SMILIN’ JACK’S PAYBACK? LUTHMANN TO APPEAR IN STATEN ISLAND COURT
McMahon’s Longtime Friend Presiding Over Explosive Luthmann Hearing in Election Year
NOTE: This piece first appeared on NYNewsPress.com.
By M. Thomas Nast
An Irregular Court Appearance
Former Staten Island attorney-turned-journalist Richard Luthmann is set to appear in a Staten Island courtroom on Friday, August 1, 2025, before Judge Raymond L. Rodriguez (Part 7) in what has become an increasingly bizarre legal saga.
Luthmann, who lives in Florida, will appear virtually via Microsoft Teams.
The current proceeding under SCI-90073-20/001 stems from Richard Luthmann’s 2020 plea agreement in the so-called “Fake Facebook” case, where he entered a plea while still in federal custody.
Though the case had remained dormant for years, recent developments reveal that court appearances were held on July 11 and July 14, 2025, without any notice to Luthmann. He has no idea why.
Although Arthur Aidala is still listed as the attorney of record, a Brooklyn judge formally dismissed Aidala from representation in 2023.
The court date was quietly placed on the calendar. The sudden scheduling of this appearance (Part 7, 26 Central Ave.) without the usual advance notification has raised eyebrows about due process and transparency.
It suggests a pattern of procedural irregularities in a case rooted in charged conduct dating back a decade.
The timing could not be more peculiar.
Smilin’ Jack’s Payback: A Strange Backdrop
All of this unfolds against the backdrop of a felony criminal contempt complaint filed on July 14, 2025, with the NYPD by Richmond County District Attorney Michael E. McMahon under circumstances that raise serious red flags.
According to a filed NYPD “61,” McMahon, as a private citizen-victim, says he fears for his life. He alleges that Luthmann committed a felony violation of a criminal protective order by sending a July 13 Substack newsletter to over 33,000 subscribers, including him.
McMahon said Luthmann’s actions placed him in fear of death or bodily harm and that Luthmann was a “stranger.”
Luthmann calls McMahon’s claims “unadulterated bullshit.”
But as previously reported, McMahon had been receiving the newsletter for weeks. Luthmann says he signed up for himself on June 20, according to Substack records.
Luthmann also states that he never received personal service of any protective order, was never in New York State, and was unaware of any restrictions. Even the Staten Island Advance, in prior coverage, confirmed that Luthmann had been incarcerated in Allenwood Low Security Prison at the time of the plea agreement.
Far from being strangers, Luthmann and McMahon share a long and fraught history within Staten Island’s Democratic circles. Both men were active in the Democratic Organization of Richmond County (D.O.R.C.), a local party apparatus with its own Facebook group and Google Groups forum, until a political schism in 2015.
That year, Luthmann very publicly broke ranks with the party. Then, he refused to “go along to get along” and instead crossed party lines to endorse McMahon’s Republican opponent, Joan Illuzzi, for DA. Luthmann even issued a press release touting Illuzzi’s credentials and castigating McMahon’s lack of prosecutorial experience.
Around the same time, Luthmann launched a satirical “Smilin’ Jack” Facebook page lampooning McMahon. The parody page – festooned with cartoons and memes – mocked McMahon’s inner circle as an “Irish Mafia” and highlighted alleged irregularities in McMahon’s campaign petitions (including signatures from deceased voters like William Peck).
Luthmann’s previous tangles with the McMahons extended to the courthouse. In 2017, he represented a whistleblower who recorded Judge Judith McMahon’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering in a secretive “Special Narcotics Part N” of the Staten Island court system.
Luthmann has since called for a “Truth Commission” to exonerate those falsely arrested, charged, convicted, and imprisoned based on the McMahon scheme.
“Black, brown, and white, they all went away based on Judy and Mike McMahon’s scheme to ‘run’ the Criminal Term and avoid ‘defense-oriented judges.’ Even Judge Charlie Troia wondered why he was getting so many warrants. The truth must come out, and those harmed should be exonerated,” Luthmann said. “If McMahon wants me prosecuted for bogus non-events, these issues become squarely relevant for why he views me as a ‘threat’ from 1,300 miles away. He will answer cross-examination under oath, and I will be asking the questions.”
These actions cemented Luthmann’s status as a known adversary of McMahon, hardly the “stranger” that McMahon later claimed in official documents.
McMahon’s complaint notably checked a box indicating the “suspect” was a stranger, despite their well-documented previous public interactions and rivalry.
