LUTHMANN NOTE: This isn’t about Roe anymore. That fight is over. What we’re seeing now is something far bigger—and frankly, more dangerous. Abortion didn’t shrink. It scaled. It went digital, decentralized, and detached from oversight. Pills in the mail. Decisions made alone. No friction, no accountability. Meanwhile, the country isn’t replacing itself. That’s not politics—that’s math. And neither party wants to touch it honestly. Democrats push access. Republicans tiptoe around optics. The result? A vacuum where culture used to stand. When life becomes logistics, the market fills the void. And markets don’t have morals—they have margins. This piece is “The Post-Roe Landscape,” also available on FLGulf.News.

By Greg Maresca

The Supreme Court sentenced Roe v. Wade to the ash heap of history, but the abortion industrial complex is certainly not hurting. With abortion “rights” being enshrined in the constitutions of numerous states, business remains brisk with their marketing machine running full throttle.

The Guttmacher Institute reports that abortion totals for 2025 increased to 1,126,000 in an American nation whose declining birthrate is now below replacement levels, an irony only a leftist can love. The nation’s fertility rate is its lowest ever at 1.6 children per woman. When figures are released later this year, the rate is expected to drop even further.

Lamenting the steady national birthrate decline is political theater, disguised as a sanitized form of eugenics.

Abortion’s future is not confined to clinics like Planned Parenthood but in supply chains, where chemical abortion has slipped seamlessly into the saturated world of pharmaceuticals, where commerce, not care, drives the growth.

Abortion is no longer tethered to physicians, clinics, or geography, with chemicals now the dominant method distributed through mail‑order pharmacies. Shipped to homes and self-administered with minimal regulation or medical oversight, mifepristone and misoprostol have effectively domesticated abortion.

Democrats reject abortion limits outright, while Republicans tolerate chemical abortion and IVF, managing them as political risks rather than confronting their moral implications.

This paradigm shift exposes not just a policy failure but also a cultural one, in which a society increasingly outsources its moral burdens to technology, markets, and convenience. When the creation and destruction of life are arbitrated by apps and third-party distributors, the spiritual cost becomes easier to dismiss, and the political class of both parties is only too happy to oblige.

Such a contradiction is already reshaping the political landscape.

Ballot measures in 2026 will allow voters to confront what their parties refuse to articulate: whether Americans treat abortion as just another consumer good or a justified moral evil.

FLGulf.News

Though framed by referendums and political realignment, the issue is less about Roe and more about moral accountability. A nation that treats life and death as logistical problems will continue to get politics to match.

Polls underscore that the majority oppose mail-order abortion. A number of states are engaged in legislation to preempt their distribution. When voters were asked to limit abortion, 13 states did.

Seven more states will have abortion on the November ballot.

Missouri will decide whether to repeal its “Right to Reproductive Freedom” amendment with a more restrictive constitutional amendment.

Nevada can undo a previous pro-abortion measure.

Virginia, once a destination for lovers, will vote on a constitutional provision for abortion.

Idaho will have a measure to guarantee abortion.

Nebraska has two competing measures: one to protect abortion rights, another to restrict abortion after the first trimester.

Montana has a pro‑life measure, while Oregon has a pro-choice constitutional amendment in a state that allows abortion for any reason up to birth.

The future we inherit will be shaped less by politics than by the choices we make when no one is watching.

If a nation cannot articulate why life is sacred, it will be governed by those who profit from neglect. If anything, politics has proven this time and again that any moral retreat creates a void and such a void is never left unclaimed.

Any country that refuses to invest in its future will eventually finance its own destruction.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

FLGulf.News

LUTHMANN NOTE: This case is the perfect stress test for the new immigration enforcement regime. The facts—if proven—hit every trigger: fraud, abandonment, financial crime, and national security concerns. The real question isn’t what’s in the file—it’s what happens next. If ICE moves decisively, it signals a true policy shift. If it stalls, it tells you everything you need to know about enforcement gaps. Immigration law only works when it’s applied consistently, not selectively. This file, sitting on a federal desk right now, is where rhetoric meets reality—and where the system either proves its teeth or exposes its weakness. This piece is “Green Card Game Over?”, first available on FrankReport.com.

By Frank Parlato

New Immigration Era – What One Case Reveals

For most of the past three decades, immigration enforcement in America operated on a set of priorities. Violent criminals, drug traffickers, and national security threats were the targets.

Everyone else existed in a gray zone, tolerated by policy if not by law.

The Trump administration has made clear, in executive orders, agency directives, and daily enforcement actions, that the old hierarchy no longer applies. Green cards can be revisited. Visas can be suspended. The question is no longer whether someone committed a crime — it is whether they belong here at all.

DHS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192, issued December 2, 2025, formalized that shift — directing a re-review of foreign nationals granted immigration benefits who entered the United States on or after January 20, 2021. Thousands of cases are in play.

Most of those cases will remain abstractions — statistics, policy debates, arguments on cable news. But policy always lands somewhere. It lands on a person, a file, a set of facts.

It has landed, among other places, on Stefanya Ramirez Ospina.

Ospina is a 31-year-old Colombian national who holds a U.S. green card, lives primarily outside the country, and until recently was known mainly to her Instagram followers — where she posted cheerfully about selling Toyotas in America. She is not, on the surface, the kind of case that makes headlines.

But a memorandum filed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — and leaked to Frank Report — suggests her case contains nearly every element the current administration has identified as grounds for removal: immigration fraud, financial crimes, abandonment of residency, and alleged ties to MS-13.

Her case may be small. What it illustrates is not.

Green Card Game Over – The Instagram Post

A removal request filed with federal immigration enforcement targets a Colombian green card holder — alleging fraud, abandonment, and MS-13 ties. Her Instagram, meanwhile, shows her selling Toyotas in America.

Stefanya Ramirez Ospina had a message for her Instagram followers.

“My first car in the USA on credit,” she wrote in Spanish, her face on camera, a Toyota logo behind her. She listed a U.S. phone number — (251) 269-6092 — and invited anyone who wanted a car or truck to reach out. She would get them the deal of their dreams.

It was a cheerful post. It was also, according to a federal removal request, a window into a double life.

The memorandum, filed with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and obtained exclusively by Frank Report, calls for the immediate deportation of Ospina, a Colombian national who holds a U.S. permanent resident card issued April 2, 2021. ICE has her file.

Among the grounds for removal: abandonment. According to the filing, Ospina spent two weeks in the United States in 2025. In prior years: six weeks in 2021, nine weeks in 2022 and 2023, and seven weeks in 2024. She has never filed U.S. taxes.

Under immigration law, a permanent resident who fails to maintain the U.S. as her primary country of residence can be stripped of that status and removed. The threshold is 180 days per year. USCIS issued her card in April 2021. She has not come close to the threshold in any year since.

Green Card Game Over – The Victim

Her husband, Jason Russell Williams, a physician and founder of Williams Cancer Institute, which operates across Georgia, California, and Mexico, sponsored her green card. The couple married in Colombia in May 2017. After a years-long processing period, Ospina received her green card in April 2021.

In August 2025, a wave of employee whistleblowers came forward to tell Williams that Ospina and her father, Julian Ramirez Lopez, had been stealing from him for more than three years.

Williams cooperated with the filing and with providing DHS with documentation, audio recordings, and whistleblower statements.

What the Whistleblowers Saw

Three employees of Williams Cancer Institute’s Latin American operations have provided statements to ICE describing how the scheme worked, how they were drawn into it, and why they remained silent for as long as they did.

FrankReport.com

The first statement describes the moment the irregularities became impossible to ignore:

“Since I joined the company, I began to notice certain irregularities related to the monthly payments, which I initially assumed were salary payments for the employees. However, over time, it became evident that large sums of money were being transferred to my personal account and were recorded as payments intended for members of the Ramírez Ospina family, without clearly specifying the reason or the corresponding accounting concept.”

The employee continued:

“These transfers disproportionately increased my reported income to the State, creating a false fiscal image and forcing me to file an income tax return with amounts much higher than what I had actually earned.”

A second employee provided a chronological account of the operation, dating it to 2022:

“Until October 2023, and following the instructions of Mr. Julian Ramírez López, a monthly transfer was made to one of the team members from the Latin area. That person received the total amount corresponding to the salaries and then distributed the payments to each employee. The remaining funds were returned to Mr. Julian’s account, either as surplus or as part of the expenses related to Dr. Jason’s estate.”

The same employee described how Lopez used staff to launder his expenses:

“There was also a practice where Mr. Julian Ramírez López made business payments using his personal credit card, since certain platforms did not accept American Express cards belonging to Mr. Julian Ramírez López. For this reason, his card was used to make payments for services and tools such as CloudTalk, EmailerPro, Bubble, Progressier, as well as domain renewals and other web services linked to Williams Cancer Institute on platforms like GoDaddy and Wompi. These amounts paid with his personal card were later reimbursed to him by adding the equivalent values to company invoices.”

Green Card Game Over – When the Banks Noticed

The third statement describes what happened when the banking system itself began to push back — and how the scheme adapted:

“However, this method caused several issues, as it affected employees’ personal bank accounts. I am aware of cases in which some colleagues experienced account blocks for international transfers and were even blacklisted by Bancolombia, which likely affected their ability to access other banking services permanently.”

To work around banking blocks, an engineer at the company, Daniel Perdomo, proposed routing payments through DolarApp, a transfer platform that operates in partnership with U.S. banks, including Lead Bank. Starting in October 2023, DolarApp became the payroll delivery platform for Latin American employees, each of whom was assigned a U.S. bank account through the service.

The irregularities continued under the new system. As the third employee wrote:

“In my particular situation, my account was frequently used to receive transfers unrelated to my salary. According to the explanations I occasionally received, these funds were intended for matters related to the farm or, at times, personal affairs of the Ramírez family in connection with Dr. Jason Williams. Most of the transfers came from SD WILLIAMS CANC, and on two occasions, from Capital One. Subsequently, these non-payroll funds were transferred to the account indicated by Mr. Julián López, generally his own. The transfer amounts ranged between $2,000 and $7,000 USD.”

The employee noted that the $7,000 ceiling was the per-transaction limit imposed by DolarApp. Lopez was structuring the transfers to stay beneath it.

DolarApp noticed. The third employee wrote:

“DolarApp contacted me to request explanations regarding such movements, particularly concerning the funds sent to Mr. Julián López. After providing the requested information, the platform decided to permanently close my account, banning me indefinitely and preventing me from opening any new accounts within their system.”

Why They Said Nothing

All three employees offered the same explanation for why they had not come forward sooner. As the first put it:

“I am aware that I was not the only one affected by this situation; however, none of us ever filed a complaint due to fear of possible retaliation.”

The third employee echoed this:

“We did not openly object to these practices mainly for two reasons: first, because the instructions came from our supervisors or superiors, whom we followed and believed in good faith; and second, due to an unconscious fear that questioning such practices could result in negative consequences for our employment.”

Green Card Game Over – A Fraudulent Visa Application Before This Began

The removal request reaches back a decade, to a time before Ospina had any connection to Williams — and to an attempt to deceive U.S. immigration authorities.

In a visa application submitted around December 2015, Ospina provided false information about her father’s identity, substituting the name, personal details, and bank account records of a different individual — someone with substantial financial resources — to present herself as financially stable and well-connected. She falsified documents and impersonated another tourist family to obtain a U.S. tourist visa.

It didn’t work. The State Department denied the application in May 2016.

Green Card Game Over – The MS-13 Connection

The removal filing raises one more allegation — and from a national security standpoint, the most serious of all.

The memorandum states that Ospina and Lopez have contacts and relationships with the MS-13 gang in Mexico. Prior to her marriage, Ospina had a relationship with an MS-13 gang member — the connection traced to Mexico City around December 2015 — and claimed to have been used to purchase illegal drugs. The filing characterizes these ties as a threat to U.S. security.

What ICE Is Being Asked to Do

The memorandum requests that ICE issue a Notice to Appear for both Ospina and Lopez, initiating removal proceedings, and that DHS suspend all U.S. travel and residency rights pending a review under DHS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192, issued December 2, 2025, which directed re-review of foreign nationals granted immigration benefits who entered the U.S. on or after January 20, 2021.

Lopez holds a B1/B2 visitor visa set to expire March 11, 2028. The filing also requests that it be suspended.

Neither Ospina nor Lopez responded to requests for comment. ICE neither confirmed nor denied opening proceedings.

An official with the Trump administration indicated that he expects ICE to take action based on the severity of the theft and the blatant abuse of a reputed physician with an impeccable record.

Whether ICE acts on this file will say something about how the new enforcement era works in practice. The Trump administration has promised that cases like this one, once ignored, will no longer be.

Frank Report will follow every development.

ARTVOICE ART

Further Reading

The New Immigration Era

— DHS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192, explained: Greenberg Traurig immigration analysis

— Full scope of the freeze and how it works in practice: lawfirm4immigrants.com

Green Card Abandonment — The Legal Standard

— What the 180-day rule actually means and how abandonment is determined: CitizenPath

— The legal factors CBP considers when questioning a returning resident: CLINIC — Catholic Legal Immigration Network

MS-13 — Designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization

— U.S. State Department designation of MS-13 as a Foreign Terrorist Organization: State.gov

— MS-13’s Mexico Program — how the gang operates across the border: InSight Crime

— DOJ on MS-13’s smuggling operations through Mexico: Washington Times

— ICE/FBI arrest of high-ranking MS-13 leader controlling U.S. and Mexico operations: ICE.gov

DolarApp — The Transfer Platform at the Center of the Scheme

— What DolarApp is and how it works: Y Combinator launch page

— Note: DolarApp has since rebranded as ARQ. Its partner bank is Lead Bank.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

FrankReport.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: The irony here is impossible to ignore. For years, Mega Influencer Danesh Noshirvan insisted Trump would never help the Iranian people. Now the Ayatollah is gone, and the regime is collapsing — and Danesh can’t even acknowledge it. At the same time, his lawyer, Nick Chiappetta of Lake Worth, Florida, is getting scolded by a federal judge for flooding chambers with email theatrics. That’s not how federal litigation works. Judges expect discipline, not inbox spam. When you add the resurfacing of Chiappetta’s paraphernalia conviction and the ongoing sanctions issues in the case, the whole thing looks less like a legal strategy and more like chaos. The courtroom will sort it out. November is coming. This piece is “Judge Boots Danesh Showdown,” first available on FLGulfNews.com.

By Rick LaRivière with Richard Luthmann and Joseph Anthony Camp

Judge Delays Trial & Rips “Off-Record” Email Antics

(FORT MYERS, FLORIDA) - A federal judge just slammed the brakes on TikTok Terror Danesh “ThatDaneshGuy” Noshirvan’s upcoming trial – and gave his lawyer a public lashing to remember. In a March 6, 2026, hearing in Fort Myers, U.S. District Judge John E. Steele postponed the jury trial to November 30, 2026.

Judge Steele, a Bill Clinton appointee, didn’t stop at resetting the date. He unloaded on Noshirvan’s attorney, Nicholas Chiappetta, for embroiling the Fort Myers federal court judiciary in a flurry of off-the-court-record email conversations with two journalists, Richard Luthmann and Joey Camp. Judge Steele was peeved that his inbox was being flooded and that he was being contacted outside the proper legal channels.

The judge sternly instructed all parties to halt the blizzard of private emails to his chambers and warned, “Continuation of such behavior by any party may be met with sanctions.” The message was loud and clear: cut the side-channel scheming or face the consequences.

Steele’s admonition came during what was supposed to be a routine final pretrial conference – one that quickly turned into a courtroom smackdown. Chiappetta’s behind-the-scenes emailing had clearly struck a nerve.

“Refrain from the flood of emails and responses” to the court’s personal account, Judge Steele barked, making it known that any repeat of the off-record stunt could earn swift punishment.

In the same breath, the judge made sure this circus stays on a tighter leash going forward. He reconfigured the case schedule on the spot: Noshirvan will get a 45-day window to conduct limited extra discovery on defendants Jennifer Couture, her husband, Dr. Ralph Garramone, and his Fort Myers plastic surgery practice.

Couture and Garramone, local Fort Myers community members, have filed multi-million dollar counterclaims against Danesh Noshirvan for business interruption. Dr. Garramone and his practice claim that they continue to be “innocent bystanders” to the Mega Influencer’s targeted Internet harassment and defamation, driven in large part by AI and bots directed from Noshirvan’s digital lair in Mansfield, Pennsylvania.

The limited discovery period will be followed by 30 days to file any summary judgment motions. No other motions will be permitted – Steele decreed that any further filings beyond that “will be stricken.”

After months of legal free-for-all, the court is locking down the timeline and telling both sides to get their act together before the new trial date.

Judge Boots Danesh Showdown: “Off the Record” Emails Exposed

So what exactly did Nick Chiappetta do to earn such a high-voltage rebuke? The trouble traces back to a pair of ill-advised emails in early March between Chiappetta and the two journalists tracking this case.

In a March 1, 2026, email, Chiappetta communicated with Richard Luthmann, an independent investigative journalist whom Noshirvan ironically put on his own trial witness list. Chiappetta’s message was a back-and-forth with Luthmann (and later Joey Camp, another outspoken reporter, and Danesh Noshirvan’s “boogeyman” for the past decade) about case matters.

It’s as brazen as it sounds: the plaintiff’s lawyer emailing back and forth with a journalist-witness with the Judge and all the attorneys on the case copied. Other email strings show Chiappetta doubling down – engaging in an off-the-court-record back-and-forth with Luthmann and Camp. Luthmann perceived Chiappetta’s statements as potential threats of biological terror.

For his efforts, Chiappetta got an earful in return. By the time the dust settled, Chiappetta’s emails had become Exhibit A in his own embarrassment. Judge Steele’s public reprimand at the hearing made clear that the court considers such off-book communication, including that in the federal court, utterly improper.

Any attempt to sidestep formal channels – especially an email to a witness-cum-journalist – is a big no-no.

Chiappetta’s back-and-forth maneuver now stands as a cautionary tale: if you try to game the process in Judge Steele’s court, prepare to be called out on the record in open court.

Judge Steele also promised sanctions. He’s promised that before.

Judge Boots Danesh Showdown: The Offending Emails – Trump, the Persian People, and Ungrateful Danesh

Ironically, Chiappetta’s outreach came in response to Richard Luthmann’s scathing journalistic inquiry aimed at Danesh Noshirvan, one of the very topics Chiappetta wants to hush up. In that March 1 missive (which Luthmann emailed directly to Danesh and cc’d Chiappetta), the brash commentator seized on breaking world news to stick it to the TikTok Terror.

Hours after reports that Iran’s Supreme Leader had been killed in U.S.-Israeli strikes, Luthmann challenged Danesh to eat crow. For years, Danesh built his brand on hating Trump and defending Iran’s regime. Now, with Trump and Israel dealing a deathblow to Tehran’s tyrants, Luthmann thundered that Danesh “should admit he was wrong and thank Trump for liberating the Persian people.”

He pointed out that Danesh once sneered in Farsi that Trump would “never” aid Iranians – yet here was the ultimate assist, delivering Iran’s best shot at freedom in decades. Luthmann’s letter bluntly asked: Will you finally apologize to Trump and Netanyahu now that they delivered exactly what you said they wouldn’t? Will you side with the liberation of the Persian people over the theocrats who oppressed them?

Luthmann didn’t mince words about what he thinks of Noshirvan’s loyalties. He essentially accused Danesh of preferring Iran’s mullahs to his own Persian heritage. In fact, Luthmann quipped that Danesh will never give credit to Trump’s actions because “Danesh hates Persians.”

It’s a jarring claim, but Luthmann backs it up by citing Danesh’s track record of targeting fellow Iranians who oppose the Tehran regime. The TikTok Terror has launched “hate-filled Farsi rants” against Trump and Israel, while attacking Persians who fled that regime.

In Luthmann’s eyes, Danesh is so blinded by anti-Trump animus that he’d rather see his own people suffer than admit Trump helped them. The emails, both dripping with sarcasm and “I-told-you-so,” effectively dare Danesh to respond.

From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Sunday, March 1st, 2026 at 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Danesh (ThatDaneshGuy) Noshirvan Ayatollah Down — Your Family Escaped Iran – Were You Wrong About Trump, and Who’s Really Funding Your Digital Jihad?
To: Joseph Camp <joey@yourdaddyjoey.news>
CC: ThatDanesh Guy <thatdaneshguy@gmail.com>, thatdaneshguy@yahoo.com <thatdaneshguy@yahoo.com>, Danesh <daneshnoshirvan@gmail.com>, daneshnoshirvan@yahoo.com <daneshnoshirvan@yahoo.com>, Nick Chiappetta <nick@chiappettalegal.com>, nickchiappetta@gmail.com <nickchiappetta@gmail.com>, service@chiappettalegal.com <service@chiappettalegal.com>, Vicki Modaffari <vicki@chiappettalegal.com>, services@chiappettalegal.com <services@chiappettalegal.com>, nchiappetta@chiappettalegal.com <nchiappetta@chiappettalegal.com>, Troy@slingshot.news <Troy@slingshot.news>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, mediacontacts@infowars.com <mediacontacts@infowars.com>, showtips_nfocom@infowars.com <showtips_nfocom@infowars.com>, whistleblowers@infowars.com <whistleblowers@infowars.com>, Jim Hoft <jimhoft@gmail.com>, Dick LaFontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, Tom Lemons <tom@rnews.news>, Joseph A. Camp <joey@joeycamp2020.com>, Cortney Kotzian <theomahaoracle@gmail.com>, cinf-ir@cinfin.com <cinf-ir@cinfin.com>, steve_spray@cinfin.com <steve_spray@cinfin.com>, media_inquiries@cinfin.com <media_inquiries@cinfin.com>, news@floridaweekly.com <news@floridaweekly.com>, Cara Castronuova <caracastronuova@yahoo.com>, jt@liquidlunchtv.com <jt@liquidlunchtv.com>, Richard Luthmann <rluthmann@flgulfnews.com>, richard@nynewspress.com <richard@nynewspress.com>, Greg Maresca <greg_m@newsitem.com>, investigates@cbsnews.com <investigates@cbsnews.com>, news.tips@abc.com <news.tips@abc.com>, tips@candaceowens.com <tips@candaceowens.com>, tips@lawandcrime.com <tips@lawandcrime.com>, tips@lawnewz.com <tips@lawnewz.com>, tips@nypost.com <tips@nypost.com>, tips@thefp.com <tips@thefp.com>, chambers_flmd_steele@flmd.uscourts.gov <chambers_flmd_steele@flmd.uscourts.gov>, CHAMBERS FLMD DUDEK <chambers_flmd_dudek@flmd.uscourts.gov>, chambers_flmd_frazier@flmd.uscourts.gov <chambers_flmd_frazier@flmd.uscourts.gov>, chambers_flmd_chappell@flmd.uscourts.gov <chambers_flmd_chappell@flmd.uscourts.gov>, sweeney_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov <sweeney_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov>, o’hara_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov <o’hara_chambers@cod.uscourts.gov>, ptesq1@yahoo.com <ptesq1@yahoo.com>

Danesh,

Are you really Persian? Or is that just part of your Mega Influencer Shtick?

I see many of the Persian people showing GRATITUDE today.

I would love a response before we publish.

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

Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

——– Original Message ——–
On Saturday, 02/28/26 at 21:09 Joseph Camp <joey@yourdaddyjoey.news> wrote:

Mr. Noshirvan and Mr. Chiappetta,

Our newsroom (YourDaddyJoey News) is preparing coverage concerning the pending federal matter Noshirvan v. Couture et al., No. 2:23-cv-01218-JES (M.D. Fla.), along with broader issues (see Lutthman email within this thread) that have become matters of public discussion due to extensive online publication, litigation filings, and commentary circulating across multiple platforms.

Because both of you are public participants in an ongoing legal controversy — and because significant claims, counterclaims, and public accusations are being widely disseminated — we believe it is essential that your perspectives be included fully and accurately. This outreach is therefore intended to ensure fairness and provide an opportunity for clarification before publication.

To be clear:

Our reporting will distinguish between verified facts, court filings, public statements, and disputed allegations.

Any assertions referenced in prior correspondence will be treated as claims attributed to sources unless independently verified.

Your responses will be published in full or summarized faithfully, depending on length and editorial format.

We recognize that the matters at issue involve strong opinions, political speech, and ongoing litigation. For that reason, your direct comment is particularly important. Silence or refusal to respond will also be noted, but we would prefer to include substantive answers so readers may evaluate competing narratives themselves.

Specifically, we invite you to address:

Whether you dispute the characterization of your public statements and online conduct currently being circulated in media and litigation contexts;

Whether you believe public commentary about your activities has been inaccurate or misleading, and if so, what corrections you request;

Any context you believe has been omitted from public discussion regarding your roles in the referenced litigation;

Any additional statement you wish readers to consider concerning your professional conduct, motivations, or positions.

We are working under publication deadlines but remain willing to accommodate a reasonable response window. If you prefer to provide a written statement through counsel, we will accept that format.

Our objective is straightforward: to document a matter of clear public interest with accuracy, balance, and transparency. This correspondence is part of that process.

Please indicate whether you intend to respond.

Visit FLGulfNews.com

——– Original Message ——–
On Sat, Feb 28, 2026, 8:41 PM Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com> wrote:

Dear Danesh (“ThatDaneshGuy”) Noshirvan and Antifa-Linked Lawyer Nicholas Chiappetta:

We are journalists seeking a response to a journalistic inquiry on newsworthy topics related to the pending Fort Myers federal court matter Noshirvan v. Couture et al, No. 2:23-cv-01218-JES (U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Fla.) and related legal and non-legal matters.

Today, the world has turned upside down for the Iranian regime you’ve flirted with. Breaking news out of the Middle East: Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is dead – taken out in joint U.S.-Israeli strikes. President Donald Trump himself confirmed that Khamenei “was killed” thanks to U.S. intelligence and our “working closely with Israel.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/irans-leader-khamenei-killed-israeli-security-sources-say-5992226

In other words, Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu just dealt a death blow to the tyrants in Tehran. This marks the Iranian people’s greatest chance at liberation since 1979, after 46 years under the mullahs’ oppressive rule.

Why does this involve you? Because for years, you, Danesh, built your fame on attacking Trump and swearing he’d “never” help the Iranian people.

You even addressed Iranians in Farsi to sneer that President Trump would do nothing for them, while you’ve danced on Trump’s grave (literally) in ghoulish celebration.

Now the man you mocked has helped slay the very Ayatollah you effectively cheered (and that your family escaped). The irony is rich, and it demands answers. As a journalist, I’m writing to ask those tough questions – and I intend to publish your responses (or non-responses) in full for the world to see. There is no malice here, only an opportunity for truth and accountability. It’s time to put up or shut up.

Background: Danesh Noshirvan’s Track Record of Extremism

Before we get to the questions, let’s recap why these questions are more than justified. Danesh, your public record speaks for itself – and it isn’t pretty:

Privileged “Anchor Baby,” Fake Oppressed Persona: You are a self-proclaimed “Iranian Anchor Baby” born to Persian parents who fled Iran, yet you’ve hardly lived the life of an underdog. In fact, you don’t even work – you live off a trust fund from your late father’s real-estate fortune, plus your schoolteacher wife’s income, while you sit home making attack videos. Oppressed? Hardly. Yet you constantly play the “oppressed brown man” card for sympathy and to deflect criticism. The absurdity is that Iranians like you are actually categorized as white – Iran literally means “Land of the Aryans,” and your culture has proudly touted its Aryan heritage for decades.
https://frankreport.com/2026/01/19/the-danesh-chronicles-2-the-trust-fund-aryan-who-plays-brown-for-profit/
In other words, your “brown victim” act is a calculated con to get woke cred and donations, instead of admitting you’re an unemployed Persian heir living in luxury.

