Stench of Staten ICARD Shakedown

DA McMahon Rigged a “Felony on Sight” Hit to Muzzle Anti-Islamic Violence

By Rick LaRivière with Richard Luthmann

Richard Luthmann sent a letter to NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch and Corporation Counsel Muriel Goode-Trufant, copying NYC Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani. He demands NYPD “withdraw and expunge” a July 2025 felony ICARD he calls “fraudulent and bogus.”

He says Staten Island DA Michael McMahon pushed the ICARD in retaliation for Luthmann’s reporting on anti-Muslim threats tied to Council Member Kamillah Hanks’s husband, Kevin Barry Love, and the DA’s failure to act.

Luthmann says McMahon feigned fear over a routine Substack newsletter from his media outlet that was sent to thousands, “not even authored by me,” and after McMahon’s office had subscribed. The NYPD stresses that an ICARD is “not an arrest warrant” and lacks judicial review.

He cites a recorded call in which NYPD Det. John Wilkinson allegedly boasted, “With the victim who it is… I get whatever I want,” and, “I ask for X, I get it. I ask for Z, I get it.”

Luthmann says the paperwork falsely listed his address as the federal jail in Brooklyn, and that McMahon lied by calling him a “stranger,” despite a long-standing public feud.

Luthmann reports an IAB complaint (Log 2025-24036) and warns the ICARD chills his reporting and bars him from traveling to NYC “under threat of false arrest.” He argues there was no probable cause, no exigency, and that the action violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Luthmann threatens to file an Article 78 petition and a § 1983 suit, including Monell claims, if the ICARD remains in place. He is also planning a suit against McMahon personally in Florida federal court.

“Michael E. McMahon, acting in his personal capacity, used the color of law and the largesse of his office to bend the badge of law enforcement, violate my civil rights, and significantly harm my protected liberty interets using New York City and State governmental machinery as the tool set of crimes and frauds,” Luthmann said.

He asks for written confirmation of removal and discipline for involved officers, calling the ICARD a “political vendetta” that exposes the City to “serious legal liability.”

The NYC Law Department has already confirmed receipt of the Luthmann letter. The communication in full is below.

From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Tuesday, November 11th, 2025 at 9:22 AM
Subject: Staten Island Law Enforcement Anti-Muslim Violence Cover-Up and Request to Withdraw Fraudulent ICARD Against Journalist Richard Luthmann
To: mamdaniz@nyassembly.gov <mamdaniz@nyassembly.gov>, jtisch@nyc.gov <jtisch@nyc.gov>, corporationcounsel@nyc.gov <corporationcounsel@nyc.gov>, lawdepartment@nyc.gov <lawdepartment@nyc.gov>, commissioner@nypd.org <commissioner@nypd.org>, dcpi@nypd.org <dcpi@nypd.org>, communityaffairs@nypd.org <communityaffairs@nypd.org>, ReasonableAccommodation.request@nypd.org <ReasonableAccommodation.request@nypd.org>, professional.development@nypd.org <professional.development@nypd.org>, IAB@NYPD.org <IAB@NYPD.org>, IABCmdCntr@nypd.org <IABCmdCntr@nypd.org>, FOILAppeals@NYPD.org <FOILAppeals@NYPD.org>, tara.calabro@nypd.org <tara.calabro@nypd.org>, jessica.tisch@nypd.org <jessica.tisch@nypd.org>, fallc@nyassembly.gov <fallc@nyassembly.gov>, vfossella@statenislandusa.com <vfossella@statenislandusa.com>, laline@siadvance.com <laline@siadvance.com>, Morano@council.nyc.gov <Morano@council.nyc.gov>, ServiceECF@law.nyc.gov <ServiceECF@law.nyc.gov>, corporationcounsel@law.nyc.gov <corporationcounsel@law.nyc.gov>, tjeneret@law.nyc.gov <tjeneret@law.nyc.gov>, cweaver@law.nyc.gov <cweaver@law.nyc.gov>, ocomorau@law.nyc.gov <ocomorau@law.nyc.gov>, jdantowi@law.nyc.gov <jdantowi@law.nyc.gov>, communications@law.nyc.gov <communications@law.nyc.gov>
CC: Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, juliea005 <juliea005@proton.me>, Dick LaFontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, jt@liquidlunchtv.com <jt@liquidlunchtv.com>, Cara Castronuova <caracastronuova@yahoo.com>, Michael Phillips <mikethunderphillips@gmail.com>, harmeet.dhillon@usdoj.gov <harmeet.dhillon@usdoj.gov>, leo.terrell@usdoj.gov <leo.terrell@usdoj.gov>, USPardon.Attorney@usdoj.gov <uspardon.attorney@usdoj.gov>, Edmartin1791@gmail.com <Edmartin1791@gmail.com>, tallon@cityandstateny.com <tallon@cityandstateny.com>, gsmith@thecity.nyc <gsmith@thecity.nyc>

