McMahon Ethics Panel Hits Delete
Grievance Committee refuses to probe crooked Staten Island DA
LUTHMANN NOTE: This is not a misunderstanding. It is not a paperwork error. It is not a gray area. It is corruption, plain and simple. A sitting District Attorney lied to police, triggered a felony I-Card without judicial review, and used law enforcement as a personal weapon against a journalist. The Grievance Committee saw the record and ran. There is no pending case because McMahon designed it that way. The I-Card exists to avoid a judge. That is the scam. Silence is not neutrality. It is complicity. I am not going away. Ink by the barrel is coming. This piece first appeared on NYNewsPress.com.
By Rick LaRivière with Richard Luthmann
Staten Island District Attorney Michael E. McMahon filed a felony criminal complaint in July. He alleged he “feared for his safety” after receiving a mass email from journalist Richard Luthmann’s media outlet. The July 13 email was a Substack newsletter sent to 33,000 subscribers. It was not a personal message; Luthmann himself didn’t send it, and it did not even mention McMahon.
McMahon claimed the email violated a protective order, though Luthmann says he was never served with any such order.
In his sworn complaint, McMahon described Luthmann as a “stranger.” In reality, the two men have known each other for years.
Luthmann is a former Staten Island attorney. He exposed irregularities in McMahon’s 2015 campaign ballot access petitions, and he helped reveal a judicial misconduct scandal involving McMahon’s wife, Judge Judith McMahon. That whistleblowing led to administrative discipline for the judge.
McMahon’s July 14, 2025, complaint cast Luthmann – who now lives in Florida – as an imminent threat. If a New York judge approved the complaint, Luthmann could have been extradited from Florida. He could have been held without bail for months before any chance to challenge it.
McMahon filed the complaint in his personal capacity as an alleged crime victim, not as DA.
NYPD Detective John Wilkinson was caught on tape implicating McMahon in the I-Card scheme.
Luthmann believes the DA’s sudden fear was a pretext to retaliate against a longtime critic and silence his reporting. Luthmann also says that McMahon should be held accountable as an attorney for lying.
In late July, Luthmann filed a formal complaint with the New York Grievance Committee that oversees attorney misconduct in Richmond County (Staten Island) and Brooklyn. He urged the committee to investigate McMahon for alleged professional misconduct, including making materially false statements and misusing law enforcement processes.
After months of silence, Luthmann received a letter dated December 8, 2025, from Michael D’Ambrosio, Staff Counsel for the Grievance Committee. The letter acknowledged Luthmann’s complaint but stated that “the issues you raise are more appropriate for resolution by a court of law or through other available legal remedies.”
D’Ambrosio wrote that the committee “appreciate[s] your efforts” but is “unable to assist you” at this time. The committee suggested Luthmann could “file a new complaint at the conclusion of all legal proceedings.”
In other words, as long as any related case might be pending, disciplinary action would be deferred.
Luthmann fired back with a pointed response to the committee’s decision. He argues that District Attorney McMahon’s misconduct is obvious from the record. He says the grievance committee is shirking its duty.
“McMahon’s misconduct is readily apparent, and D’Ambrosio’s letter admitted it,” Luthmann wrote in his new response letter. “This is corruption, plain and simple. The only other explanation is incompetence and mental retardation.”
He notes the committee’s justification of waiting for litigation makes no sense.
“There is no ‘pending litigation’,” Luthmann emphasized. “There is no judge – civil or criminal – that has jurisdiction over the parties and can afford relief on this issue. Plus, the Staten Island courts have already disappeared docket entries this August in a Kafkaesque manner because Administrative Judge Ray Rodriguez, a McMahon hack, was running for election. OCA created the problem, now they should eat sh-t.”
The entire point of McMahon’s ICARD tactic, Luthmann contends, was to avoid court scrutiny in the first place.
“McMahon’s actions with the ICARD were calculated to avoid court scrutiny,” he wrote. “He lied, lied, lied, and then tried to pass off the false report as part of his Joe Hynes-style vendetta against me.”