Allegiance to the Ayatollah & Hatred of Trump: You have openly professed hatred for President Trump and even declared allegiance to Iran’s Islamist regime. On video, you boasted, “The Ayatollah is paying me… we have an agenda to turn America into Sharia law.” Yes, you effectively claimed loyalty to Iran’s dictator – the very regime of Ayatollahs now crumbling.

Meanwhile, you trashed our own leaders: in one infamous stunt, you gleefully posted a video of yourself dancing on a mock grave of President Trump. That’s right – while on the Ayatollah’s payroll (by your own admission), you literally danced on Trump’s “grave,” reveling in what you hoped was his demise.

You even took your vitriol further: when conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated, you “danced on Charlie Kirk’s grave” too, mocking the murder victim by sneering that “we don’t need to honor his memory…he encouraged the violent culture that led to his death.”

Even Americans who disliked Kirk were aghast at your ghoulish glee. You earned the national backlash and the moniker “grave dancer” – a line even I never thought an “anti-hate” activist like you would cross.

Inciting Violence & Targeting Law Enforcement: Your rhetoric hasn’t just been offensive; it has crossed into outright incitement. You urged your followers to form “armed left-wing militias” in every city to “fight back” against U.S. immigration officers, painting ICE agents as “Trump’s personal … army” to be violently confronted.

You didn’t stop at generic calls to arms – you threatened specific federal agents and their families. In one post, you vowed to expose “the entire list of everyone who ever worked for ICE” and suggested their families “should be given the EXACT same care” they gave others.

​You then cynically added “This is not a threat… just logical advice” as if that fools anyone. Let’s be clear: you essentially promised to doxx and terrorize law enforcement officers’ kids at school. Such antics blur the line between trolling and terrorism. It’s no surprise that Homeland Security now has an active file on you, labeling you “Antifa-linked” and a potential foreign-funded domestic threat. In fact, DHS and federal investigators have you on their radar, much like any extremist agitator, and rightly so. Free speech does not mean free rein to threaten violence.

Cancel Culture “Hitman” for Dark Money Masters: You’ve built a brand as a TikTok “accountability” crusader, but in reality, you behave more like a paid political hitman. Investigations by journalists have exposed that your “grassroots” cancel-culture jihad is likely bankrolled by powerful dark-money networks. A recent exposé revealed a secret Democratic Party influence program (“Chorus,” run by the Sixteen Thirty Fund) paying select influencers up to $8,000 a month to push partisan talking points in secret. You were among those approached, and you even signaled on social media that you applied to join this covert pay-to-post scheme. In other words, your relentless attacks on conservatives look exactly like something a dark-money donor would pay for – because it likely was. Federal lawsuits allege that you are on the payroll of Democratic operatives and even that your whole TikTok shtick was a “foreign active measure” cooked up by regimes in Beijing and Tehran to undermine America. (It sure would explain your slavish defense of the Iranian mullahs and even Chinese Communist Party narratives.) Seasoned investigators have “followed the money,” and all trails lead to you: a purported “digital hitman” running a “cyberstalking-for-profit” operation. We’ve uncovered AI-driven bot swarms and fake cancel-mobs amplifying your campaigns, hallmarks of a coordinated effort funded by shadowy donors. Simply put, you present yourself as a lone do-gooder, but the evidence suggests you’re really a well-paid attack dog for interests that hate Trump, hate Israel, and hate the American values you pretend to defend.

With that record established – in your own words and via documented facts – you can understand why the events of today shine a blinding spotlight on your actions. The Iranian people are closer to freedom now than they’ve been in decades, thanks in large part to the very leaders you disparaged. So, Danesh, here are my questions:

Questions for Danesh Noshirvan

1. Do you now admit that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have proven you wrong about helping the Iranian people? You told the world Trump would “never” aid Iranians – yet Trump partnered with Israel to eliminate Khamenei and strike at the heart of the oppressive regime. This is the Iranian people’s best shot at liberty in nearly half a century. Will you apologize to Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu for smearing them, now that they delivered exactly what you said they wouldn’t? Will you finally side with the liberation of the Persian people over the theocrats who oppressed them? Or do you still refuse to acknowledge the truth that everyone sees?

2. Will you use your platform to help rebuild a free Iran, or will you continue using it to tear down America and Israel from within? Your homeland stands at the dawn of a new era – an era you claimed would never come. A true Iranian patriot would seize this moment to support his people’s freedom. Are you capable of doing that? Or will you stick to being a “Digital Jihadi Joe” who serves his masters’ agendas and sows chaos in the West? In short: now that Iran’s terror regime is falling, will you pivot to something constructive, or keep doubling down on the destructive cancel-culture antics that made you infamous?

3. Who is funding you, Danesh, and will you finally come clean about it? For years, you’ve dodged this question, but we now know a lot more. Reports show that operatives like you were offered big bucks through dark-money funds to pump out woke propaganda. You even applied to such a program (the Sixteen Thirty Fund’s secret influencer scheme). Our investigations – and federal court filings – allege that your entire operation has been bankrolled by Democrat dark money and possibly even foreign regimes in Iran and China. So I ask directly: will you disclose your income sources and backers? Will you admit if organizations like the Democratic Coalition (Scott Dworkin & friends), the Sixteen Thirty Fund, or even agents of Tehran paid you to attack conservatives? Or do we have to wait for subpoenaed bank records to expose the truth? (Remember, deleting Tweets is easy; deleting wire transfers, not so much.)

4. Will you retract your anti-Semitic conspiracy theories now that reality has intervened? When TikTok finally banned your account last month for your pattern of violent content, you bizarrely blamed “the Jews and the IDF” – as if the Israeli Defense Force secretly runs TikTok. (For the record, TikTok banned you because of your own outrageous conduct, such as posting a fake video depicting the murder of Charlie Kirk and inciting abuse with bots, not because of some Zionist plot.) Now consider the irony: those same “Jews and the IDF” you scapegoated just helped decapitate the Iranian regime that you supported. Israel did exactly what you said would never happen – they materially helped free your people. Will you apologize for that disgusting “blame the Jews” lie? Or are you so deep in hate and delusion that you’ll continue to spew baseless garbage about Jewish conspiracies rather than face the facts?

5. Are you prepared to face the legal consequences of your threats and lies? You have doxxed Supreme Court Justices (right when a man was plotting to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh), and you’ve essentially called for violent confrontation with federal agents.

You’ve threatened law enforcement families, all under the thin veil of “activism.” Here’s a reality check: in the United States, true threats and incitement are not protected speech – and you’re already under federal investigation for exactly this behavior. Overseas, where there’s no First Amendment, your words could get you jailed (or worse) if any of your victims or their governments decide to come after you. Does this concern you at all? You built an online persona thinking you were untouchable, but now DHS is knocking at the door, and even Big Tech found you too toxic to tolerate. Do you really believe you can laugh this off as “logical advice” and not end up in an orange jumpsuit? In short: what’s your endgame, Danesh? The law (and karma) are catching up. Are you ready for that?

Consider these questions an opportunity, Danesh – a chance to reclaim whatever shred of integrity might be left. If you truly stand for “accountability,” you should have no problem answering for your own actions.

Will you answer, or will you hide (as you did when you skipped court dates and had public meltdowns under basic questioning)?

The world is watching, especially now.

Questions for Nicholas Chiappetta

Mr. Chiappetta, don’t get comfortable – we need to talk about your role in all of this. You have been described as Danesh’s personal “Antifa-connected lawyer,” a legal enabler for his harassment campaigns. In fact, federal sources say Danesh’s whole network – including you – is under investigation for a coordinated harassment-for-hire operation.

As an officer of the court, sworn to uphold the Constitution and law, you have some explaining to do as well:

1. How do you reconcile your oath to uphold the Constitution with aiding and abetting Danesh’s anti-constitutional antics? You earned a reputation as the go-to lawyer for Danesh’s smear operations – filing frivolous lawsuits and coaching false “harassment” claims to silence his targets. Meanwhile, your client doxxed Supreme Court justices and urged armed militias to confront federal agents. You of all people should know that’s not “free speech” but intimidation and incitement. So I ask: why are you complicit in this? Do you believe in anything beyond winning for Team Antifa? Where do your loyalties lie – with the rule of law, or with your client’s lawless agenda? You can’t have it both ways, counselor.

2. What possessed you to impersonate an opposing attorney via a fake email account – and do you comprehend how unethical that was?

During one case, you were caught creating a fake email to pose as an opposing lawyer, a deception a federal judge blasted as “egregious” misconduct. This isn’t a minor slip; it’s a flashing neon sign of bad faith. Why should anyone trust a word you say in court after you pulled a stunt like that? Have you reported your own behavior to the bar (somehow, I doubt it)? Or are ethical rules just pesky details to be ignored in your pursuit of victory at any cost? In short, are you going to act like a real attorney or a two-bit con artist? The courts – and the public – deserve an answer.

3. Are you a lawyer, or a member of Danesh’s harassment cabal (or both)? Evidence suggests you’ve been an active participant in Danesh’s coordinated “cancel culture” conspiracy. Investigators uncovered a “dark alliance” or cyber cabal linking Danesh, you (his lawyer), and fellow provocateur James McGibney working in concert. Private communications show you all conspiring in these hit jobs.
https://bullyville.news/

This goes way beyond traditional attorney-client representation. So which is it, Mr. Chiappetta: are you acting as legal counsel, or as a partner in crime? Because from where I sit, it looks like you’ve crossed the line into being a co-conspirator. Are you prepared to be held accountable for that? (Remember, being a lawyer doesn’t immunize you from being charged if you further a criminal scheme.)

4. Why have you not withdrawn as counsel for Danesh Noshirvan? This is a man who brags about taking money from an enemy regime to impose Sharia law in America, who incites violence and sows chaos. If you were faithful to your oath to the Constitution, you would have walked away the moment your client started threatening federal agents’ families and undermining the rule of law. Instead, you’ve stuck by him, validating his delusions and enabling his abuses. Is it just the paycheck? Or have you so embraced the Antifa-woke ideology that nothing is off-limits? At this point, the question has to be asked: what won’t you do in the name of “winning”? Creating fake emails, weaponizing the courts with sham filings, running to the police with trumped-up claims to gag hero journalist Joey Camp, who exposed Danesh and his Antifa buddies – you’ve done all that.
https://flgulfnews.com/federal-court-boogeyman-backfire/

When does it end? Frankly, if you had any ethical compass left, you’d realize that the train left the station long ago. So again: why are you still representing this digital terrorist? Do you have an answer that doesn’t involve selling out your duty as an attorney?

These questions aren’t hypothetical. They strike at the heart of your professional integrity (or what’s left of it). The public can judge whether your actions befit an officer of the court or a henchman for hire. I’m giving you a chance here to present your side, if you have one.

In closing, let me be crystal clear: I seek the truth, not spin. If any factual point I’ve cited above is incorrect, you’re welcome to correct it – but note, every allegation is backed up by receipts (video, court records, affidavits, your own statements) from credible sources, many of which you supplied through your behavior.

This is your opportunity to respond in good faith. The Iranian people are on the brink of freedom; the American people are awakening to the games played by paid agitators and their enablers. It’s time for both of you to choose a side: Will it be truth and freedom, or lies and tyranny?

I look forward to your prompt reply – or to your silence, which may ultimately say more than you ever could. We think we already know what President Trump thinks.

Oh, and do you know when you’ll pay your $62,500 owed in sanctions? We think we already know what President Trump thinks about that, too.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Regards,

Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator

Not surprisingly, Danesh has offered no public thanks to anyone – reinforcing Luthmann’s portrayal of him as ideologically incapable of celebrating a win for the Persian people.

The episode added another bizarre chapter to an already combustible case where courtroom litigation, internet theatrics, and dark humor collide. it provided rich material for Luthmann and Camp’s commentary – and likely fueled Chiappetta’s panicked attempt at damage control, recognizing that the Fort Myers federal court had been copied.

Judge Boots Danesh Showdown: Witness List Warfare & Chiappetta’s Checkered Past

This courtroom circus didn’t arise in a vacuum – it’s the latest flare-up in a case marked by bad blood and bizarre twists. For context, Danesh Noshirvan had provocatively listed Richard Luthmann as a trial witness, a move Luthmann calls a blatant attempt to harass and muzzle a critical journalist.

Luthmann has repeatedly objected to being dragooned into testifying, framing it as an attack on press freedom. He says Noshirvan and Chiappetta subpoenaed him purely to “silence me and chill a free press,” not to uncover truth.

“This isn’t their first time. They tried it in December 2024,” Luthmann said. “All it did was piss me off. The more they keep coming, the more I look at all of this as prelude to the Thunderdome. Jihadi Joe and Nickless just don’t get that. I can’t wait to get in the arena”

Indeed, Luthmann is an outspoken thorn in their side – documenting Noshirvan’s online exploits and legal misadventures in real time. By naming him as a witness, Noshirvan effectively tried to put the reporter on defense.

That tactic has sparked a running fight over Luthmann’s journalistic role, with Luthmann defiantly refusing to turn over his sources or notes. In late 2025, he even told Chiappetta and company that they could throw him in jail and he “can do 90 days in a trash can” before betraying a source.

In short, the witness list stunt is backfiring – emboldening Luthmann to double down, and arguably leading Chiappetta to commit scarce resources in dealing with additional drama that doesn’t even have an arguable link to Danesh’s claims against Couture and Garramone.

Meanwhile, Judge Steele is clearly losing patience with Team Danesh’s antics. This isn’t the first time Steele has scolded Chiappetta. The judge previously sanctioned Noshirvan and Chiappetta for their conduct in this very litigation, after Chiappetta let his client launch a profane tirade in a deposition and even encouraged Noshirvan to continue harassing the opposing lawyer online.

Judge Steele found Chiappetta’s behavior so outrageous that he said it was hard to imagine “a more direct assault on the integrity of the judiciary short of outright profanity in open court.” That earlier episode cost Noshirvan $62,320 in legal fee sanctions, thanks, in part, to his counsel’s misdeeds. Danesh has yet to pay the sanctions, and sources say it is likely he won’t.

“Monetary sanctions are meaningless because Danesh is a brokester,” Richard Luthmann said. “If it were me, I’d sell the debt to the Hell’s Angels for $1 and let nature take it’s course. Or else, ask for the Thunderdome. But what do I know? I’m just a tough-guy journalist.”

Now Chiappetta’s off-record email caper has earned him a fresh public reprimand. It’s all adding to the portrait of a lawyer in over his head. Chiappetta is already facing serious disciplinary proceedings before the Florida Bar, stemming from prior allegations of misconduct, false advertising, misrepresenting court decisions, and ethical violations that critics say mirror the courtroom behavior now drawing scrutiny in the Noshirvan case.

And if you thought Nick Chiappetta’s headaches stop at the courtroom – think again. The 44-year-old attorney has some baggage: a 1998 misdemeanor conviction in Illinois for possession of drug paraphernalia sits on his record. The media duo of Luthmann and Camp have not overlooked these tidbits, gleefully dubbing Chiappetta “ethically challenged” and worse.

——– Original Message ——–
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Thursday, March 5th, 2026 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Safety Concerns and Documentation of Potential Threat Environment – Noshirvan v. Couture et al. (Fort Myers Federal Court)

Nickless,

Scripture has a way of capturing certain situations better than lawyers ever could. As the Bible reminds us, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3). In other words, those who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones.

I am reviewing the material referenced in the attached report concerning records associated with a Nicholas A. Chiappetta, including entries from Illinois and Florida sources—such as a 1998 drug-paraphernalia finding of guilt and other municipal matters reflected in court records (see attached report excerpts, Cook County Municipal Court entries and related records).

Before anything moves further, I wanted to ask a simple question: Are you also seeking certified copies of the underlying court records referenced in the attached for verification and completeness?

If so, please let me know. It’s always best to ensure the record is accurate and complete before anyone begins making representations about others, particularly from over a decade ago.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Regards,

Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator

——– Original Message ——–
On Thursday, March 5th, 2026 at 1:41 PM, Nick Chiappetta <nick@chiappettalegal.com> wrote:

Certified copy coming soon. Inclusive Case Report 1.pdf

Nick Chiappetta | Founder
P. 561-768-4500
F. 561-768-4600
nick@chiappettalegal.com
2101 Vista Pkwy, Suite 258
West Palm Beach, Florida 33411

8401 Lake Worth Rd.,
Lake Worth, Florida 33467
*By Appointment Only*

Product Defect | Injury | Defamation | Insurance
www.chiappettalegal.com

“The man lecturing others on propriety was once popped in Cook County for a crack pipe or some related paraphernalia,” Joey Camp said. “You can’t make this up. I wonder if Marta knows he’s a crack head. Maybe I’ll ask her. Nick opened the door to this kind of journalistic inquiry when he asked the federal court to take judicial notice of the bogus Interpool Red Notice in my records, prompted by Danesh and James McGibney.”

As it stands, Noshirvan v. Couture is careening toward that November 30, 2026 trial date with no shortage of fireworks. Judge Steele has effectively put the case on ice for now – time enough, perhaps, for cooler heads to (hopefully) prevail. But given the personalities involved, don’t bet on the quiet.

Danesh Noshirvan’s online theatrics, Richard Luthmann’s relentless exposés, Joey Camp’s social-media snark, and Nick Chiappetta’s flailing attempts at control have combined into a volatile legal cocktail. The judge’s message to “Nickless” was bold and simple: keep it in bounds, or face the music. Whether Chiappetta can rein in his client – and himself – over the coming months remains to be seen.

One thing is certain: if the off-record scheming continues to reach him, Judge Steele stands ready with the sanctions hammer cocked. And this time, it won’t be monetary or ignorable.

In this showdown between a TikTok terror, firebrand journalists, and an embattled lawyer, the court of law is determined to stay in charge – and no one is off the record now.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulfNews.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: Civilizations collapse. Empires fall. But the olive tree keeps standing. That alone should tell you something. Olive oil isn’t just food—it’s one of the original medicines of mankind. Hippocrates called it the “great healer.” Aristotle wouldn’t eat bread without it. The Bible references it nearly 200 times. Yet modern industrial food companies diluted it, faked it, and turned “extra virgin” into a marketing slogan. The solution is simple: buy real oil. Look for harvest dates, polyphenol testing, and producers who actually grow olives rather than blend commodities. The Mediterranean world thrived on this oil for millennia. Maybe they knew something our processed-food culture forgot. This piece is “Sacred Olive Oil History,” first available on FrankReport.com.

By Dr. Bob Oksenholt

This is part of a series about olive oil. This article is about Sacred Olive Oil History.

What is Olive Oil? Where did it come from? Why is the real thing good for you? And why is much of what you buy not what it says it is? The bottle may read Extra Virgin Olive Oil. That does not make it so.

Much of the olive oil sold in America is fake olive oil — cut with cheaper seed oils, refined oils, or oils that have little to do with the olive.

You pay for purity. You often get something else. We will show you how to tell the difference. How to find true, cold-pressed, 100 percent extra virgin olive oil. How not to be cheated.

Now that you have some safe brands to choose from, we will follow the olive from the beginning. From its ancient roots, millions of years old.

From the scrub and wild groves where it first grew. Through the temples and empires that prized it.
Into the lab, where science measures what it does inside the body.

And then into the present, where profit and fraud have thinned and diluted one of the oldest foods on earth.

“The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us. But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?” — Judges 9:8–9

“The olive tree is surely the richest gift of Heaven.” — Thomas Jefferson

The old legends say the olive tree was the first tree in Eden.

Olivia of Palermo, the Catholic saint and patroness of Palermo, is honored in Tunis by both Christians and Muslims.

A cathedral bears her name alongside St. Vincent de Paul, and the oldest mosque in Tunis — Al-Zaytuna, the Mosque of the Olive — is said to have been built on a basilica dedicated to her.

At the ancient Panathenaic Games in Athens, they didn’t award gold medals. They awarded golden olive oil pressed fresh from sacred groves. A man crowned not with metal, but with oil. In ancient Greece, this was among the highest honors.

At Olympia, winners of the Panhellenic Games received a wreath cut from the wild olive tree near the temple of Zeus, a tree the legend says Hercules had planted. The strength of Hercules, they said, flowed through the olive. Some said fresh olive oil from the Acropolis groves was more valuable than gold.

An ancient myth illustrates the value the Greeks placed on the olive and its oil, and is the story of how Athens got its name. Athena and Poseidon competed for the city’s patronage. Poseidon struck the rock with his trident and offered the power of the sea — dominion, trade, and war.

Athena offered an olive tree — food, oil, light, and medicine. The people chose the tree, and the city took her name. A tree still grows on the spot where legend says the original stood. When the Persians sacked Athens in 480 BC, they burned it. The ancient Greeks said it sprouted the next day.

When the Germans occupied the Acropolis during World War II, the 2,000-year-old tree was damaged again. American archaeologists preserved a cutting and grew a tree from it. The genetically identical tree was replanted on the Acropolis after the Nazis were defeated. It has never been allowed to die.

In Crete, the Vouves olive tree — estimated at over 3,000 years old — still produces fruit. Its trunk twists and turns with age, yet the tree persists. Older than Christianity and Islam. And still standing.

You could almost believe it remembers who planted it.

Trees older than cities, older than songs. They have lived through empires and earthquakes. Still alive. Still growing.

In Hebrew, the term for “olive tree” is es shemen, meaning “tree of oil.” It means more than oil. It means to shine. Like a face lit from within. Like the sun. Shemesh, they call it.

They weren’t just eating olives. They were worshiping the glow. Tree of oil. Tree of light. Trees, suns, and people, all trying to shine before the clock runs out.

In ancient thought, the tree wasn’t just a source of nourishment. It was illumination.

The word “oil” appears 191 times in 178 verses of the Bible. The oil most frequently referenced was olive oil. It appears in the context of both individual and communal ritual and celebration. Its presence signals abundance, healing, empowerment, and the presence of the Holy Spirit.

In the Bais Hamikdash — the Holy Temple in Jerusalem — olive oil burned continually in the menorah as a symbol of God’s unending presence. Cakes anointed with oil were sanctified offerings. Unleavened bread mixed with oil was used in ceremonies of sanctification.

Olive oil blended with myrrh, cane, and cassia was the holy oil of anointing. They used it to anoint kings, priests, and warriors. They rubbed it on their bodies. They consumed it. They burned it in lamps to light their homes and public spaces. Canaan itself was called “the land of olive oil.”

Psalm 89:20 celebrates the anointing of David: “I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him.”

Isaiah 61:3 speaks of the Messiah bringing “the oil of joy” to comfort those who mourn.

And Deuteronomy commands charity through the olive: “When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.”

Visit FrankReport.com

Sacred Olive Oil History: The Olive Branch

The olive branch first appears in the story of Noah and the Great Flood. Genesis 8:11:

“And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.”

When the flood waters receded, that leaf in the dove’s beak was the sign that God’s fury had subsided and the earth had been restored — a signal to humanity that the world was renewed and safe to inhabit once again. The dove and the olive leaf are powerful metaphors for the moment when signs of destruction give way to signs of life and hope.

The olive branch’s symbolism continued in Greece and Rome, where it became linked to both triumph and tranquility. In Greece, the Olympic victor was crowned with an olive branch. During times of tension, states in the ancient world extended olive branches as tokens of peace, signaling that hostilities were coming to a halt.

The olive branch remains a powerful symbol today. The Great Seal of the United States features an eagle holding an olive branch with 13 olives and 13 leaves in one talon, arrows in the other — peace balanced against war.

In Islam, the olive is honored. Surah al-Mu’minun (23:20) refers to the olive as a tree “that grows oil, and delight for the eaters.” Surah al-Nur (24:35) describes a blessed olive tree: “A tree neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire.” Oil that glows without fire — even the Quran recognized what the Hebrews meant by shemen. The tree of light.

In Catholic tradition, on Holy Thursday, the priests gather in cathedrals to bless it with incense, with chant, with centuries. They use it year-round to baptize babies and bless teenagers on the day they are confirmed. They dip their fingers in olive oil, smooth and golden, as they bless the newcomer into the faith. In the Catholic Church, olive oil is sacramental. It is blessed each year during the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday.

Sacred Olive Oil History: St. Francis Always Lived Near the Olive Tree

In Assisi, the man who would become the most beloved saint in Christendom lived his entire life among olive trees. San Damiano, where Francis began his religious life. The Hermitage of the Carceri, where he retreated to pray on Mount Subasio. Santa Maria degli Angeli, where he founded his order and where he died. All of them wrapped in olive groves.

Giotto painted the trees into the frescoes of Francis’s life. Francis turned the olive branch into a universal symbol of peace — Pax et Bonum, peace and goodness. Five centuries later, Franciscan missionaries carried olive trees across the Atlantic and planted them at the California missions. Those trees still grow. Californians call them Mission Olives.

Sacred Olive Oil History: Jesus Prayed Besides the Olives

And in Jerusalem, at the foot of the Mount of Olives, Jesus spent his last night of freedom in a garden called Gethsemane — Aramaic for “oil press.” Eight ancient olive trees still stand there. Italian scientists carbon-dated three of them to the 12th century, about 900 years old, likely planted by Crusaders.

The other five were too hollowed out to test. But olive trees regrow from their roots after being cut down, and the Romans cut down the groves around Jerusalem in 70 AD. The trunks are 900 years old. The roots beneath them may be far older. No one can prove they are the same trees that sheltered Jesus on the night of his arrest. No one can prove they aren’t.

Sacred Olive Oil History: Aristotle

“I will not eat bread without olive oil,” declared Aristotle. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, called it “the great healer.” Galen extolled its curative properties. The ancients understood what modern science now confirms — but that is a story for later in this series.

Next in the series: The wild olive bush that survived 40 million years, the Neolithic foragers who first ate its bitter fruit, and how a sharp rock and a cut branch turned a thorny shrub into the foundation of civilization.

The Best Extra Virgin Olive Oils You Can Buy Right Now

What separates real medicinal quality olive oil from mediocre or fraudulent brands is polyphenol content — the antioxidant compounds that give extra virgin olive oil its power. The following high polyphenol olive oils have been lab-tested and verified.

Hearst Ranch Estate Olive Oil is produced by Hearst Ranch Winery in Paso Robles on California’s Central Coast. Their olive oils are locally grown, cold-pressed, bottled in small lots, and release-dated so you know it’s fresh. Around $28/bottle.

PJ Kabos Family Reserve (Greece) — USDA Organic, 750+ mg/kg polyphenols verified, Koroneiki olives, harvest dates printed. Gold award winner. Their “Phenolic Shot” label tested at 1,100 mg/kg. Available on Amazon and at OliveOil.com. Around $30-40/bottle.

The Governor (Corfu, Greece) — 1,174 mg/kg polyphenols (2025/2026 harvest), third-party lab verified by the World Olive Centre for Health. Lianolia olives from trees hundreds of years old. One of the first brands to put EU-approved polyphenol health claims on the label. Available at thegovernorevoo.co.uk and on Amazon. Around $50-70+.

Ellora Farms (Crete, Greece) — Single estate, PDO certified, traceable to the farm. Koroneiki olives from the Kolymvari region. World’s first fully traceable olive oil — enter your lot number on their website and track it from grove to shelf. Multiple gold awards. Available on Amazon and in stores.

Apollo Olive Oil (California) — Family-owned since the 1990s, custom vacuum mill designed in Tuscany that crushes olives in an oxygen-free environment to maximize polyphenol extraction. Certified organic and extra virgin by the California Olive Oil Council. Oils average three times the polyphenols of typical EVOO. 8 Best of Show, 17 Best of Class, 73 Gold Medals. American-made, Oregon House, California.