The ICARD was issued by Staten Island District Attorney Michael E. McMahon as part of political payback, journalistic intimidation, and a cover-up involving anti-Muslim violence on Staten Island that my outlet reported in June 2025.

Mr. McMahon’s office, having full knowledge of the issues and threats, failed to investigate a political ally in brazen corruption that my outlet exposed.

https://luthmann.substack.com/p/kamillah-hanks-islamophobia-outrage#:~:text=Kamillah%20Hanks%20Islamophobia%20Outrage%3A%20Muslim,in%20her%20NYC%20Council%20office

In fact, after my outlet’s coverage on the Staten Island D.A.’s Office’s inaction on threats of violence against Muslims by McMahon’s political ally Keven Barry Love (husband of NYC Council Member Kammillah Hanks), Mr. McMahon and his office had voluntarily subscribed to my publication’s mailing list in order to monitor our journalistic activities. Thereafter, he corruptly used my press coverage as the basis for an ICARD arrest.

This ICARD – essentially an “arrest-on-sight” order based solely on a police officer’s determination of probable cause, without any judicial warrant or review – remains active in NYPD systems without any legitimate basis or probable cause.

According to NYPD sources, this felony ICARD is still in effect as of today, despite the passage of months with no judge ever finding probable cause for my arrest (nor could any judge do so, given the facts).

I urge you to remove this improper ICARD at once, as it was procured through lies, misrepresentations, and abuse of power by Staten Island District Attorney Michael E. McMahon and NYPD Detective John Wilkinson.

The continued existence of this ICARD violates my rights, undermines public trust, and exposes the City of New York to serious legal liability.

Journalists are seriously covering this matter at the highest levels, including the renowned Frank Parlato, whose work helped federal prosecutors take down the New York-based NXIVM cult.

I have already submitted evidence to City, State, and Federal authorities regarding public corruption, Color of Law, and Civil Rights Violations. See IAB Log 2025-24036.

Upon information and belief, the President’s top confidants are aware of this matter and Mr. McMahon’s malfeasance.

I want this matter resolved and the corrupt actors identified and disciplined. I want to be able to travel to New York City without fear and have my fundamental rights and liberties restored.

Background: The ICARD System and Its Abuse in this Case

To appreciate the gravity of this request, it is essential to understand what an ICARD is and how it has been misused in this context. An NYPD ICARD (Investigation Card) is an internal police alert directing officers to arrest a specified individual on sight, purportedly based on probable cause that the person committed a crime. Unlike a real arrest warrant, an ICARD is not approved or signed by any judge – it is a purely internal NYPD mechanism.

As legal experts note, an ICARD “is not an arrest warrant. It is not signed by a judge,” but rather is an internal notice asserting that an officer has probable cause. It bypasses the normal requirement of judicial oversight for arrests.

In theory, ICARDs are intended for use in urgent situations or to quickly locate suspects.

In practice, however, they **present a dangerous opportunity for police to “get around the hassle” of obtaining a legitimate warrant.

The use of ICARDs raises serious constitutional concerns, as people can be seized without any neutral magistrate ever confirming there is legal cause. The lack of external oversight makes ICARDs ripe for abuse – and indeed, abuse is precisely what has occurred in my case.

In July 2025, an ICARD was wrongfully issued against me under deeply troubling circumstances. Staten Island DA Michael E. McMahon, in his personal capacity, filed a police complaint against me on July 14, 2025, claiming that he was in fear for his life/safety because of an email he received. This complaint was patently frivolous and malicious: I had not contacted Mr. McMahon personally at all – the email in question was nothing more than an automated mass-distribution Substack newsletter sent to 33,000+ subscribers, including Mr. McMahon’s public official email address.