Six months have passed since McMahon filed his fear-driven complaint, yet the ICARD flag on Luthmann remains active in the NYPD system.
“The Grievance Committee basically told me I have no recourse on their side of the street,” journalist Luthmann said. “I hope they reconsider, because things can get really, really messy on my side of the street – you know, ink by the barrel and such.”
The situation raises hard questions for New York’s attorney oversight body. Why is the Grievance Committee running away from an investigation that is part of its core mission?
Observers ask whether political considerations are at play in the committee’s reluctance to scrutinize a sitting district attorney.
For now, Luthmann remains effectively barred from setting foot in New York, where the journalist covers a wide range of stories, due to the ICARD alert. The watchdog tasked with policing attorney misconduct appears unwilling even to ask why.
This story is developing.
Here is Luthmann’s correspondence to the Grievance Committee, printed in full:
December 21, 2025
Via Email
Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts
335 Adams Street, Suite 2400
Brooklyn, NY 11201Re: File No. R-1449-25 – Demand for Immediate Investigation of Attorney Michael E. McMahon, Richmond County
Dear Members of the Grievance Committee:
I write in response to Mr. D’Ambrosio’s letter of December 8, 2025 (attached herewith), which declined to investigate my formal grievance (submitted July 28, 2025) regarding Richmond County District Attorney Michael E. McMahon. Your stated excuse – that the issues “are more appropriate for resolution by a court of law or other available legal remedies” – is both inapplicable and a dereliction of your duty. Frankly, to borrow a George Carlin term, it’s “stunning bullshit.”
There are but two explanations for Mr. D’Ambrosino’s letter: mental retardation or serious systemic corruption. Your committee didn’t even identify McMahon by name, which shows you are misinformed, scared shitless, or both.
No pending court proceedings address Mr. McMahon’s misconduct, nor could any adequately redress the ethical violations at issue. It is the Grievance Committee’s mandate to investigate attorney misconduct, especially when it involves abuse of public office and subversion of justice.
I am writing in my own voice – unapologetically aggressive and incisive – to demand that you immediately open a grievance investigation into Michael McMahon’s misconduct.
I will not allow this matter to be swept under the rug, and I have copied the press and others.
Background: DA McMahon’s Abuse of Power and Lawfare Vendetta
The facts giving rise to my grievance are egregious and well-documented. On July 13, 2025, a Substack newsletter from the publication “This Is For Real” was sent to District Attorney McMahon’s official email address (michael.mcmahon@rcda.nyc.gov) as part of a mass mailing to more than 33,000 subscribers. I did not send the email. My outlet did.
The email in question – authored primarily by a guest contributor (Dr. Bandy Lee) – did not mention Mr. McMahon at all and contained no threats or personal messages. It was a routine political commentary sent to McMahon in his capacity as a public official at his public office address.
In fact, records show that McMahon’s office had voluntarily subscribed to and was receiving my newsletter for weeks before this date. Substack’s email logs confirm that, since at least June 20, 2025, McMahon (or someone in his office) not only received dozens of my emails but also opened and read them repeatedly. He even clicked on embedded links, navigating to my Substack site—clear evidence of active interest, not fear.
Each of those emails included an “unsubscribe” link, which McMahon chose not to click.
Yet on July 14, 2025, DA McMahon “called in” detectives from the NYPD’s 120th Precinct. They were summoned to the DA’s office, where he swore out a felony criminal complaint (NYPD Complaint No. 2025-120-006454) against me, claiming that my July 13 newsletter email had “placed him in fear of death or serious bodily injury” and violated a protective order.
In that complaint, McMahon alleged that I “knowingly disobeyed a valid order of protection by electronic means via email” to him on July 13. He asserted to the police that I am a dangerous stranger sending him alarming communications, and he answered “YES” when asked if he was fearful for his safety or life.
These claims are preposterous lies.
I sent no such email. The email my outlet sent contained no violent or threatening content whatsoever.