Entimio (Italy) — Organic, polyphenols ranging from 600-900+ mg/kg depending on the label (Tuscany, Puglia, and Sicily offerings). Lab tested, 2025 NYIOOC Gold Award winner. Founded by Daniel Santini, a Tuscan-born certified olive oil taster. Frantoio/Leccino/Moraiolo blend (Tuscany label). Dark glass, harvest dates on every bottle. Around $28-48/bottle.

Healthy Harvest — True Tuscan EVOO — Single family estate in Tuscany, in continuous operation since 1803. Fourth-generation farmer. Cold-pressed within one hour of picking on an ancient stone wheel — one of only two still in use in the region. 463 mg/kg polyphenols, 0.21% acidity, lab verified. Frantoio and Moraiolo olives, no pesticides, no herbicides. The company is based in Colorado but sources directly from the farm — no middlemen, no brokers, no blending. $41.99/500ml.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FrankReport.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: (FLORIDA, USA) – We’re waiting on Article III U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Hinkle’s ruling on Rule 72 Objections in the Gainesville Federal Court case of Hales v. Preston et al. (also known as Fed 2). And this one matters. It will confirm whether federal pleading standards still work. It will show whether anti-SLAPP statutes have teeth. It will show whether retaliatory litigation aimed at online critics will not slide past Rule 12(b)(6). “Judge Not Claude” may sit in a simulated courtroom, but the doctrine he applied is real. Twombly is real. Iqbal is real. Rule 11 is real. And the 11th Circuit’s intolerance for shotgun pleadings is real. The message to Jeremy Hales and the What the Hales media ecosystem is simple. Speech is protected. Courts are not weapons. And if you file meritless suits to punish critics, you may pay for it. This piece is “‘Judge Not Claude’ Rules,” first published on FLGulf.News.

By Richard Luthmann

(FLORIDA, USA) – Jeremy Hales built his brand on storage lockers, spectacle, and swagger. Then he marched that swagger into the Florida Federal court. Hales came in swinging. Now, he’s left staring at a dismissal with prejudice.

Enter “Judge Not Claude” — an AI jurist in a simulated Florida federal courtroom.

Not Claude. Not Anthropic’s “Radical Left” brainchild. Not the AI developer that President Trump torched on Truth Social when he warned that America will not let a “woke company” dictate policy.

Trump said, “WE will decide the fate of our Country — NOT some out-of-control, Radical Left AI company.” Message received.

So this judge is the latest de facto digital Trump appointee. He’s not woke, weak, or stupid. This is Judge NOT CLAUDE. And it didn’t take long for Judge Not Claude to rule against Jeremy Hales.

Hales sued critics across YouTube and social media. He lobbed the Lanham Act at them and invoked Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Hales cried tortious interference and alleged civil conspiracy, describing an “Anti–What the Hale$ Media Ecosystem” out to destroy him.

In reality, the Report and Recommendation (R&R) by U.S. Magistrate Judge Zachary Bolitho dismantled it piece by piece. Hales’s 74-page complaint did not survive Rule 12(b)(6).

The “GERM” didn’t take it well. He directed his lawyers, Randall “Pocket Rocket” Shochet and Doreen Turner-Inkeles, to kill an entire forest, filing Rule 72 Objections to Judge Bolitho’s R&R.

In our AI-generated funhouse, Judge Not Claude adopts the magistrate’s recommendation in full. Every claim is dismissed with prejudice. The ruling brands the pleading a “shotgun complaint.” It says the allegations are vague, conclusory, and do not cross the plausibility line under Twombly and Iqbal.

“The judiciary’s time and resources are finite,” the Judge Not Claude wrote. “This federal court is not a tool to be used to settle personal scores.”

That line lands. And our simulated federal court did not stop at dismissal. It reached for the wallet.

Defendant David Helm will recover “artificial attorney’s fees” under Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute, and so will everyone else. The synthetic judge found the lawsuit “fits the pattern of a SLAPP suit.”

Translation: meritless litigation aimed at punishing protected speech.

The order goes further, warning Hales and his counsel about Rule 11. It signals that future filings of this character could trigger sanctions for vexatious litigation. That is not a suggestion. That is a flare shot over the bow.

It’s not Jeremy Hales’s first legal rodeo. He has filed multiple federal suits against critics and YouTube commentators, many defendants appearing pro se. Most cases sputtered out, while some collapsed under their own weight.

Now an AI judge in a simulated courtroom delivered the cleanest blow yet. And here is the kicker.

Judge Not Claude is not an Article III judge – he is code in a simulated Florida courtroom. Yet his analysis reads tighter than the combined livestream legal commentary of Megan Fox, That Umbrella Guy (TUG), ShizzyWhiznuts, Jay Jip, Mr. Coop, Rosalyn Duke, Shara Michelle Wolfe, and the rest of the Hales orbit.

Every claim was tested against black-letter elements, and every theory was measured against pleading standards. No theatrics. No echo chamber applause. Just doctrine and dismissal.

Even in simulation, the message rings loud: You cannot litigate your way out of criticism in the United States of America.

Judge Not Claude’s Decision and Order follows below.

Visit FLGulf.News

Decision and Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and Dismissing Case with Prejudice

‘Judge Not Claude’ Rules: Background

Plaintiffs Elephant Shoe, LLC (d/b/a “What the Hale$”) and Jeremy B. Hales brought this action against multiple defendants over allegedly defamatory online commentary that Plaintiffs claim harmed their social media-based business. The Second Amended Complaint spans 74 pages and asserts a mix of federal and state-law claims – including a Lanham Act false advertising claim, a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) claim, tortious interference with business relations, civil conspiracy, and more – all arising from what is essentially a social media feud.

Eight defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Those motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Zachary C. Bolitho, who issued a comprehensive Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc. 161) recommending dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the eight moving defendants.

The R&R further advised that one defendant (David C. Helm) be awarded attorneys’ fees under Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute, Fla. Stat. § 768.295, due to the frivolous and retaliatory nature of the lawsuit. Plaintiffs have filed Objections (Doc. 165) to the R&R, which this Order now addresses.

‘Judge Not Claude’ Rules: Standard of Review

Where a party objects to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition of dispositive matters, the district court must review de novo the portions of the R&R to which proper objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R, Plaintiffs’ objections, and the record. In doing so, the Court applies the familiar Rule 12(b)(6) standard, accepting well-pled factual allegations in the complaint as true but requiring “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Conclusory allegations and legal labels are not sufficient – the complaint must contain facts that raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

Having applied these standards, the Court finds the R&R is well-founded. As explained below, each of the Plaintiffs’ objections lacks merit.

The Court will therefore overrule the objections, adopt the R&R in full, and dismiss all claims against the defendants in question with prejudice.

‘Judge Not Claude’ Rules: FDUTPA Claim against Defendant “Lee” (Lisa Weeks)

Plaintiffs’ first object to the R&R’s recommended dismissal of their claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) as it pertains to Defendant Lisa Weeks (who is referred to in the pleadings by an alias “Lisa Lee”).

The magistrate judge concluded that the FDUTPA claim was not plausibly alleged against Weeks (or any other defendant). This Court agrees. To state a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), a plaintiff must plausibly allege three elements: “(1) a deceptive act or unfair practice; (2) causation; and (3) actual damages.” Carriuolo v. Gen. Motors Co., 823 F.3d 977, 983 (11th Cir. 2016); see also KC Leisure, Inc. v. Haber, 972 So. 2d 1069, 1073–74 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). The statute provides a private right of action for persons who have suffered a loss as a result of a violation, but recovery is limited to “actual damages.” Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2).

The Second Amended Complaint falls woefully short on each of these elements. Plaintiffs broadly accuse Weeks of participating in a “scheme” to damage Hales’ reputation online, but they do not identify any specific deceptive act by Weeks directed to consumers or occurring in the conduct of trade or commerce. The alleged wrongful conduct is essentially posting or encouraging defamatory statements on YouTube and other platforms, which may be many things, but it is not a “trade or commerce” practice addressed by FDUTPA.

Most glaringly, Plaintiffs failed to plead any cognizable actual damages from the supposed FDUTPA violation. FDUTPA permits recovery only for actual, quantifiable damages suffered as a result of a deceptive or unfair practice. The statute is meant to protect consumers from practices that diminish the value or worth of goods or services purchased.

Here, Plaintiffs did not allege that any consumer bought a product or service that was less valuable than promised. In fact, Plaintiffs did not identify any consumer transaction at all. Instead, they vaguely claimed a “loss of profit since the Fall of 2023” due to reputational harm. Lost profits or speculative business losses are not FDUTPA “actual damages” unless tied to a specific diminution in value of a product or service purchased by a consumer.

Florida courts have consistently held that an FDUTPA claim must be dismissed where the plaintiff fails to plead recoverable “actual damages” as defined under the statute. FDUTPA authorizes recovery only for actual damages, not consequential damages, lost profits, or speculative business losses. Fla. Stat. § 501.211(2). The Florida Supreme Court has explained that “actual damages” under FDUTPA are measured by the difference in market value between the product or service as delivered and as promised. Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So. 2d 580, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), approved, 454 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1984). Florida appellate courts have repeatedly reaffirmed that lost profits and other consequential damages are not recoverable under FDUTPA. Fort Lauderdale Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Corgnati, 715 So. 2d 311, 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

The Eleventh Circuit has likewise affirmed dismissal where a plaintiff failed to plead cognizable actual damages under FDUTPA. Marrache v. Bacardi U.S.A., Inc., 17 F.4th 1084, 1101 (11th Cir. 2021). Federal courts applying Florida law routinely dismiss FDUTPA claims premised solely on lost profits, reputational harm, or other speculative injuries. Casa Dimitri Corp. v. Invicta Watch Co. of Am., Inc., 270 F. Supp. 3d 1340, 1352 (S.D. Fla. 2017).

That is precisely the case here. Plaintiffs’ assertion of lost revenue, untethered from any consumer injury, is insufficient as a matter of law.

Plaintiffs’ objection essentially repackages the complaint’s allegation that Weeks (and others) harmed their business. But importantly, FDUTPA is not a defamation or business disparagement statute; it is aimed at protecting consumers. Even assuming Plaintiffs (as business competitors) have standing to sue under FDUTPA in some circumstances, they still “must prove the elements of the claim, including an injury to the consumer.” Ounjian v. Globoforce, Inc., 89 F.4th 852, 861 (11th Cir. 2023). Here, no consumer-oriented harm is alleged at all. Plaintiffs’ attempt to wield FDUTPA as a vehicle for their online grievance is misplaced.

Accordingly, where a complaint alleges only consequential or speculative damages untethered to a market-value differential, the FDUTPA count fails to state a cause of action and is subject to dismissal.

The Court finds, as the R&R did, that the FDUTPA count was properly dismissed for failure to plead a deceptive act, consumer causation, or actual damages. The objection to the FDUTPA ruling is overruled.

‘Judge Not Claude’ Rules: Lanham Act False Advertising Claim

Plaintiffs’ next objection to the R&R’s treatment of their Lanham Act claim. The Second Amended Complaint attempted to assert a claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), presumably for false advertising or false association. The magistrate judge concluded that the Lanham Act count failed because the alleged conduct – online videos and social media posts criticizing Hales – did not constitute actionable “commercial advertising or promotion.” Once again, the Court concurs with the R&R.

The Lanham Act’s false advertising provisions apply only to misrepresentations made in “commercial advertising or promotion.” Not every false or derogatory statement is within the ambit of the Lanham Act, even if it disparages another’s goods or services. The statements must be commercial in nature – that is, part of an organized campaign to penetrate the relevant market, typically for the purpose of influencing consumers to buy the speaker’s goods or services over the competitor’s.

Here, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that any Defendant engaged in “commercial advertising or promotion.” The alleged false statements at issue were YouTube videos, Facebook posts, and similar online commentary discussing Plaintiffs’ behavior and reputation. By all indications, these were personal or editorial opinions posted on social media – not advertisements for a competing product or service. There is no claim that Defendants were promoting their own goods or services through these statements, nor that the statements were disseminated widely for the purpose of influencing any purchasing decisions. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not identify any actual product in commerce that Defendants were marketing at Plaintiffs’ expense.

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Tobinick v. Novella is instructive. 848 F.3d 935 (11th Cir. 2017). There, one doctor sued another over a blog post that harshly criticized the first doctor’s medical practices. The Eleventh Circuit held that the blog posts were not “commercial advertising” under the Lanham Act because they were not commercial speech at all – they did not propose a commercial transaction and the speaker (the defendant) had no economic motivation for the statements. The court emphasized that even if content is posted on a website that generates ad revenue, the speech itself must still be commercial in nature to trigger the Lanham Act.

Here, as in Tobinick, the communications at issue more closely resemble commentary or criticism, not commercial promotion. Plaintiffs have essentially tried to recast a defamation claim as a Lanham Act claim, but “[i]n order to be the subject of a false advertising claim, the statements at issue must be in the context of proposing a commercial transaction.” No such context is present in this case.

Furthermore, even setting aside the “commercial speech” requirement, Plaintiffs fail to plausibly plead the essential elements of a Lanham Act false advertising claim. To prevail under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff must establish: (1) the defendant made false or misleading statements of fact in commercial advertising or promotion; (2) the statements deceived, or had the capacity to deceive, consumers; (3) the deception was material in that it was likely to influence purchasing decisions; (4) the statements entered interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff was or is likely to be injured as a result, typically through diversion of sales or loss of goodwill. Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004); Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 299 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2002).

The Supreme Court has further clarified that a plaintiff must demonstrate a commercial injury proximately caused by the alleged misrepresentation. Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 140 (2014). Conclusory assertions that statements were “false” or “damaging,” without factual allegations plausibly showing consumer deception, materiality, and proximate commercial injury, are insufficient under Twombly and Iqbal. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Where a complaint fails to allege facts supporting each of these required elements, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate.

Plaintiffs’ complaint is devoid of allegations supporting these elements – for example, there are no facts showing that any consumer was deceived in a way that influenced a purchasing decision. The magistrate judge was therefore correct to conclude that the Lanham Act claim fails both because the statements were not commercial advertising and because the complaint lacked any factual basis for the required elements of deception and consumer impact.

Plaintiffs’ objection on this point is without merit and is overruled.

‘Judge Not Claude’ Rules: Tortious Interference Claims

Plaintiffs also object to the recommended dismissal of their claims for tortious interference with advantageous business relationships. The Second Amended Complaint included two counts of tortious interference, which appear to allege that certain defendants disrupted Plaintiffs’ business relationships with (1) their online customers/followers and (2) certain third-party business partners (specifically, YouTube and an e-commerce platform called WhatNot, Inc.). The R&R concluded that these claims were insufficiently pled. After de novo review, the Court agrees that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for tortious interference.

Under Florida law, the elements of tortious interference with a business relationship are well established. A plaintiff must plead: (1) the existence of a business relationship under which the plaintiff has legal rights, (2) the defendant’s knowledge of that relationship, (3) the defendant’s intentional and unjustified interference with the relationship, and (4) actual damage to the plaintiff as a result of the interference. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 1985). Plaintiffs’ complaint does not satisfy these elements for any defendant.

First, Plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the protected business relationships at issue. They vaguely refer to relationships with “YouTube,” with “WhatNot, Inc.,” and with their general customer base or online audience. While a business relationship with a specific third-party (even if not memorialized in a contract) can support a tortious interference claim, a relationship with the market or public at large cannot. Florida law requires that a tortious interference claim be grounded in an identifiable and specific business relationship, not a mere hope of future dealings with the public at large. To state a claim, a plaintiff must allege a business relationship “with identifiable customers” that affords the plaintiff existing or prospective legal rights. Ferguson Transp., Inc. v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 687 So. 2d 821, 821 (Fla. 1996).

The Florida Supreme Court has made clear that “no cause of action exists for tortious interference with a business’s relationship to the community at large.” Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812, 815 (Fla. 1994). Rather, the relationship must be evidenced by “an actual and identifiable understanding or agreement which in all probability would have been completed if the defendant had not interfered.” Id. at 814–15. Federal courts applying Florida law have likewise rejected claims premised on generalized interference with customers or the marketplace as too speculative. See Worldwide Primates, Inc. v. McGreal, 26 F.3d 1089, 1092–93 (11th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs allege interference with relationships with “customers” in general or with the public at large, such allegations fail to state a claim as a matter of law.

Even as to the arguably more concrete relationships (e.g., with YouTube or WhatNot), the complaint does not allege sufficient supporting facts. Plaintiffs do not explain the nature of their relationship with these companies – for instance, whether they had any contract or formal arrangement, or merely a user account like any other social media/content creator. More critically, Plaintiffs never allege that each Defendant knew about these specific relationships and then intentionally procured a breach or disruption. The complaint is silent as to Defendant Helm’s knowledge of any contract or business dealing Plaintiffs had with YouTube or WhatNot.

Similarly, there are no non-conclusory facts showing that most Defendants took any direct action targeting those relationships. The pleading instead relies on a broad conclusory assertion that all Defendants “knew of the scheme” and “intentionally… interfer[ed]” with Plaintiffs’ business relationships. Such general allegations, unsupported by specific facts (who did what, when, and how), are insufficient under federal pleading standards. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (courts are “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”).

Furthermore, the complaint fails to allege how Plaintiffs were damaged by any interference, which is an essential element. While Plaintiffs claim their revenue declined in late 2023, they do not link that loss to the interference with any particular business relationship. For example, if Defendant Matzkin sent an email to WhatNot, Inc. (as the complaint alludes to), which allegedly caused WhatNot to cut ties with Plaintiffs, the complaint should state that WhatNot actually did so and that Plaintiffs lost income or opportunities as a direct result. But no such factual detail is present. Without pleading a concrete loss proximately caused by each Defendant’s interference, Plaintiffs cannot recover on this theory.

In short, the tortious interference counts are built on vague and conclusory allegations rather than the specific, plausible facts required to state a claim. The magistrate judge correctly found these counts deficient. Plaintiffs’ objection offers no new law or facts that cure the shortcomings; it merely repeats the conclusory assertions from the complaint.

The objection is therefore overruled, and the dismissal of the tortious interference claims is upheld.

‘Judge Not Claude’ Rules: Civil Conspiracy Claim

Plaintiffs’ next objection concerns the dismissal of their civil conspiracy claim. The Second Amended Complaint attempts to allege that all of the defendants conspired together in a common scheme to defame and injure Plaintiffs. The R&R recommended dismissal of the conspiracy count, finding that Plaintiffs failed to plead the required elements or any actionable underlying wrong. Upon review, the Court agrees that this claim was properly dismissed.

Under Florida law, a civil conspiracy claim requires proof of “(1) an agreement between two or more parties, (2) to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, (3) the commission of an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy, and (4) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the act done under the conspiracy.” Charles v. Fla. Foreclosure Placement Ctr., LLC, 988 So. 2d 1157, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Donofrio v. Matassini, 503 So. 2d 1278, 1281 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Critically, civil conspiracy is not an independent tort; it is a derivative theory of liability that depends on the existence of an underlying actionable wrong. Alhassid v. Bank of Am., N.A., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1323 (S.D. Fla. 2014). Florida courts have made clear that “an actionable conspiracy requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong.” Raimi v. Furlong, 702 So. 2d 1273, 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); accord Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1067 (11th Cir. 2007) (applying Florida law). Thus, where a plaintiff fails to state a viable claim for the underlying tort, the civil conspiracy claim necessarily fails as a matter of law.

Plaintiffs’ conspiracy allegations never identified a specific unlawful act or tort that all defendants agreed to commit, aside from the vague notion of “taking down” Hales’s online presence. The complaint describes, in broad strokes, that one defendant (Helm) “reached out” to another (Matzkin) to enlist him in a plan to attack Hales, and that various defendants made YouTube videos critical of Hales as part of this plan. Even if taken as true, these allegations do not establish a meeting of the minds to accomplish an unlawful objective. Simply expressing negative opinions about Hales or even coordinating online criticism, without more, is not itself illegal. A “malicious intent” to harm someone’s reputation does not transform otherwise lawful conduct into a civil conspiracy.

Florida law does not recognize a freestanding cause of action for “conspiracy to defame” in the absence of an actionable defamation claim. Civil conspiracy is a derivative theory of liability that requires an underlying tort; it cannot exist independently. Raimi v. Furlong, 702 So. 2d 1273, 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“an actionable conspiracy requires an actionable underlying tort or wrong”); Am. United Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez, 480 F.3d 1043, 1067 (11th Cir. 2007) (applying Florida law). Florida courts have therefore rejected attempts to plead “conspiracy to defame” where the plaintiff fails to state a viable defamation claim, recognizing that a plaintiff may not evade the substantive requirements and defenses applicable to defamation—such as falsity, fault, privilege, and constitutional protections—by repackaging the theory as conspiracy. See Lamm v. State St. Bank & Tr., 749 F.3d 938, 947 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming dismissal of conspiracy claim where underlying defamation claim failed); Alhassid v. Bank of Am., N.A., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1323 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (dismissing civil conspiracy where underlying tort was not adequately pled). Accordingly, where the alleged defamatory statements are not themselves actionable, a derivative conspiracy claim premised on those statements necessarily fails as a matter of law.

Here, Plaintiffs did not actually plead a defamation count, and the statements attributed to Defendants (even if offensive or insulting) were not specifically alleged to be false statements of fact meeting the elements of defamation. In the absence of an underlying tort like defamation (or the other torts Plaintiffs attempted to allege but which have been found wanting), there is nothing for the conspiracy to be built upon. As the R&R noted, none of the acts Plaintiffs complain of – e.g., social media videos accusing Hales of various misconduct – amount to an independent tort or unlawful act as pled. Therefore, “even assuming arguendo that such a conspiracy exists, Plaintiffs fail to specify any illegal act that was agreed to by the parties to commit,” which means the conspiracy claim collapses.

Moreover, even the basic agreement and overt act elements of conspiracy are not adequately pled here. The complaint does not offer any factual detail about when or how the defendants purportedly agreed to join forces against Hales. It strings together disparate actions by different people over many months and simply declares that it “must” have been a coordinated plot. That is precisely the kind of conclusory pleading that Twombly and Iqbal forbid. While multiple people can coincidentally criticize the same individual on social media, that does not mean they formed a conspiracy. The complaint needed to allege facts showing a conscious agreement – e.g., communications between the defendants, or meetings of the minds – and it alleges none.

It also fails to allege any concrete overt act done in furtherance of an agreed illegal objective (beyond the acts that themselves have not been shown to be illegal). The magistrate judge correctly observed that the “common thread” of Plaintiffs’ allegations against Helm was a contention that he made or facilitated false statements about Hales, “stopping short of calling them defamatory.” But even assuming those statements were false, the complaint does not tie them to a broader unlawful scheme; nor do those statements, on their own, constitute an overt act in furtherance of some other distinct tort (since, as discussed, Plaintiffs failed to state claims for Lanham Act violations, FDUTPA violations, or tortious interference).

In sum, Plaintiffs have not nudged their conspiracy claim “across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.

The objection to the dismissal of the civil conspiracy claim is overruled.

‘Judge Not Claude’ Rules: Shotgun Pleading and Overall Deficiencies of the Complaint

Plaintiffs further object to the R&R’s characterization of their Second Amended Complaint as a “shotgun pleading.” They contend that the magistrate judge improperly focused on form over substance. The Court finds this objection unpersuasive. In fact, the Magistrate Judge’s critique of the complaint was well warranted – the pleading is a textbook example of a shotgun pleading, and this defect provides an additional, independent reason for dismissal.

The Eleventh Circuit has long condemned “shotgun pleadings” as violations of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b) because they fail to provide fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon which each rests. A shotgun pleading typically lumps multiple claims and defendants together in a confusing and repetitive manner, making it “virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Cent. Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996). In Weiland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, the Eleventh Circuit identified four common types of shotgun pleadings: (1) complaints that incorporate every antecedent allegation into each count, resulting in counts containing irrelevant factual material; (2) complaints replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to a particular cause of action; (3) complaints that fail to separate each cause of action or claim for relief into distinct counts; and (4) complaints that assert multiple claims against multiple defendants without specifying which defendant is responsible for which act. 792 F.3d 1313, 1321–23 (11th Cir. 2015). The unifying feature of these pleadings is confusion—they do not give defendants adequate notice of who is alleged to have done what, or which factual allegations support which legal theories. Id.; see also Cramer v. Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997) (noting courts have “little tolerance” for shotgun pleadings). Where a complaint suffers from these defects, dismissal is appropriate.

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint fits this description. It is 70+ pages of narrative, incorporating all prior paragraphs into each successive count, and asserting numerous overlapping theories against all defendants collectively. For example, Count I of the complaint apparently attempted to assert simultaneously that all defendants violated the Lanham Act and FDUTPA and defamed Plaintiffs and so on – all under a single count heading. Likewise, the later counts incorporate by reference every allegation that came before, which means each count is filled with a mishmash of irrelevant allegations that have nothing to do with that count’s nominal cause of action. This manner of pleading forced the reader (be it the defendants or the Court) to sift through the entire morass of allegations to guess which facts pertain to which legal theory.

The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly admonished litigants and counsel that it has “little tolerance” for shotgun pleadings. Cramer v. Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997). Such pleadings are “altogether unacceptable” in this Circuit because they fail to give adequate notice of the claims and the grounds upon which each rests. Id. The court in Cramer explained that shotgun complaints exact an “intolerable toll” on the trial court’s docket, lead to unnecessary expense and delay, and make it exceedingly difficult—if not impossible—for courts and opposing parties to determine the merits of the asserted claims. Id. at 1263; see also Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1356–58 (11th Cir. 2018) (reiterating the Circuit’s “repeated condemnation” of shotgun pleadings). Because such pleadings burden both litigants and the judiciary and undermine the orderly administration of justice, dismissal is often warranted when a plaintiff persists in filing them.

Here, the magistrate judge expended substantial effort attempting to disentangle Plaintiffs’ claims, and ultimately found them deficient. Plaintiffs cannot fault the judge for observing that the pleading itself was part of the problem. Not only does the complaint bundle distinct claims together, but it also relies on impermissibly conclusory allegations. Time and again, Plaintiffs resorted to asserting legal conclusions (e.g., that “Defendants intentionally interfered with Plaintiffs’ business relationships” or “Defendants engaged in deceptive trade practices”) without pleading the underlying facts to support those conclusions.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The Supreme Court has made clear that this standard demands more than “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint that collapses multiple allegations and defendants into generalized, undifferentiated counts does not satisfy Rule 8 merely by volume; obfuscation is not a substitute for well-pleaded facts. The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly condemned this practice, explaining that courts are not required to “sift through a morass of irrelevant facts in order to piece together claims for plaintiff’s counsel.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1323 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Cramer v. Fla., 117 F.3d 1258, 1263 (11th Cir. 1997)). It is counsel’s obligation—not the court’s—to present a clear, coherent statement identifying which defendant committed which actionable conduct and under what legal theory. Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1356–57 (11th Cir. 2018). Where a sprawling complaint instead confuses the opposing party and the court through imprecise drafting and conclusory allegations, dismissal is appropriate.

By the time the Second Amended Complaint was filed (Doc. 76), Plaintiffs had already been afforded opportunities to refine their pleadings. The record reflects that prior iterations of the complaint were challenged, and the shotgun nature of the allegations was pointed out. Nonetheless, the Second Amended Complaint persisted in improper pleading practices. The Court agrees with the R&R that dismissal with prejudice was appropriate under these circumstances. A district court is not required to endlessly give leave to replead when a plaintiff fails to correct shotgun pleading issues after repeated warnings. See Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal with prejudice of a shotgun complaint after plaintiff had chance to replead). In sum, Plaintiffs’ objection to the “shotgun pleading” characterization is overruled.

