe — worth, CPI claims, €20 billion, minus €13 billion in debt.

Vítek owns roughly 87 percent of CPI.

CPI backs up its claim of gross assets value of €20 billion through appraisals of its office buildings, shopping centers, hotels, and land.

Forbes’ Radovan Vítek Problem: Appraisals Are Opinions, Not Facts

Commercial real estate appraisals are not an exact science. They are professional opinions.

Sometimes appraisals can be overly optimistic.

Vítek, as controlling owner, oversaw the hiring of appraisers for CPI. As one would expect from such an arrangement, the numbers came back optimistic.

Muddy Waters, the short-seller firm that has published a series of reports on CPI, argues that the CPI figures came back inflated.

If CPI’s appraisals are inflated by, for instance, 33 percent across the portfolio, the company’s real value would be €13.4 billion — almost exactly equal to the €13 billion of debt.

And Vítek’s 87 percent share of CPI would be worth almost zero, nowhere near the $7.2 billion Forbes credits him with.

The question of whether CPI regularly engaged in a pattern of producing inflated appraisals warrants investigation.

Two examples may prove instructive.

Two Examples — Bubny and Berlin

CPI’s land in the Bubny district of Prague comprises 201,000 square meters (50 acres) of industrial-zoned land.

CPI’s appraiser, Jones Lang LaSalle, valued the land at €276.9 million. The appraisal used six unidentified comparable land sales to establish a price of €1,378 a square meter, leaving anyone examining the appraisal to rely entirely on the good faith of the appraiser Vítek had hired.

Muddy Waters, which had a financial interest in discrediting CPI, appraised the same land at €138.7 million.

The difference: €138.2 million.

CPI’s appraisal is double Muddy Waters’.

In determining which appraisal is closer to market reality, it should be noted that Muddy Waters’ appraisal was more transparent. It used Prague’s official record of 76 actual sales of similar land in the same district. This produced an average of €690 a square meter, half of what CPI’s unidentified six land sites suggested the land was worth.

Another example is CPI’s 500,000-square-foot office building at Reuchlinstraße 10-11 in Berlin. CPI valued the building at €199 million.

The company, in its public releases, provided a rendering of the building rather than actual photographs. The rendering shows a building looking pristine and occupied.

Muddy Waters valued the company at €112 million, €87 million less than CPI’s appraisal.

Muddy Waters also provided photographs of the actual building. The photos show broken windows, uncleaned graffiti, and empty floors.

Two (out of 600) buildings reveal a €225 million gap between appraisals. CPI’s appraisals were 47 percent higher than Muddy Waters’.

Forbes did not appraise any buildings. It took CPI’s appraisals at face value.

Art Voice

The Ratings Tell a Story

Two credit rating agencies — Moody’s and S&P — downgraded CPI from safe to risky for those considering lending money to the company by purchasing its corporate bonds.

In three and a half years, both of the main investment rating agencies downgraded CPI’s bonds from investment grade to junk.

In October 2022, S&P cut CPI from BBB to BBB-.

Two weeks later, Moody’s cut CPI from Baa2 to Baa3.

Both grades were the lowest investment rating that still permitted pension, insurance, and other institutional investors to purchase CPI’s bonds.

In May 2024, S&P cut CPI from BBB- to BB+ — moving it into junk, thereby wiping out a large market of potential investors.

Moody’s followed with a downgrade from Baa3 to Ba1, which is also a junk bond rating.

In December 2025, Moody’s cut CPI again, from Ba1 to Ba2 – deeper into junk bond status. In April 2026, S&P did the same, from BB+ to BB.

A Reason for the Downgrades

Moody’s gave a reason for the downgrades.

For every €1 of interest CPI owes each year, the company earns only about €1.70 from its buildings. CPI pays the interest first — €1. That leaves only 70 cents to pay out taxes and profit.

Too much of the company’s income is paid in interest.

A financially healthy company earns €3 for every €1 paid in interest. After paying the interest, €2 remains — enough for taxes and profit, as opposed to 70 cents.

CPI’s thin margin suggests it has borrowed too much against its buildings and/or that the buildings are not worth what CPI claims.

CPI has another challenge.

CPI must eventually pay its €13 billion in debt. When a bond comes due, the principal has to be repaid. CPI, because it is not liquid, has to find new bond lenders to replace old bonds. Because of being downgraded into junk by S&P and Moody’s, the interest costs on new bonds will be higher, putting further pressure on already-thin profit margins.