The newsletter (authored by a contributing writer, not even by me directly) did not mention Mr. McMahon at all, contained no threats or personal messages, and even provided an “unsubscribe” link for any recipient who did not wish to receive future emails.

In fact, after my outlet’s coverage of the Staten Island D.A.’s Office’s inaction on threats of violence against Muslims by McMahon political ally Kevin Barry Love (husband of NYC Council Member Kammillah Hanks), Mr. McMahon and his office had voluntarily subscribed to my publication’s mailing list. 

Mr. McMahon had been receiving (and reading) dozens of my outlet’s newsletter emails for weeks without issue.

Nevertheless, on July 13, 2025, upon receiving another routine newsletter (the 84th such email), Mr. McMahon suddenly claimed to be mortally afraid – yet he waited a full 24 hours (until the next day, July 14) to even report this supposed fear to the NYPD.

No “exigent circumstances” whatsoever existed that would justify bypassing the courts: I was 1,200 miles away in Florida at the time, posing no immediate threat to anyone, and even Mr. McMahon’s own actions show there was no urgency (given his day-long delay).

Despite this, rather than seek any valid warrant or dismissal of this absurd complaint, Detective John Wilkinson of the 120th Precinct Warrant Squad “took over” the case and pursued the ICARD to have me arrested in New York City. Det. Wilkinson did not present evidence to a judge or obtain a court-authorized arrest warrant. Instead, he used the ICARD system to unilaterally order my arrest within NYC, skirting any judicial review.

In a recorded phone call on July 21, 2025 (which is now in the hands of NYPD Internal Affairs), Det. Wilkinson openly bragged about this scheme, telling my attorney in sum and substance that “With the victim who it is… I get whatever I want.”

He explained that because the complaining “victim” was DA McMahon, he could get any judge to sign off on whatever he asked for – implying that the courts on Staten Island rubber-stamp requests when McMahon is involved. Det. Wilkinson further stated: “I ask for X, I get it. I ask for Z, I get it,” referring to warrants or orders he desired.

In other words, he admitted that normal due process was being subverted – he felt assured a judge’s signature was a mere formality and no false allegation would be scrutinized as long as McMahon was the complainant.

The audio is here for your review:

This recorded admission is astonishing evidence of a “rigged” and illegal warrant operation. Rather than treat Mr. McMahon like any other complainant, Det. Wilkinson viewed the DA’s personal vendetta as a “golden ticket” to ignore standard procedure.

Indeed, Det. Wilkinson went so far as to state that he intended to elevate the charge and involve federal authorities: he remarked that “criminal contempt is charged as a felony… We, PD, are gonna charge the felony” and indicated he could even get U.S. Marshals involved to extradite me from Florida over this trivial, fabricated offense.

At no point was any neutral magistrate asked to review whether a crime had occurred, because it was clearly not a crime. Instead of evidence, there was only abuse of the ICARD mechanism and a brazen attempt to “bootstrap” a minor non-issue into a felony matter by sheer influence and intimidation.

Specific Falsehoods and Misconduct in the Issuance of the ICARD

The predicate for this ICARD was false, retaliatory, and unlawful at every step. I wish to highlight several egregious problems with the ICARD and the underlying complaint:

• No Actual Probable Cause or Crime: The supposed offense is entirely baseless. Mr. McMahon alleged I committed “criminal contempt” of a protective order because he received a mass email from my outlet. Yet I had never been served with any order of protection involving Mr. McMahon, nor was I validly or legally subject to any such order at the time. One cannot “knowingly disobey” an order never received. Moreover, the email that was “sent” was an automated newsletter about an unrelated topic (a New Jersey judge) – it contained no direct contact or threat toward Mr. McMahon. Freedom of speech and press aside, there was simply no crime committed. The NYPD complaint narrative itself confirms that the email was sent via Substack and not a personal message, and that Mr. McMahon claims to have felt “fear” without any objectively threatening act on my part. In short, there was no probable cause to believe I violated any law – and tellingly, no judge has ever signed a warrant attesting to probable cause in this case.