The Second Amended Complaint’s form and content violated Rules 8 and 10 and impeded the just, speedy, and efficient resolution of this case. This provides yet another basis for the Court’s decision to dismiss all claims in the complaint.

‘Judge Not Claude’ Rules: Attorneys’ Fees under Florida’s Anti-SLAPP Statute

Finally, Plaintiffs object to the recommendation that Defendant David C. Helm be awarded attorneys’ fees and costs under Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Florida’s anti-SLAPP law, codified at Fla. Stat. § 768.295, was enacted to deter lawsuits filed “without merit and primarily because” a person exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue. Fla. Stat. § 768.295(3); see also WPB Residents for Integrity in Gov’t, Inc. v. Materio, 284 So. 3d 555, 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (describing the statute’s purpose as preventing meritless suits designed to chill First Amendment activity). The statute mandates that a prevailing party recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim filed in violation of the statute. Fla. Stat. § 768.295(4). Florida courts have recognized that this fee-shifting provision is compulsory once the court determines that the action was brought in contravention of the statute’s protections. McQueen v. Baskin, 377 So. 3d 170, 175–76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023). Accordingly, where a defendant prevails on a claim that was filed primarily to punish protected speech and lacks merit, the award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs is not discretionary but required by the statute’s plain language.

In his motion to dismiss, Defendant Helm invoked this statute, arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims against him were a quintessential SLAPP – a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – meant to punish him for speaking out about Plaintiffs on matters of public concern. The magistrate judge agreed that the anti-SLAPP statute applies and that Helm should receive fees. This Court, too, finds that Plaintiffs’ claims against Helm fall squarely within the ambit of Florida’s anti-SLAPP law.

Plaintiffs’ objection on this point largely rehashes their argument that the lawsuit was not meritless or intended to harass. The Court is not persuaded. As detailed above, Plaintiffs’ claims lacked any plausible factual or legal basis – they were objectively frivolous. The context of this case leaves little doubt about the Plaintiffs’ motive. The record (including Plaintiffs’ own allegations) shows that Mr. Hales was engaged in multiple litigations against various individuals, and Defendants like Helm were openly criticizing and discussing those litigations and Hales’s conduct on social media. Rather than engage on the public forum of ideas, Plaintiffs turned to the courts to silence these critics.

Helm aptly described this lawsuit as a “quintessential SLAPP” – “a meritless lawsuit through which Hales seeks to retaliate against [Helm] because [Helm] exercised [his] constitutionally protected rights of free speech in connection with matters of public concern.” The Court agrees with that assessment. Plaintiffs’ case fits the pattern of a SLAPP suit: it targeted communications (online commentary) made in a public forum (the internet/YouTube) about an issue of public interest (the conduct and credibility of a prominent YouTube personality engaged in multiple public lawsuits), and it did so with no substantial legal merit, evidently for the purpose of silencing or intimidating those speakers.

Federal courts sitting in diversity have recognized that state anti-SLAPP provisions like § 768.295 can be applied, particularly the fee-shifting provision, since it is substantive for Erie purposes. See Miller v. Gizmodo Media Grp., LLC, 383 F. Supp. 3d 1365, 1370–71 (S.D. Fla. 2019) (noting Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute can apply in federal court, and awarding fees to a prevailing defendant).

Here, having determined that Helm is a prevailing defendant and that the suit against him was without merit and principally aimed at his protected expression, the statute entitles him to an award of his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Awarding fees not only compensates Helm but also serves the statutory goal of deterring plaintiffs from using courts as a weapon to muzzle free speech. Plaintiffs’ objection does not cite any authority to the contrary; instead, they appear to argue, in effect, that their case was not a SLAPP. The Court finds otherwise.

Accordingly, the objection is overruled.

The Court will adopt the R&R’s recommendation and award fees to Helm under Fla. Stat. § 768.295. The amount of fees will be determined via a separate procedure – typically, the defendant will submit a properly supported fee petition, and Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to respond to the reasonableness of the amount, though not the entitlement.

Having determined that the claims against Defendant Helm were without merit and were filed primarily in response to protected speech, thereby triggering Fla. Stat. § 768.295(4), the Court finds that the same analysis applies with equal force to the remaining moving defendants whose conduct likewise consisted of public commentary and criticism falling within the statute’s protections. The Second Amended Complaint asserts substantially identical theories against these defendants, premised on the same alleged “media ecosystem” speech, and fails for the same reasons articulated in the Report and Recommendation. Where an action is brought in violation of § 768.295(3), the prevailing party “shall” recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Fla. Stat. § 768.295(4); McQueen v. Baskin, 377 So. 3d 170, 175–76 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023).

Independently, federal courts possess inherent authority to impose fee-shifting sanctions where a party acts in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45–46 (1991); Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny’s, Inc., 500 F.3d 1230, 1239–40 (11th Cir. 2007). Having concluded that Plaintiffs’ claims were meritless, duplicative of failed theories, and principally aimed at chilling protected expression, the Court finds that the litigation conduct as to the remaining moving defendants falls within the scope of both the anti-SLAPP statute and the Court’s inherent authority to deter abusive litigation practices. Awarding fees not only compensates the defendants for having to defend against legally deficient claims, but also advances the statute’s express purpose of deterring the use of litigation as a weapon to suppress speech. Plaintiffs’ objection does not meaningfully contest the applicability of § 768.295 beyond relabeling their claims as meritorious. The Court finds otherwise.

Accordingly, to the extent the remaining prevailing defendants seek relief consistent with § 768.295 or the Court’s inherent authority, such relief is warranted, and the matter of quantifying reasonable fees and costs shall proceed pursuant to separate motion practice.

‘Judge Not Claude’ Rules: Admonishment on Frivolous and Vexatious Litigation

Before concluding, the Court finds it necessary to address the broader context and conduct of Plaintiffs and their counsel in this matter. This lawsuit is not the first of its kind – it is part of what appears to be a pattern of using legal processes to wage personal battles and stifle criticism.

The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts must be vigilant in protecting the integrity of the judicial process from abuse. See Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc) (recognizing courts’ authority and obligation to curb abusive litigation practices); Cofield v. Ala. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 936 F.2d 512, 517 (11th Cir. 1991) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff abused judicial process). Rule 8 exists to ensure that pleadings are “short and plain” and provide fair notice of the claim and its grounds. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320–23 (11th Cir. 2015). Rule 11 further imposes an affirmative duty on counsel to certify that legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for its extension and that factual allegations have evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2)–(3). Sanctions are appropriate where a filing lacks a reasonable factual basis, rests on a legal theory with no reasonable chance of success, or is filed for an improper purpose. Worldwide Primates, Inc. v. McGreal, 87 F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir. 1996).

Together, Rules 8 and 11 serve as essential gatekeeping mechanisms to prevent the misuse of federal courts as instruments of harassment or retaliation.

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel signed and filed a sprawling complaint asserting claims that no competent attorney could reasonably believe were supported by existing law (Lanham Act and FDUTPA claims for online gossip) or by a good-faith argument for extending the law. The Court seriously questions whether the pleading of those claims, and the maintenance of this action, comported with counsel’s obligations under Rule 11(b). Sanctions were not formally sought (aside from the anti-SLAPP fee request), and thus the Court will not impose any additional monetary sanctions sua sponte at this time.

However, Plaintiffs and their counsel are admonished that such conduct must not continue. They should heed the Eleventh Circuit’s warning that frivolous and vexatious litigation tactics will not be tolerated. Rule 11 sanctions may be warranted “when a party files a pleading that has no reasonable factual basis, when the party files a claim that is based on a legal theory with no reasonable chance of success, or when the pleading is filed in bad faith for an improper purpose.” Worldwide Primates, Inc. v. McGreal, 87 F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir. 1996).

All these elements appear to have been present here. This federal court is not a tool to be used to settle personal scores or to chill the speech of critics. If Plaintiffs or their counsel engage in similar misuse of judicial proceedings in the future, they may well face sanctions, including financial penalties and other appropriate relief.

In the Eleventh Circuit’s words, courts “consider ourselves duly warned” about the corrosive effect of abusive and frivolous litigation practices. Cramer, 117 F.3d at 1263. The Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts possess both the authority and the obligation to protect their dockets from misuse. Procup, 792 F.2d at 1073–74 (en banc) (recognizing courts’ inherent power to curb vexatious litigation); Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1358 (11th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff persisted in defective pleadings despite warnings). Judicial resources are finite, and courts must ensure that their time is devoted to genuine disputes with arguable merit rather than personal vendettas dressed up as federal claims. See Cofield, 936 F.2d at 517 (affirming dismissal where plaintiff abused judicial process). It is not the role of the federal judiciary to serve as an amplifier for social media feuds or retaliatory litigation campaigns.

The Court therefore echoes the Eleventh Circuit’s caution and expects that this ruling will deter further baseless filings of a similar character.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ Objections (Doc. 165) are OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 161) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in full as the opinion of the Court.

2. All claims in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 76) against the eight defendants addressed in the R&R – specifically, Defendants John Cook, Bruce P. Matzkin, Lisa Weeks (a/k/a “Lisa Lee”), Marla Hughes, David C. Helm, Robert J. Keszey, and David Michael Teschendorf – are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3. Defendant David C. Helm’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs under Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute, Fla. Stat. § 768.295, is GRANTED. Helm is entitled to recover his reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending this action. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Helm shall file a motion (with supporting documentation) to quantify the amount of fees and costs sought. Plaintiffs may file a response within the time allowed by the Local Rules. The Court will thereafter enter a separate order determining the amount of the award.

4. The Court’s sua sponte award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending this action is GRANTED as to Defendants John Cook, Bruce P. Matzkin, Lisa Weeks (a/k/a “Lisa Lee”), Marla Hughes, Robert J. Keszey, and David Michael Teschendorf. Within 30 days of the date of this Order, said Defendants shall file a motion (with supporting documentation) to quantify the amount of fees and costs sought. Plaintiffs may file a response within the time allowed by the Local Rules. The Court will thereafter enter a separate order determining the amount of the award.

5. The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment in favor of the defendants listed above, dismissing all claims against them with prejudice.

Finally, the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the award of attorneys’ fees to Defendants John Cook, Bruce P. Matzkin, Lisa Weeks (a/k/a “Lisa Lee”), Marla Hughes, David C. Helm, Robert J. Keszey, and David Michael Teschendorf and to consider any further sanctions or relief as may be just and proper in light of the issues discussed above.

DONE AND ORDERED in Artificial Digital Chambers in Gainesville, Florida, this 1st day of March, 2026.

_______/S/ NOT CLAUDE________________
The Honorable NOT CLAUDE, U.S.D.J.
Synthetic United States District Judge and Patriot

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulf.News

LUTHMANN NOTE: This isn’t snake oil. It’s olive oil. And while nothing replaces discipline, exercise, and real medical care, the science behind high-quality extra virgin olive oil is substantial and growing. The key is substitution, not addition. Replace processed fats. Choose cold-pressed, polyphenol-rich oil. Understand dosage matters. Four tablespoons daily isn’t culinary decoration — it’s therapeutic intake. As always, readers should consult their physicians, especially if managing chronic disease. But in a world obsessed with miracle pills, this might be the rare case where prevention really is hiding in plain sight — right next to the stove. It’s powerful Health and Wellness. This piece is “Olive Oil’s Daily Healing Power,” and it first appeared on FrankReport.com.

By Dr. Robert Lee Oksenholt

Start Simple: Two Tablespoons, Twice a Day

I tell my patients: Take two tablespoons of extra virgin olive oil twice a day. It doesn’t cure disease. It prevents it. And it tastes better than any pill I can prescribe.

You don’t need to change your whole diet. Just start with 2 real tablespoons of extra-virgin olive oil twice a day. You can take it straight or on food you already love.

Four tablespoons daily and your arteries relax, your inflammation calms. And the blood moves more easily. It helps your heart, your brain, your blood sugar, and your joints. When patients ask me why, I talk about polyphenols and oleic acid.

Olive Oil’s Daily Healing Power: The Power of Oleic Acid

Oleic acid, a monounsaturated omega-9 fatty acid, makes up 70–80% of the oil. Oleic acid boosts your good cholesterol, lowers the bad, and fights inflammation. It helps regulate blood sugar and supports your brain.

It reduces the risk of coronary artery disease and even Alzheimer’s.

Oleic acid is better than other kinds of fat. Saturated fat clogs your arteries. Trans fat gives you a heart attack. Seed oils oxidize rapidly, promoting inflammation. Oleic acid is heart-friendly, anti-inflammatory, and safe to cook with. It’s not just good fat. It’s smart fat.

Polyphenols: Nature’s Cell Guardians

The other essential ingredient is polyphenols. These plant compounds are found in abundance in extra virgin olive oil. Polyphenols enter the bloodstream and clean up, cell by cell. Polyphenols sweep out the messes your body doesn’t even know it made.

Your body naturally produces free radicals— a molecule with an unpaired electron, unstable and reactive. Free radicals roam your body looking to steal electrons, which damages your cells.

Polyphenols donate an electron, stabilizing the molecule without becoming unstable themselves. It’s protection at the molecular level.

That means less inflammation, slower aging, and lower disease risk. You don’t notice the change. But your body does. You don’t feel it happen. You feel better.

Here’s how I explain it to patients: Polyphenols clean out the toxic waste from your blood. They reduce unnecessary inflammation, which helps prevent chronic disease. They improve how your body handles fat and sugar, which protects against heart disease and diabetes.

Olive Oil’s Daily Healing Power: A Small Habit That Changes Everything

Two tablespoons of good extra virgin olive oil twice a day – four tablespoons – can change your health. Inside your body, the arteries widen. Inflammation quiets. Your brain starts to hum again. Your cholesterol improves. Your blood sugar levels off. And your gut stops leaking.

I’ll explain it the way scientists do:

Four tablespoons daily introduce a sustained intake of monounsaturated fats and phenolic compounds. This modulates lipid metabolism, reduces systemic inflammation, and improves mitochondrial function. Neuroprotective, cardioprotective, and antioxidative effects are dose-dependent.

Visit FrankReport.com

Real Benefits Require Real Oil

What it is, quite simply, is that you’re feeding your heart. You’re protecting your brain. You’re easing inflammation from the inside out.

Four tablespoons a day is therapeutic. But it only works if it’s extra virgin olive oil. And it works best when it replaces junk fats, not just adds to them.

Refined olive oils (“pure,” “light,” or “pomace”) are processed with heat and chemicals and lose most of the polyphenols and antioxidant power.

Look for “Extra Virgin” on the label (not just “olive oil”). The heart health and anti-inflammatory effect depend on quality.

Choose oils that say “Cold Pressed” or “First Pressed” Extra Virgin Olive Oil.

Buy dark glass bottles (to protect from light damage). If it costs six bucks and comes in a clear plastic bottle, it’s garbage. Look for the harvest date (fresher is better; within 18 months is ideal) . It should have a slightly peppery or bitter taste (a sign of polyphenol content) and smell a little like fresh cut grass.

If it’s too cheap, it’s fake or low quality. You won’t find it on the bottom shelf.

Don’t buy it because it’s cheap. You want polyphenols? You want oleic acid? Then pay a few extra bucks and get the real stuff. Even the good stuff will cost about 50 cents a day. $15 dollars a month for far better health.

Olive Oil’s Daily Healing Power: The Daily Ritual of Revolution

Now, again, twice a day—two tablespoons in the morning, and two again in the evening. Four tablespoonfuls in total. A modest gesture. But inside the human body, it sets off a kind of quiet revolution. First, the heart notices. The bad fats in your blood—called LDL—begin to drop, while the good ones—HDL—gently rise.

Your blood vessels, once stiff and grumpy, begin to relax.

Then, the immune system, which is often prone to overreacting (much like a small dog barking at thunder), begins to calm down. This is inflammation, and it is at the root of many ailments.

The brain, too, is grateful. Oxidative stress and inflammation wear down memory and cognition over time. But here, we see a reversal—a slowing of decline, and perhaps even a sharpening.

Even your liver, which is horribly overworked and rarely thanked, finds help. The oil improves fat metabolism, aids detoxification, and supports the flow of bile, which is vital for digestion.

Meanwhile, your gut lining—so often abused by poor diet—is soothed and strengthened.

And what about the cells themselves? Well, inside every one of your trillions of cells, the membranes become more fluid, more stable. The DNA—the little blueprints of you—is shielded from harm by polyphenol. So you see: a small act, performed daily, results in large and measurable benefits across the entire body. That is not an anecdote. It is a mechanism. And it is rather beautiful, isn’t it?

Dr. Robert Lee Oksenholt is a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) and a triple-boarded subspecialist, certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine in Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Disease, and Critical Care Medicine. He has also been a Fellow of the American College of Chest Physicians (FCCP) since 1994.

Dr. Oksenholt graduated from the Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences College of Osteopathic Medicine in 1982. He completed his residency at New York Medical College and fellowships at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Hermann Hospital (affiliated with the University of Texas at Houston), and MD Anderson Cancer Center.

With over 40 years of experience as a critical care physician, he continues to care for hospitalized patients, including in underserved areas. Dr. Oksenholt’s expertise is dedicated to helping people avoid the need for his professional services.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FrankReport.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: For 17 years, the 2009 endangerment finding functioned like a regulatory nuclear core — small document, massive power output. It justified vehicle mandates, power plant rules, and compliance regimes that reshaped entire industries. Whether you believe carbon is a catastrophe or currency, one thing is undeniable: this repeal resets the chessboard. Future administrations won’t be able to lean on inherited panic. They’ll have to prove their case from scratch. Climate policy isn’t dead — it’s contested again. And in a republic, contested policy is healthier than unquestioned dogma. Fear may mobilize voters, but it shouldn’t govern 330 million Americans. This piece is “Shredding the Climate Crusade,” also available on FLGulf.News.

By Greg Maresca

It was anything but fire and brimstone, just the slow, predictable unraveling of yet another regulation that never learned from the chaos it created.

The Trump administration recently announced that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially ditched the 2009 “endangerment finding” that for two decades has been referred to as the Holy Grail of the climate change cult. Greenhouse gases are no longer a menace to humanity. In government terms, the agency is admitting it has been chasing its own tail for years and finally decided to stop the spin.

This grand “finding” managed to unleash trillions of dollars into regulations that squeezed whole sectors of the U.S. economy like a boa constrictor on a crash diet. Moreover, Washington shoveled hundreds of billions into green energy projects that were about as ready for prime time as a unicycle ridden by a tax auditor juggling flaming spreadsheets.

The so‑called endangerment finding empowered the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and methane, two gases that the Earth’s atmosphere has been exhaling since the dawn of time, as if they were renegade pollutants sneaking across state lines. It was the foundation for federal regulation of the weaponization of carbon emissions from vehicles, power plants, and major industries. Its repeal effectively removes the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

For nearly two decades, America has made a fundamental mistake of treating carbon dioxide, the breath of every living creature and the lifeblood of every plant, as if it were poison.

Science has yet to prove the apocalypse that the political left keeps breathlessly promising. It did produce enough hot air predictions of impending world peril to make the Epstein files look like a leaflet.

Visit FLGulf.News

The decision followed a marathon review: 52 days of public comments, four days of virtual hearings featuring more than 600 speakers, and a staggering 572,000 submissions weighing in on the rule.

This deregulation will dramatically reshape American climate policy by eliminating federal emissions standards and making it far more difficult for future administrations to reinstate them without proven evidence and detailed debate.

The overreaction from environmentalists was predictable and swift, with the most outrageous coming out of The Environmental Defense Fund, saying the repeal “could lead to as many as 58,000 premature deaths and an increase of 37 million asthma attacks between now and 2055.”

The thing about the word “could” is that it dismisses scientific breakthroughs, shifting populations, and the rest of humankind, especially the leading world’s polluter – China.

Climate change has yet to snag a starring role or even a cameo on anyone’s death certificate, to include that bureaucratic purgatory where coroners quietly file the causes politicians are dying to blame, but no one with a medical license will touch without a lawyer present.

Human destiny does not hang exclusively on EPA regulations.

America will survive the fall of one more overbuilt regulation. What we can’t survive is the superstition that every shift in temperature is a summons to remake the entire economy. The repeal doesn’t guarantee wisdom in future policy, but it does mark a rare moment when Washington stopped hyperventilating long enough to admit that fear is not a governing philosophy.

The climate will keep changing, the politicians will keep posturing, and America will move forward not because of bureaucratic prophecy, but because its people are far more resilient than the regulations written in their name.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulf.News

LUTHMANN NOTE: Ex-manager David Schwartz fights on in Florida courts, appealing a whistleblower case and facing a defamation suit from HR behemoth ADP as he campaigns to expose alleged corporate misconduct. This case is not small. It is not trivial. It is not going away. The federal court fight ended in ADP’s favor. But the Florida war remains alive. The whistleblower appeal sits before the Sixth District Court of Appeal. The defamation suit remains active in Lee County. That means the final chapter has not been written. Corporate America has vast resources. Individual whistleblowers rarely do. If Schwartz wins on appeal, this fight explodes back into the trial court. If he loses, ADP closes the book. Either way, 2026 may finally determine whether David Schwartz was a fraud… or a prophet. This piece is “Fort Myers Payroll War Continues,” first published in FLGulf.News.

By Richard Luthmann with Frankie Pressman

Blowing the Lid Off ADP’s “Dirty Little Secrets”

(FORT MYERS, FLORIDA) – This legal saga began when David M. Schwartz, a former senior sales manager at Automatic Data Processing (ADP), blew the whistle on what he called the payroll giant’s “dirty little secrets.” Hired in 2015 and promoted in 2017, Schwartz claims he witnessed ADP violating state unemployment insurance laws, committing tax fraud, falsifying Social Security numbers, and unethically hawking retirement plans it wasn’t licensed to sell.

After internal complaints fell on deaf ears, he reported the alleged fraud to the SEC and FINRA, setting the stage for a high-stakes confrontation. In mid-2018, Schwartz says ADP swiftly retaliated – locking him out of his company iPad and firing him a month later.

The ousted insider didn’t go quietly. Branding himself “the ADP whistleblower,” Schwartz went public with his accusations. He launched ADPFraud.com in 2019 to document “the federal crimes he reported” and rally other aggrieved employees and customers.

His first whistleblowing memo went viral with over 10,000 views, and thousands joined in sharing horror stories of ADP’s alleged wrongs.

“The social media campaign is directing angry customers to memos at ADPFraud.com about each area where ADP has ripped off customers or wronged employees,” the whistleblower’s site boasted.

As posts tagged #ADPsucks spread, Schwartz’s crusade gained momentum – and drew blood from ADP’s pride. He had publicly painted the industry leader as a lawbreaking bully, and ADP’s top brass were not about to let it slide without a fight.

Fort Myers Payroll War Continues: ADP Strikes Back – Lawsuits, “Hacking” Allegations and 1,127 Docket Entries

ADP answered the whistleblower’s exposé with a barrage of lawsuits meant to muzzle him, according to Schwartz. Within months of his firing, the company sued him in Florida state court in 2018, ostensibly for failing to return the company’s iPad and for allegedly walking off with trade secrets. Schwartz hit back in that case with a counterclaim under Florida’s private-sector Whistleblower Act, arguing ADP’s lawsuit itself was revenge for his reporting of misconduct.

ADP then upped the ante: in 2019, it filed a second suit accusing Schwartz of defamation over his incendiary website “ADPFraud.com” (the site is no longer active, and the @ADPFraud X account is suspended). The whistleblower cried foul – he insisted these cases were blatant retaliation and sought legal protection as a whistleblower.

The litigation quickly turned toxic. Schwartz alleges that after his fight went public, ADP resorted to cyber espionage – hacking into his Apple accounts and devices to spy on his communications (even those with his lawyer).

Feeling under siege, Schwartz took the offensive to federal court in 2021, filing a lawsuit accusing ADP of computer fraud, wiretapping, and other violations.

“Once the state-court litigation got publicity, Schwartz thought ADP hacked his Apple devices to access his electronic communications,” Fort Myers federal judge Kyle C. Dudek noted of the explosive allegation. The judge observed that “this case was contentious” – an understatement given that one state court case “now has 1,127 docket entries” and the tale’s procedural history “could fill a novel.”

Both Florida state cases remain unresolved and pending years later[5], bogged down in a swamp of bitter motions and discovery fights. ADP even sought to punish Schwartz and his lawyer, demanding six-figure sanctions and legal fees for alleged litigation misconduct. (The court ultimately denied ADP’s bid for sanctions, despite the “attacks and insults” flying in the case.)

By 2022, ADP was accusing Schwartz of destroying evidence – wiping the very iPad at issue – and asking a judge to throw out his federal suit or declare ADP the winner by default. Schwartz only returned the device in 2021 after a state judge threatened him with jail.

This legal war has raged for nearly eight years, with ADP wielding every procedural weapon to bury its ex-employee, and Schwartz refusing to back down.

Visit FLGulf.News

Fort Myers Payroll War Continues: Courtroom Drama and a Campaign for Vindication

In court filings, Schwartz paints himself as David versus Goliath, battling a multi-billion-dollar corporation determined to grind him into the dirt. He maintains that ADP’s lawsuits were a smoke screen to distract from his damning whistleblower evidence.

He says he had the goods to prove ADP’s fraud – even accusing the company of engaging in the unlicensed sale of securities through its retirement plan scheme.

Schwarts is represented by Fort Myers-based Parrish & Goodman Law Firm, PLLC.

ADP, for its part, vehemently denies any wrongdoing. The company paid an expert witness to rebut Schwartz’s claims that it sold investments without a license, and it insists Schwartz is merely a disgruntled ex-employee slandering his former employer.

ADP’s legal team has thus far been successful at the trial court level. In mid-2023, a Florida judge sided with ADP and granted summary judgment against Schwartz – throwing out his whistleblower counterclaim and ruling in ADP’s favor on its contract and trade-secret claims.

Schwartz was stunned as his day in court was snatched away. According to his appellate filings, the judge adopted an order “exculpating ADP from liability” on the whistleblower claim and even issued an injunction for trade secrets without a trial. Schwartz argues this was an error and has appealed, slamming the outcome as an “erroneous Final Judgment” rife with mistakes.

Outside the courthouse, the fiery whistleblower has not been shy about voicing his outrage. On social media, he and his supporters rail against ADP’s hardball tactics.

“Poor whistleblower… sued for the 3rd time by these jackals!” one ally tweeted, referring to ADP’s cease-and-desist efforts to shut down Schwartz’s website. The tweet snarled that ADPFraud.com simply had “too much truthful information regarding their crimes. Grow up, $ADP!.”

Schwartz’s campaign has tapped into a well of discontent among ADP’s clients and employees, who have flocked to his cause with their own tales of mistreatment. With each legal twist, Schwartz posts updates, vowing that he’ll be vindicated in the end.

“The tides will soon shift on ADP,” an online forum post proclaimed, “and drown the b--tards that have been riding the wave of lies.”

Hyperbole aside, the sense of a brewing comeuppance energizes Schwartz’s supporters as he presses on.

Fort Myers Payroll War Continues: Whistleblower’s Last Stand? Appeals Court Showdown Looms in 2026

Now, as 2026 dawns, David Schwartz’s fight with ADP is barreling toward a climax in Florida’s courts. His Florida Whistleblower Act retaliation claim – the heart of his crusade – is now before the newly formed Sixth District Court of Appeal, where he seeks to overturn the trial court’s summary judgment and finally get his day before a jury.

