LUTHMANN NOTE: This is the case I’ve been warning about. For years, the “accountability influencer” model ran unchecked — accuse, amplify, and let the mob do the rest. But that model only works inside a system that moves slowly and protects platforms. Colombia doesn’t play that game. Joey Camp found a jurisdiction where speed matters, truth matters, and silence kills your case. Now the consequences are stacking — money, criminal exposure, and platform risk. If this judgment against Danesh Noshirvan sticks in the U.S., it changes everything. Because the next influencer thinking about launching a smear campaign might stop and ask one question: What if they fight back — and win? This piece is “Colombian Hammer Drops Danesh,” first available on FLGulfNews.com.

By M. Thomas Nast and Richard Luthmann

The Swipe That Turned Into a Summons

(FORT MYERS, FLORIDA)- This is the point where the internet fantasy dies, and the courthouse takes over, at least in a functional judicial system. Joey Camp did not just trade insults with social media mega influencer Danesh Noshirvan.

He took the fight into the Colombian courts—where he lives, and where speed matters, excuses fail, and silence can bury a defendant. The result is a legal mess that now threatens Noshirvan’s money, his travel, and his online reach.

The record Camp lodged in the Colombian court is blunt. It accuses Noshirvan of running a “systematic, deliberate and continued” campaign of defamation and harassment against him on Instagram and Substack. The filing says Noshirvan publicly branded Camp a “child stalker,” a “registered sex offender,” a “white supremacist,” and a “real rapist.”

It also says Noshirvan emailed Colombian police and accused Camp of serious crimes, including child pornography, while copying Camp on the message. The filing further says the Instagram post drew more than 21,100 likes, which Camp used to show reach, damage, and continuing harm.

Then came the Colombian order. On March 26, 2026, a Bogotá multiple-jurisdiction court formally admitted Camp’s tutela action against Noshirvan. The judge joined the Bogotá prosecutor’s office, Colombian police, the foreign ministry, migration authorities, the U.S. Embassy in Colombia, Meta, and Substack.

The order directed notice to Noshirvan at the Gmail address identified in the filing and gave the parties one day to respond, warning that failure to answer could cause the facts to be taken as true.

The contrast with American litigation is the whole story: Colombian procedure moves fast and punishes nonresponse. Camp said Noshirvan did not answer the constitutional case and did not answer the related criminal matter either. In Colombia, Camp said, that is not a stall. It is a breakdown.

Colombian Hammer Drops Danesh: Money Trouble in Two Countries

The money angle is what makes this predicament dangerous for Noshirvan. Camp has described the Colombian exposure as the rough equivalent of a million-dollar hit, though he also said the local system does not work like a Florida judgment with a clean dollar figure on the last page. He explained that Colombian sanctions and damages are often measured against multiples of the monthly minimum wage.

Still, his public position is clear: the financial exposure is huge, real, and headed for the United States.

That is where the Fort Myers case matters. In the Middle District of Florida, Noshirvan is both plaintiff and counter-defendant in the Garramone-Couture litigation, exposing the dark and harmful side of Noshirvan’s scorched-earth tactics. What the mega influencer framed as a righteous “accountability” campaign now reads like overreach, with sprawling allegations and a paper trail that raises credibility questions.

Opposing parties paint a picture of a litigant who weaponizes accusations first and proves them later—if at all. In a courtroom, that approach backfires. Judges look for evidence, not volume, and the case has increasingly put Noshirvan on the defensive rather than in control of the narrative.

Camp believes there should be judicial notice of the Colombian proceedings there, telling the court that the civil and criminal orders and related proceedings matter because they bear on motive, credibility, and pattern of conduct. More importantly, Camp said that he intends to seek recognition of the Colombian judgment in the United States and to stop Noshirvan from collecting any money while that recognition fight plays out.

In plain English, Camp wants first crack at any recovery Noshirvan might win.

This Fort Myers war has been raging for years. for months. Noshirvan’s broader legal posture is an attempt to use lawsuits, strikes, and public pressure to smother critics and intimidate opponents into large cash settlements. In March, the final federal showdown was pushed to late November. The surrounding dispute now reaches far beyond Danesh’s shakedown of one plastic surgery center.

This matters because enforcement is not theater. If a U.S. court recognizes the Colombian judgment, then any supposed courtroom payday for Noshirvan could become a collection target.

Noshirvan built his public persona on digital pressure campaigns. Camp answered with paper, stamps, judges, and jurisdiction. That is a very different battlefield, and Danesh may not be prepared to react in time.

FLGulf.News

Colombian Hammer Drops Danesh: The Arrest Risk Is No Longer Abstract

The criminal side is where this story stops being a civil beef and starts looking like a travel problem. Camp’s Fort Myers filing says Noshirvan is now the subject of pending criminal charges in Colombia for false statements, defamation, slander, threats or incitement, harassment, unlawful constraint, violation of personal data, false denunciation, and related offenses.

The filing goes even further. It says Noshirvan and his associate, Mr. James McGibney, could face detention if an INTERPOL Red Notice is pursued, but it also states plainly that no Red Notice had yet been published when the filing was made. However, a local warrant had been triggered in Colombia, satisfying the key prerequisite for seeking a Red Notice.

Camp described a Red Notice as a detention mechanism that can expose a traveler to provisional arrest when a participating country decides to act. He also said the process is not automatic and depends on diplomatic and legal follow-through.

In other words, the danger is not a Hollywood poster. It is a process. And the process can get very real very fast.

Noshirvan’s online conduct has produced fallout far beyond bad feelings and ugly comment sections. Outlets, including Frank Report, have reported on platform bans, fraud accusations, courtroom fights, and the aftershocks of digital mob tactics. Frank Parlato reported that TikTok removed Noshirvan in January 2026, then later reported that the same account appeared back online a few days later, showing how unstable his platform footing had become.

But Danesh appears to be outside his milieu. A deleted post can hide a tweet. It cannot erase a docket or an arrest warrant.

Colombian Hammer Drops Danesh: Shady Lawyer in The Line of Fire?

That question no longer sounds far-fetched. It sounds like the next logical phase of the war. Joey Camp has already made clear that he does not view Danesh Noshirvan’s alleged campaign as a one-man operation. He has publicly discussed pushing beyond the core Colombian actions to reach other platforms, including TikTok and YouTube, and to target the people he believes helped build, shape, or execute the machinery around Noshirvan.

That list, by Camp’s own telling, includes James McGibney and, potentially, Noshirvan’s current Florida lawyer, Nicholas Chiappetta of Lake Worth. Camp’s theory is aggressive but not absurd. If a lawyer stops acting as counsel and starts acting as a participant, strategist, ghostwriter, impersonator, or pressure operative, then the lawyer may step out of the protected role of advocate and into the far more dangerous role of fact witness or co-actor.

That is the opening that Camp says he intends to exploit under Colombian law.

The pressure point is not subtle. In a request for comment sent to Chiappetta, independent journalists laid out the core accusation in plain English. They said filings in the related case of Luthmann v. Noshirvan place Chiappetta “at the center of the storm,” not merely as courtroom counsel, but as a “central factual witness” whose own communications, drafting activity, alleged off-docket conduct, and supposed coordination with others are directly at issue.

Luthmann’s filings identify Chiappetta as an “alleged co-conspirator attorney” and seek testimony and document production covering emails, texts, social media messages, metadata, and draft documents.

It goes further. The inquiry says the filings allege Chiappetta “ghostwrote defamatory statements and legal filings, coordinated abusive process, and even impersonated another attorney to lend false credibility.”

Those are not ordinary complaints about hardball litigation. Those are accusations that, if proven, would move a lawyer from the edge of the case to the middle of the facts.

We asked Noshirvan and Chiappetta for their side of the story. They have not responded as of press time. Here is what we asked:

From: Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>
Date: On Wednesday, April 8th, 2026 at 11:28 AM
Subject: Request for Comment: Will Nick Chiappetta Withdraw as Counsel in Light of His Apparent Role as a Material Witness?
To: Nick Chiappetta <nick@chiappettalegal.com>, service@chiappettalegal.com <service@chiappettalegal.com>, vicki@chiappettalegal.com <vicki@chiappettalegal.com>, cinf-ir@cinfin.com <cinf-ir@cinfin.com>, media_inquiries@cinfin.com <media_inquiries@cinfin.com>, steve_spray@cinfin.com <steve_spray@cinfin.com>, daneshnoshirvan@gmail.com <daneshnoshirvan@gmail.com>, daneshnoshirvan@yahoo.com <daneshnoshirvan@yahoo.com>, thatdaneshguy@gmail.com <thatdaneshguy@gmail.com>, ptesq1@yahoo.com <ptesq1@yahoo.com>
CC: Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, RALafontaine <ralafontaine@protonmail.com>, frankiepressman@protonmail.com <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, theomahaoracle@gmail.com <theomahaoracle@gmail.com>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, Joey@YourDaddyJoey.news <Joey@YourDaddyJoey.news>, joey@joeycamp2020.com <joey@joeycamp2020.com>, jjfannin@duanemorris.com <jjfannin@duanemorris.com>, aalfano@rolfeshenry.com <aalfano@rolfeshenry.com>, pt@ptesq.com <pt@PTESQ.COM>, hwgurland@duanemorris.com <HWGurland@duanemorris.com>

Mr. Nicholas A. Chiappetta:

I am writing on behalf of independent journalists to request your comment for publication regarding your apparent dual role in Luthmann v. Noshirvan, Case No. 2:25-cv-00337-KCD-NPM, pending in the Middle District of Florida. Specifically, this inquiry concerns whether you intend to voluntarily withdraw as counsel in light of the plaintiff’s recent filing portraying you not merely as an advocate, but as a central factual witness whose own conduct, communications, drafting activity, and alleged off-docket actions are now directly at issue.

The filing does not mention you in passing. It puts you at the center of the storm—particularly while you are trying to hoodwink The Cincinnati Insurance Company and its investors out of millions in the Noshirvan v. Couture case, also pending in the Middle District of Florida.

In the attached subpoena framework, Richard Luthmann identifies you first among the “Key Individuals and Collaborators Named in the Complaint,” labels you an “Alleged Co-Conspirator Attorney,” and seeks “deposition testimony and document production (emails, text messages, social media DMs, and draft documents).” The filing further states that the requested materials include “[c]ommunications between Chiappetta and Noshirvan (and any associates such as McGibney or Hales) concerning Richard Luthmann or the ‘accountability campaign’; any drafts or metadata of defamatory publications …; records of threats or intimidation (including the fake ‘Patrick Trainor’ communications and any retaliatory subpoena documents).”