McMahon’s assertion that I am a “stranger” to him is a blatant falsehood – a feeble attempt to mischaracterize me as some unknown stalker. In reality, Mr. McMahon and I are very well acquainted from years of political and legal run-ins on Staten Island. We were both active in Richmond County Democratic circles until 2015, when I publicly broke with the party to back his opponent in the D.A. race. I endorsed Joan Illuzzi and issued a press release lambasting McMahon’s lack of prosecutorial experience.
History shows I was correct. McMahon’s tenure as DA has been an abysmal failure when compared to his predecessors, Dan Donovan and Bill Murphy. And now, McMahon, who claimed that his greatest skill in 2015 was the ability to bring back state and federal dollars, is now materially supporting scumbag Marc Elias’s bogus NY-11 redistricting litigation. McMahon claims with a straight face that the administration of justice on Staten Island is better served by begging for federal funds from two off-Island officials rather than one whose district encompasses the entirety of Staten Island.
And the worst part may very well be that he believes his own line of “stunning bullshit.”
I also represented a whistleblower in 2017 whose secret audio recordings exposed a scheme involving misconduct by McMahon’s wife (then-Judge Judith McMahon). This scandal led to Judge McMahon’s demotion and the dismantling of a rigged “Special Narcotics Court Part N” that the McMahons had engineered. Mr. McMahon never forgave these blows to his prestige. In retaliation, he later had his moron crony, special prosecutor Eric Nelson, bring a spurious charge against me over a satirical “Smilin’ Jack McMahon” Facebook page I created to mock him. (That parody page was obviously lawful political speech – it even included disclaimers and could not be mistaken for an official page – but McMahon abused his influence to criminalize it. He even testified at the grand jury. I can send you the transcripts if you would like. Everything will likely become public in my next tranche of the media roll-out. There will no longer be any secrets.)
In short, McMahon knows exactly who I am – and, in his eyes, my “crime” is that I have consistently exposed his misconduct and opposed his political machine. His claim to the NYPD that we were “strangers” was a deliberate lie, one intended to exaggerate his supposed fear and paint me as a menacing unknown.
Moreover, McMahon’s invocation of an “Order of Protection” is deeply suspect. I have never been served with any order of protection involving Mr. McMahon, nor have our paths personally crossed since my release from federal custody in 2021. I had no notice that any such order existed – and certainly not an order that would or could bar a journalist from sending a generalized newsletter to public officials.
As stated, the July 13 email was not sent by me; it was an automated mass email via Substack to subscribers. The Substack log evidence shows that he was on my subscriber list (he has since been banned), and that he was added by his (or his staff’s) affirmative choice. Indeed, perhaps he or an associate subscribed specifically to frame me.
The complaint he filed deceptively omits these crucial facts.
Instead, it portrays a false scenario in which I intentionally harassed him. This is pure fiction. If anything, the facts indicate that McMahon engineered a scenario to create a pretext for my arrest, without judicial review. He waited through at least 83 of my Substack emails without incident – opening 25 of them – and only upon the 84th did he suddenly claim to feel mortally threatened.
Tellingly, the 84th email (the one he complained about) was not about him at all; it discussed a crooked New Jersey judge’s case, not McMahon. The timing of his complaint suggests that the email’s content was irrelevant. What mattered was seizing an opportunity to punish me for my journalism and my temerity in drawing breath. These are very, very sick people, McMahon and his cronies. They are the same Democrat Party machine that engineered the bogus prosecution of President Trump in the New York Courts.
What journalism, specifically, was McMahon trying to silence?
In the weeks leading up to this incident, I, along with other reporters, had been investigating and reporting on a major local scandal involving McMahon’s political ally, NYC Council Member Kamillah Hanks. Multiple whistleblowers came forward with allegations that Hanks and her staff (including her live-in partner, Kevin Barry Love) engaged in discriminatory and abusive conduct – including anti-Black racism, Islamophobia, and misuse of public resources to favor political friends.
These allegations were detailed in a formal media inquiry, emailed on June 20, 2025, to numerous officials, including McMahon and his Chief of Staff, Ashleigh Owens.
The inquiry and attached evidence outlined how Hanks’ office had diverted resources away from immigrant communities, mocked Muslim employees’ religious practices, and even used slurs like the “N-word” and “cracker” to refer to constituents and staff.