• Lack of Judicial Oversight: As noted, Det. Wilkinson chose the ICARD route specifically to avoid presenting this flimsy case to a judge. He knew (and stated) that he could get a warrant if he wanted, yet he initially didn’t even bother – he placed an ICARD to have me summarily grabbed if I set foot in NYC. This misuse of an internal “investigation card” deprived me of due process protections. It allowed a potentially indefinite “wanted” status to hover over me without any court ever reviewing the merits, a situation one legal observer rightly called a “textbook deprivation of a liberty interest.” It is precisely the kind of end-run around the courts that the ICARD system should never be used for, and it highlights why ICARDs are so prone to pretextual and abusive use.
• No Exigent Circumstances: According to the NYPD’s own guidelines (and common sense), an ICARD may be appropriate when urgent action is needed to apprehend a dangerous felon or prevent imminent harm. In my case, there were no exigent circumstances whatsoever. I reside openly in Southwest Florida, 1200 miles away. I was not in New York City at the time, nor planning to be. I posed no immediate threat – indeed, if Mr. McMahon truly felt endangered, one wonders why he waited until the next day to make his report. The alleged trigger was an email on a Sunday morning, and yet no action was taken until Monday mid-morning. By then, obviously, the “threat” had not materialized into anything beyond an unread message in an inbox. There was no fleeing suspect, no ongoing crime, no emergency – nothing that could justify using an ICARD instead of taking the time to seek a proper warrant (or more appropriately, declining to take any action on such a spurious complaint). The absence of exigency decides to issue an ICARD even more suspect as a tactical move to avoid judicial scrutiny.
• False Reporting of My Address/Status: The paperwork associated with this ICARD is rife with false information. Notably, the complaint/ICARD bizarrely listed my address as “80 29th Street, Brooklyn, NY” – which is the location of the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC Brooklyn) federal lock-up. In other words, the NYPD records falsely suggested I was incarcerated in Brooklyn at the time. This is completely untrue – I was in Florida, as the DA himself knew. If I had actually been at MDC Brooklyn, I would have already been in custody and posed no threat to anyone. It appears that this incorrect address may have been used to create a misleading impression of me as a local New York presence or to obscure the fact that I was beyond the jurisdiction of NYC. Regardless, it underscores the sloppy and dishonest nature of this ICARD application. The NYPD’s own complaint form and Detective Wilkinson’s own recorded words show the detectives knew I was not present to pose any danger (since they effectively listed me as jailed!), yet they still issued an arrest-on-sight directive.
• “Stranger” Designation – Misrepresentation of Relationship: In his sworn complaint, DA McMahon described me as a “stranger” to him. This was a deliberate lie. In reality, Mr. McMahon and I are well-acquainted adversaries with a long, public history. We have known each other since at least 2011, when I was active in Staten Island political circles. In 2015, Mr. McMahon was running for District Attorney, and I opposed his candidacy with vigor. I endorsed his opponent and even satirized his campaign with a parody social media page. I also represented a whistleblower in a matter involving Mr. McMahon’s wife (a judge), leading to her demotion for misconduct. Mr. McMahon certainly did not “forget” all this. By pretending not to know me, he was cynically trying to portray me as some unknown, lurking menace – a stalker in the shadows – to justify immediate action. Law enforcement does respond more urgently when a public official is threatened by a purported stranger, and Mr. McMahon exploited that fact. But his claim of “stranger danger” was unequivocally false, and making that false statement in an official police complaint in his personal/non-official capacity constitutes perjury or a false written statement under New York law. He concealed our past adversarial relationship to avoid revealing his clear motive of personal animus and retaliation. This was not just dishonest – it was an abuse of his office and a fraud on the NYPD and any future court that might see the complaint. It is also Public Corruption and a Color of Law violation.
• Bogus Claim of Fear and Injury: Mr. McMahon’s allegation that he was in fear of “death or serious bodily injury” from my newsletter email is not only absurd on its face, but his own behavior and records also contradict it. As noted, he had been receiving my emails for weeks and even engaged with them (opening and clicking links) repeatedly. The particular email that he theatrically reacted to did not even reference him or his office. There was no direct contact, no threat, no harassment – nothing that would make a reasonable person fear for their life. He also did not act with any urgency consistent with genuine fear (waiting a day to complain). In short, his professed fear was either grossly irrational or, more likely, entirely feigned for effect – a pretext to weaponize the justice system against me. The timing and context strongly suggest retaliation rather than any legitimate concern. I will elaborate on this below.