The Price of Money

In May 2024, CPI borrowed at 7 percent. In September 2024, 6 percent on a €700 million bond. In October 2025, the company sold £300 million of undated subordinated notes at 8.875 percent.

A financially healthy European real estate company can borrow at four percent.

An 8.875 percent coupon on a company that was investment-grade three years ago is a distressed price, or at least that is how the bond market sees it.

Forbes’ Radovan Vítek Problem: Fire Sale?

Since 2022, CPI has sold more than €4 billion of assets. The Vienna Marriott. A London residential project. The Swiss ski operation at Crans-Montana.

Financially healthy companies do not sell their best assets into a soft market.

On paper, CPI’s portfolio has not shrunk by €4 billion, however. CPI bought two large Austrian property companies in 2022 — Immofinanz and S-IMMO — bringing, it claims, billions of euros in new property assets to replace what it sold.

The company still reports the same €20 billion in total assets partly because of new acquisitions, and partly because CPI raised the value of its assets on paper.

There is another indicator that CPI inflates its assets.

For 2025, CPI reported a net profit of €254 million and total assets of €20.2 billion.

This is a return of 1.25 percent.

Financially healthy real estate companies return three or four times that.

A portfolio carrying too much debt, buildings worth less than CPI claims, or both, may be the cause of the very low profit rate.

Forbes’ Radovan Vítek Problem: A Run on the Bank

There is a risk for CPI.

A real estate company of this size and debt can survive only as long as lenders keep lending. If enough lenders lose faith in CPI, they will not lend, or demand interest rates too high to be sustainable.

Every downgrade by Moody’s and S&P brings that day closer.

Why must CPI sell?

Because its bonds come due in lumps, a €500 million bond due in 2026 must be repaid in full on its maturity date. CPI’s annual profit cannot cover that. For years, CPI would issue a new bond to pay off the old one.

When CPI fell into junk, cautious lenders stopped buying its bonds. Lenders still willing to buy CPI’s bonds now want a much higher rate.

Refinancing has become expensive, and in a bad market, it may not be possible. If CPI cannot refinance, it has only one other way to raise the cash for the next maturing bond: sell buildings quickly.

Forbes’ Radovan Vítek Problem: Who Pays?

If CPI should fail, the bondholders get paid last — after the lawyers and administrators who profit from running the bankruptcy, the banks holding mortgages on specific buildings, and the tax authorities.

Among the bondholders are pension funds, insurance companies, and American institutions that bought CPI’s dollar-denominated bonds through major US banks when CPI was still investment-grade.

A corporate bankruptcy is, by design, separate from its owner. The company can fail without the owner failing with it.

Vítek has shell companies in Cyprus and Malta. He has entities in Abu Dhabi created after Muddy Waters’ first report. A family trust holds CPI shares for his children. During his divorce, he transferred his holdings to his lawyers. He has had assets titled in his mother’s name. His French palace at Gordes is held through a Monaco shell.

This series has shown some of his transactions. The Prague land Vítek sold to himself for €20 million and had CPI buy back for €50.9 million — a €30.9 million profit on land he had moved out of CPI and into his own pocket.

The hotels he routed through a London shell and a South African nominee. The yacht he routed through three shell companies in three countries, with CPI paying for it.

The €52 million he had CPI transfer to his son.

The shells and trusts are hard to pierce unless creditors can prove the transfers were made in anticipation of CPI’s failure.

Even then the claims must be litigated in foreign courts, against a well-funded defendant, and may take years.

By the time a court orders an asset clawed back, much of the money may have moved to another shell company.

A man who walked a €16 million yacht through three shell companies on the day it was delivered is not a man who will leave the silverware on a sinking ship.

The risk is the bondholders’. The losses, if there are losses, will be theirs.

Vítek will take his “fair” share whether CPI floats on or sinks like a stone in the murky waters of his financial game.

Some questions remain: Is Vitek worth $7.2 billion?

Maybe, if he has siphoned enough assets from CPI into his various shells.

But it is almost certain that CPI is nowhere near as solvent as Forbes assumes.

The challenge for Forbes is that its analysts have no way to assess Vitek’s holdings in his myriad shell companies, trusts, and assets squirreled away through lawyers and nominees who may hold a shell company that owns a shell company that transfers an asset through another shell company, and no one is the wiser except one man who may or may not be a billionaire at all.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

Art Voice