We specifically asked McMahon, as the Richmond County D.A., for comment on whether he was aware of these abuses and what actions he would take. We also noted that multiple agencies (city, state, and federal) were reportedly investigating these claims. One allegation was that Kevin Barry Love (Ms. Hanks’s partner) had made anti-Muslim terroristic threats – literally threatening violence – against critics, which McMahon’s office had failed to act upon.
Instead of prosecuting a credible death threat against Muslim community members, McMahon did nothing. It was in this context that I published articles and Substack posts calling out an Islamophobia cover-up on Staten Island. Those reports ran in outlets such as NYNewsPress.com and my own Substack in early July 2025.
This was the real trigger for McMahon’s wrath. As one headline aptly put it, “DA McMahon Rigged a ‘Felony on Sight’ Hit to Muzzle Anti-Islamic Violence Reporting.” McMahon abused his public office to retaliate against me for exposing his dereliction in the Hanks affair. Rather than investigate Hanks’s misconduct or refute our reporting with facts, he chose to weaponize the law against the messenger.
McMahon’s method was as corrupt as it was cowardly. Instead of seeking a proper arrest warrant (which would require a neutral judge’s approval and genuine probable cause), McMahon had an NYPD detective issue a felony I-CARD – essentially a “wanted” alert that directs police to arrest on sight, but which bypasses any judicial review.
In other words, he deliberately avoided the courthouse, where his claims would not hold up, and resorted to an internal police bulletin to mark me for arrest. (Now you understand how the optics of Mr. D’Ambrosio’s letter looks like mental retardation and corruption. Your committee advised me to go to court for relief. McMahon’s actions are precisely calculated to avoid court scrutiny.)
The I-Card (a “Felony Criminal Contempt” alert to detain and arrest on sight for allegedly violating the order of protection) was entered into the system on McMahon’s say-so, without a judge ever reviewing whether I had in fact committed any crime. As the Florida Gulf News reported, “No judge signed off. Just McMahon’s accusations rubber-stamped by a subordinate NYPD officer.”
This maneuver was designed to circumvent scrutiny and to intimidate me. The message from McMahon was clear: he believes he can reach across state lines to have me hauled off in handcuffs to New York, at his whim, for daring to criticize him.
Fuck him. He doesn’t have that right. Not while we still have a Constitution and while I still draw breath.
This is lawfare, plain and simple – the malicious use of law enforcement powers to destroy a personal enemy. McMahon’s conduct is that of a petty tyrant, not a minister of justice. Indeed, when speaking to the press about this incident, I did not mince words: “This isn’t law enforcement – it’s political revenge.”
Compelling evidence of McMahon’s abusive intent comes from the NYPD itself. After McMahon filed his complaint, Detective John Wilkinson of the 120th Precinct Warrant Squad was assigned to act on the I-Card. In a recorded phone call with an attorney (now the subject of an Internal Affairs Bureau investigation), Det. Wilkinson explicitly admitted that this was a political hit job.
Wilkinson boasted, “With the victim who it is… I get whatever I want,” referring to McMahon’s clout. He went on to say, “I ask for X, I get it. I ask for Z, I get it,” indicating that judges on Staten Island would rubber-stamp any order he sought, because the complaining “victim” was DA McMahon.
Incredibly, Wilkinson did not even bother obtaining a warrant; as noted, he relied on the I-Card, knowing full well it had no legal force outside New York. But he bragged he could get “any judge I want” to sign an extradition order in a heartbeat, “because the McMahons control the island.”
These statements are on tape and undeniable. They prove that McMahon leveraged his position to command police action on nothing more than his personal vendetta.
Even the detective felt emboldened to dispense with normal procedures, confident that Staten Island’s judiciary would be in McMahon’s pocket if needed. This is Tammany Hall-level corruption. It is also a textbook example of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice – a direct violation of your ethical rules (as I detail below).