It gets more pointed from there. The filing says you are “identified in the First Amended Complaint as a central participant in Noshirvan’s defamation and harassment campaign,” and alleges that you “ghostwrote defamatory statements and legal filings, coordinated abusive process, and even impersonated another attorney to lend false credibility.” It then states that your “materials will help prove Noshirvan’s knowledge of falsity, reckless disregard for the truth, and the extreme nature of the campaign.”

That is not the description of a lawyer standing safely at the counsel table. That is the description of a witness with skin in the game.

The filing also states, in plain terms, that “Chiappetta ‘has engaged directly in the underlying tortious conduct’; as counsel of record, he cannot shield his actions with privilege,” and adds that the plaintiff contends “attorney-client privilege is vitiated by the crime-fraud exception.” Whether or not that accusation is ultimately sustained, the point for journalistic purposes is obvious: the plaintiff is saying your conduct is itself evidence.

The separate March 24, 2026, meet-and-confer email attached as Exhibit C turns the temperature up further. In that email, Luthmann tells you, “By terms of the operative pleading in Luthmann v. Noshirvan, you are a co-conspirator with Mr. Noshirvan, Mr. McGibney, Mr. Hales, Mr. Shochet, and others.” He then says your conduct is relevant because you allegedly “ghostwrote, strategized, and coordinated defamation with Noshirvan,” and asserts that your “testimony and records are highly relevant, specifically needed, and unavailable through less intrusive means.”

The attached email goes beyond the abstract and lists categories of evidence sought from you, including “[c]ommunications between Chiappetta and Danesh Noshirvan concerning Richard Luthmann, Joey Camp, the so-called ‘accountability campaign,’” “[c]ommunications between Chiappetta and James McGibney, Jeremy Hales, Randy Shochet, and Doreen Turner-Inkeles concerning Luthmann,” “[d]rafts, edits, comments, metadata, and authorship records for allegedly defamatory publications,” and “[r]ecords relating to retaliatory threats, intimidation, and abuse of process, including the fake ‘Patrick Trainor’ communications.”

And then there is the issue with the Yahoo account.

The filing expressly identifies “Yahoo (Oath Holdings) – Email Account Used for Impersonation” and seeks subscriber and login information for the “ptesq1@yahoo.com” account, which it says was “allegedly created by Chiappetta to impersonate attorney Patrick Trainor.” The justification section states that the First Amended Complaint “alleges Chiappetta engaged in a brazen impersonation,” that he “admitted to creating a Yahoo email for this ruse,” and that this conduct “is directly relevant to IIED as it exemplifies the outrageous and malicious lengths taken to harm Plaintiff.”

So here is the blunt question: how do you remain counsel in a case where the opposing party is not merely accusing your client of misconduct, but identifying you as a firsthand actor, draftsman, communicator, impersonator, and necessary witness to contested facts?

We requests your response to the following questions:

1.Do you intend to voluntarily withdraw as counsel for Danesh Noshirvan in light of the plaintiff’s filing placing your own conduct at the center of the factual dispute?
2. Do you deny that you are now a material witness in this case?
3. Do you deny drafting, editing, ghostwriting, revising, or advising on any statements, legal filings, declarations, social media posts, Substack materials, or public accusations concerning Richard Luthmann?
4. Did you communicate with Danesh Noshirvan, Jeremy Hales, Randy Shochet, Doreen Turner Inkeles, James McGibney, Joey Camp, or others regarding Luthmann, his reporting, his reputation, or efforts to “expose,” discredit, intimidate, or silence him?
5. Did you create, use, authorize, or direct the use of the “ptesq1@yahoo.com” account or any other account alleged to impersonate Patrick Trainor? If so, what was the purpose?
6. Do you deny that your own emails, texts, drafts, metadata, and communications are discoverable because they concern your role as an alleged participant in the underlying conduct rather than protected legal advice?
7. Do you deny the allegation that you “engaged directly in the underlying tortious conduct”?
8. If you remain as counsel, how do you address the obvious advocate-witness problem created by the plaintiff’s intention to seek your deposition testimony and records?
9. Have you advised your client about the conflict created when his lawyer may be called as a witness on disputed and potentially central issues?
10. Have you considered that remaining in the case could itself become a story—namely, that the lawyer accused of helping build the machine is now trying to defend the machine from inside the courtroom?
11. Do you deny that the plaintiff’s filing makes you a likely fact witness regarding authorship, coordination, publication strategy, impersonation-related conduct, and the use of legal process as an alleged pressure tactic?
12. If your position is that all of this is false, what, specifically, is false? Not generally. Specifically.
13. If your position is that you are not a necessary witness, explain why the detailed categories of materials sought from you—communications, drafts, metadata, impersonation-linked records, and coordination evidence—do not put your firsthand knowledge directly in issue.
14. Are you prepared to state on the record that no testimony from you will be needed on any disputed issue of fact in this case?
15. Will you commit to preserving all emails, texts, direct messages, draft pleadings, draft declarations, metadata, account records, and documents that could bear on the issues raised in the filing?

Let’s be honest about the optics.

A lawyer accused of helping script a smear campaign, fabricate or shape narrative materials, coordinate with outside actors, and engage in impersonation does not look like a clean advocate. He looks like a character in the facts. And when the facts start wearing the lawyer’s face, the public is entitled to ask whether that lawyer can still pretend to be just counsel.

So the question is simple enough for a headline: LAWYER IN THE LINE OF FIRE: Chiappetta Hit With ‘Co-Conspirator’ Claims—Will He Be Forced to Quit the Case?

Please provide your response as soon as possible. Unless you expressly state otherwise and such terms are agreed to in advance, your response will be treated as on the record and suitable for publication in full or in part. If we publish prior to your response, we will incorporate your statements into a follow-up.

Regards,

Modern Thomas Nast

Boss Tweed was just the beginning. Operating in the shadows to expose the shady.

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

That is where the advocate-witness problem becomes a live issue. A lawyer can defend a client. A lawyer can draft pleadings. A lawyer can speak for a party. But a lawyer cannot safely occupy the dual role of courtroom mouthpiece and firsthand actor in the underlying events without inviting scrutiny, discovery fights, disqualification pressure, and worse.

The comment request drives that point home by asking Chiappetta whether he intends to withdraw, whether he denies being a material witness, whether he used the “ptesq1@yahoo.com” account tied to impersonation of attorney Patrick Trainor, and whether he denies that his own communications, drafts, and records are discoverable because they concern alleged direct participation in the conduct itself rather than protected legal advice, the confidencial nature of which may be pierced by the crime-fraud exception.

Camp’s apparent strategy is simple: collapse the distance between lawyer and client, then argue that what looked like representation was really concerted action. If Colombian authorities or courts accept even part of that framing, Chiappetta’s exposure may stop being theoretical. It may become personal.

Colombian Hammer Drops Danesh: The Platform Squeeze May Hurt the Most

The final twist is the one Silicon Valley should watch. Colombia ordered Meta and Substack into the case. The Bogotá court joined both companies, along with state entities, as part of the tutela proceeding. Camp’s underlying filing also asked for a fallback remedy ordering Meta and Substack to remove the content if Noshirvan did not comply.

The Colombian filing does not treat the platforms as untouchable. Camp’s theory is that outside the United States, the broad American immunity culture does not control the field the same way.

“Platforms operating in Colombia can face sanctions if they refuse to comply with a local court order,” Camp said. “A company could face fines or operational consequences in-country if it kept hosting unlawful content after being put on notice.”

That is the threat model now hovering over Noshirvan’s accounts, as a serial pressure operator who tries to weaponize platforms, bots, copyright strikes, legal threats, and mob outrage. In that frame, the Colombian case is not random. It is the first major counterstrike that attacks the machine itself.

So this is where the online game ends. Joey Camp did not just defend himself. He forced the fight into a system that moves quicker, tolerates less, and can hit across borders.

Danesh Noshirvan may still fight every inch. But if Camp’s filings hold, the cost of that fight will not vanish with a login, a scrubbed clip, or a fresh handle.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

FLGulf.News

LUTHMANN NOTE: This track is exactly what it looks like—a mirror held up to the outrage machine. It explains my entire case in Fort Myers federal court in two minutes. You don’t need a 70-page legal complaint to understand what’s happening online anymore. You need something that hits fast, sticks hard, and forces people to feel it. That’s what this does. The same system that builds viral narratives runs on repetition and emotion—so I used both. Strip away the beat, and the message is simple: if something can be manufactured, it can be exposed. And once people start seeing it, the whole thing starts to crack. That’s when it gets interesting. This is “Danesh Diss Goes Viral, first available on FLGulfNews.com. Enjoy!

By Dick LaFontaine with Richard Luthmann

(FORT MYERS, FLORIDA)- Richard A. Luthmann just dropped something that doesn’t ask permission, doesn’t play nice, and doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is: a direct hit. “Danesh Danesh Douche” isn’t just a parody—it’s a weaponized earworm aimed straight at the outrage economy and one of its most visible operators.

Built on the unmistakable cadence of Tunak Tunak Tun, the track hijacks a global meme format and repurposes it into a chant-driven takedown. The hook doesn’t just land—it lodges itself in your brain and refuses to leave. That’s not an accident. That’s strategy.

The video opens loud and never lets up. Fire-lit backdrops, shadowy bot figures, stacks of cash, phones flashing “FAKE NEWS”—it’s not subtle, and it’s not supposed to be. Luthmann is painting a system, not a portrait. The imagery hammers the same thesis his reporting has pushed for months: outrage is manufactured, amplified, and monetized. The central figure—rendered as a cartoonish avatar drowning in his own theatrics—doesn’t need a name tag. The symbolism does the work. Gold chains. Smirk. Screenshots-as-weapons. It’s the influencer industrial complex boiled down to a single, gaudy frame.

And then there’s the rhythm. This is where the track gets dangerous. Bhangra-style drums pound like a heartbeat, while the chorus loops with surgical precision: simple, repetitive, impossible to ignore. That’s how viral culture works—repeat the hook until it becomes the message. Luthmann flips that formula back on its target. The same mechanics that drive pile-ons are now driving a critique of pile-ons. It’s satire, but it’s also mimicry—using the system’s own tricks against it.

FLGulf.News

The middle section slows just enough to sharpen the blade. The lyrics pivot from mockery to accusation: bot farms, burner phones, selective clips, courtroom reality versus online theater. This is where the journalist shows up. You can hear the subtext—filings, sanctions, disputes—without the song turning into a lecture. It’s still music, still punchy, but grounded in a pattern Luthmann has been documenting. That balance matters. Too soft, it’s forgettable. Too heavy, it’s preachy. This threads the needle.

By the final hook, the video goes bigger—louder visuals, tighter cuts, crowd-chant energy. It’s not trying to convince you. It’s trying to stick with you. And it does. Because the core idea is simple and uncomfortable: if outrage can be engineered, it can also be exposed. If a reputation can be dismantled by a viral loop, so can the machine that built it.