The presiding judge at the August 1 hearing, newly minted Administrative Judge Raymond Rodriguez, is generally respected. However, reports indicate that he has been a personal friend of Michael and Judith McMahon for 30 years. They move in the same professional circles in Staten Island. This long-standing friendship is sure to draw scrutiny.
Will Judge Rodriguez be able to maintain the appearance of impartiality, given his close relationship with the complaining witness? And more broadly, can the public trust that justice will be blind in a case where political payback is a suspected motive?
Smilin’ Jack’s Payback: A Coordinated Scheme
What makes McMahon’s charge even more troubling is that it appears to be part of a coordinated scheme, now corroborated by NYPD Detective John Wilkinson on a recorded call.
In a three-minute phone conversation on July 21, Wilkinson, of the NYPD’s 120th Precinct Warrant Squad, admitted that the criminal case against Luthmann was being pursued not based on probable cause or legal necessity, but at the behest of DA McMahon himself.
“The victim is the DA,” Wilkinson said. What Detective Wilkinson says next is even more jarring. Speaking frankly about the warrant process, Wilkinson boasts: “With the victim who it is… I get whatever I want.”
By this, he means any judge will sign whatever he asks for, given that the complainant is the DA.
“I ask for X, I get it. I ask for Z, I get it,” he elaborates, making clear that a felony arrest warrant and even an interstate manhunt will be approved on his say-so.
At one point, Wilkinson explicitly acknowledges he can have U.S. Marshals dispatched to Florida to grab Luthmann – “’cause you know, that’s a disaster” – unless Luthmann surrenders voluntarily.
He then urges the lawyer to convince Luthmann to capitulate: “Oh, bro, just… come and get a lawyer, surrender, so that we don’t have to do this.”
The detective’s tone is almost casual as he suggests that coercive power is a given in this scenario.
As one commenter put it: “Detective Wilkinson seems to be channeling his Dirty Harry side…He killed the entire case and will most probably lose his gold shield when IAB gets done with him.”
Smilin’ Jack’s Payback: Legal Implications
The call provides a rare glimpse into what Luthmann’s camp calls a “rigged and illegal” warrant operation.
Legally, Wilkinson’s remarks are staggering: a police detective openly claims that judges in Richmond County will rubber-stamp any request he makes, “no matter how false it is,” as long as the DA is the purported victim.
Such a statement can be interpreted as an admission of improper influence, essentially suggesting that normal judicial scrutiny doesn’t apply when a powerful figure like McMahon is involved.
Wilkinson’s taped comments admitted to obstruction of justice, palpably as part of a classic racketeering scheme orchestrated by McMahon.
Former prosecutors say that if a detective truly “gets whatever he wants” from local judges due to a DA’s clout, that indicates a breakdown of impartiality that undermines the integrity of the court. It may warrant an internal inquiry and even a federal investigation.
Notably, the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau has now assigned IAB Log #2025-24036 to review the Wilkinson matter.
Smilin’ Jack’s Payback: Psychological Questions
Beyond the legal implications, Wilkinson’s choice of words raises psychological questions. At one juncture in the call, he slips up and refers to Luthmann as “the victim” before correcting himself: “The victim – I mean, the subject.”
This Freudian slip did not go unnoticed. Luthmann’s supporters suggest that the detective’s subconscious understanding peeked through – that in this scenario, it’s actually Luthmann who might be the victim of an overzealous, if not outright, railroaded prosecution.
Wilkinson’s quick self-correction shows the cognitive dissonance at play: officially, McMahon is “the victim” on the complaint, but in ordinary parlance, it sounds absurd to call a powerful DA the victim of an email newsletter.
The conflation of “complaining witness” with “victim” here underscores how unusual this case is – the top prosecutor has made himself a personal victim in a criminal case against a political opponent. That dynamic is inherently fraught.
Even other law enforcement professionals have been taken aback by Wilkinson’s brazen statements. His “I get whatever I want” attitude suggests a level of arrogance-or – or desperation – that one retired NYPD commander described as “off the charts.” It implies absolute confidence in judicial compliance, as if due process were a mere formality.
If true, that’s a chilling prospect for any defendant.
The convergence of McMahon’s questionable honesty and Wilkinson’s stunning admissions paints a picture of a justice system that is bent on serving personal vendettas rather than the law.
August 1 will be a litmus test for judicial transparency on Staten Island. After all that has transpired between Richard Luthmann and Michael McMahon, one thing is abundantly clear – in this courtroom drama, no one can afford to be a stranger to the truth.