To sum up: Michael McMahon, a sitting District Attorney and officer of the court, deliberately lied and exaggerated in a sworn criminal complaint to paint a law-abiding journalist (me) as a violent threat. He did so to retaliate against my constitutionally protected speech that exposed his political allies. He then misused the NYPD as his personal enforcers, issuing a baseless “felony on sight” alert – without any judge’s imprimatur – effectively attempting an extrajudicial ambush.
All of this was done under color of his office, but for purely personal and political purposes.
Such behavior by an attorney is not just unethical; it is unconscionable. It strikes at the heart of public trust in the legal system. If a District Attorney can pervert police resources to terrorize a critic, then no citizen is safe, and no shred of integrity remains in that prosecutor’s office.
This weaponization of the law for a personal vendetta is precisely what my July 28 grievance detailed (with supporting evidence) and asked this Committee to address.
Ethical Violations – NY Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC)
DA McMahon’s actions flagrantly violate multiple New York Rules of Professional Conduct. I call your attention in particular to Rules 3.3(a)(1), 4.1, and 8.4 (b), (c), and (d), each of which McMahon has breached:
- RPC 3.3(a)(1) – False Statements to a Tribunal: Rule 3.3 forbids a lawyer from “mak[ing] a false statement of fact… to a tribunal” or failing to correct a false statement previously made. Mr. McMahon’s sworn complaint and related statements are replete with falsehoods. While the NYPD is not a formal “tribunal,” McMahon’s complaint was the foundational document for a criminal proceeding. It would necessarily be presented to courts to justify any arrest or extradition. In that sense, his lies were intended to corrupt the administration of justice. He lied about material facts, claiming I was a stranger to him and implying I posed a genuine threat to his life. These statements are objectively false, as shown above. If McMahon ever had to present this narrative to a judge, he would be duty-bound to correct these lies – yet he manufactured them for the very purpose of deceiving any tribunal that might later become involved. He has already allowed false statements to influence official decision-making (the issuance of the I-Card). This conduct violates the spirit of Rule 3.3(a)(1) if not the letter. A prosecutor does not get a free pass to lie before a tribunal is formally seized of a matter – especially not to set in motion a process that will assuredly end up in court. McMahon’s deceit was calculated to mislead law enforcement and, by extension, any court that might later review the matter (e.g., a judge asked to approve extradition or consider contempt charges). In essence, he attempted to fraudulently bootstrap a non-case into a case. Such fraud on the court cannot be tolerated.
- RPC 4.1 – False Statements to Others: Rule 4.1 prohibits a lawyer, in the course of representing a client, from “knowingly mak[ing] a false statement of fact… to a third person.” Here, the “client” McMahon was representing was ostensibly the People of the State of New York (though in truth he was representing his own personal interests). Regardless, when he walked into the NYPD to initiate a criminal charge, he was acting as a lawyer providing information in an official capacity. He knowingly made false statements of fact to Detective Wilkinson and other officers. For example, he described me as an unknown, possibly dangerous person – a “stranger” – despite our well-known history. He claimed to be in fear for his life from an email that he had actively solicited, and that contained no threatening content. He omitted that his office had been regularly reading my newsletters without incident for weeks. These are lies and material omissions made to third persons (the police) in the course of a prospective proceeding. By deceiving the NYPD, McMahon ensured that law enforcement resources were deployed under false pretenses. This is a straightforward violation of Rule 4.1.
- RPC 8.4(b) – Illegal Conduct Reflecting on Honesty, Trustworthiness, or Fitness: Rule 8.4(b) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.” Mr. McMahon’s conduct may well cross into criminal territory. Filing a false police report is a crime in New York (e.g., NY Penal Law §210.45, Making a Punishable False Written Statement, or §175.30, Offering a False Instrument for Filing) – and McMahon swore out provably false statements. He knew that I had not “knowingly” violated any order (having never been served), and he certainly knew that nothing in the email posed a threat. If he nonetheless signed a sworn complaint asserting otherwise, he committed a deceit on law enforcement that is potentially chargeable. Indeed, the U.S. Attorney’s Office (EDNY) is reportedly examining matters related to McMahon, Kamillah Hanks, and Kevin Barry Love. There is no question that this conduct reflects adversely on his honesty and fitness. A District Attorney committing perjury or false swearing to imprison a critic is an affront to the law itself.