This is Luthmann in full form—part columnist, part brawler, part showman. He’s not hiding the angle. He’s leaning into it.

“Danesh Danesh Douche” doesn’t pretend to be neutral, and that’s exactly why it works. It’s commentary that moves, satire that sings, and a message delivered the only way the internet seems to understand anymore: loud, fast, and impossible to ignore.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

FLGulf.News

LUTHMANN NOTE: Danesh Noshirvan didn’t just file a takedown—he wandered straight into a Fort Myers federal court legal minefield and started stomping. When you weaponize copyright law against journalism, you’re not protecting anything—you’re daring the First Amendment to come looking for you. And that’s a fight you don’t win. The counter-notice flips the board. Now there’s a clock ticking, a paper trail locked in, and a direct road into the existing federal court case. This isn’t social media anymore. This is procedure, evidence, and consequences. If the goal was to silence criticism before a courtroom showdown, it backfired spectacularly. Because once discovery opens, the game changes. Intent gets dissected. Motive gets exposed. And every move leaves fingerprints. This doesn’t disappear. It doesn’t get memory-holed. It escalates. This fight isn’t over—it’s just entering the phase where the truth gets subpoenaed. This piece is “Danesh Hit With Fraud Claims.”

By Rick LaRivière with Richard Luthmann

The Strike That Lit the Fuse

(FORT MYERS, FLORIDA) – Woke social media mega-influencer Danesh Noshirvan made his move on March 30. He ran to YouTube’s copyright machinery and knocked down Florida-based journalist Richard Luthmann’s reporting. Danesh said that the material was his, subject to copyright, and did not fall within any of YouTube’s fair use exemptions for educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic (EDSA) content.

Danesh’s takedown email from “ThatDaneshGuy” using a Gmail address identified the claimed content — “Charlie Kirk should have stayed home” — was to be scrubbed from the Internet. Danesh had already pulled the same video from YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and other social media platforms.

Or more precisely, social media platforms had deplatformed him because of the video.

The strike against Luthmann wasn’t subtle. It was a precision shot at Luthmann’s journalism that captured Danesh’s own words in real time and documented the wreckage they caused— refusing to let the digital jihadist sanitize or spin them after the fact.

The takedown accomplished, he had effectively cleansed the digital record. The prospective jurors in his Fort Myers federal court case would never see his worst moment, or so Danesh thought.

Luthmann’s counter-notification went in almost immediately:

My use of the complained-of content is protected as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. The material was used for core First Amendment purposes—news reporting, commentary, and criticism—concerning a public figure and matters of public concern. Courts within the Eleventh Circuit recognize that transformative uses that add new meaning, context, or message strongly favor fair use. See Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 1268–69 (11th Cir. 2001) (finding transformative commentary weighs heavily in favor of fair use). Here, the content was not republished for its original expressive purpose but to analyze, critique, and document the subject’s own public statements and conduct.

The amount used was reasonable and necessary to achieve that purpose, and no more than required to identify and contextualize the statements at issue. The use does not substitute for the original work or harm any legitimate market for it, which is a critical factor under § 107. See Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton, 769 F.3d 1232, 1270–71 (11th Cir. 2014). Instead, it serves the public interest by enabling scrutiny of a public figure’s actions.

Additionally, knowingly targeting such protected uses through a takedown request raises liability concerns under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), as copyright claimants must consider fair use before asserting infringement. See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2015). My use is lawful, non-infringing, and squarely within the protections afforded to journalistic speech.

YouTube’s own rules say a claimant who gets a valid counter-notice has a short runway to show legal action or the content comes back, putting a tight clock on Danesh’s chest, changing the posture of the whole fight.

“Danesh is used to casual social-media squabbles,” Luthmann said. “He just turned his hijinx into a legal record, a deadline, and a clean path toward court, undoubtedly in multiple cases. He just imploded his litigation chances by laying his tactics bare, and these are the tactics of an apex social media predator.”

Luthmann’s reporting rips the contradiction wide open. Danesh wants it both ways—and he leans hard into the victim role when it suits him. In Noshirvan v. Couture, he walks into Fort Myers federal court as the wounded party, painting himself as the target of reputational harm, harassment, and coordinated attacks, all while demanding millions in damages.

He claims that anyone opposed to him is “coming for his kids” and is a “child stalker.” This includes lawyers, journalists, doctors, businesspeople, social media influencers, and now federal court judges.

Danesh’s “money-whip” case is built on that image: Danesh and his wife and children are the ones wronged, the ones entitled to be compensated, the ones asking the court to step in and make them whole.

But that carefully constructed victim narrative collides with everything happening outside the courtroom. In reality, he hates children.

While simultaneously “harmed,” he shows himself to be quite adept in internet “self-defense,” with a deep arsenal of “tools,” “techniques,” and “skills” unavailable to the average social media user.

The same man claiming injury is actively trying to suppress reporting about his own conduct. But you can’t be the victim on paper while managing the narrative in real time. Noshirvan reaches for takedowns, threats, and legal maneuvers to suppress reporting about his own conduct.

He brags about getting people fired. Nowadays, he says “You’re fired!” more than Donald Trump did at the height of “The Apprentice.”

“You can’t plead victim in court while playing aggressor outside it. That contradiction isn’t a footnote—it’s the whole story, and I’m here to expose it down to the bone,” Luthmann said. “I can’t wait to take the stand in Danesh’s trial. I conned his stoned lawyer, Nick Chiappetta of Lake Worth, Florida, to include me on his witness list.”

Danesh Hit With Fraud Claims: The Record He Tried to Smother

The video Danesh targeted was not random. It sat on top of a long trail of his own statements, his own digital mob tactics, and the fallout that kept widening after Charlie Kirk’s killing.

“We don’t need to honor his memory,” he said of Kirk. “School shootings across the United States honor his memory. We need to add a footnote to his memory that he encouraged the violent culture that led to his death.”

That line detonated because it sounded like gloating wrapped in policy talk. It turned a murder into a sneer.

FLGulf.News

It is a familiar pattern. One known to Fort Myers mother and businesswoman Jennifer Couture. Danesh seized on a clip of the white woman in a parking lot altercation, identified her, broadcast details about her, and unleashed the kind of heat that follows him everywhere online. Harassment and threats hit Couture, her family, and her husband, Dr. Ralph Garramone, the world-renowned plastic surgeon.

Garramone Plastic Surgery stood by like an innocent bystander, taking internet shrapnel after Danesh (the self-proclaimed victim) spread his violent content, aided by bots and AI. The pattern matters because it is the bridge from speech to pressure to conduct that crosses the line. He posts. He names. His audience swarms. Then he tries to present himself as the aggrieved party after the damage is done.

“He’s a woke race hustler. No different from Al Sharpton or Barack Hussein Obama,” Luthmann said. “That’s his game. Social media extortion for the racists, because everyone is racist, that’s not paying him, and his audience of snowflakes fall for the grift as some kind of feel-good virtue-signalling social justice.”

The Charlie Kirk moment was different. For a moment, it was accountability for the “Accountability Influencer.” Danesh announced to his own followers that TikTok had banned him, but it wasn’t his fault. The “Iranian anchor baby” with anti-American sympathies, still apparently loyal to the Islamic Regime, played an old but solid card: Blame The Jews!

He crowed on and on about TikTok parent company ByteDance’s “new ownership.” Transparent code for the Israeli majority ownership group.

The same story lays the court mess alongside the platform collapse, showing a man who was already getting squeezed in Fort Myers while his giant TikTok megaphone disappeared underneath him.

Of course, when “The Jews” weren’t to blame, there was always Trump.

He pushes and pushes the same arc farther and farther. But now he’s not just lashing out at enemies. He was making absurd claims about court-filed evidence and flailing at anyone who would not accept his victim script. That is the record Luthmann’s removed video stitched together.

That is the record Danesh tried to sanitize, which he tried to pull off the wall.

Danesh Hit With Fraud Claims: A Pattern of Abuse, Not a One-Off

Luthmann isn’t treating the takedown as a nuisance. He’s treating it as a trigger to the weapon that will deliver the kill shot to the heart of Danesh’s legal claims.

The law is not murky here. Fair use covers criticism, comment, and news reporting. 17 U.S.C. § 107 says so in black and white. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) also carries a penalty for anyone who knowingly makes a materially false infringement claim. 17 U.S.C. § 512(f) is the part nobody likes to talk about until the paperwork starts to bite.

“Danesh didn’t file a copyright claim—he filed a fiction. And when you submit a materially false DMCA notice, you’re not enforcing rights, you’re creating liability. I intend to collect on that,” Luthmann said.

The mega-influencer did not just swing at a clip. He swung at a documented story about his own conduct. If that strike was filed to bury criticism instead of protect an actual copyright interest, then the takedown itself becomes part of the story.

“This was never housekeeping. It was a censorship operation, dressed up in legal language and pushed through a system that wasn’t built for abuse,” Luthmann said. “Well, Jon, I’m your huckleberry.”

In the same breath that he fired off his counter-notification, he opened a broader counter-offensive that reached beyond YouTube and straight into federal court and immigration scrutiny. He has already signaled that any fraudulent use of the DMCA system will be folded into his claims in Luthmann v. Noshirvan, alongside defamation and abuse-of-process theories, and he’s not stopping there.

Luthmann is also calling for a full review of Danesh Noshirvan’s immigration history and family status, arguing that someone who weaponizes platforms, spreads demonstrably false narratives, and allegedly engages in coordinated harassment should not enjoy the protections of the system he’s attacking.

“You don’t get to exploit American institutions while undermining them,” Luthmann said. “If the facts support it, he and anyone tied to fraudulent entry or sponsorship should be shown the door.”

It’s not a rhetorical flourish. It’s a pressure campaign—legal, public, and political—designed to box Danesh in on every front at once. And Luthmann believes it is justified.

The broader Danesh file is ugly, and it does not read like a single bad day. The same conduct keeps showing up around him: frivolous defamation suits, ugly conduct under oath, deposition blowups, and public smears after the fact. Fort Myers Judge John Steele’s Opinion and Order from last August lays it out bluntly.

Noshirvan barged into a deposition, cursed at lawyers, and later smeared an attorney as a racist on social media. That is not protesting, activism, or virtue signalling. That’s not excusable. Judge Steele found it sanctionable to the tune of over $62,000. Danesh has yet to pay the fine.

The record keeps forcing the same question: How does a man claim persecution while publicly naming people, rallying followers, and triggering reputational pile-ons every time the camera turns on?

That tension is not a side note. It is the center of the Danesh brand. Multiple women targeted by his “accountability campaigns” attempted suicide. The Danesh reflex that follows: deny, reframe, fundraise.