Court records show the appellate briefing continued through 2024 and 2025, with Schwartz filing an extensive Initial Brief laying out alleged trial errors and arguing that the case must be sent back for trial. A decision from the three-judge panel could drop at any time.

Meanwhile, ADP’s offensive is far from over. The company’s 2019 defamation lawsuit – targeting Schwartz for his online broadside against ADP – remains active in the Florida state trial court in Lee County. That case has not yet reached a final judgment, according to the docket, and could be headed for a headline-grabbing trial of its own.

In fact, an expert witness disclosure lists “ADP LLC v. David Schwartz” as a defamation case ongoing in 2025 in Florida’s 20th Judicial Circuit.

In the coming months, observers may witness either an appellate court breathing new life into Schwartz’s whistleblower claim or a jury hearing ADP’s grievances over the ADPFraud website – or both. For now, Schwartz remains unbowed, insisting he was fired for doing the right thing and determined to prove it.

“I was standing up to illegal business practices,” he says – and he’s hell-bent on holding ADP accountable.

ADP, unsurprisingly, stands by its actions and paints Schwartz as a liar bent on smearing the company out of spite.

Eight years into this feud, neither side has ceded an inch. The Florida court dockets confirm that this legal war is still very much alive, with hundreds upon hundreds of filings and no peace treaty in sight. The case that has dragged on so long it “could fill a novel” may finally have its final chapters written.

In early 2026, all eyes are on the Sixth District Court of Appeal and the Lee County courthouse, where the vindication David Schwartz hungers for – or a resounding defeat – will soon be decided. Until that verdict comes, the ADP whistleblower’s battle rages on, a testament to one man’s resolve against a corporate titan and a dramatic reminder that the fight for truth can be a long, bruising affair.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulf.News

LUTHMANN NOTE: Danesh built a lawsuit around a villain. The problem is that the villain does not exist. INTERPOL has certified that Joey Camp, who was subject to an improper arrest last year, is no longer subject to any Red Notice or Diffusion. The Belize Red Notice that Danesh Noshirvan covered, like it was the media tent at the Super Bowl, was deleted. That is not commentary. That is documentation. In Fort Myers federal court, before Judge John E. Steele, narrative is giving way to evidence. This is what happens when online outrage crosses into federal litigation. You cannot hashtag your way around certifications. You cannot smear your way around deleted notices. If credibility collapses, everything collapses. The Boogeyman is gone. Now the spotlight turns to who invented him. This piece is “Federal Court Boogeyman Backfire,” first available on FLGulfNews.com.

By Dick LaFontaine and Richard Luthmann

A Boogeyman in Federal Court

(FORT MYERS, FLA.) – Danesh Noshirvan – better known as social media’s “@ThatDaneshGuy” – built an online empire by doxxing supposed wrongdoers to an outraged mob of followers. Now he’s trying to turn that outrage into a payday in a federal lawsuit.

In Noshirvan v. Couture, filed in Fort Myers, Florida, the influencer claims he’s the victim of a vast conspiracy led by local businesswoman and mom Jennifer Couture (one of his past targets) aimed at destroying him. Noshirvan alleges Couture “hired” one of his longtime critics – journalist Joey Camp – to stalk and harass him as a “boogeyman” villain behind the scenes.

Noshirvan’s attorney, Nicholas Chiappetta of Lake Worth, Florida, has parroted these claims in court filings, seeking millions in damages for the supposed campaign against the TikToker.

From the start, observers noted something off about Danesh’s tale. His lawsuit runs 132 pages and name-drops Camp a staggering 463 times – even though Camp isn’t even a defendant.

“He’s obsessed,” journalist Richard Luthmann quipped of Noshirvan’s fixation on Camp. “He sees Joey Camp swimming in his cereal bowl.”

Noshirvan himself has publicly derided Camp as a “goon” allegedly deployed by Couture “to harass [him] and [his] family for the past 3 years.” It’s a dramatic narrative fit for a tabloid – painting Danesh as the beleaguered victim and Camp as the menacing henchman.

But as the case unfolds before U.S. District Court Judge John E. Steele (a 2000 Clinton appointee), this federal fantasy is rapidly falling apart.

Federal Court Boogeyman Backfire: INTERPOL Exoneration Flips the Script

The turning point came with a bombshell revelation from INTERPOL. A certified letter dated February 10, 2026, confirms that Joey Camp is not wanted internationally – effectively voiding the Belize-issued Red Notice that Noshirvan waved around as proof of Camp’s villainy.

Noshirvan had repeatedly painted Camp as a dangerous fugitive – even smearing him online as a “convicted rapist” and “registered sex offender” supposedly on the run. Those lurid claims always strained credulity, and now INTERPOL itself has flatly undercut them.

Camp’s international lawyers triumphantly announced that INTERPOL has cleared Camp of all notices, validating what Camp has insisted all along: the charges out of Belize were bogus and politically motivated.

Evidence suggests the Belize Red Notice was a hit job from the start. Camp’s troubles in Belize began after he publicly criticized Belize’s Police Commissioner, Chester Williams, over an unrelated incident. In retaliation, Belizean authorities hit Camp with a charge for “spreading false news” in April 2024 – essentially punishing him for speaking out.

Camp paid a fine for that minor offense, left the country, and then took to social media mocking Commissioner Williams’s alleged corruption. What followed was telling: Williams himself announced Belize had “about four arrest warrants for Joseph Camp,” including a personal complaint from Williams’s own son who was studying abroad in Taiwan at the time.

Camp’s jabs clearly struck a nerve. Belize escalated by seeking a Red Notice through INTERPOL – branding Camp an absconding sex criminal – but now that maneuver has imploded.

“This suppression of my freedom of expression… occurred in conjunction with an unprovoked physical assault… by an unidentified officer,” Camp wrote in a complaint, decrying how Williams abused his power to silence him.

INTERPOL’s review appears to agree: the Red Notice has been ripped to shreds, and Camp’s name expunged. The boogeyman Noshirvan relied on to prop up his case has effectively vanished in a puff of smoke.

Visit FLGulf.News

Federal Court Boogeyman Backfire: Smear Campaign Unravels

Joey Camp isn’t just cleared – he’s hitting back. Armed with the INTERPOL vindication, Camp now accuses Danesh Noshirvan, his lawyer Nick Chiappetta, and their media ally Mr. James McGibney, of knowingly advancing false smears against him from the start. According to Camp, Noshirvan’s team possessed FBI background checks proving Camp has no history of sex crimes – yet they still portrayed him as a predator.

In other words, Camp says, Danesh, his attorney, and his reputed lover lied to the court and the public, hoping a salacious smear would stick. These are explosive allegations that could spell serious trouble for Noshirvan’s case (and reputation).

Camp has filed formal complaints with INTERPOL’s internal watchdog and is reportedly urging U.S. authorities to investigate Belize’s misuse of the Red Notice system.

He’s even floated the idea of Belize facing consequences – hinting at a $20 million legal claim and possible expulsion of Belize from INTERPOL for what he calls a blatant abuse of process.

All of this leaves Danesh Noshirvan’s grand narrative in tatters. The core premise – that he was the innocent target of a deranged, criminal “Camp-Couture conspiracy” – looks more like a work of fiction.

“Danesh’s lawsuit is unraveling,” Richard Luthmann reported bluntly. “Every major claim he makes is verifiably false — or worse, self-incriminating. He claims to be a victim. But he’s the aggressor, the Webster’s dictionary definition of PREDATOR: one who injures or exploits others for personal gain or profit.”

In court filings, Couture’s side has presented evidence that many of Noshirvan’s accusations were fabricated or wildly exaggerated. One example: Noshirvan claimed a journalist’s routine inquiry was “witness intimidation” – an accusation a judge dismissed as baseless.

Far from exposing a plot against him, Danesh’s case is instead exposing how far he was willing to stretch the truth. As veteran reporter Frank Parlato noted in Frank Report, Noshirvan is an “influencer who weaponized outrage” – but now that weapon has misfired spectacularly.

Outrage Machine Meets Law-and-Order

For years, Danesh Noshirvan wielded an online outrage machine to name-and-shame others. He built a following north of 2 million by siccing digital mobs on people he deemed “bad” – often leveraging bots and sock-puppet accounts to amplify the dogpile.

His “accountability” crusades, critics say, often veered into harassment and vigilantism. In one notorious campaign, Noshirvan doxxed six U.S. Supreme Court justices after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, broadcasting their home addresses and helping mobs show up at their doorsteps. U.S. Senator Ted Cruz blasted Noshirvan’s stunt, linking it to the attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Danesh’s anti-ICE tactics align with the most extreme fringes of Antifa activism – aggressively publicizing personal info to intimidate targets under the banner of “justice.” But now those same tactics are facing scrutiny under the cold light of a courtroom.

Florida’s political climate makes this clash all the more striking. The Sunshine State – led by law-and-order conservatives and deeply hostile to Antifa antics – is an unlikely venue for Noshirvan’s outrage act. Governor Ron DeSantis and other officials have loudly condemned left-wing “doxxing” and protest violence, passing laws to crack down on exactly the kind of behavior Danesh boasts about.

Yet here in a Fort Myers federal courtroom sits Danesh Noshirvan, trying to paint himself as the victim. For added irony, the judge presiding, John E. Steele, is a Clinton-era appointee – hardly a MAGA conservative – underscoring that this isn’t about partisanship so much as principle.

In court, facts trump TikTok spin. And the facts are shredding Noshirvan’s claims.

“This is not about justice,” Richard Luthmann observed of Danesh’s lawsuit and online theatrics. “It’s about silencing critics. Noshirvan and his allies tell their Woketard audience that anyone who opposes them is going to jail, and then releases his AI bots. It’s textbook disinformation warfare.”

In Florida, such manipulative histrionics are finding little sympathy. The state that prides itself on backing the blue and punishing hoaxes is watching Noshirvan’s spectacle with measured outrage – and perhaps a bit of schadenfreude as his story crumbles.

Federal Court Boogeyman Backfire: Cancel Culture on Trial

This courtroom drama has morphed into a referendum on weaponized cancel culture. Jennifer Couture and Dr. Ralph Garramone, continual targets of Noshirvan’s viral vendettas, are now key figures in flipping the script. Couture – a Fort Myers businesswoman and mom – saw her life turned upside down after Danesh’s edited TikTok videos painted her as a violent “racist” villain in a 2022 parking lot tiff.

She endured torrents of abuse: hundreds of threatening messages, harassing phone calls, even a false report to child protective services accusing her of harming her own teenager.

An innocent bystander, Dr. Garamone’s plastic surgery practice was bombarded with one-star reviews from Danesh’s followers, causing patients to cancel surgeries and business contracts to fall apart.

All of this was orchestrated by Noshirvan’s self-styled “accountability” campaign – a crusade now under the microscope. In a twist of fate, Couture and Garamone’s response was to sue Noshirvan right back, and their allegations of defamation and cyberstalking helped drag Noshirvan into federal court. What was once an online pile-on has become a real-world legal battle, with a judge examining Noshirvan’s conduct and claims.

Media across the spectrum have taken note. Investigative reporters like Luthmann and Michael Volpe have chronicled Noshirvan’s downfall, while outlets from Frank Report to PatriotFetch.com to Navy rape survivor-turned-journalist Rebecca Martin have framed it as a cautionary tale of cancel culture run amok. The Gateway Pundit and InfoWars.com have honed in on Noshirvan’s violent anti-ICE rhetoric.

Even Reason magazine’s legal blog highlighted the case as an example of a “cancel culture” personality colliding with actual law.

The consensus? Danesh Noshirvan’s narrative is collapsing under its own weight. His outrage-fueled persona, once untouchable on TikTok, is being deflated by hard evidence and court scrutiny.

“Danesh has a body count. Aaron De La Torre is dead. He calls for ICE agents to get shot, and laughs when they do. He belongs in prison,” Luthmann said. “I hope he’s behind bars before we reach trial.”

While it remains to be seen if Noshirvan will face criminal charges, his civil case against Couture is faltering badly. The INTERPOL twist was the final straw: without the Joey Camp “boogeyman” to blame, Danesh is left with a paper-thin grievance and a pile of dubious claims.

In the end, the federal courtroom in Fort Myers is delivering a reality check to a man who made a career out of internet outrage. The message is loud and clear: in the battle of facts vs. fury, facts are winning – and Danesh Noshirvan’s cancel-culture fairy tale is coming to a spectacular end.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulf.News

LUTHMANN NOTE: Legacy media didn’t crumble because Americans stopped caring. It faltered because Americans stopped trusting. Readers will tolerate mistakes. They will not tolerate contempt. When institutions blur reporting with posture, markets correct them. The Washington Post is not a victim of technological inevitability. It is a casualty of credibility erosion. Billionaires can fund payrolls, but they cannot manufacture belief. The outlets that survive will remember one basic rule: serve the reader. Not the ideology. Not the boardroom. Not the narrative. Journalism is still powerful. But power without trust collapses under its own weight — and the market keeps score. This piece is “From Legacy to Liability,” also available on FLGulfNews.com.

By Greg Maresca with Richard Luthmann

When the Washington Post laid off one-third of its already dwindling staff, including the entire sports department, foreign bureaus, and book reviews, leadership framed it as a “strategic restructuring” in order to cut costs. If the Titanic had been run by Post executives, they would have described the iceberg as a “necessary pivot.”

This wasn’t trimming fat. This was removing organs and hoping the body would acclimate. They lost leftist subscribers when they tried to move to the center and had no friends on the right to make up the difference.

For years, the paper operated with the arrogance of an institution convinced it was too important to fail, lecturing about accountability while unable to muster a shred of it for itself. It wasn’t just any newspaper; it was The Federal Reserve of newsprint.

Dismissed outright is how the Post had spent years alienating half the country. Then, when the numbers tanked, it was the market that failed them, not their reflection in the mirror.

Jeff Bezos bought the failing Washington Post that had devolved into a Democrat Party house organ in 2013 and tried to turn it into a viable news organization capable of sustaining itself in a competitive media landscape.

In doing so, Bezos lost $100 million annually.

Even for a billionaire, keeping track of such things is how one gets to be a billionaire.

Visit FLGulf.News

The layoffs were a masterclass in corporate disconnect executed via emails and Zoom calls. After 36 years, sports reporter Gene Wang was cut loose like a holiday temp hire. Democracy dies in darkness, but apparently so do careers.

The Post didn’t implode because journalism is dying. Journalism isn’t dying. People want information, context, storytelling, and most of all – truth.

Readers don’t want to be condescended to or managed. They want reporting, not posturing. They want balanced coverage, especially on its op/ed page. They want a newspaper that remembers it is a newspaper, not a lifestyle brand with a martyr complex.

Readers are the consumers, not the enemy, and management is not infallible.

A newspaper’s job is to serve the public, not scold it.

The Post warned about threats to democracy while ignoring the threat of its own managerial hubris. It championed transparency while making decisions behind closed doors. It preached about listening while ignoring when subscriptions dwindled.

The Post is a cautionary tale in contemporary journalism that extends far beyond its D.C. offices. They were an institution that mistook arrogance for authority, branding for trust, and managerial jargon for leadership. They confidently marched off a cliff while pontificating on the importance of guardrails.

Four of the biggest American newspaper conglomerates are the Gannett Co. Inc., GateHouse Media Inc., the Sun-Times Media Group, and the Journal Register Company. Together, they have shuttered over 400 newspapers since 2009 and dismissed more than 45,000 employees.

Those that remain are on life support.

News is a tough sell if readers doubt your veracity. Insult half your readers, and the whole enterprise collapses.

Bezos said of newspapers: “We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate . . . but we are failing on the second requirement.” Bezos failed to realize that the second requirement can’t be met until the first is satisfied.

The credulity of the American public does have its limits.

Bezos saw the demand for unbiased news; the Post simply didn’t meet it.

The future is not as bleak as the Post suggests.

Newspapers that report honestly, listen to readers, and stay rooted in their communities earn the trust that keeps them indispensable. National giants may have lost their way, but locally grounded journalism still has a pulse, a purpose, and an audience.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulf.News

LUTHMANN NOTE: This is not some nuisance lawsuit cooked up by trial lawyers. This is Silicon Valley’s reckoning. For years, Big Tech hid behind code, consultants, and Section 230 while raking in billions from teenage eyeballs. Now a jury is staring straight at the machine. Meta’s own internal research reportedly shows parental controls barely dent compulsive use. That torpedoes the industry’s favorite excuse: “It’s the parents’ fault.” No. If the product is engineered to override restraint, the problem is the product. If jurors find that addiction flows from design—likes, infinite scroll, algorithmic dopamine hits—the legal fortress protecting Facebook cracks. And once that wall cracks, it collapses. Big Tech didn’t build community. It built dependency. It monetized anxiety. It gamified adolescence. Now, twelve citizens in Los Angeles may decide whether Silicon Valley’s profit model is negligence dressed up as innovation. The verdict will not just hit Meta’s stock price. It could redraw the rules of the digital world. This piece is “Facebook’s Big Tobacco Moment,” first available at FLGulfNews.com.

By Richard Luthmann

Big Tech’s Day in Court: Addicted Kids and a Digital Showdown

A landmark trial unfolding in Los Angeles has Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Google’s executives on the defensive. A 20-year-old plaintiff known as “Kaley” is suing Meta and YouTube for allegedly designing platforms that “engineered addiction in children’s brains,” as her attorney Mark Lanier charged in opening statements. He told jurors the case is “as easy as ABC – addicting the brains of children”, accusing two of the world’s richest companies of deliberately hooking young users for profit.

It’s the first major jury trial to test whether social media giants can be held liable for making their products addictive to kids, and its outcome could set a precedent echoed in thousands of pending lawsuits.

The courtroom drama is drawing comparisons to Big Tobacco’s reckoning. Lawyers argue Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube knowingly built features that get teens “as addicted as cigarettes [or] opiates.” Grieving parents fill the gallery, some of whom lost children to suicide after obsessive social media use.

Zuckerberg – testifying before a jury on youth safety for the first time – faces searing questions about whether his company put profit over kids. A Meta spokesperson insists the company has “a longstanding commitment to supporting young people,” denying wrongdoing.

But as this trial makes clear, the social media moguls are finally being called to account in a public courthouse rather than a Congressional hearing.

The stakes are sky-high: a jury verdict siding with Kaley could not only unleash a wave of litigation but force fundamental changes to how social media operates.

Facebook’s Big Tobacco Moment: A Teen Hooked from Age 6

Kaley’s story lies at the heart of this case. Her lawyers say she was practically raised on social media – starting YouTube at age 6 and Instagram by 9. By the end of elementary school, she had uploaded nearly 300 YouTube videos, enmeshed in an online world before she was old enough to have a Facebook account.

Those endless feeds and “Like” buttons proved irresistible. Features like autoplay and infinite scroll kept her glued to the screen, her attorneys argue, until a childhood spark was overshadowed by anxiety, depression, body-image issues, and even self-harm.

“These features…get into a pre-teen or teen brain and give dopamine hits…as addictive as cigarettes, as opiates,” Lanier said, describing Instagram and YouTube as deliberately built to exploit youthful vulnerability.

Her mother fought in vain to break the spell. According to the lawsuit, Kaley’s mom tried strict rules and even third-party apps to limit her daughter’s screen time. But the platforms were a step ahead – designed in ways kids could evade parental controls.

Kaley’s lawyers say the result was a tragic downward spiral: relentless app notifications beckoning 24/7, endless social comparison, and exposure to harmful content that deepened her insecurities. She was even connected with strangers and potential predators via algorithmic friend suggestions, facing cyberbullying and a “sextortion” incident on Instagram that went inadequately addressed.

“The more [she] accessed the companies’ products, the worse her mental health became,” the complaint starkly states.

To the plaintiff’s family – and hundreds of others lining up with similar claims – this is no teenage phase or bad parenting story. It’s the intended result of platforms that treated children like lab rats in a profit experiment.

Now those families are demanding justice in court, aiming to prove that Kaley’s shattered adolescence is the foreseeable outcome of Big Tech’s design choices.

Facebook’s Big Tobacco Moment: Smoking Guns, Internal Emails, and Alarming Research

What truly sets this trial ablaze are the tech companies’ own internal records – “smoking gun” evidence the plaintiffs say shows Meta and Google knew exactly what they were unleashing on kids. Lanier walked the jury through damning emails and research from inside the companies.

One Meta study, tellingly codenamed “Project MYST,” surveyed 1,000 teens and parents about Instagram use. Its finding? Parental rules and screen-time limits had “little impact” on whether teens would compulsively overuse social media. In plain English, even strict moms and dads couldn’t break the spell once apps like Instagram sank their hooks.

The same study found kids who had endured trauma or stress in real life were especially likely to lose control online – a chilling insight that teenage pain could translate into Instagram dependency.

Meta didn’t rush to publish these results or warn parents; in fact, this trial is the first time most have heard of Project MYST. Instagram’s own chief, Adam Mosseri, claimed on the stand he “couldn’t remember” much about the study – even though a document showed he approved it. He shrugged, “We do a lot of research projects,” which did little to reassure the courtroom that Meta took its findings to heart.

Other revelations landed like a punch to the gut of Big Tech’s safety narrative. Internal chats from Meta employees described Instagram as “like a drug” and admitted they were “basically pushers” of this digital addiction. A Google document bluntly likened the YouTube experience to a casino designed to keep users playing one more video.

Lanier argued these companies internally acknowledged what they deny publicly – that their products manipulate brain chemistry with infinite feeds, dopamine-triggering likes, and variable rewards that keep youngsters coming back. He even compared the social media giants to old-school tobacco firms, revealing messages from employees worried that the company hadn’t acted despite knowing the harm to teens.

One Meta memo listed children as the “target audience” for growth. In Lanier’s words, “For a teenager, social validation is survival,” and the defendants “engineered a feature that caters to [that] craving” – pointing squarely at the Like button as a calculated hook.

All this evidence paints a picture of industry leaders who understood the addictive, perilous pull of their platforms on young minds – and chose to push forward regardless. It’s a narrative the companies will have to fight hard to refute as the trial continues.

Visit FLGulfNews.com

Facebook’s Big Tobacco Moment: Denial, Deflection, and ‘Problematic Use’

Meta and Google are hardly rolling over. In court, their defense teams are striving to downplay the concept of “social media addiction” and shift the spotlight away from corporate conduct. Meta’s attorney, Paul Schmidt, argued that Kaley’s struggles stemmed from her personal life – not Instagram. He walked jurors through the girl’s difficult childhood: divorce, a troubled home, bullying at school, and even prior mental health issues.

One of Kaley’s own therapists testified via video that social media was “not the throughline” of her main issues, which the defense seized on.

The message: it’s unfair to pin a teenager’s depression solely on Instagram or YouTube when “many difficult circumstances” were in play.

Facebook’s lawyers also note that none of Kaley’s doctors formally diagnosed her with a tech addiction – unsurprising, since there’s no medical consensus on “social media addiction” as a condition. By casting doubt on the very premise of the lawsuit, the companies hope jurors will hesitate to make them the scapegoats.

It echoes Ronald Fisher’s famous attack on the smoking-cancer link—arguing that because no definitive diagnosis or absolute scientific consensus existed, tobacco companies could deny causation and stall accountability while the harm mounted.

Meta executives maintain they never set out to harm kids, and they tout a “bevy of safeguards” added over the years. The companies point to parental control tools, screen-time dashboards, and special teen accounts with tighter privacy.

In a typical statement, Meta insists it has made “meaningful changes – like introducing Teen Accounts with built-in protections” and giving parents tools to manage teens’ experiences. Instagram’s chief Mosseri testified that he doesn’t even believe social media is clinically addictive, preferring the term “problematic use” for when someone spends more time online than they feel good about.”

He also warned that there’s always a trade-off – users push back if a platform removes too many features in the name of safety.

In essence, Facebook and YouTube argue they’re doing their best to balance safety and user enjoyment, and that teen mental health is a complex issue beyond any single app. They bristle at the lawsuit’s claim of deliberate malice, saying outcomes like Kaley’s are tragic but caused by a constellation of factors, not a scheming algorithm.

And lurking behind their defense is a legal fortress that has protected them for decades: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liability for content posted by users. Meta and Google assert that, at the end of the day, it was things other users said or posted that harmed Kaley, not any inherently dangerous “product” they sold her.

Whether a jury buys that distinction may determine if the Silicon Valley giants walk out vindicated or vilified.

Facebook’s Big Tobacco Moment: A Reckoning for Social Media’s Future?

Whatever the jury decides, this trial is already being hailed as Facebook’s “Big Tobacco moment.” For years, critics compared social media to cigarettes for the mind – addictive, harmful, and marketed to the young. Now, like the tobacco executives of the 1990s, tech CEOs are facing a public reckoning.

If Kaley wins her case, legal experts say it could blow a hole through the liability shield of Section 230 that Meta, YouTube, and others have long relied on.

“The fact that we are simply able to start a trial is a monumental victory,” said Matthew Bergman, an attorney representing hundreds of affected families. Similar lawsuits had been swatted down early on, but by focusing on product design rather than user content, plaintiffs found a way into court.

A win could embolden 1,500+ other suits waiting in the wings – a mix of families and even school districts from across the country.

“This trial isn’t just about Annalee or Kaley. It’s about every child that was lost or harmed,” one mother-turned-activist said, vowing that Big Tech must answer for design decisions that “put our kids’ lives at risk every single day.”

A plaintiff’s verdict would send an unmistakable message to Menlo Park and Mountain View: clean up your platforms or face a tsunami of jury trials and multibillion-dollar payouts.

Even a loss won’t end the scrutiny. Lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic are already mobilizing. In the U.S., over 40 state attorneys general have sued Meta for “contributing to the youth mental health crisis” via intentionally addictive features[49]. Bills in Congress seek to mandate safer, age-appropriate designs on social apps.

Overseas, countries are moving to limit kids’ social media access – France just approved a ban on under-15s joining without parental consent. Industry observers say the public evidence from this trial – the candid emails, the research showing what Meta knew – could be a game-changer.

“If the jury finds out ugly truths and the public has a very negative reaction, this could affect legislation at the state or federal level,” noted Fordham law professor Benjamin Zipursky.

The trial has already drawn parallels to the Big Tobacco litigation that ended with a $206 billion settlement and strict marketing limits on cigarettes. Big Tech’s day of reckoning may be just beginning. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and their peers could soon be forced to make their “engagement” engines less exploitative – or face juries who finally say the cost of doing nothing is too high.

The Los Angeles jury’s decision in this closely watched case will not just decide one young woman’s fate; it could set the course for how an entire generation’s digital lives are safeguarded in the years to come.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulfNews.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: Fort Myers Federal Court Judge E. Steele just told America what sanctions mean in his courtroom: nothing until the very end. He found bad faith. He imposed $62,000 in fees. Then he admitted that his own order had no deadline or teeth, so nonpayment violates nothing. That is not accountability. That is delay as doctrine. For litigants like Fort Myers Plastic Surgeon Dr. Ralph Garramone, it confirms a brutal truth. You can spend millions defending your name, win a sanctions order, and still get no relief. This is the age of the troll. If federal courts will not enforce their own orders, why should anyone believe they enforce justice? This piece is “Sanctions Optional in Federal Court.”

By M. Thomas Nast and Richard Luthmann

The Hammer Came Down in August, We Thought

(FORT MYERS, FLORIDA) – For a brief moment, the Fort Myers federal court looked like it had found its backbone. Then came the order on February 11, 2026.

Danesh Noshirvan dragged Jennifer Couture and her husband, Dr. Ralph Garramone, into the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The case landed before Senior Judge John E. Steele, a Bill Clinton appointee who took senior status in 2015.