• Retaliatory Motive – Payback for Exposing Corruption and Bigotry: It is essential to note that I am an investigative reporter specializing in public corruption and wrongdoing. In the period leading up to this ICARD, my outlet and I had been reporting on several scandals involving Staten Island figures, including Council Member Kamillah Hanks (a political ally of DA McMahon) and her husband, Kevin Barry Love. Notably, Mr. Love was accused of making violent, anti-Islamic threats and engaging in intimidation tactics in a local political dispute – conduct far more serious and tangible than any email I sent. Multiple community leaders and even Muslim advocacy groups called out Council Member Hanks’s office for this Islamophobia and demanded accountability. I was among the journalists shining a light on this story of bias and questionable use of political influence. Yet, Mr. McMahon’s office failed to seriously investigate or prosecute those threats – Kevin Barry Love, as Ms. Hanks’s spouse, appeared to enjoy protection despite recorded evidence of his menacing phone call and other misdeeds.

  

  My reporting criticized this apparent double standard and Mr. McMahon’s inaction in the face of genuine wrongdoing by his allies. It is against this backdrop that Mr. McMahon struck back at me with the contrived complaint and ICARD. In other words, his aim was not to address a legitimate safety issue, but to punish and silence a journalist (me) who was exposing uncomfortable truths about his network. This is a classic example of using government power “under color of law” to retaliate against free speech, which is itself a serious civil rights violation. In fact, Mr. McMahon reportedly bragged to an Albany lobbyist that the phony complaint and resulting warrant/ICARD were intended to “keep Luthmann out of New York” – an astonishing admission that this was a pretextual political hit job, not a bona fide law enforcement action. (Such an admission will no doubt be evidentiary in the civil rights litigation to follow.)

  

• Additional Malfeasance – Disappearing Court Dockets and Cover-Up: Mr. McMahon’s malfeasance in matters relating to me did not start or end with this ICARD. The pattern of “weaponized justice” is evident. In 2020, while I was incarcerated on unrelated federal charges, Mr. McMahon’s office maneuvered a bogus supplemental criminal information against me (over a satirical parody Facebook page), which violated procedure – I was never properly arrested or fingerprinted on that state charge, meaning the court technically never had jurisdiction. When I recently moved to vacate that conviction on jurisdictional grounds, the court docket mysteriously disappeared overnight after a strange, no-notice hearing. As I told the press, “The docket disappeared… The case doesn’t exist,” – clearly an attempt to erase evidence of my challenge and avoid public scrutiny. I firmly believe these irregularities – from vanishing dockets to fraudulent ICARDs – stem from a coordinated effort by Mr. McMahon (and those in his circle, including his wife, who is a judge) to misuse city and state power against me for personal and political reasons. Such actions qualify as part of a racketeering enterprise under RICO statutes. At a minimum, they represent a gross abuse of authority that should alarm every conscientious official in New York City and State.

In sum, the ICARD against me is founded on lies and bad faith. A dishonest District Attorney acting as a “victim” lied about our relationship and feigned fear, and a complicit detective bypassed the courts to curry favor with that DA, boasting of his ability to get fraudulent warrants rubber-stamped.

This abuse of the NYPD’s systems and resources for a political vendetta cannot be allowed to stand. Even within just the NYPD, there is recognition that this is improper – I understand that the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) has already opened an investigation into Det. Wilkinson’s conduct and statements, and I personally provided detailed evidence and testimony to the IAB months ago.

I am currently awaiting the outcome of that investigation. However, one immediate corrective action is both obvious and urgent: the NYPD must void and remove the ICARD from its active files.

Ongoing Harm to Me and Violation of My Rights

The existence of this baseless ICARD has caused and continues to cause significant harm to my liberty, livelihood, and well-being. As long as a “hit” for a felony arrest remains in NYPD databases, I am effectively exiled from New York City under threat of false arrest. I am a native New Yorker, and in my new career as a journalist, much of my work involves covering news, events, and issues in New York City, albeit now from a distance.

I have been unable to safely travel to NYC for months, missing important professional and community events, because I know that any routine encounter with NYPD (or even a Port Authority officer at an airport) could result in me being unjustly detained on this phony ICARD warrant.