Federal attention is already hovering around him; Danesh is already carrying serious baggage into a federal courtroom in Fort Myers. He has a history and a reputation for using public pressure as a weapon. So when he suddenly reached for a copyright strike against a news piece documenting his own controversy, the move looked exactly like what it was: another lever pulled to suppress and sanitize the record.

Danesh did not come into the YouTube strike with clean hands and a tidy reputation. He came in looking like a man trying to control the narrative before the next round in Fort Myers. That is why the strike backfired so hard. It did not erase the controversy. It plugged the controversy directly into the court timeline.

Danesh Hit With Fraud Claims: Lawfare by Web Form

For Danesh, this is where the story stops being technical and starts getting explosive and existentially dangerous to his litigation. The DMCA is not a customer service form. It is a sworn legal trigger, and once you pull it, you own what comes next.

The law requires a real, good-faith belief that the use is unlawful—not awkward, not embarrassing, not politically inconvenient.

Unlawful.

That line is not fuzzy, and courts have made that clear for years. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. is the standing warning shot across the bow: ignore fair use, pretend it doesn’t exist, and you’re not protecting rights—you’re abusing the process.

When the content in question is journalism built on comment, criticism, and a public figure’s own words, the margin for error isn’t slim. For Danesh, it’s gone.

That’s why the fork in the road here is so stark. Either Danesh had a legitimate copyright claim against a piece of reporting that documented his own conduct and the fallout it triggered, or he reached for the law as a weapon to bury a narrative he couldn’t control. There is no gray zone to hide in and no safe harbor for a bad call dressed up as enforcement.

Danesh’s record is already locked: the takedown is filed, the counter-notice is filed, the links are still alive, and the Fort Myers case is marching toward trial.

More importantly, this didn’t land in a vacuum. It lands on top of the Charlie Kirk backlash, the TikTok wipeout, the sanctions findings, the fee award, and a growing body of reporting that keeps circling the same conclusion.

And let’s not forget the coup de grace, the new fact in evidence: Danesh has a long history of WEAPONIZING THE DMCA to suit his purposes. This is just the latest chapter:

Video title: Sanctions Optional in Federal Court #ThatDaneshGuy
Video url:

Content used: ICE Executed Renee Good
Content found during: 0:01:15 – 0:01:56
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: thatdaneshguy@gmail.com

Video title: From accusation to threat: a controversial rallying cry #substack #shorts
Video url:

Content used: ICE Executed Renee Good
Content found during: 0:00:02 – 0:00:29
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: thatdaneshguy@gmail.com

Video title: Explicit mobilization: defend communities against militias #substack #shorts
Video url:

Content used: ICE Executed Renee Good
Content found during: 0:00:02 – 0:00:29
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: thatdaneshguy@gmail.com

Video title: How I Came Back After Losing My Appeal #substack #shorts
Video url:

Content used: How to come back from a PERMA BAN on TIKTOK
Content found in: Entire video
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: thatdaneshguy@gmail.com

Video title: Coordination, tactics, and a vow: why the speaker urges militias #substack #shorts
Video url:

Content used: ICE Executed Renee Good
Content found during: 0:00:02 – 0:00:29
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: thatdaneshguy@gmail.com

Video title: He called for left‑wing militias #substack #shorts
Video url:

Content used: ICE Executed Renee Good
Content found in: Entire video
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: thatdaneshguy@gmail.com

Video title: The ‘middle finger’ email from TikTok #substack #shorts
Video url:

Content used: How to come back from a PERMA BAN on TIKTOK
Content found in: Entire video
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: thatdaneshguy@gmail.com

Video title: Danesh @ThatDaneshGuy Noshirvan Mocked Charlie Kirk’s Murder — Now the Spotlight Is On Him
Video url:

Content used: Charlie Kirk should have stayed home
Content found in: Entire video
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: thatdaneshguy@gmail.com

Video title: Danesh @ThatDaneshGuy Noshirvan Danced on Trump’s Grave — Now Iran Falls. Was He Wrong?
Video url:

Content used: Yall didn’t know your boi is thicccc
Content found in: Entire video
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: thatdaneshguy@gmail.com

Video title: Antifa Leader Danesh @ThatDaneshGuy Noshirvan Dances on Donald Trump’s Grave
Video url:

Content used: Yall didn’t know your boi is thicccc
Content found in: Entire video
Removal request issued by: ThatDaneshguy
Contact info: thatdaneshguy@gmail.com

Seen in that light, the takedown doesn’t look like housekeeping. It looks like reflex—another lever pulled to control the narrative, another attempt to scrub a record that refuses to stay buried. And that’s where the move blows back. Because once you turn a legal process into a pressure tactic, it stops protecting you and starts exposing you.

Danesh’s intent is no longer abstract, nor is his motive theoretical. The paper trail becomes evidence, and evidence has a way of ending up exactly where Danesh doesn’t want it—on the record, under oath, and in front of a judge and jury. The mega-influencer has become his own executioner.

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

FLGulf.News

LUTHMANN NOTE: The Jeremy Hales Fed 2 case is a perfect example of what happens when internet drama spills into federal court. The difference between YouTube and the judiciary is simple: judges deal in evidence, not views. When a litigant publicly broadcasts statements like “this is just the beginning” and promises endless lawsuits, those words can become a powerful context in evaluating motive and sanctions. That’s why joining Lisa Lee’s motion for judicial notice mattered. It ensures the court sees the complete picture, not just filings on paper. Whether the judge formally takes notice or not, the statements now sit squarely in the record—where courtroom theatrics end and legal consequences begin. This piece is "Fed 2 Fight Club," first available on FLGulfNews.com.

By Richard Luthmann

Investigative journalist Richard Luthmann joined the livestream podcast “Two Lees in a Pod” with hosts Lisa, Tami, and Robbie Kezsey for a wide-ranging discussion about the escalating federal litigation surrounding YouTuber Jeremy Hales and the controversial lawsuit known as “Fed 2.”

The conversation focused on a recent federal filing in which Luthmann formally joined a motion for judicial notice submitted by co-defendant Lisa Lee. The motion asks the federal court to recognize statements made by Hales in a February 15 livestream titled “Federal Court Update – It’s Just the Beginning.” In that broadcast, Hales reportedly declared that the defendants would have him “in their lives forever,” a statement Luthmann argues demonstrates vexatious litigation intent and abuse of the court process.

Luthmann explained during the show that judicial notice allows courts to acknowledge facts that are not reasonably in dispute, such as the existence of publicly recorded statements or widely available records. In this case, the request asks the court to acknowledge that Hales publicly made the statements—not to treat them as factual claims, but to establish their timing and existence as evidence of motive.

According to Luthmann, the filing includes the archived video and transcript of the livestream so the court can independently verify the statements. He argued that such remarks support claims that the lawsuit is part of an ongoing media-driven campaign intended to generate online content and harassment rather than resolve legitimate legal disputes.

During the discussion, the panel also examined what Luthmann described as a “media orchestration ecosystem” surrounding the litigation, in which multiple channels allegedly amplify filings and commentary to create ongoing controversy and online engagement.

Visit FLGulf.News

The livestream also touched on broader issues, including online harassment, litigation tactics, and the intersection between YouTube content creation and federal lawsuits. Hosts Lisa and Tami shared their own experiences dealing with online attacks and legal disputes connected to the Hales network.

Despite the heated rhetoric and ongoing conflict, the panel emphasized that the case ultimately hinges on legal questions about abuse of process, judicial sanctions, and the limits of litigation-as-content in the digital era.

As the Fed 2 case continues in federal court, Luthmann suggested the judge now has a clearer picture of the surrounding media activity and the statements made publicly by the plaintiff.

The episode provided viewers with an inside look at the legal strategy unfolding behind the scenes—and the growing clash between online influencer culture and federal litigation rules.

Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Get more from Richard Luthmann in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app

Subscribe now

Share

Share This is For Real.

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulf.News

LUTHMANN NOTE: I’ve covered cancel culture for years. What works online doesn’t always survive cross-examination. In Fort Myers federal court, Jennifer Couture and Dr. Ralph Garramone aren’t influencers. They’re community members and neighbors. The federal court just validated their counterclaims. That means jurors may hear more than Antifa-linked Danesh Noshirvan and his scumbag lawyer want them to. And the word is he’s finally starting to crack over it.

If the Mega Influencer hasn’t figured it out yet, he is learning quickly that this case isn’t about TikTok clout. It’s about reputation, intent, and accountability. And in the Free State of Florida, accountability cuts both ways. This piece is “Woke TikToker’s Gag Gambit Bombs,” first available on FLGulf.News.

By Richard Luthmann

Trial Gag Strategy Backfires in Southwest Florida

(FORT MYERS, FL) – I’ve seen desperate moves in court, but this one takes the cake. Danesh “ThatDaneshGuy” Noshirvan and his attorney, Nicholas Chiappetta of Lake Worth, Florida, just tried to pull a fast one on a federal judge – and it’s blowing up in their faces.

In a motion in limine filed earlier this month, Chiappetta practically begged Judge John E. Steele to ban any mention of Noshirvan’s real greatest hits as an internet predator and social media terrorist. They wanted it all scrubbed: Danesh’s cozy Antifa ties, his racial agitprop, his army of AI social media bots, even the tragic fallouts (multiple) of his ongoing harassment campaigns.

This social media thug has a body count, and he’d have us think he’s the digital Mother Theresa. Imagine the audacity – blocking the jury from hearing how this “accountability” influencer doxxed six Supreme Court justices in 2022 (yes, he posted the Justices’ private info online, and soon thereafter an assassin tried to murder Justice Kavanaugh and his family.

Or hiding the fact that Texas high school football coach Aaron De La Torre took his own life after Danesh’s videos falsely and recklessly painted him as a child abuser.

Danesh was unrepentant. Like a typical sociopath, he believes he bears ZERO responsibility for his body counts.

Instead, he blames the dead and their loved ones, claiming to defend nameless, faceless, non-existent “phantom victims.” Maybe he’ll call a couple of them at his trial.

Chiappetta’s motion even pleads to censor words like “jihadist” and “anchor baby” – terms that hit a little too close to home for his client. Ironically, Danesh himself has proudly called himself an “Iranian Anchor Baby.”

This is Fort Myers, not some safe-space, liberal arts college campus. Attempting to gag courtroom truth here is like bringing a kazoo to a cathedral organ recital.

No one seems amused.

Reading the tea leaves, the recent factual recitation from Judge Steele’s February 24, 2026, Opinion and Order foreshadows the rough justice awaiting these cancel-culture clowns in a Southwest Florida courtroom that doesn’t cater to crybullies.