The roots of Noshirvan v. Couture trace back to a 2022 altercation in a Dunkin’ Donuts parking lot in Southwest Florida. What should have ended as a routine dispute spiraled into a viral social media saga. Danesh Noshirvan seized on the incident, blasted allegations online, and turned a local confrontation into a national outrage campaign.

Jennifer Couture was at the center of the clash, charged by local State Attorney Amira Fox, after an AI-driven bot campaign flooded Lee County, Florida, law enforcement with hundreds of calls per day demanding Couture’s arrest. Prosecutor Fox generally does a good job. However, here law enforcement was hoodwinked by a sophisticated Antifa operator utilizing AI-driven bots to simulate real outrage.

Now, no one wants to admit how easy it is for foreign-backed paid agitators to run a disinformation campaign on law enforcement and governmental arms, including the Fort Myers federal court.

Dr. Ralph Garramone and Garramone Plastic Surgery are incidental participants, not political players, not agitators, and not influencers. They were dragged in after the fact. In their filings, GPS frames itself as an “innocent bystander” caught in Noshirvan’s digital crossfire, forced into federal court to defend its name against what it calls a sustained social media terror campaign.

Why? Because Dr. Garramone is a world-class plastic surgeon – talented, successful, and wealthy. The Noshirvan lawsuit is an ambulance-chaser’s dream, and he found one in the person of shady Antifa-linked Lake Worth, Florida, Attorney Nicholas Chiappetta.

Noshirvan is tied to hard-left activist networks, feeding the digital trough upon which Antifa agitators feast. National reporting has described him as a political provocateur who amplifies outrage campaigns and targets ideological opponents online. He has also posted or circulated personal information connected to conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices during periods of national controversy.

He teams up with others who are like-minded, including the notorious online bully, Mr. James McGibney, and, admittedly, produced commercial pornography with his wife.

Noshirvan denies wrongdoing and frames his conduct as protected speech and activism. But to his victims, the pattern is clear: aggressive online targeting, high-profile conservatives in the crosshairs, and a platform built on confrontation rather than restraint.

Then came August 12, 2025.

Judge Steele found “subjective bad faith.” He said Danesh’s conduct was intentional; it crossed the line. The record was ugly. Judge Steele found Noshirvan disrupted a deposition with threats and profanity. He found social media posts that were “inflammatory” and “false,” designed to “incite” harassment, and that served “no purpose” other than intimidation.

That was not a slap on the wrist. That was a judicial body blow. Steele seemingly issued a warning shot. He said conduct that “disrupts” litigation or “incites” harassment could trigger dismissal. He publicly reprimanded Noshirvan’s lawyer, Nicholas Chiappetta, for court-related conduct.

Then Steele opened the meter. He ordered the parties to confer on fees. If they could not agree, they were to file. They did not agree. Garramone Plastic Surgery moved to set the number.

On October 30, 2025, Judge Steele put a price tag on the chaos: $62,320 in attorney’s fees. In so doing, he trimmed Duane Morris LLP’s $100K request and Miami lawyer rates. He cut the fat from the billing sheets. Judge Steele set lead counsel Harvey Gurland at $600 per hour. He set Julian Jackson-Fannin at $450. He set Anoosheh Shaikh at $300. He capped paralegals at $200.

He denied $2,739.06 in expenses as vague. He denied a $3,000 request for an expert fee tied to rate opinions.

The order closed with a clean table and a clean total.

It looked like justice had teeth.

Sanctions Optional in Federal Court: February Brought the Big Reveal

The $62,000 sanction did not end the war. It exposed it.

On December 5, 2025, Garramone Plastic Surgery went back to Judge Steele. They filed a motion to show cause. They asked the Court to hold Danesh Noshirvan in contempt. They told the Court the obvious: he had not paid “any portion” of the sanction. Not a dollar. Not a gesture. Nothing.

They also told the Court Danesh was still online. Still posting. Still repeating the deposition “sexual assault” narrative that the Court had already found inflammatory and false.

Danesh opposed the motion on December 16, 2025. He fought enforcement the way he fights everything — deny, deflect, delay.

Then came February 11, 2026. Judge Steele denied the motion, framing it as civil contempt. He said contempt is a blunt instrument requiring “clear and convincing” proof. Judge Steele said the underlying order must be “clear and unambiguous.”

Then came the moment that froze the room. Judge Steele looked at the August 2025 sanctions order — the one he authored — and said it contained no deadline. It was silent. He even said that GPS admitted the order was silent. And silence, the Court held, equals immunity.

No payment date meant no violation. No violation meant no contempt. The sanction stood — but only in theory.

Then Judge Steele added the kicker. The $62,320 will be included in the final judgment. It will be addressed “at the conclusion” of the district court proceedings. That could be months. It could be years before all the appeals are done.

GPS also pointed to fresh YouTube and Instagram clips. The same deposition assault claim. The same digital gasoline. But Judge Steele said it didn’t cross the line, noting Danesh “did not name the lawyer or the firm.”

Refusing “the drastic sanction” of dismissal, Judge Steele said there was no evidence the latest posts caused harassment of GPS or counsel.

So the case lives. The sanction sits unpaid. And there is still no due date for justice.

In federal court, that is a technicality. For a social media terrorist, that is oxygen.

Visit FLGulf.News

Sanctions Optional in Federal Court: Requests for Comment Denied

We asked Dr. Garramone, Jennifer Couture, and their lawyers for comment. Couture responded, “As much as we’d like to speak, we’ve been instructed by counsel to trust the court process. So, no comment at this time.”

Here is what we asked:

From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Thursday, February 12th, 2026 at 9:22 AM
Subject: COMMENT REQUEST: Judge Steele’s Order, Sanctions Enforcement, and Ongoing Harassment Claims
To: Jennifer Couture <jen@Garramone.com>, Dr. Ralph Garramone <Rgarramone@Garramone.com>, Aaron Alfano <aalfano@rolfeshenry.com>, pt@ptesq.com <pt@PTESQ.COM>, hwgurland@duanemorris.com <HWGurland@duanemorris.com>, Jackson-Fannin, Julian A. <jjfannin@duanemorris.com>
CC: Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Dick LaFontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>

Dear Dr. Garramone, Ms. Couture, and Counsel,

We are preparing a detailed follow-up report regarding Judge Steele’s recent Order (attached), the sanctions issues now before the Court, and the broader question of whether meaningful relief is being enforced in the Florida federal courts.

As you know, the Court stated:

“The evidence provided by GPS does not show that GPS, Garramone, Couture, or their respective counsel have faced harassment after the comments were posted on Noshirvan’s own social media.”

We request clarification on the following:

1. Do you dispute the Court’s finding that no post-comment harassment has been demonstrated? Do Danesh Noshirvan and his online minions continue to terrorize you and your business?

2. Are GPS, Dr. Garramone, Ms. Couture, or counsel continuing to experience digital harassment, coordinated follower attacks, bot amplification, doxxing-style targeting, or reputational campaigns connected to Mr. Noshirvan or his online network?

3. If so, was such evidence presented to the Court, and if not, why?

4. Have any incidents been documented, preserved for litigation, or referred to law enforcement? Is an arrest imminent?

Additionally, we seek comment on enforcement:

5. Have court-ordered sanctions been paid in full or in part? The record shows that GPS has promptly paid Court-ordered sanctions.

6. If not, what enforcement mechanisms are currently being pursued? Are any still available aside from a “set-off” at the conclusion of trial?

7. Is it your position that sanctions compliance is now discretionary, or that federal court orders are being meaningfully enforced (even in the absence of actual enforcement mechanisms)?

8. Does this mark a change in litigation strategy as the Fort Myers Federal Court has effectively extended a “License to Dox” and engage in poor, harassing, and even terrorizing behavior with relative impunity?

9. More broadly, should the public interpret this case as evidence that federal courts remain an effective forum for relief in digital harassment matters — or as an example of federal litigation as of limited practical consequence and an exercise in cost and futility?

Given the public interest in judicial authority, sanctions enforcement, and alleged weaponized online conduct, we intend to publish with or without comment. Please respond to us as soon as possible. If we receive your comments after press time, we will incorporate the same into a follow-up. There is much to be said about this issue.

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

Noshirvan previously evaded questioning, admitting to being a paid agitator funded by foreign sources and professing alliegance to Sharia law.

If we hear from him further, we will incorporate his response in a follow-up.

Sanctions Optional in Federal Court: A License to Misbehave, By Design

This is a pattern, not a paperwork glitch, a “license to doxx.” A denied protective order earlier in this case let litigants weaponize discovery. It quoted Judge Kyle C. Dudek (now an Article III Judge appointed by Trump) as saying there was “too little information” to seal materials. That ruling forced “public opinion” warfare.

At the same time, the defense feared “fodder” for doxxing from discovery. It described tax records and redactions of Social Security and EIN numbers.

“This is not about free speech,” Attorney Patrick Trainor said.

That line matters now. The court can punish speech tied to litigation abuse if the court writes in clear triggers for punishment. Judge Steele’s $62,320 ruling was a “boom.” But this latest February order, basically claiming that previous orders were “toothless,” drains all urgency, invites abuse, challenges popular perceptions that court orders are mandatory, and decouples the federal courts from common sense.

The forward-looking implications are even bigger. Doxxing is now “a courtroom strategy” in Fort Myers federal court. Judges continue to “look away” while mobs form.

Great! Who needs the courts when we have digital mob rule? Maybe that’s not the government we want, but according to the couts, it’s the government we have.

Judge Steele’s February order sits on a tight legal rail. Contempt needs a clear order. But he said his own order lacked that clarity, parking the sanction for later collection. He also refused dismissal without proof of new harassment.

That is how “sanctions are optional” becomes a headline. The court did not erase the sanction; it delayed the pain. In the age of the troll, the federal courts just granted a new license to misbehave, by design.

“I think it’s brilliant,” said journalist Richard Luthmann, who also has a case against Noshirvan in the same courthouse. “This ruling confirms that most actions during federal litigation are immediate consequence-free. If the goal is total victory, courtroom sanctions are no longer a meaningful deterrent if you can make the other side fold through other, non-litigation means.”

Luthmann also relished in the “see no evil approach.”

“I’ve been saying it for a while, that the Emperor Has No Clothes. But I was wrong about who was naked,” he said. “In this ruling, the federal courts just showed their bare ass by fleeing from common sense and popular perceptions of justice and the effectiveness of the courts. So we can investigate the senility and dementia of, and even defame, a senior status Libtard judge appointed by a pedophile President in a federal court district. But it’s not an issue because we don’t name the specific judge or the specific distirct. That make sense. Just like the death threats called in to Duane Morris LLP attorneys by Danesh’s cabal were imaginary. ‘Make Believe’ cuts both ways.”

Sanctions Optional in Federal Court: What’s Left For Garramone and Other Targets

Ralph Garramone is not a politician or a mega-influencer on social media. He runs a private medical practice and treats patients at his Fort Myers office and local hospitals. He’s well-respected, board-certified, and long-tenured locally.

That is the man caught in this grinder.

Couture and Garramone have said Noshirvan uses his platform to target them, and he hasn’t stopped with his “ugly Internet mess.” That is why the sanction mattered. It was supposed to slow the salacious content machine and focus the dispute back into the courtroom. It will have the exact opposite effect.

The case itself grew out of the internet fight. Judge Steele’s August sanctions order tied the sanction to disruption and “incitement,” saying Danesh’s posts falsely claimed a lawyer said Black people “look like monsters.”
In August, the transcript did not support that claim, and the posts tried to mobilize foreseeable harassment.

Now the targets face a new reality. They can win a sanction and still wait forever to collect. Judge Steele says he will stack the $62,320 into a final judgment later. Until then, Danesh’s GoFundMe pleas fund the defense.

They also watch the case remain on the docket.

Judge Steele refused dismissal and cited “no proof” of post-video harassment. Harassment often hides off-platform and off-screen, but it’s not “real” for federal court purposes. Tell that to widow Lori De La Torre, immigrant medical doctor Poneh Rahimi, Navy rape survivor Rebecca Martin, and the hundreds of other Victims of Danesh.

But Judge Steele demanded evidence in the high court, not fumes online or common knowledge within the vulgate. “Tell your Godfather what everyone else seems to already know.”

So the sanction sits in limbo.

The message to future litigants is brutal. If you want teeth, get a judge who’ll put a due date in their order or stay the hell out of federal court to get your justice.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulf.News

LUTHMANN NOTE: This is a massive legal development. TikTok has effectively waived Section 230 immunity for any future harms caused by Danesh Noshirvan to TikTok account holders and anyone else. Now, Danesh’s victims can plead that the platform crossed the line from neutral hosting or moderation into helping develop the unlawful content or scheme itself, rendering it an “information content provider” for the harmful material within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3).

Under the “material contribution” doctrine, § 230 does not apply where a platform materially contributes to the illegality of the content, such as by structuring its system or conduct so that the unlawful activity is facilitated or built in. Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1166–68 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Reinstating a previously deplatformed account in knowing violation of internal enforcement rules is not merely “letting speech exist,” but a commercial relaunch—restoring monetization, increasing distribution, steering traffic through recommendations or featured placement, and offering revenue-share incentives—in a manner that materially contributes to fraud, harassment, extortion, or other coordinated wrongful conduct where amplification and monetization are integral to the harm. Likewise, where a platform does more than host content and instead participates in developing or optimizing deceptive or wrongful content, § 230 immunity is unavailable. FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC, 838 F.3d 158, 174–76 (2d Cir. 2016). Facts showing that the platform coached creators, structured monetization gates or payout triggers tied to engagement with unlawful content, provided special access or tools, or offered “creator support” that shaped content strategy would further support an inference that the platform affirmatively developed the unlawful scheme.

In short, by reinstating an account in knowing violation of its own rules for the purpose of restoring monetization, and by taking affirmative commercial steps that go beyond publisher discretion, the platform plausibly became a participant in the harmful conduct and thus at least a partial content developer under § 230(f)(3). See 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3). Would-be plaintiffs may also invoke recognized limitations on § 230, including liability based on a specific enforceable promise to keep an account deplatformed, sounding in promissory estoppel rather than publication liability, Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1107–09 (9th Cir. 2009); failure-to-warn claims premised on knowledge external to the postings themselves, Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846, 851–53 (9th Cir. 2016); narrowly framed product or design claims where the defect is separable from publication functions, Herrick v. Grindr, LLC, 765 F. App’x 586, 590–92 (2d Cir. 2019); and, in exceptional cases, aiding-and-abetting theories requiring conscious, culpable participation and substantial assistance tied to the wrongful act, Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471, 491–507 (2023).

This piece is “TikTok’s Danesh Noshirvan Liability” and was first available on FrankReport.com.

By Frank Parlato

(FORT MYERS, FLORIDA) – Eight days after TikTok permanently banned Danesh Noshirvan, the mega influencer set for trial in March in a Fort Myers federal court, he’s back on TikTok.

Same account. Same @ThatDaneshGuy. Two million followers. Ninety-one million likes. He is posting new videos as if nothing happened, broadcasting from the TikTok account that told him—and the world —that it no longer exists.

In one of his new videos, Noshirvan holds up TikTok’s ban notice on screen. It reads, “Your account has been permanently banned, and you can no longer access TikTok” — while using TikTok to show it.

He’s complaining that TikTok won’t restore his account, on TikTok, from the account they won’t restore.

TikTok’s Danesh Noshirvan Liability: The Ban Was Real

TikTok’s automated enforcement system, the AI layer that governs account status, still registers Noshirvan as permanently banned. When queried, the system confirms the ban is active.

The ban came after TikTok’s Trust and Safety division — led by Suzy Loftus, the platform’s Head of U.S. Trust and Safety and a former San Francisco interim district attorney — reportedly received a federal judge’s sanctions ruling against Noshirvan. That ruling found that Noshirvan acted in “subjective bad faith” and used his platform to “incite harassment and intimidation.”

The federal sanctions order stands. The $62,320 penalty remains unpaid.

TikTok’s Danesh Noshirvan Liability: Five Bans, Five Resurrections

According to Rebecca Martin, who has monitored Noshirvan’s TikTok activity for five years, TikTok has banned Danesh at least five times.

Most TikTok users who get permanently banned have to start over. Millions of creators with followings have had to accept that reality.

Noshirvan gets banned, then unbanned, which eliminates any theory that this is a fluke.

TikTok’s Danesh Noshirvan Liability: How Does a Permanently Banned User Post From a Permanently Banned Account?

There are a few possible explanations. None reflects well on TikTok, which claims it has spent $2 billion on trust and safety.

Explanation 1: Someone Inside TikTok Let Him Back In (True)

TikTok’s ban enforcement is handled by an automated system. The system still shows Noshirvan as banned.

Someone with backend access — an engineer, a trust and safety employee, or someone with administrative privileges — could have reactivated the account without updating the enforcement record. This could mean a rogue employee acted independently, a policy reversal was made without documentation, or someone inside the company did Noshirvan a favor.

LUTHMANN NOTE: If Danesh is to be believed, a TOP EXECUTIVE at TikTok (or Byte Dance, its parent company) reinstated his account.

Visit FrankReport.com

Explanation 2: He Tricked His Way Back In (True)

The ban worked for eight days. Noshirvan was locked out. Someone or something unlocked the account. His restoration might have involved deception.

TikTok employs thousands of customer service agents worldwide. Most of them handle routine complaints: a hacked account, a lost password, a video wrongly removed. They can restore accounts. What they may not have is the context to know why a particular account was banned in the first place.

Noshirvan could have contacted TikTok support through a back channel, posing as someone else, submitting a fabricated claim of wrongful termination, or simply working the system until he reached a low-level agent who saw a locked account and a convincing request. The enforcement system never gets updated because the restoration didn’t go through the team that imposed the ban.

TikTok also has automated account recovery systems — email verification, phone verification, and identity confirmation. If Noshirvan found a way to trigger one of those processes that overrode the ban without routing through the appeals team, he could have reactivated the account without any human at TikTok approving it.

LUTHMANN NOTE: If Danesh is to be believed, he advanced material misrepresentations and targeted harassment at TikTok/Byte Dance executives, maybe the AI-driven bot network he’s used in countless cases to harasshis victims.

Explanation 3: Through Illegal Hacking (Not Yet Ruled Out)

There is another possibility. He may have phished an actual TikTok employee, obtaining login credentials through a fake email or a spoofed internal request, and used that access to unlock himself. This would constitute a federal crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

All three scenarios point to the same problem. A man who was sanctioned by a federal judge for inciting harassment used some combination of deception and persistence to undo a permanent ban.

LUTHMANN NOTE: If Danesh is to be believed, the targeted harassment is illegal. He may also have engaged in hacker activities (along with known associates like Mr. James McGibney), as was detailed in the Rebecca Martin case.

TikTok’s Danesh Noshirvan Liability: The Defanged Danesh

The Frank Report’s Danesh Chronicles, along with the investigative work of Rich Luthmann and Joey Camp, have exposed that Noshirvan’s 2 million followers are mainly bot networks. The purchased followers are the subject of jokes. When Danesh targets someone now, the targets know the mob isn’t real. The angry comments are bots. The phone calls are auto-dialers. The one-star reviews are software.

What He Did With His Resurrection

Noshirvan didn’t use his return to show restraint or demonstrate that TikTok’s second chance, however he obtained it, would be used responsibly.

In the video posted from his supposedly banned account, he launched a “Special Report” attacking Jeremy Wilson, one of the victims currently suing him.

The behavior that got him sanctioned by a federal judge resumed the moment he reappeared.

TikTok’s Danesh Noshirvan Liability: TikTok’s Choice

Meantime, a ban notice said, “You can no longer access TikTok.”

He’s accessing TikTok.

So what does that notice really mean? Evidently, nothing at all.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FrankReport.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: (FORT MYERS, FLORIDA) – In March, Danesh Noshirvan will face a Fort Myers federal courtroom—not as a crusader for justice, but as a litigant whose credibility has already collapsed under judicial scrutiny. Judges, jurors, and the public should treat everything he says with deep skepticism. Why? Because courts have repeatedly rejected his narratives as exaggerated, misleading, or outright false. He targets innocent white women, like Navy veteran Rebecca Martin. Time and again, Noshirvan has weaponized edited clips and manufactured outrage, only to watch the legal system strip away the fiction. Most tellingly, in the Evan Berryhill case, prosecutors abandoned the charges entirely—confirming what the courts keep finding: when facts matter, Danesh’s stories fall apart. This piece is “Danesh Hate Crime Hoax,” first available on FrankReport.com.

By Frank Parlato with Richard Luthmann

A Woman Alone in a Dark Parking Lot

On the night of April 12, 2022, Evan Berryhill came home from an evening out with friends.

She was 28. She owned a small clothing boutique called Texas Angels on Concho Avenue. She had no criminal record. She parked in front of her apartment. She got out of her car.

Two men approached her in the dark.

One of them was Taylor Oglesby, a San Angelo Police dispatcher whose mother was a San Angelo Police officer. The other was his partner, Charles Hardy. One of them told Berryhill: “This will not end well for you.”

Berryhill, alone at night, confronted by two men in a dark parking lot, reacted. She spoke back. Harsh words. One of the men declared that they were more attractive to other men than she was. Berryhill responded with a short and quite possibly appropriate rejoinder. She called them “fucking faggots” and, with the audacity of a woman being cornered in the dark by two bullies, thumped the cell phone Hardy was holding to record her.

The men had been filming the entire time.

She also said something worse in the eyes of the intolerant work. She called thetwo bullies a “disgrace to America” and proclaimed (her real sin) “Republican all the way, baby!”

She was angry. She was startled.

Hardy told police — who someone had summoned to the scene — that he did not wish to press charges.

After all, these were words, and they had said some too.

Berryhill publicly apologized for the unforgivable sin of calling two gay bullies faggots the next day on Hardy’s Facebook page.

That might have been the end of it.

Danesh Hate Crime Hoax: The Master Bully Gets the Video

Then the master bully, Danesh Noshirvan, got the video.

As he usually does, he edited out the provocation: the dark parking lot, two men approaching a woman alone, their taunting, the veiled threat from a man connected to the police department. What remained was a thirty-second clip of a woman using a forbidden word: faggot.

Danesh published a series of videos to his alleged two million followers, branding Berryhill a “homophobe” and doxxing her business. The videos attracted views, most of them bots, purchased and paid for — but some humans undoubtedly.

But Berryhill did not know that most of the engagement was artificial; it was one man with a keyboard and spoofing software. One vicious cyber stalking bully — Danesh Noshirvan.

Danesh Hate Crime Hoax: The Manufactured Mob

Within hours, Berryhill’s Google business profile received over 500 one-star reviews — all fake. None of them were from her customers. Most, if not all, of them were Danesh and his software spoofing of reviews.

But she, like so many other Danesh’s victims, did not know it.

She thought they were random humans across the nation out to get her.

She took her social media down. She removed her phone number from her website.

Then the voicemails started—strange men from across the country, threatening to rape her.

Berryhill believed dozens of different men were hunting her. The voices were distinct. The numbers were different. She didn’t know about voice-spoofing software. She didn’t know about auto-dialers and AI-generated voices. She didn’t realize that what sounded like a mob could be one man at a keyboard.

Meanwhile, the Facebook pages of Oglesby and Hardy became, as San Angelo LIVE! reported, “a clearing house of content, primarily screenshots, for leftist activists to harvest to load into bot farms and use in messaging to defame and harass Berryhill.” One of the men posted real-time sightings of Berryhill’s whereabouts — when she arrived at her apartment, when she left. She went to the police to report the stalking.

Her business collapsed. Her cash flow dried up. She couldn’t afford an attorney.

Danesh Hate Crime Hoax: The Prosecutor Finishes the Job

Then the prosecutor stepped in — not to protect her, but to finish her.

Assistant County Attorney Leland Lacy signed an arrest affidavit charging Berryhill with a Class B Misdemeanor, invoking hate crime language in Texas statutes to allege that Berryhill “selected” Hardy as a victim because of her bias against homosexuals. As the original reporting noted, since the only people present were two gay men who had approached her, her “selection” was somewhat limited.

As Joe Hyde for San Angelo Live wrote:

“The charges come after a grueling four-month county attorney’s office investigation of Berryhill who was confronted in a dark parking lot in front of her own apartment by two men. One of the men identified himself as a “dispatcher” with the San Angelo Police Department and claimed the encounter “will not end well” for her.

“Using video recordings taken during the series of back-and-forth insults between Berryhill and the two men as evidence, Lacy said in his charging document that Berryhill touched one of the men, Charles Hardy, while calling both men “f-in f-ggots.” The utterance of the insult led Lacy and his criminal investigator to charge Berryhill with ‘assault’ via unwanted touching and elevated the charge from a Class C Misdemeanor to a Class B because Lacy wrote that Berryhill did so due to her animus towards homosexuals.”

Berryhill was booked into jail. Her mugshot was published. Noshirvan had new content. Another round of harassment began.

Berryhill broke down in tears. “I have no money to hire an attorney. I am so screwed,” she said.

Why was she arrested?

Fake pressure.

As Hyde from San Angelo Live reported:

“Phones at the PD blew up and messages to local media crescendoed demanding someone in local law enforcement and the media get justice for the two men. Police did no arrests at the scene but after a four month investigation by the county attorney’s office, Berryhill was booked for Assault (Physical Contact) Committed Because of Bias/Prejudice. Post-arrest, a new wave of videos and online shaming commenced to celebrate the arrest (and the mug shot). The leftist cause being promoted is demanding public endorsement of the two men’s sexual orientation.”

Visit FrankReport.com

Danesh Hate Crime Hoax: Charges Dismissed

After friends raised enough money for San Angelo attorney Shawntell McKillop to take her case, the prosecutor dropped the charges altogether. Not deferred adjudication. Not probation. Dismissed.

Berryhill has no criminal record.

On the same day the prosecutors dropped the charges against Berryhill, the bully Charles Hardy, the man who claimed to be her victim, was arrested for criminal mischief after allegedly breaking fixtures at the hair salon where he rented space. A judge released him on a $500 bond.

Danesh Hate Crime Hoax: The Pattern

The pattern is always the same. Noshirvan finds a clip. He strips the context. He manufactures a mob. The target loses her business, her safety, her peace of mind—a prosecutor, mistaking synthetic outrage for public demand, piles on. And the man who started it all moves on to the next target.

Berryhill survived. Many of Noshirvan’s targets have not been so fortunate.

Danesh Hate Crime Hoax: The Bully Falls

In January 2026, TikTok permanently banned the bully, Noshirvan, from its platform. His alleged two million followers, most of them bots, vanished overnight.

Jeremy Wilson, one of his victims, claimed his username @ThatDaneshGuy. Wilson is also suing the TikTok menace.

Noshirvan drifted to a platform called Upscrolled, where he has roughly 1,500 followers. This is evident proof that his two million followers were mainly fake, since one would think half a million real humans, or at least 100,000, would follow the great bully to his new platform.

He remains IP-banned from X for doxxing Supreme Court justices. He owes $62,320 in federal court sanctions after a judge found he acted in “subjective bad faith” and used his platform to “incite harassment and intimidation.”

His reign of terror may be over. But for Evan Berryhill and literally more than 100 others, they live with the damage he’s done.

More on the Berryhill case from San Angelo Live!:

• The Execution of Evan Berryhill

• “Hate Crime” Victim Accused of Criminal Mischief at Local Hair Salon

• How to Coerce Our County Attorney to Prosecute Anyone

• Your County Attorney Got a Break, Why Can’t Evan Berryhill?