- RPC 8.4(c) – Dishonesty, Fraud, Deceit, or Misrepresentation: Rule 8.4(c) is perhaps most clearly violated here. McMahon’s entire scheme is built on dishonesty and deceit. He misrepresented a routine political newsletter as a personal threat. He deceived the police about his relationship to me and his true motivations. He engaged in fraud upon the system by using a secret I-Card instead of lawful channels. Not only did he lie about facts, but he also subverted processes – a form of deceit in itself. For instance, the I-Card paperwork falsely listed my address as the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn (where I have never been housed) – an attempt to make it seem I was lurking locally when I was in Florida. And of course, labeling me a stranger was a brazen misrepresentation. Rule 8.4(c) is designed to punish precisely this sort of lawyerly fraud. McMahon’s conduct was dishonest to its core. Each day the Grievance Committee fails to act on such deceit is another day on which the public’s faith in attorneys’ honesty erodes.
- RPC 8.4(d) – Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice: Perhaps most gravely, McMahon’s actions violate Rule 8.4(d), which forbids conduct that is “prejudicial to the administration of justice.” It is hard to imagine conduct more prejudicial to justice than a District Attorney exploiting his power to carry out a personal vendetta. McMahon’s manipulation of the NYPD and attempted misuse of the courts have already had a chilling effect on the administration of justice. Consider: by issuing an I-Card “felony warrant” with no judge’s involvement, he undermined the judiciary’s role in checking executive abuse. He attempted to preclude any fair judicial process (because an I-Card could result in my arrest without an indictment or hearing). He perverted the role of the prosecutor’s office, turning it from a seeker of justice into a tool of personal retribution. This constitutes prejudicing the administration of justice. As Florida Gulf News reported, McMahon acted “as both the prosecutor and the alleged ‘victim,’” directing police to take action “with no hearing, no judge, no review – just a politician using police as muscle.” Such conduct not only prejudices any potential proceeding against me (by injecting bad faith from the start), but it also erodes public trust in the impartiality of law enforcement and the courts. The legal system cannot function when citizens justifiably perceive that prosecutors will bend it for their own vendettas. McMahon’s lawfare campaign against me is a stark example of “weaponized justice” – using legal mechanisms as weapons against personal enemies. This Committee must recognize how damaging that is to the rule of law. A lawyer who engages in such conduct has no business exercising the privilege of a law license, let alone serving as a District Attorney.
In short, Michael E. McMahon’s behavior checks every box of serious professional misconduct. He has lied to tribunals and third parties, engaged in deceit and misrepresentation, possibly committed crimes that reflect on his honesty, and undermined the administration of justice.
If these lapses do not prompt a Grievance Committee investigation, one wonders what on earth would.
Your mandate is to hold attorneys accountable for precisely this sort of unethical and destructive behavior.
The Grievance Committee’s Refusal to Act – Dereliction of Duty or Political Interference?
Your letter of December 8, 2025, advised that you “determined that the issues [I] raise are more appropriate for resolution by a court of law or through other available legal remedies.” Respectfully, that response is absurd, and I must refute it in the strongest terms.
No court proceedings can or will address Mr. McMahon’s ethical misconduct. By design, McMahon’s use of an I-Card avoided bringing the matter before any court in New York. No judge ever reviewed the felony contempt charge; no indictment was sought; no arraignment occurred.
Thus, there is no ongoing criminal case in which I could even raise McMahon’s malfeasance.
Likewise, no civil lawsuit is currently pending between McMahon and me. (While I am considering civil action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violation of my rights, and have so notified officials, that is a separate matter—and in any event, a future hypothetical lawsuit is not a substitute for this Committee’s present duty.)
Telling me to seek “resolution” in court is a blatant evasion. It is the Committee’s job to investigate and discipline attorney misconduct even when no court case is pending. Indeed, often it is precisely because misconduct may never be fully addressed in court that grievance committees must step in.