Woke TikToker’s Gag Gambit: Antifa Terror in Fort Myers

In Fort Myers federal court, Danesh Noshirvan’s number is finally up. This digital stalker weaponizes his massive online following to defame, harass, and outright destroy private individuals.

Call him what he is – a TikTok terrorist, a serial defamer – Noshirvan has made a twisted career of unleashing unholy hell on ordinary people, and he’s finally facing the consequences.

One of Noshirvan’s prime targets was Jennifer Couture, a Fort Myers businesswoman and mom who had the misfortune of starring in a Dunkin’ Donuts parking lot video that Danesh deceptively edited to frame her as a raging criminal.

He proceeded to hammer Couture relentlessly. Noshirvan republished that distorted clip over and over, publicly calling for her prosecution and plastering her personal details online for his 1.6 million followers to see.

He even warned her that “the fun hasn’t even started yet,” a chilling promise from a man who clearly intended to keep terrorizing her.

The results were as swift as they were horrifying. Couture was inundated with hundreds of threats and vile messages from Noshirvan’s digital minions. The onslaught became so extreme that this once-outspoken mother had to flee social media entirely to protect herself and her family.

But Danesh’s cancel culture jihad didn’t stop with Couture. The moment Jennifer’s husband, employer, and innocent bystander, Dr. Ralph Garramone, didn’t fire her on Danesh’s command, Noshirvan immediately trained his sights on Garramone’s plastic surgery practice. He unleashed the same online mob on the doctor—flooding Garramone’s business with lies, fake reviews, harassing calls, and even attacks questioning his skill as a surgeon.

It was a scorched-earth smear campaign: hundreds of rage-fueled calls, texts, and one-star reviews poured in, dragging a respected surgeon’s name through the mud.

The attack was so ferocious that it nearly paralyzed the medical aesthetics clinic’s operations, as panicked patients canceled appointments and long-time associates cut ties to dodge the fallout. Garramone’s sterling reputation in the community was left in tatters – exactly as Noshirvan intended.

All of this has caused severe, tangible damage – and now it’s coming back to bite Danesh Noshirvan where it hurts. The devastation he deliberately inflicted on Couture and Garramone forms the backbone of their powerful defamation counterclaims against him.

In plain English, the cyber bully who swaggered into Fort Myers to ruin lives is finally facing justice for his TikTok terrorism in a court of law.

Visit FLGulf.News

Woke TikToker’s Gag Gambit: Lawyer Nick Chiappetta’s Hypocrisy

Nick Chiappetta – what a piece of work. I watched this Lake Worth ambulance chaser swagger into the Fort Myers federal courthouse as if his moral superiority would overawe the locals. Spoiler: it didn’t.

Chiappetta earned the moniker “Antifa lawyer” for a reason. He’s made a career of enabling Danesh’s smear campaigns, frivolous lawsuits, and commercial pornography production, allegedly involving underage talent. We don’t know because Noshirvan has dodged his record-keeping requirements under 18 U.S.C § 2257.

In court filings, Chiappetta paints Danesh’s enemies, many local Floridians, as bigots and bullies, essentially co-sgining on Danesh baselessly calling anyone who stands up to him a “terrorist,” a “child stalker,” and a “bigot” in so many words. He did it to me.

Yet in the same breath, Chiappetta cries to the judge that his client might be called a “jihadist” or “anchor baby.” The hypocrisy is richer than a Brooklyn cheesecake.

They love to sling mud – branding patriotic Floridians as extremists – but suddenly get the vapors at the thought of Danesh facing equally harsh labels. News flash, Nickless: if your TikTok terror client walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, a jury deserves to hear it. He’s been an Antifa-linked agitator by DHS’s own assessment.

Even Alex Jones (admittedly a professional bomb-thrower) pegged Danesh as a “terrorist” for his violent rhetoric – and Jones wasn’t off the mark.

We asked Chiappetta to put things into context. He declined to do so. Here is what we asked:

From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Wednesday, February 18th, 2026 at 11:45 PM
Subject: Antifa Leader Danesh Noshirvan Press Inquiry: Questions Regarding Motion in Limine in Noshirvan v. Couture – Why is Danesh Noshirvan trying to hide his Antifa ties, foreign funding, and hatred for Trump and America?
To: Nick Chiappetta <nick@chiappettalegal.com>, Vicki Modaffari <vicki@chiappettalegal.com>, service@chiappettalegal.com <service@chiappettalegal.com>
CC: Dick LaFontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Richard Luthmann <rluthmann@flgulfnews.com>, richard@nynewspress.com <richard@nynewspress.com>, Cortney Kotzian <theomahaoracle@gmail.com>, Joey@YourDaddyJoey.news <joey@yourdaddyjoey.news>, Joseph A. Camp <joey@joeycamp2020.com>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, Cara Castronuova <caracastronuova@yahoo.com>, jt@liquidlunchtv.com <jt@liquidlunchtv.com>, Jim Hoft <jimhoft@gmail.com>, showtips_nfocom@infowars.com <showtips_nfocom@infowars.com>, whistleblowers@infowars.com <whistleblowers@infowars.com>, mediacontacts@infowars.com <mediacontacts@infowars.com>, Troy@slingshot.news <Troy@slingshot.news>, managingeditor@afnn.us <managingeditor@afnn.us>

Dear Mr. Chiappetta,

We write on behalf of a coalition of journalists covering the ongoing federal litigation in Danesh Noshirvan v. Jennifer Couture et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. We’ve reviewed your February 17, 2026 Motion in Limine.

On behalf of your client, Danesh Noshirvan, you’ve asked a federal judge to strip the courtroom of what you call “irrelevant, prejudicial, and inflammatory” statements about your client, Danesh Noshirvan.

We have several questions concerning the legal strategy, public-interest implications, and factual scope of your request. Given the high-profile nature of this case and its broader reputational and political dimensions, we are seeking your on-the-record responses.

HYPOCRISY IN “INFLAMMATORY” LANGUAGE

You’ve publicly branded critics and opposing litigants with terms like “terrorist” and “extortionist.”

Yet you now argue that loaded language directed at Mr. Noshirvan must be barred as prejudicial.

- How do you justify that double standard?

- Is aggressive rhetoric acceptable when it benefits your side — but suddenly toxic when it cuts against your client?

- Is this about fairness, or narrative control?

SANITIZING THE CONTROVERSY

You seek to exclude terms like “digital jihadist” and “Iranian anchor baby.” Those phrases arose from a public firestorm surrounding your client’s online conduct.

- If this lawsuit grows out of digital campaigns and social media warfare, how can the language defining that conflict be “irrelevant”?

- Are you asking the Court to surgically remove the very controversy that brought this case into existence?

- Is this a motion in limine — or a motion to rewrite history?

VICTIM OR DIGITAL MOBILIZER?

Your filings frame Mr. Noshirvan as the aggrieved party. Defendants describe coordinated online targeting, viral amplification, and reputational pressure campaigns.

- Which version is the truth?

- How do you reconcile your client’s “victim” narrative with documented instances where he publicly named individuals and rallied followers?

- What about Texas high school coach Aaron De La Torre? Your client issued an apology after his viral accusations preceded devastating consequences. Isn’t that directly relevant to intent, foreseeability, and credibility?

- Or is that another chapter you’re asking the Court to keep away from jurors?

COLLABORATION WITH JAMES MCGIBNEY

Court filings repeatedly reference James McGibney, including sworn materials connected to this litigation. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zGAnQQbsPALc4Uj8WkdcHy242ovwrKCy/view?usp=sharing

- What is the precise nature of Mr. McGibney’s involvement in your legal strategy?

- Has Mr. McGibney assisted in developing evidentiary themes, drafting declarations, media coordination, or litigation messaging?

- Given Mr. McGibney’s own history of controversial online campaigns, do you believe his involvement strengthens or weakens your argument that Mr. Noshirvan is the aggrieved party rather than an active digital aggressor?

- How do you respond to critics who suggest that this litigation reflects coordinated reputational warfare rather than a straightforward defamation dispute?

POLITICAL MOTIVES AND EVIDENCE SUPPRESSION

Your motion seeks to block references suggesting partisan motivation.

- If individuals were targeted based on ideology, law enforcement ties, or political affiliation, how is that irrelevant? Your client laughs when ICE Agents get shot and killed.

- In your client’s very first Jennifer Couture video, you took “pot shots” at Donald Trump. Didn’t your client open the door to political motivation?

- Motive matters in defamation. Intent matters. Pattern matters. Are you concerned that jurors learning about potential partisan targeting would undercut your claims?

- Is the real fear that the jury might see a political campaign rather than a private grievance?

WHAT ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO KEEP OUT?

You want references to bots, hacking allegations, doxxing claims, extremist rhetoric, and ideological alignment barred from trial. You call it prejudicial. Your client admits it:

- But is it prejudicial — or probative?

- Are you protecting due process, or protecting a reputation?

- If your client’s record can withstand scrutiny, why not let the jury hear it and decide?

DARK MONEY & PARTISAN FUNDING — WHO’S PAYING?

- Has Danesh received funding, consulting, media training, or strategic digital support from progressive advocacy organizations? From individuals or entities tied to Scott Dworkin? Tied to George Soros?

- Is he affiliated with — or has he ever been paid by — any PACs, nonprofit activism groups, digital organizing collectives, or partisan mobilization campaigns?

- Are any national left-wing legal defense funds, activist networks, or nonprofit intermediaries underwriting this lawsuit — directly or indirectly?

- Is this litigation being supported by professional digital mobilization groups active during election cycles and political flashpoints?

- Have any progressive foundations — domestic or international — funded projects, platforms, or media efforts tied to Danesh?

- Bottom line: Who is financing this fight?

FOREIGN AMPLIFICATION — ANY INTERNATIONAL HANDS?

- Has Danesh collaborated with activist organizations or NGOs operating outside the United States?

- Have foreign-based advocacy groups or coordinated digital networks systematically amplified his campaigns?

- Has Danesh ever “simped” for the Mexican Cartels?

- Does Danesh remain loyal to the Islamic Republic of Iran?

- Does Danesh support of the establishment of Sharia law and a Muslim Caliphate in the United States?

- Is any portion of this legal battle or its media strategy supported by international advocacy networks?

- Have you examined whether foreign-based bot networks amplified Danesh’s online pressure campaigns?

- If evidence of international coordination exists, are you prepared to admit that it goes directly to motive, reach, and reputational damage?

ANTIFA CONNECTIONS — YES OR NO?

- Has Danesh Noshirvan ever coordinated — formally or informally — with individuals tied to Antifa or militant left-wing street movements?

- Have you examined whether the accounts that regularly amplify his campaigns overlap with known Antifa-aligned or black bloc activist networks?