Other stories on our Danesh Chronicles series:

The Danesh Chronicles #2: The Trust Fund Aryan Who Plays Brown for Profit

The Danesh Chronicles #1: The Doctor Who Dared Speak English

How Danesh targeted a Navy veteran and military rape survivor: ‘I Was Supposed to Become One of the 22’

A Scourge Has Been Lifted: TikTok Removes Danesh Noshirvan

BREAKING: TikTok Permanently Bans Danesh Noshirvan — Hours After Frank Report Exposé

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FrankReport.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: Danesh Noshirvan’s days are numbered. I don’t wish prison on anyone—but when a public figure builds power through bots, intimidation, and bad-faith litigation, consequences stop being abstract. Add declared allegiance to foreign money and foreign sovereigns, and the clock speeds up. Courts don’t indulge harassment masked as activism. Platforms won’t bankroll liability. Fundraisers stall. Orders go unpaid. Excuses evaporate. Judges have spoken. TikTok acted. The money came due and didn’t arrive. This isn’t satire or politics. It’s pattern, proof, and exposure. If Danesh wants mercy, it starts with compliance and truth. Otherwise, the system he tried to exploit will close in. This piece is “Antifa Leader Deplatformed and Broke.”

By Dick LaFontaine and Richard Luthmann

Fort Myers Courtroom Fiasco

(Fort Myers, FL) – Woke Antifa-linked Mega Influencer Danesh Noshirvan hit a brick wall in federal court this week, when he failed to pay court-ordered sanctions. Fort Myers federal court Judge John E. Steele slapped the self-proclaimed “Iranian Anchor Baby” with $62,320 in sanctions over his outrageous courtroom antics last October. Now, he’s on the hook and out of excuses.

Noshirvan – known online as @ThatDaneshGuy – was found to have acted in “subjective bad faith,” using the legal process as a weapon to harass opponents. The tipping point came when he derailed a deposition with profanity and then sicced his followers on the opposing lawyer with false accusations of racism.

Possessing an ungodly hatred for President Donald J. Trump, Noshirvan has openly praised and simulated allegiance to Iran’s ruling mullahs. He even boasted on video, “The Ayatollah is paying me… we have an agenda to turn America into Sharia law,” making clear his sympathy for the Iranian theocratic regime and his desire to see Sharia imposed in the United States.

Judge Steele’s order made headlines as a stark warning: this isn’t TikTok, it’s federal court with real-world consequences. Noshirvan has a defamation and harassment case accusing Dr. Ralph Garramone, his practice, Garramone Plastic Surgery, and others (including Garramone’s wife, Jennifer Couture) of conspiring to smear and intimidate Noshirvan online in retaliation for his viral TikTok posts about Couture. He seeks millions in damages.

Garramone and Couture have counterclaimed, seeking damages arising from Noshirvan’s AI- and bot-driven business disruption. His bad behavior has already cost him, and this week, Danesh was asked nicely, probably for the last time, to pay the piper.

His response? More empty promises.

In December, he told the court his GoFundMe fundraiser “has already amassed over $43,000 (2/3’s sanction amount),” and he had “every expectation” of paying $62k in full well before the deadline. But January 19 came and went with not a penny paid.

By January 26, defense attorneys revealed Noshirvan still hadn’t paid a dime and was dodging their emails. His own lawyer, ethically-challenged Nick Chiappetta of Lake Worth, Florida, admitted Danesh only scrounged up $54,500 – still $7,730 short – and begged for more time.

When pressed why he hadn’t at least paid the $54k, Noshirvan went silent. Now he’s defying a court order, refusing to say when – or if – he’ll pay up.

Opponents are urging the judge to impose even tougher sanctions for flouting the mandate. In short, Danesh’s legal gambit has backfired spectacularly in Fort Myers, and he may face the ultimate sanction: dismissal of his case.

Antifa Leader Deplatformed and Broke: TikTok Takedown

Noshirvan’s week got worse online. The TikTok mega-influencer with roughly two million followers suddenly had his megaphone yanked away.

“Hello everyone… I was banned from TikTok,” Danesh announced bluntly in a video to his fans. The platform booted him after he posted a controversial video targeting Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement by peddling disinformation.

In the video, Noshirvan pretended right-wing pundit Charlie Kirk was shot dead after pulling a gun at a school. The Antifa-supporting Trump-hater said the “dark parody” meant to “hold a mirror up” to how ICE victims are “dehumanized.”

“TikTok decided to not only take that video down, but also ban me as a result,” Danesh griped.

According to him, he hadn’t remotely hit the violation limit for a perma-ban.

“None of those bans were justified – as this one’s not either,” he insisted.

Danesh hinted political motives were at play.

“To actually be banned by their rules, I would need more violations – unless they decided content critical of Trump or ICE is an immediate ban,” he quipped.

He claims TikTok’s “new ownership” is hostile to his content. For three days before the ban, he says his uploads about ICE mysteriously got zero reach. It wasn’t until California’s Governor Newsom announced an inquiry into TikTok’s practices that Danesh’s posts suddenly went through – only for TikTok to nuke his account moments later.

Now the self-appointed “accountability” cop finds himself muzzled on his favorite app.

Whether TikTok will restore @ThatDaneshGuy remains uncertain – even Danesh admitted “I don’t know what the outcome will be.”

For now, the platform that made him famous has shown him the door, compounding his terrible week.

Visit FLGulfNews.com

Antifa Leader Deplatformed and Broke: Danesh Faces Consequences

The grotesque Charlie Kirk video falsely portrayed the slain conservative political organizer as a violent threat and justified lethal force against him. Danesh dared critics to react. When the ban followed, Danesh didn’t accept responsibility. He escalated.

He publicly blamed hero journalist Joey Camp, who now lives in an undisclosed location in Latin America because he has an Antifa bounty on his head. Camp went undercover in the 2020 riots in Denver, Kenosha, and elsewhere, and identified Antifa operatives, posting their information online.

Danesh claimed Camp, his personal “boogeyman,” was “conspiring” to mass-report him, even as Camp accused Danesh of doing the very thing Danesh had previously reported others for—running circumvention accounts after bans.

Danesh then veered into paranoia, asserting leftist dogwhistle claims that TikTok’s “new ownership” was “the Jews and the IDF.” The self-proclaimed accountability expert floated an outlandish, inflammatory claim to explain why his account was gone, rather than taking responsibility.

Noshirvan’s meltdown tracks directly with the Fort Myers federal case, where Judge Steele found him engaged in intentional bad-faith conduct, including coordinated harassment and manipulation of online audiences. Faced with a sanctions order documenting bot-driven misconduct, TikTok didn’t need Camp’s reports to act. Danesh’s own conduct—and his spiraling public accusations—made him radioactive.

The Charlie Kirk video wasn’t the cause. It was the final proof point.

The real reason Danesh Noshirvan was deplatformed had nothing to do with satire or Charlie Kirk and everything to do with risk management. Sources have revealed that TikTok’s legal department, now operating under the new ownership group, was finally handed Judge Steele’s sanctions ruling from the Fort Myers federal case and saw a flashing red light.

The sanctions order didn’t describe protected speech; it documented intentional bad-faith conduct, which some fear includes the use of bots, AI amplification, and coordinated harassment to inflict real-world harm.

Section 230 does not provide blanket immunity to social media platforms that knowingly host or facilitate non-speech conduct, particularly where automation, bots, or AI are used to target individuals, interfere with legal proceedings, or drive coordinated harassment campaigns. Courts have repeatedly held that immunity collapses when a platform materially contributes to unlawful conduct or goes beyond passive publication, such as by enabling or amplifying misconduct. See Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157, 1164–68 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC, 838 F.3d 158, 174–76 (2d Cir. 2016).

Once a platform is on notice—especially through a federal court order documenting intentional bad-faith conduct—it cannot claim ignorance. Courts have made clear that failure-to-act theories and claims based on platform conduct fall outside Section 230, including where the platform knows users are engaging in criminal or tortious activity and continues to provide access or tools that facilitate harm. See Doe v. Internet Brands, Inc., 824 F.3d 846, 851–53 (9th Cir. 2016); Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F.3d 1096, 1107–09 (9th Cir. 2009).

Recent decisions further recognize that algorithmic amplification and AI-driven manipulation raise distinct liability concerns not automatically shielded by Section 230, particularly where platforms promote or operationalize harmful conduct. See Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 598 U.S. 617, 143 S. Ct. 1191, 1206–07 (2023); Lemmon v. Snap, Inc., 995 F.3d 1085, 1092–94 (9th Cir. 2021); Henderson v. Source for Pub. Data, L.P., 53 F.4th 110, 123–26 (4th Cir. 2022).

In short, when a platform knows or should know that a user is deploying bots or AI systems to commit actionable misconduct and fails to intervene, Section 230 immunity erodes, and platform liability can attach. Faced with that reality, TikTok didn’t make a political decision. It made a legal one.

In the recent court filings, defense counsel blasted him for ignoring the court’s mandate and using stall tactics. They say he’s even stirring up his followers with false social media rants, trying to sic his online mob on the Florida physician’s practice and its lawyers out of spite.

The bottom line: Danesh Noshirvan is broke and out of compliance. His once-profitable outrage crusade has left him facing real financial consequences – and the meter is running.

Antifa Leader Deplatformed and Broke: Under the Microscope

Danesh’s bad week isn’t happening in a vacuum. His extreme tactics have drawn intense scrutiny from the media and authorities, heightening the pressure. Earlier this month, The Gateway Pundit ran a blistering exposé by investigative reporter Richard Luthmann, painting Noshirvan as a “radical TikTok agitator” who’s “crossed a dangerous line.”

The piece details Danesh openly urging armed left-wing militias to “fight” ICE agents in America’s cities. He’s accused of framing ICE as “Trump’s racist army” and inciting followers to physically block federal agents.

The Gateway Pundit warned that Noshirvan is tied to “dark-money networks, digital harassment mobs, perjury, and federal sanctions” – a one-man extremist “incitement” machine. It was a public drubbing that likely put Danesh on the radar of Big Tech moderators and law enforcement alike.

At the same time, investigative outlets like Frank Report have catalogued Noshirvan’s shocking online warfare. With an audience he claims in the millions, Danesh has boasted he can doxx targets and unleash swarms of fake accounts at will. In one case, the court found he marshaled AI-powered botnets to deluge a rival’s family and employer with threats.

“Remember one thing, it’s not ICE that’s the greatest threat… It’s the people that support ICE,” Danesh preached in one viral rant.

Such rhetoric, amplified by bot armies, has real-world fallout – and now it’s coming home to roost. Noshirvan’s own tactics of calling those he doesn’t like “predators” and “pedos” in videos have led to multiple defamation battles and judicial rebukes.

All this has left Danesh Noshirvan increasingly isolated and under fire. His TikTok soapbox is gone, his fundraising fell short, and a federal judge’s patience is wearing thin. The man who made a career dishing out “accountability” is finally getting a taste of it himself.

It’s been a terrible week for ThatDaneshGuy – and if the courts, the FBI, and the DOJ have their way, his reckoning is just beginning.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulfNews.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: Let’s stop playing make-believe. Antifa Leader Danesh Noshirvan doesn’t practice “accountability.” He practices ideological sadism. His pattern is clear: contempt for white women, open hostility to the American military, and a fixation on humiliating rape survivors for clicks and clout. What he did to Navy veteran Rebecca Martin wasn’t edgy content or online drama—it was disgraceful, predatory, and criminal in spirit if not yet fully charged on paper. He weaponized her trauma, her service, and her child as entertainment. That’s not activism. That’s abuse dressed up as politics. And sooner or later, the law catches up to people who confuse cruelty with courage. This piece, “Danesh Targets Navy Rape Survivor,” was first published on FrankReport.com.

This is Part #3 of the Danesh Chronicles

By Frank Parlato and Rebecca Martin with Richard Luthmann

The Man Behind the Mask

(FLORIDA, USA) – Danesh Noshirvan AKA @ThatDaneshGuy is a 38-year-old from Mansfield, Pennsylvania. He has cases pending across the country, including in the federal court in Fort Myers.

He calls what he performs on TikTok “accountability culture.” TikTok lists two million followers. Independent analysis suggests roughly 1.5 million are bots. Only a few thousand followers show consistent human engagement.

X banned him for doxxing Supreme Court justices.

He is facing a $62,320 federal court sanction for “bad faith” conduct after a judge found he lied about and harassed opposing counsel in his own lawsuit. A Texas grand jury is reportedly investigating whether his campaign against high school football coach Aaron De La Torre—who killed himself ten days after Noshirvan targeted him—constitutes cyberstalking.

He is the man who targeted Rebecca Blumer Martin, a Navy veteran whose story of military rape and subsequent PTSD was published in Rolling Stone in 2013.

What follows is Rebecca’s account describing events she says occurred between September 2021 and the present.

Her testimony has been edited for clarity and length.

September 11, 2021

By Rebecca Martin

It was 9/11. On TikTok, I came across a livestream featuring Danesh Noshirvan, titled “Guilt” and “Savannah Mom.” They were discussing how they had hacked into someone’s account.

Danesh said he microwaved SIM cards to prevent the possible discovery of what he does to identify people.

Someone in the live comments asked, “Why are you microwaving SIM cards?”

I knew. I’m a Navy veteran. I know what criminal activity looks like. It offended me that they were celebrating hacking Americans. I reported it to the FBI.

January 1, 2022

Before Danesh targeted me, I had 89,000 followers on TikTok. I covered cold cases and public court proceedings. After Jen Welch attempted suicide, following Danesh’s harassment campaign, I posted a video showing him discussing hacking and included instructions for reporting it to the FBI.

On January 1, 2022, he responded by mocking my voice and sexually harassing me. After that, the bot accounts appeared under variations of the same name, “You Lie Like a Rug.” When I blocked one, another took its place.

They told me to become one of the twenty-two. If you don’t know that reference: 22 veterans die by suicide every day.

Danesh posted links to the Rolling Stone article describing my rape during military service and my PTSD.

He added, “This is going to be bigger than Rolling Stone.”

I started getting calls on my phone and spoofed text messages. My husband got messages from women sending nudes, saying, “You missed our date last night.”

Danesh Targets Navy Rape Survivor: Phishing Attack

My four-year-old daughter used my husband’s old phone on WiFi so she could play games and watch YouTube videos. It received phishing messages. She clicked one. After that, our devices were compromised.

From there, I believe Danesh gained access to our router and other devices.

When I later said they hacked a child’s phone, one of Danesh’s coconspirators—Guilt—said, “That wasn’t a kid’s phone.”

She admitted they hacked the device.

January 5, 2022

Four days after the harassment began, just days after Jen Welch’s suicide attempt, I tried to hang myself.

I had just gotten out of the shower. My hair was still wet. I was not in a good place mentally. My health was deteriorating. Danesh and his coconspirators were harassing me, attacking me, and threatening my family.

I saw all these messages telling me to become one of the 22 today.

I thought: You know what? You won’t leave me alone. Fine. Fuck you. I’m going to do it. I fell out of the noose. I broke my arm. They had to set it.

While I was hospitalized from my suicide attempt and broken arm, Danesh claimed I was faking it.

His moderators piled on. Lisa. Melissa Brubeck. Cindy Esquire. They were his Patreon supporters. They were paying him to help him destroy people.

Visit FrankReport.com

When They Came to Vegas

Online, they used handles like “Everybodyknowsyourname,” “roserealtalk,” and “buggiegirl18.”

They kept posting links to my Rolling Stone article. Then one day, Melissa Brubeck got on a plane to Las Vegas to find me.

When she landed, she created a new account called “gfytoday.” She commented that she wanted to rape me—her words were “carnal knowledge.”

Then she went to my husband’s job. She showed up asking for him. She told people she was his aunt.

Brubeck also wrote a blog. She called it “My Manifesto.” In it, she admitted to “performing a background check” on me.

That background check became the information Danesh used to doxx me.

My Daughter

After I came home from the hospital, the harassment didn’t stop.

They had gained access to my private videos, screen-recorded them, edited them, and redistributed them on an account called “Pablo Ice Cream Bar.”

One of the videos showed my four-year-old daughter playing with a rainbow crochet doll. They claimed I was teaching my child to harm Black people with voodoo, over a rainbow-colored doll and a four-year-old’s imaginative play.

On December 23, 2022, Danesh asked his followers to call Child Protective Services on me.

What Danesh didn’t know: I’m a Choctaw Native American tribal member. Under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, CPS has no jurisdiction over Native American children.

The Judge

I tried to file a protection order against Danesh in Las Vegas. I was actually living in North Las Vegas—a different city. I filed in the wrong jurisdiction deliberately because Danesh kept telling everyone I was in Las Vegas. I figured if they harassed the police, filing false claims about me, seeking my arrest, at least it would be the wrong department.

The judge denied it. Wrong jurisdiction. Then he told me privately. “I am very sympathetic to what you’re going through.” He warned me that if I refiled in my actual jurisdiction, I would reveal my location to my harassers.

His advice: “Move and don’t tell people where you are.”

Danesh Targets Navy Rape Survivor: The Arsenal

Danesh found court documents from my rape case. He and his followers circulated paragraphs describing how I was drugged and raped by an Army service member on February 12, 2010, while I was a Cryptologic Technician stationed at Fort Gordon. They used my military sexual trauma as entertainment.

He used my face as the thumbnail for his videos because it got him more views.

Danesh advertised his porn site using my face.

He called me a “Halloween decoration.”

He admitted—publicly—that he had access to my Dropbox.

He and his followers created accounts pretending to be me.

They posted a geolocation to my house.

They published videos mocking my rape. Someone commented on one of my videos: “I believe you. And I thank you for your service.”

Underneath, someone using my name commented: “She lies.”

Danesh calls rape victims liars. He digs up the worst moment of your life and uses it as a weapon. He posts your trauma, your military records, your child’s face, your home address—and then he calls you the problem.

Danesh Targets Navy Rape Survivor: The Impersonation Army

He and his followers created accounts using variations of my username. They would argue with strangers, attack people, spread misinformation—pretending to be me. When people saw these accounts behaving badly, they thought it was me. They hated me based on the actions of impostors.

One account impersonated my username and got into an argument with someone about their autistic child. I’m autistic myself. I would never mock someone’s autistic child. But people thought I did because the account used my name.

When I copyright-claimed my images, they changed the profile pictures and kept going. They found me in random comment sections to harass me using my child’s image.

That’s the plan. Destroy the person. Destroy their reputation. Make everyone believe the target is the monster. And when you break them—or they die—move on to the next one.

Danesh Targets Navy Rape Survivor: Nude Photographs

Through hacking, they obtained some nude pictures of me that were private. I received text messages from someone who sent me naked images of myself. I played it off like they had the wrong number. I didn’t want them to confirm my identity. But I showed the screenshot to James McGibney—one of Danesh’s allies who had doxxed me.

McGibney recognized the phone number. He said: “We’ve doxxed this person before. I need to look into this.”

That’s when he realized Danesh uses tactics against others, then claims those same tactics were used against him.

Whatever Danesh said happened to his wife, whatever he said happened to him—it wasn’t being done to him. It was him doing it.

The Nursing Board

One of Danesh’s coconspirators, “Muscles and Nursing,” working at a veteran’s home as a nurse, attacked me online. I reported him to the state nursing board.

He asked Guilt to hack into the nursing board to delete my complaint.

Guilt said, “I’m not doing this anymore.”

Danesh’s own hacker had a limit. Government databases were apparently it.

McGibney’s Apology

McGibney is the only person who ever apologized for exploiting my daughter.

He wouldn’t do it publicly, but he did it privately—on X, in direct messages. He told me he was in a group chat with people who suggested he buy the URL “Rebecca.Navy” so they could doxx me. He refused. Veteran to veteran, he said. Leave us alone.

He also admitted someone was angry with him when he took down the doxxing of me. I can only assume that was Danesh.

Danesh Targets Navy Rape Survivor: The Harasser Who Died

LisaMarie was one of Danesh’s dedicated followers. She would harass me every hour on the hour. I’m not exaggerating. She was on his Patreon. She was on his Discord. She created accounts to impersonate people—including an attorney named Chris Hunter. She used my child’s image to spread misinformation about my rape.

In June 2022, LisaMarie took her own life.

I was one of the first to notice. I knew something was wrong because the harassment stopped. When someone is attacking you every hour and then suddenly goes silent, you notice.

Danesh blamed me for her death.

A woman who spent months stalking me, impersonating attorneys, using my daughter’s image to mock my rape, harassing me on the hour every hour, and when she died, Danesh said it was my fault.

Her husband came on TikTok to address the rumors. People were saying she’d been bullied into suicide. Her husband said no—” she gave it as good as she got.”

He was telling the truth. She was an attacker, not a victim of attacks. She was one of Danesh’s coconspirators.

Here’s what this shows: Danesh’s operation destroys everyone it touches. His targets attempt suicide. His followers take their lives. He keeps going, weaponizing every death, blaming everyone but himself.

LisaMarie harassed me until the day she died. Then Danesh used her death to harass me more.

The Perfect Blue Connection

I’d been documenting Danesh and his coconspirators. One of them, Our Exorcist, and Danesh had the same foreign language symbol appearing on both their pages.

I put that symbol into Google Translate. It was Japanese, and the words translated as Mamoru Uchida.

The name meant nothing to me. But I found a wiki page.

Mamoru Uchida is a character from Perfect Blue, a Japanese psychological thriller. In the story, Mamoru Uchida is a beast who becomes obsessed with a woman who rejects him. He stalks her. He sends her threatening letters. He terrorizes her psychologically.

She kills herself.

That’s who Danesh (and Our Exorcist) chose to identify with: A stalker whose victim commits suicide.

His operation is doxxing people, subjecting them to threatening messages and attacks until they break. He found a fictional character who does what he does—stalk and terrorize until the target is dead—and they made him their symbol.

Jen Welch attempted suicide.

I attempted suicide.

Aaron De La Torre is dead.

This was the plan.

Danesh Targets Navy Rape Survivor: Today

I record and screenshot every single interaction I have. Danesh said on a live stream that I document everything. So he’s kind of left me alone. He knows I will record it, document it, and post about it.

My original account is gone. They mass-reported it until TikTok’s system deleted it. That’s what he does: mass-reports the person right before he makes a video. They report every video, every comment, the account itself, over and over until the system thinks you’re the problem.

How many real followers does he have? Out of two million? A couple thousand, maybe. The rest are bots.

I offered to testify in Jennifer Couture’s lawsuit against him. I told her I just need to know the date and where to show up.

I was supposed to become one of the 22.

I refused.

Danesh Targets Navy Rape Survivor: The Pattern

Jen Welch attempted suicide. I attempted suicide four days later. Aaron De La Torre died ten days after Noshirvan targeted him.

LisaMarie harassed me hourly until June 2022, when she took her own life. Noshirvan blamed me.

In another time, this would be called collateral damage. In this one, it is called content.

A Note to the FBI

Now, a note addressed not to the audience, but to the authorities.

Jennifer Couture’s civil trial will place Danesh Noshirvan under oath. His coconspirators will be named.

Communications will be examined. A federal judge has already imposed a $62,320 sanction for harassment and bad faith conduct—an official finding, not an allegation.

The reports have been in FBI possession since September 2021. The witnesses are no longer hypothetical. They are present, willing, and waiting.

The door to the courtroom is open.

Rebecca Martin can be found on TikTok as @the10toedtomato and on X as @YupCherie.

If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by calling or texting 988.

More in our series:

The Danesh Chronicles #1: The Doctor Who Dared Speak English

The Danesh Chronicles #2: The Trust Fund Aryan Who Plays Brown for Profit

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FrankReport.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: I am being sued by Jeremy Hales, a YouTube content creator, for expressing my opinions that he’s a crocodile-copulating talentless hack. I will win because the facts are not arguable. They are documented, sworn, and now baked into the record. His lawyer, Randy Shochet of Trenton, Florida, didn’t make a close call. He made false ones. He didn’t correct them. He doubled down after notice. That is where lawyers lose their licenses. Courts forgive mistakes. They do not forgive lies, fabricated service, or sworn nonsense contradicted by public records. I warned him. Repeatedly. He ignored it all. Trump v. Clinton is the roadmap, and Shochet drove straight into the ditch. When judges see fraud, they act. When Bars see patterns, they end careers. His clock is ticking. This piece is called “YouTube Star’s Lawyer Slammed,” first published on FLGulfNews.com.

By Dick LaFontaine with Michael Volpe and Richard Luthmann

Bombshell Motion Rips Shochet’s Courtroom Con

(GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA) – Attorney Randy Shochet – legal counsel for YouTube personality Jeremy Hales – is under fire after blistering new court documents sent for filing accuse him of orchestrating a fraudulent legal charade. In a motion to vacate a default judgment and dismiss Hales’s case, defendant Richard Luthmann (a contributor to this outlet) unloads on Shochet for “fraud on the court” and brazen misconduct.

The 126-page motion claims Shochet lied to a federal judge, submitted bogus paperwork, and hoodwinked the court into entering a default against Luthmann. Luthmann says Shochet misled the court at every turn – calling the lawyer “zero for three” in his sworn claims.

According to the filing, Shochet falsely swore that Luthmann wasn’t a Florida resident (he is), pretended Luthmann was in hiding (he wasn’t), and insisted his team did a “diligent search” that never happened. These bogus assertions paved the way for a default, effectively “winning” by deceit, where no judge had reviewed the paperwork.

Luthmann’s motion would have the federal court toss the clerk’s default, which he claims was procured by fraud. He seethes that Shochet doubled down even after being caught in falsehoods, which is a huge no-no.

“Randy Shochet is no Saint Peter,” the document quips, blasting the lawyer for refusing to repent despite repeated warnings. “Saint Peter required only three denials to grasp the gravity of his betrayal—but Plaintiffs’ counsel required much more, and even then declined to act … repeated notice did not yield repentance.”

Instead of correcting course, Shochet “persisted in… positions that had long since become untenable,” Luthmann’s papers say.

The recent Trump v. Clinton decision is a flashing red warning light for lawyers tempted to play fast and loose with the facts. The Eleventh Circuit made clear that Rule 11 duties do not end at filing, even for lawyers for Presidents and ex-Secretaries of State. Once an attorney learns that a factual claim is wrong, incomplete, or misleading, continuing to press it is sanctionable—period. The court emphasized that “continued advocacy after notice” can constitute bad faith even if the original filing was arguably colorable.

In plain English, lawyers who double down on false or shaky facts, ignore corrective evidence, or treat litigation like theater risk personal sanctions, fee awards, and professional discipline. The message is blunt and unmistakable: accuracy is not optional, candor is mandatory, and excuses will not save you once the record proves otherwise.

Luthmann’s motion describes an outrageous scheme to fake service of process: Shochet’s team left court papers with the wrong person – the defendant’s elderly father – then swore to the court that Luthmann was properly served. A federal judge already condemned that stunt as unlawful, noting that dumping papers at someone else’s house doesn’t cut it.

Shochet nonetheless barreled ahead, using the faulty service to claim that Luthmann, who has pending cases in the Florida federal courts with a listed address, is “evading service.” A member of the federal bar, Shochet didn’t even check PACER, the federal court case-filing system, to see whether Luthmann’s address was listed.

Luthmann sent Shochet at least half a dozen emails showing that he wasn’t evading service and that his address was public record. Luthmann even sent Shochet a copy of a Florida Declaration of Domicile, filed in 2022 with the Collier Clerk, showing that he was not a citizen of the State of New York.

But Shochet doubled down, using this bogus evasion argument to obtain an extension of time to serve Luthmann via the Florida Secretary of State from U.S. Magistrate Judge Zachary Bolitho.