Your suggestion that I pursue “other available legal remedies” rings hollow. What remedies, pray tell, are those?
Should I file a police report against the District Attorney for perjury? Unsurprisingly, the NYPD is not eager to treat a sitting D.A. as a criminal defendant.
Should I petition a court to compel the D.A. to prosecute himself? That is nonsense.
The only proper forum to hold an attorney like McMahon accountable for ethical breaches is here, before the Grievance Committee. The appellate divisions of the Supreme Court (through their grievance committees) are vested with the exclusive authority to discipline attorneys in New York. You cannot foist that responsibility onto some other entity simply because the attorney happens to wield political influence.
To be blunt, the Committee’s letter appears to be a deliberate abdication in deference to political power. It raises a disturbing question: Are the Committee members incompetent, or are they acting under orders from the Office of Court Administration (OCA) or other political higher-ups to protect McMahon?
There is no third option that reflects kindly on this Committee. Either you failed to grasp the gravity and credibility of the detailed grievance I submitted (which would suggest a stunning level of incompetence), or you did grasp it and chose to ignore it due to improper influence or fear of political backlash. I sincerely hope it is the former – incompetence can be remedied by awakening your sense of duty; willful complicity in corruption is a deeper rot. New York’s attorney discipline system must not become a partisan shield for the powerful. The Rules of Professional Conduct apply equally to all attorneys – including district attorneys, even those married to judges and allied with party bosses. If anything, a prosecutor’s public position makes his adherence to ethics more important, not less.
If OCA or any political figure has pressured this Committee to “take a dive” on the McMahon grievance, that interference must be exposed and resisted. It would represent a gross betrayal of the public trust and a violation of the judiciary’s integrity. I remind each member of this Committee that your ultimate duty is to the law and the public, not to OCA bureaucrats or political patrons.
Should you feel constrained by such interference, I urge you to remember the lawyers’ creed (at least outside of the State of New York) is do the right thing regardless of pressure. I stand ready to spotlight any undue influence if it exists.
Conversely, if the decision to rebuff my complaint was truly yours alone, made in good faith, then I must shake you from your stupor: your reasoning is utterly indefensible. What could possibly be “more appropriate” about letting a court handle this? You have a sworn law-enforcement officer on tape admitting that McMahon pulls judicial strings; how can I trust that any local court on Staten Island would hold him accountable, absent media scrutiny or a higher investigation?
McMahon’s clout is exactly why an independent body like the Grievance Committee must step up. If you won’t, one might conclude that you either don’t understand your own mission or lack the courage to fulfill it. Either scenario is a profound disappointment, rendering all future activities of this body wholly impotent.
Your letter also stated that your decision “does not preclude [me] from filing a new complaint at the conclusion of all legal proceedings. This line verges on the farcical, given the context. There are no “legal proceedings” ongoing – Mr. McMahon saw to that by proceeding via I-Card, avoiding any judicial proceeding.
In fact, I had to take initiative in Florida to block any extrajudicial kidnapping attempt – through EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACTION. I notified Florida’s Governor and Attorney General to refuse any interstate rendition based on any attempted McMahon-driven abusive “fear-fraud” warrant. Those actions (and the ensuing publicity) apparently caused McMahon to back down for now; the I-Card “case” has gone nowhere since.
So what exactly am I to wait for before filing a complaint? Until McMahon tries to concoct another ambush? Until he retires safely?
Your stance is nonsensical and effectively grants de facto immunity to McMahon by postponing oversight indefinitely.
It is not lost on me that by kicking the can down the road, the Committee spared itself the discomfort of investigating a sitting D.A. in a Gubernatorial election year. But your job is not to play politics or avoid tough decisions – it is to enforce the Rules without fear or favor.
Deferring action until some imaginary future time is a dereliction of duty. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Let me be clear: the Grievance Committee is now on notice. If you continue to shirk your responsibility in this matter, you risk making yourselves complicit in McMahon’s misconduct. Your inaction will send a message that politically connected lawyers are above the law – a message that will not go unnoticed by the public or the press.