- Have self-identified Antifa activists publicly supported or boosted Danesh’s campaigns? If so, was that organic… or organized?

- Has Danesh ever communicated with groups that promote “direct action” tactics — including doxxing, swarm reporting, armed insurrection, violent overthrow, digital targeting, or organized reputational destruction?

- Has Danesh ever tried to disappear people, as he’s previously stated?

- If evidence surfaces showing ideological alignment or operational crossover between Danesh’s campaigns and organized leftist activist networks, will you still argue it’s “irrelevant”?

THE “ANTIFA LEADER” CLAIMS

Commentators — including coverage at outlets like The Gateway Pundit — have branded Danesh an “Antifa agitator” and linked him to calls for armed leftist mobilization. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/antifa-tiktok-agitator-urges-armed-leftist-militias-fight/

- Has Danesh ever urged armed political militias to confront ideological opponents?

- Has he ever advocated violent resistance, paramilitary organization, or militant “street defense” tactics?

- Alex Jones and others have publicly claimed Danesh is a “leader of Antifa.” Does Danesh categorically deny that?

- If those claims are absurd and false, why not let them be aired and demolished before a jury instead of trying to bury them pre-trial?

- What exactly are you afraid jurors might hear?

- Has Danesh ever “made frogs gay” as he’s claimed in his videos? If so, how many? How is that even physically possible? Does Danesh believe that these so-called “gay frogs” should have full LGBTQIA+ rights?

FULL TRANSPARENCY — OR LAWFARE SHIELD?

You’ve framed criticism as “xenophobic” and “inflammatory.” That’s serious language. But here’s the real question:

- Will you provide a categorical, on-the-record denial that Danesh has ever received financial, strategic, or operational support from Antifa-affiliated networks or partisan left-wing funding groups?

- Will you disclose every third-party donor, nonprofit intermediary, digital strategist, and political entity connected to this litigation?

- Or is this lawsuit being driven by forces the public hasn’t seen yet?

You are asking a federal court to silence discussion of entire ideological ecosystems surrounding your client. Before that happens, we expect straight answers.

Given the political, reputational, and First Amendment dimensions of this case, these questions are of substantial public interest. We welcome your detailed responses. As we intend to go to press soon, if we receive your response after publication, we will incorporate your comments fairly in our ongoing coverage.

Oh, one last question. When is Danesh going to pay his sanctions bill?

We await your response.

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

Chiappetta’s courtroom crocodile tears over “prejudicial” terms fooled no one. As Jennifer Couture put it, Chiappetta is “using the courts to attack anyone who stands up to Danesh.”

That’s exactly what this in limine stunt was: a bid to attack the truth itself. I can’t help but laugh as Chiappetta’s Woke double-standard unraveled.

This isn’t TikTok, counselor. In federal court, facts don’t care about your feelings.

Cancel-Culture Crybully Exposed

Danesh Noshirvan built his fame as a digital hitman – a cancel-culture jihadist who doxxes, shames, and mob-attacks anyone he deems a “bad guy” or a “bad gal.” Most of his targets are white, traditional, conservative, Republican, and political supporters of Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Sheriff Carmine Marceno – speading falsehoods about revered conservative figures.

He calls it “accountability.” His Woketard audience in theri echochamber believe him. They eat up every word he says.

Down here, we call it harassment and in some cases, elder abuse.

Now this self-anointed social justice hatchet man is terrified a jury will see the full picture of his tactics. No wonder he wanted to bar any mention of his unsavory exploits.

We’re talking about a guy who openly boasts “The Ayatollah is paying me… we have an agenda to turn America into Sharia law.”

A guy who urged armed militias to “fight ICE” agents and put federal officers’ families in the crosshairs.

A guy who was banned by TikTok for posting a grotesque video fantasizing about why conservative Charlie Kirk deserved to get shot.

Danesh’s content isn’t harmless; he doesn’t make kitten videos. And his means of deployment are just as dangerous: he “weaponizes bots and online mobs to harass people in real life.”

This “influencer” isn’t some innocent content creator; he’s an internet bully with a Messiah complex. His followers – real and fake – swarmed coach Aaron De La Torre – and days later, that coach was dead by suicide[2]. Danesh didn’t pull the trigger, but he damn sure loaded the gun with his viral poison.

In another fiasco, he sicced his 2-million-strong mob on Black civil rights lawyer Julian Jackson-Fannin, by falsely calling the attorney a “low-class racist.” Judge Steele saw through that stunt and slapped Danesh with $62,320 in sanctions for “subjective bad faith” conduct. (Of course, Deadbeat Danesh still hasn’t fully paid up – classic).

Jackson-Fannin and his law firm, Duane Morris LLP, will join counsel’s table in the legal effort to bring Danesh down for good.

While Noshirvan and Chiappetta may try to frame half a dozen lawyers against them as “David vs. Goliath,” in reality, the fact that somuch legal firepower is trained on the social media terror and his crooked lawyer shows exactly how dangerous they really are.

This is the real Danesh Noshirvan: an “Antifa operative” turned crybully who loves to dish it out but can’t take it.

And now, thanks to Chiappetta’s bungled gag motion, even more of Danesh’s dirty laundry is on the court’s record for the jury to smell.

Woke TikToker’s Gag Gambit: The Free State of Florida Strikes Back

This legal circus isn’t just a quirky defamation case – it’s a full-blown culture clash. On one side, you have Antifa-operator Danesh and his woke lawyer, outsiders who thought they could steamroll a proud Southwest Florida community with cancel-culture lawfare.

On the other, you’ve got folks like Jennifer Couture and Dr. Ralph Garramone – respected locals, a businesswoman and a surgeon – who decided they wouldn’t be intimidated by a blue state internet bully.

Florida is Trump country, and people here don’t bend the knee to politically correct tantrums. Couture and Garramone’s claims are rock-solid and heading to trial.

Danesh is no longer on offense; he’s on defense now. His bid to get their claims thrown out was laughed out of court. The message is clear as a Florida sunset: you come for these people’s reputations with lies and smears, be ready to have your own actions put on trial.

Ambulance Chaser Chiappetta and Deadbeat Danesh Noshirvan walked into a Fort Myers federal courtroom thinking they’d spin a victim narrative. Instead, they’re getting a reality check in real time. This courtroom showdown has become a proxy war between conservative America and woke “accountability” clout-chasers. And let me tell you, local patriots refusing to sanitize the truth.

The Antifa crybully and his slick lawyer are learning the hard way that in federal court, justice doesn’t play by Woke, cancel culture, social media rules. As a journalist who’s been following every twist, I can’t help but grin at the outcome.

The truth will be allowed. The counterattack stands. Danesh’s lawsuit is on the ropes, and the woke lawfare racket is getting a Florida-style whooping.

In the end, it’s not just a victory for Couture, Garramone, and free speech – it’s a triumph for every American fed up with elitist outsiders and their ambulance chasers thinking they can terrorize patriots and get away with it.

Not on our watch, not in our town, and not in the Free State of Florida.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Visit FLGulf.News

LUTHMANN NOTE: James McGibney isn’t an investigator. He’s a noise machine. He buys domains, threatens “scorched earth,” and hopes volume substitutes for evidence. It never does. Real journalism publishes facts. Real accountability withstands debate. McGibney avoids both. His career arc—from Cheaterville to Bullyville—shows the same hustle repackaged: humiliation first, proof never. When someone promises destruction “any day now” for a decade, that’s not power. It’s insecurity. Scorched earth isn’t conquest. It’s a retreat. And when the smoke clears, all that’s left are empty URLs, recycled threats, and a man shouting at his own reflection. This piece first appeared on FrankReport.com.

By Frank Parlato

James McGibney has discovered a formula: It’s very modern. Very Bullyville. Very stupid.

Buy a domain.

Make threats.

Declare “scorched earth.”

Deliver nothing.

I have a publication called FrankReport.com.

James McGibney runs BullyVille, which sounds like a place you’d avoid at night, or a Freudian confession. He announced via Instagram that he has bought a domain that sounds similar to my domain.

He has bought TheFrankReport.com.

Bullyville Blows Smoke: Sandusky and the ‘Scorched Earth’ Threat

It is not his first crack at spoofing websites.

He bought jerrysandusky.net.

“I have launched

http://www.jerrysandusky.net

,” McGibney wrote, “which currently routes to a YouTube video describing how awful Sandusky truly is. As I build out the site on the backend, I will be meticulously illustrating what an absolute f*cking monster Sandusky is.”

Ah yes. The backend. That’s the promised land. That mysterious place where all investigations go to die and where all truth supposedly lives.

McGibney continued:

“Furthermore, I will also illustrate how much of a monster Parlato is for trying to get this pedophile out of prison.”

And then, because nothing says “serious investigator” like an All-Caps tantrum:

“On behalf of all of Jerry Sandusky’s victims, GO **** YOURSELF FRANK PARLATO….”

Instead of screaming like a rhesus monkey or a peacock in heat with Wi-Fi, I challenged McGibney to a public debate—on the evidence, the case, the facts.

He thought it wisest not to respond. Of course he did. Debates require preparation, and preparation interferes with threatening people on Instagram.

Instead of debating, he spoke of his own ferocity.

“I’m a bullying advocate because sometimes you have to be a bully to beat a bully… and I just happen to be the founder of Bullyville. I really like my odds.”

Beautiful logic. “I punch people because I’m against punching.” And he’s the oddsmaker too.

Then he uttered his emotional support phrase: The one he thinks makes him Patton:

“Believe me when I tell you, I’m about to go scorched earth.”

Jim, you’ve been “about to” for a decade.

Bullyville Blows Smoke: McGibney Pivots to NXIVM

After Sandusky fizzled out—no debate, no investigation, no backend miracle—McGibney pivoted.

Same routine. This time: NXIVM.

McGibney uses AI too, but far less effectively. If he had a sense of humor, he’d laugh at himself for how he got the NXIVM-DOS branding scene so spectacularly wrong. But at least he placed himself as the branding master, instead of Raniere. That’s funny too.

Bullyville Blows Smoke: McGibney’s NXIVM Claims vs. the Historical Record

“You wanted to f*ck around Frank,” he writes on Instagram, “and now you’re going to find out. And just wait until you see what surprise I have waiting for you once I launch

http://www.nxivm.com.”

Always “once.”

Never “here it is.”

In the meantime, the backend looms large.

Then he issued a casting call:

“If you were the victim of the NXIVM sex cult (especially if you were the victim of convicted felon, Frank Parlato) and want to come on camera to tell your story, please feel free to reach out. This docuseries will be aired on a MAJOR platform.”

A major platform.

Always major.

Never named.

“I find it so interesting that convicted felon, and pedophile supporter, Frank Parlato likes to take the credit for taking down NXIVM. But that’s a lie, he didn’t take down shit.