This is a blatant infringement on my freedom of movement and my right to engage in my profession. It also disrupts my personal life – for example, I am a proud member of the Italian American Civil Rights League and the Old Blue Rugby Football Club, an alumnus of Columbia University and New York Law School, and a member/participant in other NYC-based civic, fraternal, and/or social organizations. I have had to forego attending gatherings, celebrations, and meetings in NYC out of fear that I could be suddenly hauled off in handcuffs for no valid reason.

I should not have to live under that cloud – no journalist or citizen should be targeted by law enforcement for exercising First Amendment rights. Yet Mr. McMahon’s retaliatory actions, enabled by Det. Wilkinson’s ICARD has essentially blacklisted me from the city I once called home. Every day that this fraudulent ICARD remains active is another day I am deprived of my constitutional right to travel and to speak/assemble freely.

The chilling effect on my journalism is profound: I specialize in investigating corruption, and now one powerful subject of my reporting has attempted to “disappear” me via police action, sending a warning to me (and by extension to other reporters). Even if I avoid physical arrest by staying away, the message – that critical journalists can be effectively banished – is deeply damaging to a free press. I trust you can see how intolerable this situation is in a democratic society.

Furthermore, should I be mistakenly or surreptitiously arrested on this ICARD, the harm would escalate dramatically. I could be detained or jailed for some time before the truth comes to light, since the ICARD currently in the system flags me for a felony arrest.

I need not remind you that New York’s arrest and extradition processes, when initiated, could subject me to humiliating and unnecessary custody, transport, and possibly weeks of incarceration (especially if a warrant were erroneously signed and I had to fight it in court).

This is not hypothetical – as the Artvoice and Frank Report coverage noted, if a judge were to approve McMahon’s complaint, I could be extradited from Florida and held for months before I even got a chance to challenge the bogus charges. While so far no judge has lent their imprimatur to this farce, the ICARD alone is enough to cause a grave injustice if triggered.

My reputation has also suffered. Being the subject of an “arrest on sight” order – especially one falsely labeling me as having violated a protective order and scaring a public official – is hugely damaging to my name and credibility as a journalist. It paints me, in official databases and likely gossip, as some violent threat or fugitive, which I emphatically am not. The late U.S. Judge Jack Weinstein and U.S. Senior Judge Raymond Dearie both confirmed that I am not violent.

In reality, Mr. McMahon and his political allies are the only ones who continue to propagate this outrageous lie. Their smear job using the machinery of government is as laughable as it is harmful. To see my name listed like a dangerous criminal in NYPD files is deeply distressing and an affront to everything I stand for. The sooner this stain is removed, the sooner I can fully resume my work of reporting on corruption with the “thoroughness and vigor” that these tactics were designed to impede.

Legal Implications: Why the ICARD Must Be Withdrawn Immediately

Beyond the moral and practical reasons, there are compelling legal reasons for the NYPD and City of New York to promptly purge this ICARD and disassociate from the misconduct of DA McMahon and Det. Wilkinson. Simply put, the ICARD is unsupported by any lawful cause and exposes the City to liability on multiple fronts:

• Violation of Constitutional Rights: The handling of this matter raises serious Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment issues. Placing an individual into custody (or under the persistent threat of it) without a valid warrant or probable cause determination by a judge is a deprivation of liberty without due process. The use of the ICARD here effectively attempted a warrantless arrest for an alleged felony without exigency, which is constitutionally outrageous. If this ICARD is not withdrawn, any future enforcement action would be an unlawful seizure, giving rise to a clear 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim against the officers and officials involved. I note that Detective Wilkinson, by candidly admitting his intent to “do [his] thing” without regard for proper procedure, has already created a record suggesting knowing violation of my rights. Continuing to maintain the ICARD in the system – now that these facts are well known – could be seen as the NYPD’s endorsement of that violation. The City would be far better served by mitigating damages at this stage, i.e., pulling the plug on this improper alert before it results in an actual false arrest.

• Lack of Probable Cause (False Arrest/Malicious Prosecution): If I am arrested on this ICARD, it would unequivocally be a false arrest, as there is no probable cause for the underlying charge. Even the “complaining victim,” Mr. McMahon, has provided no evidence of a crime beyond his subjective claim of fear (from an objectively non-threatening email) – something thoroughly debunked by his prior subscription and lack of any direct contact. Under New York law, making an arrest without probable cause opens the city and officers to claims of false arrest and false imprisonment. Additionally, pursuing a criminal charge initiated in bad faith (as this one was) could lead to malicious prosecution liability—Mr McMahon’s material misstatements (“stranger,” etc.) in the complaint and Det. Wilkinson’s apparent collusion in executing an unlawful arrest plan would only bolster such claims. By withdrawing the ICARD now and forgoing any arrest, the NYPD can cut off a significant part of this potential liability. I could walk into an NYPD Precinct tomorrow, and this will assuredly be a million-dollar case against the City of New York.

