Luthmann vs. Castorina: Cross-Examination Showdown in NY’s Fake Facebook Scandal

Richard Luthmann’s battles with New York’s political machine are heating up. The former Staten Island lawyer turned Florida journalist now finds himself on the verge of cross-examining two of his longtime adversaries: Judge Ron Castorina and District Attorney Michael McMahon.

On one front, Luthmann is pursuing a civil case in Manhattan Supreme Court. On another, his infamous “Fake Facebook” prosecution—built on an illegal Superior Court Information and missing fingerprint cards—may soon be revived. Both cases put Castorina, who won his Assembly seat in 2016 with the help of attacks on rival Janine Materna, squarely in the witness box.

Castorina has always claimed he barely knew Luthmann and rejected his antics. But extensive Facebook messages tell another story: Castorina encouraged Luthmann’s spoofs, laughed at his memes, and even suggested attack ideas. Yet when testifying under oath before a grand jury in 2018, he painted himself as a victim and denied any role. Critics argue that Castorina’s testimony amounted to perjury, propped up by Special Prosecutor Eric Nelson, a close ally of DA McMahon.

McMahon, meanwhile, has his own history with Luthmann. The DA insists he was targeted by fake Facebook parody pages that mocked him as “Smilin’ Jack” and compared him to the Grinch. After becoming DA, McMahon ensured Luthmann was indicted—even though the first special prosecutor declined charges on First Amendment grounds. Now, McMahon may also be forced into the hot seat to answer whether the prosecution was political payback.

For Luthmann, this is more than a personal vendetta. He claims the cases expose a broader pattern of lawfare, prosecutorial misconduct, and weaponized justice in Staten Island. He has already filed complaints against the NYPD for maintaining an invalid felony I-card and says he’s preparing federal Monell claims alleging systemic constitutional violations by New York City.

The stakes are high. Castorina, now a sitting Supreme Court judge, risks public exposure for alleged lies under oath. McMahon, in his third term as DA, faces questions about conflicts of interest and retaliatory prosecutions. If Luthmann gets his chance to cross-examine both men, it could mark a turning point—shining a spotlight on the insiders who have long avoided accountability.

Whether through his civil suit, a revived criminal trial, or federal litigation, Luthmann is positioning himself for a dramatic courtroom confrontation. And if he succeeds, Staten Island’s power brokers may finally be the ones sweating under cross-examination.