“Frank was employed by NXIVM and covered his own ass once the truth started to come out about the perverted and despicable things that were happening to these women and young girls.”

Now pause.

Yes, where are the NXIVM “victims” of Frank Parlato? Why have the courts, the media, or the people in NXIVM not mentioned them at some point in the last 17 years?

Were they stuck in the backend?

As the NY Times reported, I broke the story that brought down Raniere.

Grokipedia summarizes the consensus view:

“Parlato’s work was instrumental in exposing the group’s exploitative practices, earning him credit as a key whistleblower who shifted public and legal focus toward the organization’s inner workings.”

Bullyville Blows Smoke: The Historical Record (Also Known as Reality)

June 2017: Raniere publicly denounced me and banned followers from reading FrankReport.com.

October 2017: The New York Times credited me with breaking the NXIVM branding story.

March 2018: Keith Raniere was arrested in Mexico using warrants the FBI credited to my reporting.

HBO, Starz, Dateline, Investigation Discovery, American Greed — all credited my reporting.

From Cheaterville to Bullyville: Humiliation as a Business Model

Now let’s talk about McGibney. Before he became the nation’s leading expert in moral bullying, he ran a website called Cheaterville from 2011 to 2015.

Cheaterville allowed anyone to post unverified accusations, names, photos (including intimate ones), workplaces, and social media links about anyone.

The business model was elegant in its cruelty: Let people destroy reputations for free, then charge victims $199 per post to remove the content through a “reputation management” service.

Anyone could post naked pictures of anyone as revenge on McGibney’s site. If the woman did not like it, it was easy enough: She paid McGibney $199 and the Anti-Bullying hero would take it down.

McGibney told WIRED that the site generated about $20,000 per month.

He now runs Bullyville (2015-present), exposing and humiliating “bad actors” for clicks and payments.

His claim to dubious fame is Netflix’s The Most Hated Man on the Internet. The documentary foolishly positioned McGibney as the hero who “took down” Hunter Moore’s revenge porn empire.

It is not true. The truth is that the FBI arrested Moore in 2014 for conspiring to hack into women’s accounts to steal photos, not because McGibney gave a speech.

Before claiming to oppose Moore, McGibney was pleased to work with him. They were in the same business – blackmail or extortion, or a very close alternative.

McGibney bought advertising space for Cheaterville on Moore’s IsAnyoneUp site. McGibney later purchased Moore’s domain outright and redirected all traffic to Cheaterville to bully more women.

Same sewer. Different rat.

Bullyville Blows Smoke: The Pattern – Domains, Threats, No Deliverables

So let’s review the résumé:

Fabricated military achievements

Inflated academic credentials

Ran humiliation-for-profit websites

Declared himself an anti-bullying hero

Bought TheFrankReport.com to impersonate FrankReport.com. (Let me be clear: he did not buy my site, FrankReport.com.)

He declared on Instagram: “As we like to say at #thefrankreport, ‘it’s time to be frank with each other.”

That’s adorable.

But, Jim, start with a mirror.

The Scorecard

Three websites announced. Three investigations promised. Three “scorched earth” campaigns declared. Zero debates accepted. Zero investigations delivered.

McGibney’s tactics have, however, inspired others.

Someone purchased Bullyville.gay and Bullyville.news and populated them with content. People say Joey Camp bought them. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn’t.

The headlines include:

“Semper Fi or Semper Fib?”

“#Cocks and Condoms: Inside the Bully Brotherhood”

“What Bullyville’s McGibney Really Did in the Marine Corps”

Turns out when you live by the domain, you die by the domain.

Either way — welcome to the McGibney Domain Circus.

Bullyville Blows Smoke: Joining the Fun

So yes, I bought a few domains too.

DrJamesMcGibney.com — to honor his alleged online doctorate

BullyvilleNews.com

And the most honest domain of them all: Bullshitville.com

I doubt I’ll do anything with them. They cost $12 each; same as it cost McGibney.

What ‘Scorched Earth’ Really Means

As a codicil, I will add, James, you could accept my debate challenge: Anytime, anywhere, any fair moderator. I know, it’s not how you operate. You like buying domain names instead.

By the way, James, your favorite threat, ‘scorched earth,’ is a military term for what a retreating army does when it’s losing. They burn everything as they run.

It is not a strategy of conquest.

It is a confession. It’s not strength.

It’s panic dressed up as confidence.

So when someone keeps promising “scorched earth,” what they’re really saying is:

I don’t have evidence.

I don’t have arguments.

But I’m very loud.”

And that’s not a threat.

That’s a tell.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece first appeared on FLGulfNews.com. Subscribe to NEWSBREAK.

By Dick LaFontaine with Richard Luthmann

Judge Slams Chiappetta’s “Bad Faith” Scheme, Florida Bar Launches Investigation

Florida attorney Nicholas A. Chiappetta – the lawyer for Antifa-linked TikTok agitator Danesh “ThatDaneshGuy” Noshirvan – is in boiling ethical trouble. A federal judge’s scathing opinion branded Chiappetta’s conduct unprofessional and in bad faith, and now the Florida Bar has escalated a grievance to its Fort Lauderdale branch for formal investigation (Bar File No. 2026-50,256(15C)).

U.S. District Judge John E. Steele’s August 12, 2025, Opinion and Order publicly reprimanded Chiappetta, declaring “Nicholas Chiappetta has failed to meet the professional standards expected from officers of the court in connection with the deposition and its aftermath.”

The judge found Chiappetta “acted in bad faith” by letting his client run amok and even enabling online harassment. This rare judicial smackdown – essentially calling Chiappetta a crooked, bad-faith lawyer – is clear and convincing evidence of misconduct that the Bar cannot ignore.

Richard Luthmann, a journalist and frequent Noshirvan critic, formally alerted the Bar to Chiappetta’s behavior and is urging swift action.

“The public trust in the legal profession demands swift and decisive disciplinary action when a federal judge makes such clear and damning findings,” Luthmann wrote.

He warned Florida Bar officials that brushing off Judge Steele’s findings would be a scandal in itself, possibly rising to national news if the Bar fails to hold Chiappetta accountable.

After months of inaction, the Florida Bar has finally assigned the case to a grievance committee in Fort Lauderdale – a move observers say is long overdue, given the judge’s blistering conclusions.

The spotlight is now on the Bar to see if it takes Judge Steele’s clear evidence seriously, or becomes part of the story for sweeping egregious conduct under the rug.

He’s No Saint Nick: Chiappetta Cries Foul in Defiance

Rather than showing remorse, Nick Chiappetta is doubling down, casting himself and his client as victims. In a December 16, 2025, court filing opposing further contempt sanctions, Chiappetta lashed out at the defendants (Jennifer Couture and others), calling their motion “a masterclass in hypocrisy and irony.”

According to Chiappetta, Couture’s side “created the hostile environment about which they now complain” and supposedly “ignited that fire” of public backlash. The brazen tone of his filing is jaw-dropping: Chiappetta essentially argues that the defendants deserved the torrent of abuse they’ve faced.

He claims thousands of outraged citizens rallied to support Danesh because of the defendants’ own behavior, not because Danesh did anything wrong. In Chiappetta’s telling, he, Danesh, and his apparently gay lover, Mr. James McGibney, are champions of “justice” being harassed by wealthy bullies.

He even boasts that “ordinary citizens have stepped up to ensure that Defendants cannot escape accountability due to a mere financial technicality,” referring to the $62,320 sanctions Judge Steele imposed. Chiappetta notes that within weeks, “hundreds upon hundreds of supporters have contributed to an online GoFundMe campaign to help Noshirvan pay the sanction.

Instead of acknowledging that sanction as punishment for misconduct, Chiappetta demeans it as a “technicality” and accuses the defendants of trying to “financially strangle Noshirvan’s case” out of spite.

He flatly insists “there is no basis for a contempt finding because Noshirvan is diligently complying with the sanction order in good faith. According to him, his client has “not violated any clear court order” and is only guilty of upsetting the defendants’ scheme.

In short, Chiappetta’s response flips the script: the sanctioned wrongdoer claims to be the wronged party.

This defiant narrative clashes with Judge Steele’s findings, but it shows that Chiappetta and Noshirvan remain unapologetic and unreformed. They continue the blame-shifting and bombast that got them in trouble in the first place.

Chiappetta’s filing drips with indignation, but nowhere does he address the court’s condemnation of his own conduct. Instead, he portrays the federal judge’s sanctions as merely a hurdle the “good guys” will overcome with public support.

The audacity is staggering: even after a public reprimand, Chiappetta is thumbing his nose at the court, doubling down on a narrative of victimhood.

He’s No Saint Nick: GoFundMe Lies and Website Whoppers

While Chiappetta insists he’s on a righteous “quest for justice,” the facts tell a different story – one of deception and disinformation. Nowhere is this more evident than in the GoFundMe page soliciting donations for Danesh Noshirvan and in Chiappetta’s own law firm bio, both of which blatantly contradict the court record.

On the GoFundMe campaign (titled “My family needs your help!”), Noshirvan spins a heart-tugging tale of persecution – but conveniently omits that a federal judge found his conduct sanctionable.

The fundraising page is “a master class in misdirection,” Luthmann writes.

It even lists Noshirvan’s location as Fort Myers, Florida, implying he’s a local victim fighting local injustice, when in reality, Noshirvan lives in Pennsylvania. Investigators suspect he gave a phony Florida address to lure Sunshine State donors by appearing as “one of their own.”

Worse, the GoFundMe description paints Noshirvan as on the verge of victory and in desperate need, never once mentioning that Judge Steele “found his conduct sanctionable and tossed out some of his allegations.” These glaring omissions amount to “lying by omission and commission” to tug at donors’ heartstrings.

In other words, Noshirvan is hiding the truth – that a federal court rebuked his behavior and credibility – while begging the public for money under false pretenses.

The gambit seems to be working: as Chiappetta bragged, over 1,000 donors (many “anonymous”) poured in more than $43,000 within weeks.

Luthmann has openly questioned whether some “new” anonymous donors are actually Noshirvan himself padding the totals via untraceable funds – a tactic known as “structuring” that GoFundMe forbids.

Meanwhile, Nick Chiappetta’s law firm website is no less deceitful. Under “Notable Cases,” Chiappetta brazenly touts bogus victories. He claims he “successfully defended [a] content creator against false accusations” in one case and describes the ongoing Noshirvan v. Couture case as if a vast conspiracy by the defendants is an established fact.

The truth?

No such victories – the first case is still ongoing with no ruling, and Judge Steele explicitly found “no conspiracy” in Noshirvan’s claims.