• Article 78 Proceeding: If the NYPD does not remove the ICARD, I am prepared to file an Article 78 proceeding in New York State court to compel its removal and to challenge its legality. In an Article 78, a judge would evaluate whether the NYPD’s action in maintaining this ICARD is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. I am confident that, given the documented facts, the ICARD would be struck down. Such a proceeding would unnecessarily consume the City’s time and resources in litigation, and an ensuing court order could be accompanied by an award of attorneys’ fees and other relief against the City. It is eminently avoidable: the NYPD has the power to internally void an ICARD when it’s clear the basis was in error or fraudulent. Indeed, it is your duty to do so in the interest of justice. Taking this step now would moot the need for judicial intervention at the state level.

  

• Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit: As noted, I fully intend to pursue a federal lawsuit for the violations of my civil rights that have already occurred in this matter. In fact, I am preparing to sue DA McMahon in his personal capacity in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, since that is where I have suffered much of the impact of his actions (preventing me from returning to New York, etc.). The cause of action will include color of law abuses and First Amendment retaliation. While it is expected that the crooked Mr. McMahon himself will claim some form of prosecutorial immunity for official actions, his behavior here – acting as a complaining witness to sic the police on a critic – is outside his core prosecutorial functions and was done ultra vires (in a personal capacity using the **“color” of his office). He is not immune, and regardless, Det. Wilkinson and any other NYPD personnel who furthered the scheme certainly have no immunity for knowingly enforcing a void and unlawful order. The City could thus be on the hook for its actions under a Monell claim. However, if the NYPD affirmatively rectifies the situation by cancelling the ICARD and refusing to participate in this charade in the future, the City can credibly distance itself from McMahon’s vendetta. In short, you do not want the NYPD to be seen as “co-signing” his unconstitutional retaliation. Currently, the NYPD finds itself in an uncomfortable position as a complicit enabler – but this can change if prompt remedial action is taken.
• Potential Criminal Liability for False Statements: I also call to your attention that knowingly false statements in official police records (such as the “stranger” claim) constitute crimes under state law (perjury, false filing). While those offenses would be on Mr. McMahon (and Det. Wilkinson based on his admissions), it is in the interest of the Police Department and the City to not perpetuate or endorse falsifications. Removing the ICARD and flagging the underlying complaint for further internal review would demonstrate that the NYPD does not tolerate false or retaliatory charges. It would align with Commissioner Tisch’s mandate to uphold integrity in the department. Conversely, leaving a fraudulent ICARD active might be construed as passive approval of the false statements it’s based on.

To put it plainly: voiding this ICARD is not only the right thing to do, it is the legally smart thing to do. It will help mitigate damages, uphold the rule of law, and restore a measure of trust. If this ICARD remains, it is a ticking time bomb of liability and a stain on the NYPD’s reputation.

Request and Conclusion

I would like to ask and demand that the NYPD immediately withdraw and expunge the ICARD issued for Richard A. Luthmann (DOB 11-08-1979). This includes removing any “Felony Wanted” or arrest alerts from all NYPD systems (and any associated databases accessible to other agencies) relating to that complaint. I further request written confirmation that the ICARD has been vacated, so that I can freely travel to New York City and elsewhere without fear of an improper arrest.

Additionally, I urge the NYPD to take whatever appropriate internal action is warranted with respect to Detective Wilkinson and any others who enabled this abuse. His own recorded words show a conscious disregard for lawful process. At the very least, his conduct should be subject to discipline, and the referral to IAB suggests that the department is taking it seriously. Purging the ICARD would be a first step in rectifying the damage. It would also send a message to the force that personal political errands – especially those involving Islamophobia or retaliation against journalists – have no place in the NYPD.