Earlier this month, the Northern District of Florida federal court issued a Clerk’s Default on Luthmann, who was never served with process by Jeremy Hales, as strictly required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (“[S]ervice of process that does not strictly comply with statutory requirements is void, even if a defendant had actual notice of the suit.”).

Now Luthmann is firing back. His motion calls Shochet’s tactics “careless and vexatious legal abuse” and urges the judge to throw out Hales’s “sham” lawsuit entirely.

It’s a dramatic courtroom showdown: a YouTube star’s attorney accused of conning the court, with Luthmann demanding the case be tossed in disgrace and Shochet punished severely.

Visit FLGulfNews.com

YouTube Star’s Lawyer Slammed: Fraudster Dentist Scheme & Bar Rejection Haunt Shochet

This isn’t the first time Randy “Rocket” Shochet has been accused of deceit – not by a long shot. Decades before representing YouTuber Hales, Shochet was a dentist with a dirty secret.

In the late 1980s, Missouri regulators caught him billing insurers for phantom dental procedures and then lying under oath to cover it up. Shochet admitted “he committed insurance fraud and perjury” to investigators.

After a slap-on-the-wrist suspension of his dental license in 1992, Shochet tried to cheat the system again – secretly profiting from his practice during the suspension. He was caught red-handed and surrendered his dentistry license to avoid harsher punishment.

Instead of learning his lesson, Shochet simply switched careers. He went to law school, angling to become a lawyer. But Arkansas officials got wind of his past and slammed the door.

In 1998, the Arkansas Supreme Court voted 10-1 to deny Shochet admission to the Bar, finding he lacked the “good moral character” to practice law. The court recounted how Shochet “knowingly engaged in fraud and misrepresentation” and even “resorted to perjury” to thwart investigators. It blasted his excuses as “disingenuous” and said Shochet couldn’t “accept responsibility” for his actions.

In short, they branded him a liar and shut him out.

Amazingly, Florida saw fit to give Shochet a chance just a few years later. In 2005 – barely seven years after Arkansas declared him dishonest – Florida welcomed Shochet to its Bar. Now that decision is coming back to bite.

Shochet’s checkered past is resurfacing with a vengeance amid the Hales case. Observers are openly asking how a man with such a fraud-stained record “was able to gain admission” to the Florida Bar in the first place. And current colleagues see history repeating itself.

Attorney Bruce Matzkin, who has tangled with Shochet in the Hales lawsuit, flatly accuses him of suborning perjury – having Hales submit a false affidavit claiming to live in Ohio (to sue in federal court) when evidence shows Hales was actually based in Florida.

Matzkin believes Shochet “100% suborned a false, sworn affidavit” to mislead the judge, calling it an “intentional fraud on the court.” He points out that Shochet even piled on outrageous charges – like a bogus extortion claim that the judge swiftly tossed – in an effort to bully defendants.

Matzkin is not alone. A Gainesville-based lawyer who did not wish to be named had this to say:

“The Arkansas Supreme Court decision was obviously not known by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners when it granted Mr. Shochet the law license he abuses with this and other frivolous, vexatious litigation being pursued on behalf of Hales for the purpose of the YouTube content it generates. Unless Florida admits Mr. Shochet to the Bar despite his history of fraud and perjury committed in his failed attempt to gain admission to the Arkansas Bar, it appears Mr. Shochet purposely withheld the Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision from the Florida Board. of Bar Examiners. The Court should itself request that the Florida Bar investigate Mr. Shochet’s application for admission to determine if he committed perjury, as he had on his Arkansas Bar application.”

To many, Shochet’s bending of facts and law for leverage looks like the same old scam. They label Hales’s lawsuit a “planned, orchestrated fraud on the court” by Shochet and his client.

From dental charlatanism to courtroom shenanigans, Shochet’s pattern of deceit appears alive and well.

YouTube Star’s Lawyer Slammed: Does Disbarment Loom for “Rocket” Lawyer?

Now the question is: Will Randy Shochet finally face real consequences? Luthmann’s motion doesn’t just seek to dump Hales’s case – it effectively puts Shochet on trial. Buried in a scathing footnote, Luthmann suggests that “maybe only sanctions will bring about a ‘Road to Damascus’ moment” for Shochet’s conversion. He explicitly asks the judge to refer Shochet to The Florida Bar for disciplinary action.

In other words, Luthmann wants U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Hinkle to unleash the Bar investigators on Shochet’s license.

And he’s not alone.

Complaints about Shochet are already stacking up. David “SupaDave” Teschendorf – a YouTube commentator outraged by Shochet’s antics – fired off a grievance letter urging the Bar to probe whether Shochet “obtained admission to the Florida Bar by fraud or material omission.” He cites Shochet’s history of fraud, perjury, and his 1998 Arkansas smackdown, arguing that if Shochet hid any of it from Florida, that “would be a fraud upon The Florida Bar,” warranting disbarment.

Michael Volpe, a veteran investigative journalist, also lodged a formal complaint, accusing Shochet of “knowing misrepresentations” and a gross lack of candor in the Hales litigation. Volpe, who has spent years exposing courtroom corruption, says he’s never seen anything like this.

“I don’t know if I’ve ever seen someone permanently barred from two professions,” Volpe remarked, referring to Shochet’s unique track record of being drummed out of dentistry and now possibly law.

Legal experts say Shochet’s days in a courtroom could be numbered. Lying to a judge, faking service documents, or suborning perjury aren’t just minor infractions – they’re the kind of career-ending violations that get lawyers disbarred in a hurry.

In fact, submitting a knowingly false affidavit or proof of service can even violate federal law (false statements to the government) and multiple ethics rules.

Under Florida’s Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer must not make false statements to a tribunal or engage in dishonesty. Breaching those duties can trigger swift discipline.

Florida courts have long taken a hard line on liars: the state’s Supreme Court calls false testimony “a serious offense” that “undermines the administration of justice.” Attorneys caught deceiving judges or regulators often face permanent disbarment as the only fitting penalty.

If The Florida Bar confirms that Shochet fudged facts and misled the court, he could be facing the nuclear option: loss of his law license. And any punishment won’t stop at Florida’s borders. Bar discipline is usually reciprocal: a disbarment in Florida would likely slam the door on Shochet in any jurisdiction.

After a lifetime of skating on thin ice, Randy “Rocket” Shochet may finally crash to earth. The very courtroom games he set in motion now threaten to blow up his career – with disgraced attorney Shochet potentially becoming a cautionary tale of how not to practice law.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulfNews.com

NOTE: The Shell Factory did not just sell. It surrendered to time, weather, and economics. That is the hard truth. North Fort Myers lost more than a roadside attraction. It lost a shared memory. Kids fed turtles there. Families marked birthdays there. Visitors learned what “Old Florida” once meant. Warehouses and outdoor storage may be practical. They are not magical. Progress often arrives with a balance sheet and leaves nostalgia unpaid. No developer is required to preserve sentiment. But communities are allowed to mourn. The Shell Factory was imperfect, eccentric, and beloved. Those places rarely survive modern Florida. This piece, “Iconic Shell Factory Sold,” was first published on FLGulfNews.com.

By Richard Luthmann

(North Fort Myers, Florida) – The Shell Factory, a nearly century-old landmark in North Fort Myers, has officially changed hands after entertaining generations of visitors. The 18-acre property was sold in mid-January for approximately $3.925 million to a Boca Raton, Florida-based company. The sale closed on January 15, 2026, and was recorded by Lee County officials the next day.

Commercial brokers Gary Tasman, Lane Boy, and Shawn Stoneburner of Cushman & Wakefield represented the seller, Shell Factory LLC, and announced the deal after a competitive bidding process. The buyer, described as an “owner-user,” owns other property in the area and has not been publicly identified by name.

Established in 1938, the Shell Factory became a famous roadside attraction and “Old Florida” tourist stop along Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41). Over more than 80 years, it evolved into a multifaceted destination – part seashell shop, part wildlife park, part museum, and part kitschy family fun center. Visitors could browse thousands of shells and souvenirs, see stuffed alligators and live animals in the nature park, ride a carousel, or even zip-line across the property.

Local couple Tom and Pam Cronin bought the aging attraction in the late 1990s and revitalized it with new exhibits and activities, ushering in a resurgence of popularity in the 2000s. The Shell Factory remained a beloved institution for regional school trips, family outings, and tourists alike until it fell on hard times in recent years.

The owners finally closed the business in September 2024, citing extensive hurricane damage, costly maintenance, and new building code requirements that made continuing operations financially impossible. After the closure, the once-bustling site sat vacant for over a year, marking the end of an era for North Fort Myers.

Iconic Shell Factory Sold: Redevelopment Plans Unveiled

Plans for the Shell Factory site’s future are already taking shape, and they look very different from its past. According to the brokerage handling the sale, the buyer intends to pursue a commercial mixed-use redevelopment of the property, potentially including outdoor storage yards, warehouse space, and light industrial facilities. These intended uses would transform the former attraction into a business-oriented complex.

“Nothing is official yet,” broker Gary Tasman noted, emphasizing that final development plans have not been formally announced.

However, the broad vision aligns with the site’s existing commercial zoning and the development trends along the highway corridor. The Shell Factory property includes five buildings – from retail storefronts and warehouses to a restaurant – which gives the new owner flexibility to repurpose or renovate some structures. Tasman indicated that the buyer appreciates the land’s history and may seek to reuse some of the remaining buildings rather than demolish them all.

The sale itself points to the property’s value and redevelopment potential. After the park’s closure created a “rare redevelopment opportunity,” the land was actively marketed to potential user-buyers, drawing significant interest. Multiple bids came in, and the chosen buyer’s $3.925 million offer was accepted, with the transaction closing less than 4 months after the listing.

The Cushman & Wakefield team called the outcome a success for the seller, given that the property had previously sat on the market for about a year with another broker with no sale.

For Lee County, the imminent redevelopment means a large vacant site on a prime stretch of North Tamiami Trail will soon generate activity again. Local officials have not yet commented on the new plans, and it remains unclear what approvals or permitting might be needed for the proposed uses.

But the community is already bracing for the changes, as the quirky tourist spot shifts toward a more utilitarian future.

Visit FLGulfNews.com

Iconic Shell Factory Sold: Residents Mourn the End of an Era

The news of the sale and industrial redevelopment has been met with sadness by many long-time patrons and nearby residents. To locals, the Shell Factory was more than just a tourist attraction – it was a fixture of the community’s identity and memories.

“Losing something like that is just kind of sad for the community,” said Amber Incorvia, a North Fort Myers resident, reflecting on the closure of the iconic site.

For those who grew up visiting the Shell Factory, the property holds nostalgic value. Neighbor Joe Nolan, who frequented the park over the last decade, reminisced about its unique charm – from the small zoo and the serene lake filled with turtles to the eclectic collection of artifacts from around the world that adorned the grounds.

Generations of Southwest Floridians have similar fond memories of feeding the ducks, shopping for seashell trinkets, and enjoying holiday events at the park’s Christmas-themed displays. The Shell Factory’s eclectic mix of attractions embodied a bygone “Old Florida” vibe that is increasingly rare.

That heritage is why some locals are disheartened by what is planned for the site next. The prospect of another storage and light industrial complex replacing a family-fun landmark has drawn disappointment.

“I hoped to see something like retail space or homes on the property,” admitted Husam Momari, co-owner of a convenience store across the street.

He and others note that the area already has multiple self-storage facilities, and they fear the redevelopment will be a bland addition rather than a community gathering place. Residents had held out hope that a buyer might preserve the attraction or introduce a new public venue. Instead, many now feel a personal loss.

The end of the Shell Factory has also rippled through the community’s economy – the 2024 closure displaced dozens of small vendors who once operated booths at the park and have had to relocate to places like flea markets and fraternal halls to keep their businesses alive. For North Fort Myers natives, the transformation of this iconic property is bittersweet, marking the close of a colorful chapter in local history.

Iconic Shell Factory Sold: Balancing Nostalgia with Progress

The redevelopment of the Shell Factory site highlights a familiar struggle between preserving local heritage and embracing economic reality. On one hand, the Shell Factory’s closure represents the loss of a unique piece of Southwest Florida’s cultural fabric. Lee County Commissioner Brian Hamman noted that “you can’t replace an icon like the Shell Factory,” acknowledging its sentimental value to the community (statement reported during coverage of the closure).

On the other hand, the property’s new owners are moving forward to address current market needs. After Hurricane Ian and other storms battered the aging attraction in recent years – and a fire damaged parts of it – keeping the old operation afloat proved untenable.

“At the end of the day, it’s the economics and the needs of the market that drive the sale,” broker Gary Tasman explained, underscoring that nostalgia alone could not justify the massive investment needed to rebuild the park.

Redeveloping the site for commercial use is seen by some as a practical next step to put the dormant land back to productive use.

Community leaders and residents will be watching closely as the plan takes shape. The buyer’s willingness to repurpose existing structures offers a glimmer of hope that some physical remnants of the Shell Factory might survive in the new development.

There is also hope that any new businesses on the property could create jobs or services for local people, softening the blow of losing a tourist attraction.

Still, any construction will have to respect the site’s legacy. Local historical groups have expressed interest in preserving memorabilia or signage from the Shell Factory if demolition occurs, ensuring that the past is not completely erased. For now, the famous shell-adorned entrance and the concrete dinosaurs that once greeted visitors remain in place – silent witnesses to change.

North Fort Myers is left to reconcile the nostalgia for what once was with the reality of what’s to come. As bulldozers eventually move in and plans turn to action, residents say they will cherish their memories of the Shell Factory even as the property enters a new era.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulfNews.com

LUTHMANN COMMENT: (FORT MYERS, FLORIDA) - Danesh Noshirvan isn’t an activist. He’s an operator. One man, one keyboard, one bot network, and a fake racial identity used as cover for digital violence. He doesn’t mobilize people—he deploys software. He doesn’t seek justice—he seeks leverage. Suicide attempts become “content.” Harassment becomes “accountability.” Fundraising follows tragedy like clockwork. And the biggest con of all is the brownface routine: a legally white, trust-funded man playing an oppressed minority because it sells better than the truth. This isn’t social justice. It’s psychological terrorism with a CashApp link. The outrage is fake. The damage is real. This piece is Aryan Race Danesh Noshirvan, first available on FrankReport.com.

By Frank Parlato

I’m not seeing brown.

Though I’m trying.

Let me adjust the contrast.

Over the years, in response to his accountability culture campaigns, multiple women targeted by Danesh Noshirvan attempted suicide.

His response: call them liars, frame himself as the victim, and start fundraising. And of course identifying with being brown – a benighted brown man.

“This is what an enemy looks like,” Noshirvan told his followers. “White women who have been putting my life in danger for months and months and months.”

The women weren’t his enemies. They were his targets. One of the women was Jen Welch, known online as JenTheAdvocate. She had once been Noshirvan’s ally. Then she became his target.

On December 31, 2021, after weeks of his AI-fueled attacks, Welch attempted suicide.

What Welch didn’t know—what most of his targets don’t know—is that most of the attackers aren’t human. Forensic analysis of Noshirvan’s campaigns reveals that more than 80% of the engagement is from bots, AI-generated comments, spoofed calls, and coordinated fake accounts.

He creates accounts to harass targets and push them toward suicide, arrest, and loss of employment—often over petty offenses. Someone has an indiscreet moment caught on a cell phone. The video gets sent to Danesh. He begins to destroy them.

The voicemails are generated by AI to sound human. The death threats are posted by bots programmed to terrorize. The calls to employers are made using spoofing software that masks the caller’s identity. It’s not thousands of people. It’s Danesh with a keyboard and a bot network– software that lets one person control hundreds of fake accounts to attack a target simultaneously.

Evan Berryhill was stalked by two men in a dark parking lot outside her own apartment—she was charged with a hate crime and received rape threats.

Dr. Poneh Rahimi, an Iranian immigrant, responded to masked provocateurs shoving cameras in her face—she was branded a racist and harassed for months.

Jennifer Couture confronted a distracted driver—her family received death threats, her husband’s practice was flooded with fake reviews.

Nigel Ford had a minor parking lot incident—death threats.

Danesh falsely accused Aaron de la Torre of choking and punching out a 12-year-old. Police investigated. Looked at the video. It was not true. They would not arrest him. The employer would not fire him. Danesh went wild.

He increased his cyber attacks, and De la Torre took his life eight days after being cleared by police.

The targets are almost always white. The provocateurs are almost always brown or black. Danesh finds the footage, strips the context, and frames every confrontation as white racism. That’s the real racism—weaponizing skin color to destroy people who were provoked, stalked, or ambushed.

Over 200 victims. Healthcare workers. Educators. Small business owners. Grieving families.

And the victim thinks, “Thousands of people want me dead.”

No.

One guy wants you dead.

One guy with software.

Danesh gets content. He sings his Consequences song. He makes (literally) a fart noise. He moves on.

Visit FrankReport.com

The Calculation

Noshirvan admitted he was watching and waiting as Jen Welch fought for her life: “I waited till there was more information. I just wanted to know you were alive. Because if you were not alive, I couldn’t continue doing anything I was doing.”

He wasn’t praying for her survival. He was assessing her situation. If she died, he’d adopt a different strategy. If she lived, he could call her a liar.

She lived.

He called her a liar.

Aryan Race Danesh Noshirvan: The Brown Card

The most absurd part of this game is that Noshirvan casts himself as a “brown man” being persecuted by “white women” who were lying to destroy him.

“As a brown man having a white woman go on TikTok crying her eyes out… two women crying their eyes out… there will be accountability,” he told his followers.

Noshirvan calls himself a “brown man.”

He is Iranian. Iranians do not identify as brown. The U.S. government has officially classified Iranians as White since 1978. Look at him. Danesh Noshirvan doesn’t look brown. He looks white—because he is.

In Iran itself, generations were taught to take pride in their Aryan heritage—the word “Iran” derives from “Aryan.”

The country isn’t called “Persia” anymore precisely because Iranians wanted the world to know they are Aryan. “Iran” means “Land of the Aryans.” They changed the name in 1935 to make that point.

He comes from a culture that has spent a century insisting it’s Aryan.

Danesh is a big proponent of people choosing their gender. Danesh wants to take it further. He wants to choose his race.

He’s a white man who pretends to be “brown.” Scroll through his targets: overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly female. Jen Welch. Evan Berryhill. Jennifer Couture. Dr. Poneh Rahimi. China Casarin. KC Davis.

When a black attorney questioned his wife, Danesh called the black man a racist. When an Iranian immigrant responded to provocateurs, Danesh called her a racist. The consistent thread is that Danesh decides who’s racist—and it’s almost always a white woman.

He wraps himself in a fake brown identity so he can target white women and call it justice. Anyone who pushes back is a racist attacking a “brown man.”

So, what do you call a white man who fakes being a minority so he can destroy white women and call it social justice?

A white man in brownface.

A wolf in a victim’s clothing.

A con man who weaponizes woke.

Or a member of The Fundraising Minority.

In Pudd’nhead Wilson, Twain wrote about a woman who was 1/16th Black, looked completely white, but couldn’t escape being classified as a slave. Danesh Noshirvan is the opposite—a man who is legally white, looks white, but identifies as ‘brown’ whenever there’s money in it.

Still, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If it looks like a white man, talks like a white man, but calls itself a brown man—it’s still a fraud.

As for being an oppressed minority, he is not only not a minority, he isn’t oppressed.

Danesh Noshirvan doesn’t work. He lives off a trust fund from his late father and his wife’s income as a school teacher while he sits at home making attack videos.

Oppressed? He’s never faced a day of prejudice in his life. Brown? He doesn’t look brown enough to fake it. He’s a trust fund baby who discovered that “brown man” gets sympathy—and more donations—than “unemployed Persian heir.”

“Brown man” lets him call every critic a racist. It lets him turn suicide attempts into fundraising opportunities. It lets him cast himself as the victim while he makes his targets suffer.

Danesh Noshirvan isn’t really brown. He only plays one on TikTok.

Aryan Race Danesh Noshirvan: The Brown Man’s Pattern

When China Casarin spoke about Jen Welch’s harassment, Noshirvan accused her of racism. He created impersonation accounts to harass her.

When KC Davis, a licensed professional counselor, described Noshirvan as a “psychological terrorist,” he labeled her a racist. Troll accounts flooded her platform.

After Welch’s suicide attempt, Noshirvan raised money on CashApp, claiming he would sue anyone who defended her. He never filed a lawsuit.

He went on vacation instead.

When a federal judge ordered him to pay $62,320 in sanctions for his racial and harassing misconduct—he had called an attorney a racist and sent his bots after him with death threats—he launched a GoFundMe to pay the sanctions, raised over $45,000, and paid nothing.

Aryan Race Danesh Noshirvan: The Body Count

Ten days after Noshirvan targeted Aaron De La Torre, a Texas high school football coach, De La Torre died by suicide.

Noshirvan’s response was:

“The death of this man is a deeply sad event, and no one ever wanted it to end this way. My heart goes out to this family during this difficult time. However, my focus has been and will continue to be on protecting children and families who have allegedly been harmed. These children deserve justice, and it is important to remember the responsibility lies with the choices made throughout this case, the choice the school made not to act decisively, and the choice law enforcement made not to pursue charges sooner.”

His argument: if the school had fired De La Torre faster, if police had arrested him sooner, Noshirvan wouldn’t be blamed for his death.

Jen Welch said if she were faking her suicide attempt, she deserved an Emmy. She wasn’t faking. But if there’s an Emmy for faking a racial identity, Danesh Noshirvan has it locked up.

Indeed, everything about Danesh Noshirvan is fake.

The followers? Bought.
The outrage? Automated.
The mob? Software.
The race? A con.
The accountability? Shakedown.
The legal fund? Vacation money.

The only real thing is the damage.

This is accountability culture.

This is ThatDaneshGuy.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FrankReport.com

LUTHMANN NOTE: This isn’t a language dispute—it’s an ideological purge. Fort Myers Florida Federal Court litigant and Mega Influencer Danesh Noshirvan’s hate-filled Farsi rants against Trump and Israel, his soft-glove treatment of the Iranian mullahs, and his attacks on Persians who fled that regime all point in one direction: loyalty enforcement. Dr. Poneh Rahimi escaped clerical rule, embraced America, learned English, and built a medical career. For that, she is marked as a heretic. Danesh didn’t challenge power; he mimicked it—weaponizing mobs, bots, and shame to punish dissenters. That’s not accountability culture. It’s regime culture, repackaged for TikTok. This piece is Mullah Simp Targets Iranian MD, first published on FrankReport.com.

By Frank Parlato

(FORT MYERS, FLORIDA and MISSION VIEJO, CALIFORNIA) – Dr. Poneh Rahimi came to America from Iran. She speaks Farsi. She learned English because, as she puts it, “I don’t expect people to speak Farsi to me.” She studied hard and became a medical doctor.

One day, Rahimi went to her local post office in California. She encountered two men inside. They were masked head to toe in black. They were videotaping people. They were, by her account, “kind of annoying people.”

Rahimi, when confronted by two masked men with cameras thrust in her face, asked what they were doing. She took out her phone and began recording them.

They answered in Spanish.

She asked them to speak English so she could understand what they were saying.

They continued in Spanish.

“This is America,” she said. “Speak English.”

She called the police. The officers told her these men had done this before. They had targeted police departments, sued them, and made money.

Mullah Simp Targets Iranian MD: The Provocateurs

The masked men called themselves the “Long Beach Observers.” They wear masks, beanies, and sunglasses to conceal their identities while filming in public spaces—post offices, police stations, and city buildings.

Their tactics are described as “antagonistic, getting close to faces, and trying to provoke reactions for online content.” A 12-year-old boy who encountered one of them at a post office was so disturbed that his mother wrote about it online. “It unsettled my son,” she said.

Another observer explained the grift: “Just looking for people to negatively react so they can post on social media and monetize it… Without content, they can’t post anything. And without post, they don’t make money.”

Dr. Rahimi didn’t try to stop them. She asked them to speak English.

Mullah Simp Targets Iranian MD: The Amplifier

Two days later, the Long Beach Observers posted their video of Rahimi online. She was labeled a “racist Karen.”

Then Danesh Noshirvan found her. Someone who knew Rahmini gave Danesh her name, her employer, and the fact that she was a physician.

Visit FrankReport.com

Mullah Simp Targets Iranian MD: The Video

Danesh Noshirvan’s video about Dr. Rahimi runs over a minute.

“She’s a gastroenterologist,” he tells his followers. “That means she stares at assholes all day. So ironic that she ended up becoming one.”

Actually, Gastroenterologists diagnose everything from liver disease to colon cancer.

Danesh invokes Nietzsche—”if you gaze at the abyss long enough, eventually it will gaze into you”—then adds, “in this context it’s actually very hilarious.”

Noshirvan, who is himself Persian, disowned Rahimi from their shared heritage. “As a Persian myself, I just want to say: we do not claim her.”

He framed her question—asking masked men to speak English as “discrimination” against Spanish speakers.

“I stand with the Spanish speakers that you’re discriminating against,” he declared.

He ended with a fart sound.

Mullah Simp Targets Iranian MD: The Fake Army

Noshirvan doxxed her to his claimed two million followers.

The calls started. The hospital where she worked was flooded. Bad reviews appeared on Yelp from people in states she had never visited. The harassment continued for a week.

Dr. Rahimi believed thousands of people wanted her destroyed.

Forensic analysis of Noshirvan’s campaigns has revealed that the vast majority of his “followers” are bots. When he targets someone, the flood of calls, messages, and reviews that follows is largely auto-dialers with spoofed caller IDs, AI-generated voices, and automated systems posting templated complaints.

The calls to Dr. Rahimi’s hospital likely weren’t from outraged citizens. They were probably recordings—Noshirvan’s voice digitally altered, delivered by software, designed to create the illusion of mass public condemnation.

A federal judge in Florida, in an unrelated case, has found that Noshirvan’s communications were “intentionally made to incite followers to engage in foreseeable harassment and intimidation.” He sanctioned Danesh for $62,000 due to his deceptive behavior.

In the case of Aaron De La Torre, a Texas football coach who died by suicide ten days after Noshirvan targeted him, investigators believe most of the harassment was AI-generated.

Mullah Simp Targets Iranian MD: The Reputational Stain

When Rahimi Googles her name, Noshirvan’s video is the first result. Not her medical credentials. Not her years of service. She lost at least one job. The employer had Hispanic clientele and decided her presence might be “concerning.” She closed her California practice and has been taking traveling positions in Utah, where colleagues are more understanding.

She contacted YouTube. Nothing. She contacted Google. Nothing. She contacted the FBI. Nothing. She contacted lawyers. They told her California’s anti-SLAPP statutes made the case unwinnable—and if she lost, she’d have to pay Danesh’s legal fees.

“I spent all my life being a good human being and a good citizen,” she said. “When I’m dead, I don’t want that stupid Danesh video out there saying ‘she was a racist.’”

What Danesh Hid

Here is what Noshirvan hid from his followers:

He did not show the two men in black masks. He did not show them dressed like the Grim Reaper, shoving cameras in a woman’s face. He did not show the police confirming these men were known provocateurs who had sued law enforcement for profit.

Dr. Rahimi has footage of the masked men. Danesh never showed it. If he had would have revealed the truth: she was not the aggressor.

The costumed grifters got their content. Danesh got his clicks. His bots did the rest. Dr. Rahimi got a stain on her name.

This is accountability culture. This is ThatDaneshGuy.

Next in The Danesh Chronicles: “The Week Two Women Tried to Die”—how Noshirvan dismissed two suicide attempts as hoaxes, played the race card, and took a vacation with the donations.

Danesh eggs on a “White woman” who is attacking him, “a Brown man.”

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FrankReport.com