Already, independent journalists have been following this saga closely. Frank Parlato – a nationally recognized investigative journalist – has reported extensively on “Emailgate” and McMahon’s “selective amnesia” regarding our feud.
Media outlets from Niagara Falls to Florida have covered McMahon’s fear-mongering complaint and the dubious I-Card stunt. The Frank Report, NY News Press, Florida Gulf News, and others have shed light on what appears to be a pattern of corruption and cover-ups tied to McMahon’s tenure.
The public is growing aware that something is rotten in Staten Island. If the attorney disciplinary apparatus refuses to act, it will only fuel perceptions that the system is rigged. I refuse to let this miscarriage of justice proceed quietly. I will continue to petition, complain, and yes, shout from the rooftops until this matter is addressed.
Demand for Immediate Action – Investigate and Suspend Michael E. McMahon
In light of the foregoing, I hereby demand that the Grievance Committee immediately reverse its prior decision and open a formal investigation into Michael McMahon’s misconduct under File No. R-1449-25. The investigation should be thorough and unflinching: it must encompass McMahon’s sworn false statements, his manipulation of the NYPD (including the recorded statements of Det. Wilkinson), his misuse of the I-Card process, and the broader context of his personal vendetta against me.
I urge the Committee to use its subpoena power to obtain all relevant evidence (e.g., NYPD documents, email logs, audio recordings) – much of which other journalists and I have already referenced and is readily available. You will find more than enough to substantiate charges of professional misconduct.
Given the extreme nature of McMahon’s actions, I further demand that the Committee seek Mr. McMahon’s immediate suspension from the practice of law, pursuant to Judiciary Law §90 or any other applicable authority, while the investigation is pending. At a minimum, an application for interim suspension is warranted when an attorney’s continued practice poses a threat to the public interest.
Here, Mr. McMahon has shown a willingness to abuse legal processes to harm others; allowing him to continue wielding prosecutorial power unchecked is dangerous. His misconduct strikes at the heart of the justice system. If a lawyer’s license can be suspended for misappropriating client funds or committing a crime, then surely it can be suspended for subverting the justice system and endangering a citizen through lies and deceit.
The evidence indicates McMahon’s unfitness to practice law — he has demonstrated dishonesty, vindictiveness, and a complete disregard for legal ethics. The public must be protected from any further abuses by him.
Finally, I demand accountability from the Committee itself. It is not lost on me that forcing a grievance committee to do its job via public pressure is highly unusual. I would much prefer that you recognize the merit of this complaint on your own initiative. However, if you choose to double down on inaction, be advised that I will explore all available avenues to ensure this matter is addressed. This may include petitioning the Appellate Division for relief, enlisting oversight from the New York State Inspector General, and continuing to bring maximum public scrutiny to the Committee’s handling of this case.
I take no pleasure in having to fight the overseers, but I will not sit quietly while blatant misconduct is swept under the rug. The legal profession’s integrity in Richmond County has been tarnished enough by the McMahon name – it does not need the Grievance Committee adding to the stain by appearing to protect one of its own.
In conclusion, the facts are incontrovertible, and the ethical breaches manifest. The ball is now in your court to vindicate the principles of professional responsibility. I trust that upon reviewing the evidence and the rules, you will see fit to perform your duty.
Open an investigation.
Subpoena McMahon and his records.
Confront him with the evidence of his lies and abuses.
And hold him accountable to the same rules that govern every attorney.
Anything less would be a failure of justice. The reputation of the bar and the public’s trust demand nothing short of a full inquiry and appropriate discipline. I await your prompt response confirming that this matter will be investigated forthwith.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Regards,
Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
cc: Ashleigh Owens, Chief of Staff – Richmond County D.A.’s Office (w/encl.)
Hon. Raymond Rodriguez, Administrative Judge, NYS Supreme Court, 13th JD (Richmond County)
Hon. Letitia James, New York State Attorney General
U.S. Attorney’s Office, EDNY – Public Corruption Unit (Attn: Public Integrity Section)
Select Government and PressTips 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