Commissioner Tisch, you assumed leadership of the NYPD with a promise to restore public faith in a department that must serve all New Yorkers impartially. Allowing a bogus arrest order to linger against a journalist because a powerful DA doesn’t like scrutiny would betray that promise. I appeal to your sense of justice and duty: do not let the NYPD be used as an instrument of a political vendetta. The ICARD should never have been issued – but you now have the authority to correct this and demonstrate that the NYPD can self-correct wrongful actions within its ranks.

Corporation Counsel Goode-Trufant, as the City’s chief legal officer, you are aware of the constitutional and liability issues at play. I am confident you will see the wisdom in resolving this matter administratively before it escalates further in the courts. By advising the NYPD to withdraw the ICARD, you will be protecting the City’s legal interests and upholding the rule of law.

In closing, I hope that we can resolve this amicably and promptly. I have always sought to address wrongdoing through lawful means – as a lawyer and now as a journalist – and this letter is part of that effort. However, rest assured that if this blatant abuse is not remedied, I will pursue every legal avenue to vindicate my rights, from Article 78 relief to federal litigation. The costs – financially and to the City’s reputation – will only compound the longer this goes on.

Let this not be a chapter where the NYPD and City of New York are seen as complicit in “weaponized justice.”Instead, by acting now, you can close the book on this sordid episode – doing the legally correct and honorable thing by disavowing a fraudulent ICARD and those who procured it.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your quick reply confirming that the ICARD has been withdrawn. Once that is done, I can again exercise my First Amendment rights and travel freely to New York to continue my work – without the specter of an unjust arrest. That outcome will serve not just my interests, but the interests of justice and good governance in New York City.

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 onFacebookXInstagramLinkedInTRUTHRumbleNewsbreak

---

Bibliography (Selected Sources)

1. Frank Parlato, “Staten Island DA McMahon Accused of Justice Cover-Up in Vanished Docket Case,” Frank Report (Aug. 7, 2025) frankreport.com.

2. Frank Parlato, “BREAKING: NYPD Detective Wilkinson Caught on Tape Admitting to Obstruction of Justice: ‘I Get Whatever I Want’ From Judges Because of DA McMahon,” Frank Report (July 30, 2025) frankreport.com.

3. Frank Parlato, “Emailgate: Staten Island DA McMahon Suffers Selective Amnesia, Forgets Decade-Long Feud with Luthmann,” Frank Report (Aug. 2, 2025) frankreport.com.

4. Frank Parlato, “Judge Judy & The DA Mike McMahon: Staten Island’s Real Crime Family?” Frank Report (Aug. 3, 2025) artvoice.com

5. NYPD I-Card Use and Abuse: Anna North, “The NYPD snatched an anti-police brutality protester off the street,” Vox (July 31, 2020) vox.com (explaining that an ICARD is an internal NYPD notice, not a judge-approved warrant, often used to bypass judicial oversight).

6. Richard Luthmann, “Reporter Luthmann Unleashed: If He Vanishes, the McMahons Did It,” This is For Real Substack (July 2025) frankreport.com (detailing the retaliatory nature of McMahon’s complaint and Wilkinson’s intent to elevate charges and involve U.S. Marshals).

7. Frank Parlato, “‘Game of Thrones Lawyer’ Luthmann Sues NYC Council Member Hanks, Kevin Barry Love, Judge Castorina, etc. – Corruption Allegations,” Frank Report (Nov. 24, 2023) frankreport.com. (Provides background on Kevin Barry Love’s threats, Hanks’s scandal, and Luthmann’s claims of retaliation).

8. Richard Luthmann, “Kamillah Hanks Islamophobia Outrage: Immediate Backlash to Anti-Muslim Threats,” NY News Press (July 2025) luthmann.substack.com (covering the Islamophobia scandal and lack of action by DA McMahon’s office).

9. Michael Volpe, “The Kafkaesque Disappearing NY Court Case,” Substack (Aug. 2025) frankreport.com (describing how Luthmann’s court docket vanished after his motion, allegedly to protect McMahon).

10. NYPD Internal Affairs Investigation: Frank Parlato, Twitter/X post (July 30, 2025) (sharing audio of Det. Wilkinson’s call and noting that NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau is investigating the incident frankreport.com).

Note: All links above were last accessed Nov. 11, 2025. Additional documentation (including the NYPD complaint report images and audio recordings) is available upon request.

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

About The Author

Rick LaRivière

“The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you.” —David Foster Wallace

See author's posts