Chiappetta’s website presents Noshirvan’s unproven accusations as gospel, declaring the defendants “conspired and committed cyber defamation and character assassination.” Judge Steele demolished those allegations in his August order, scolding Chiappetta for pushing “false and inflammatory” narratives.

In Luthmann’s blunt assessment, “He is lying on his website. Chiappetta posted those fake claims to bolster his image and poison the jury pool.” Such deceit isn’t just unethical – it violates Florida Bar advertising rules and basic honesty.

Chiappetta’s public-facing claims are directly at odds with the court’s findings. The GoFundMe narrative and the self-aggrandizing bio both serve one purpose: to spin Danesh Noshirvan as an innocent underdog, contrary to the federal court’s conclusion that Danesh and his lawyer abused the legal system in bad faith.

These misrepresentations could come back to bite – Bar investigators and even law enforcement (in the case of the possibly fraudulent fundraiser) are now scrutinizing these discrepancies.

It’s an ugly picture: a lawyer and client who, even after being exposed in court, continue to double down on disinformation to sway public opinion and raise money.

He’s No Saint Nick: Pattern of Abuse Continues – Will the Bar Finally Act?

Judge Steele’s order didn’t occur in a vacuum – it highlighted a pattern of abusive litigation tactics by Danesh Noshirvan and the enabling behavior of his attorney, Chiappetta. The federal court found the pair’s conduct “reprehensible,” citing how Noshirvan hurled profanities at opposing counsel, unleashed his online followers in a harassment campaign, and showed “subjective bad faith” in the process.

Chiappetta, instead of reining in his client, effectively poured gasoline on the fire, earning himself a public reprimand from the judge. This was a historic smackdown – a veteran federal judge calling out a lawyer by name for egregious misconduct.

Yet, in the aftermath, Chiappetta and Noshirvan’s behavior indicates they’ve learned nothing.

Luthmann, who has been a target of Noshirvan’s defamatory “exposés,” describes Chiappetta as a “bottom-feeder attorney,” a “dog bite lawyer,” and accuses him of continuing to let Noshirvan run amok.

In a December 17 email to the Florida Bar, Luthmann didn’t mince words about the stakes. Citing Judge Steele’s findings as “clear and convincing evidence of bad faith conduct” by Chiappetta, he implored the Bar to take decisive action.

He warned that failure to act on a federal judge’s clear misconduct finding would be a scandal – “national news” – casting doubt on the Bar’s commitment to protecting the public. After all, the Florida Bar’s mission is to police attorney misconduct and uphold the profession’s integrity.

Here, a federal court has effectively done the Bar’s work by documenting Chiappetta’s violations in detail. If such “clear and damning” evidence doesn’t prompt discipline, what will?

For months, critics blasted the Bar for appearing to “snooze” on this case, even as Chiappetta’s bad behavior was splashed across court orders and media reports. Only now – under public pressure – has the Bar moved the grievance to a committee for investigation.

All eyes are on the Florida Bar: will it finally hold Chiappetta to account for his misconduct, or will it confirm suspicions of a toothless discipline system?

The outcome has implications far beyond this case. As Luthmann noted, allowing a lawyer to flaunt a federal court’s reprimand without consequences would undermine public confidence in attorney regulation. It would send a dangerous message that a lawyer can engage in bad faith, harassing litigation – and, if the Bar shrugs, get away with it.

Judge Steele’s order put Chiappetta on notice, and common sense says the Bar should do the same. Anything less, and the Florida Bar becomes complicit in the very “LawFare” and abuse of its rules that it is meant to prevent.

In the bombastic prose of Richard Luthmann’s own commentary, this saga is a test of the Bar’s backbone. Will Florida’s legal watchdogs answer Judge Steele’s clear call, or will they hit the snooze button and let a “scumbag lawyer” skate?

The reputations of everyone involved – from Chiappetta to the Bar itself – hang in the balance, and justice demands an answer.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece was first published on FLGulfNews.com. Also subscribe to NEWSBREAK for the latest.

By Dick LaFontaine with Richard Luthmann

NYC Esthetician Brags About Humiliating Jewish Couple

A Staten Island skincare “guru” is under fire for a shocking anti-Semitic stunt caught on video – and the TikTok activist who claims to fight bullies is nowhere to be found.

Eman Masoud, a New York City esthetician, filmed herself taunting an elderly Jewish couple struggling at a parking payment kiosk. In the clip, Masoud smirks as she refuses to help the pair unless they say “Free Palestine.”

When the stunned wife balks, Masoud doubles down: “I’ll do it if you say ‘Free Palestine,’” she repeats, laughing.

The bewildered husband says “la” – Arabic for “no” – and still Masoud sneers, “It’s only two words!” before turning on her heel and strutting off.

Masoud then boasted to her followers about the encounter, blasting the couple’s “audacity” for asking her help, “knowing who I am… based on what I look like” – an apparent reference to her Palestinian identity.

She snarled, “Go screw yourself,” at the Jewish pair. The esthetician even suggested Jewish people “took our language,” ridiculing the man’s use of an Arabic word.

On social media, Masoud proudly poses with a “Free Palestine” protest sign in one image, making her anti-Israel stance loud and clear. Her gleeful harassment of two strangers – targeting them solely for being Jewish – has drawn fierce condemnation from the public.

Yet one voice is conspicuously absent: Danesh “ThatDaneshGuy” Noshirvan, the self-proclaimed online avenger who claims to champion victims and call out bullies of all stripes. Why is TikTok’s loudest “anti-hate” content creator silent now?

Woke Accountability Influencer Silent: ‘Accountability’ Jihadist Goes Mute on Jew‑Hate

Danesh Noshirvan has built a 3-million-strong following by exposing internet “villains” – from racist ranters to rogue Karens – under the banner of “accountability.” He boasts that politics don’t matter when it comes to righting wrongs.

“If you’ve attacked someone, you should be held accountable,” Noshirvan preached in a recent livestream, claiming his page helps victims without fear or favor. “I don’t sit there and ask them who they voted for… those sort of things aren’t factors when seeking… justice for a victim,” he declared.

By his own account, no bully gets a pass on his watch

“It doesn’t matter who you voted for,” he said, portraying himself as a neutral champion against abuse.

But when Masoud’s video emerged – a clear case of harassment driven by raw anti-Jewish animus – Noshirvan’s outrage was nowhere to be found. The influencer who never hesitates to blast strangers for minor slights had not a word for Masoud, a fellow pro-Palestine “activist” caught gleefully bullying an elderly couple.

No fiery TikTok takedown. No public shaming.

Noshirvan’s feeds stayed silent about the incident, even as community leaders and media slammed Masoud’s behavior.

His inaction is deafening.

Critics point out that Noshirvan’s inaction smacks of hypocrisy: the man who claims “anybody… would find [such bullying] detestable” apparently lost his voice when the aggressor was on his side of a political divide.

While Noshirvan has aggressively hounded others for far less, he refuses to hold Masoud accountable – raising questions about whether his “no favorites” stance is just a convenient myth.

Woke Accountability Influencer Silent: Selective Outrage Spares Anti-Semites

Observers note that Noshirvan’s moral outrage has a pattern: it’s reserved almost exclusively for people outside his “Woke” political tribe. He rose to fame by dogpiling on conservatives, Christians, and others deemed ‘bigots’ – often unleashing his followers on targets who opposed his views.

Florida mom Jennifer Couture, for example, says Noshirvan doxxed and harassed her, her husband, and his plastic surgery practice for years over a petty parking-lot spat, defaming and smearing them as a “child stalker” and inciting online mobs against them.

In reality, Couture was the victim of Noshirvan’s distortions – a judge later blasted his claims as “brazen lies.”

Danesh is also the one credibly accused of harming children, as he previoulsy advocated for genital mutilation procedures outlawed by President Trump in January.

Noshirvan’s “accountability” seems to mean ruining those he disagrees with. His targets often share a profile: they’re white, religious, or right-of-center individuals whom he paints as villains.

“Creators like Danesh… cyber-terrorize white, conservative, traditional, Christian, and non-WOKE Americans,” investigative journalist Richard Luthmann observed, exposing Noshirvan’s one-sided “jihad.”

But when someone from Noshirvan’s own camp crosses the line – like Masoud with her blatant Jew-bashing – the self-proclaimed anti-bully looks the other way.

Case in point: Joey Camp. Camp is an independent journalist known for exposing Antifa extremists and shining a light on online misconduct.

For his trouble, including the creation of AntifaWatch.net, he earned an Antifa bounty and Noshirvan’s fury.

The TikTok star has relentlessly targeted Camp, labeling him a dangerous “white nationalist” and blaming him for every slight.

In a leaked email with Noshirvan’s attorney, Camp was smeared as an “evil white nationalist American scum” while rallying to “take down” Camp’s website that tracks Antifa violence (a site which had catalogued Noshirvan’s own harassment) – hardly the language of unbiased justice.

Rather than engage with Camp’s evidence of wrongdoing, Noshirvan tried to shoot the messenger, branding legitimate reporting as “harassment.”

It’s a disturbing double standard: Noshirvan claims he is as an “anti-fascist” hero, but shows zero interest in calling out hate when it emanates from a fellow leftist or Muslim influencer. Anti-Semitism and abuse like Masoud’s should, by his stated principles, prompt swift condemnation – yet he stays silent, apparently protecting his own.

Woke Accountability Influencer Silent: Trust Fund “Victim” and His ‘Scumbag’ Lawyer Exposed

Behind Noshirvan’s carefully crafted persona of the struggling do-gooder lies a web of deception and privilege. He paints himself as a humble family man under siege by “wealthy bullies,” begging followers for donations to continue his fight. In reality, Danesh Noshirvan is a trust-fund baby living off secret wealth. Documents show the 39-year-old is a beneficiary of a private trust fund that cuts him a hefty stipend each year.

He’s already burned through his 2025 payout and eagerly awaits another windfall in January. That inconvenient fact hasn’t stopped him from crying poverty.

In a teary November livestream titled “I NEED HELP,” Noshirvan pleaded for cash, claiming he “literally… really need[s] help” to cover a legal defense. He conveniently forgot to mention his “comfortable trust fund cushion” and lucrative social media income.

As Southwest Florida commentator Richard Luthmann put it, Noshirvan “has a trust fund” yet is “fraudulently soliciting donations under false pretenses.” Luthmann blasted Noshirvan as “a SNAKE of the worst kind” who cons the public, “snaking” money from locals by peddling a sob story.

Indeed, Noshirvan’s GoFundMe page (titled “My family needs your help!”) was a master class in misdirection. He claimed the $62,320 federal sanction he owes and hasn’t paid – punishment for his own courtroom misconduct – was a “roadblock” to justice, never admitting the fundraiser’s real aim was to pay his legal penalties.

He even mislisted his location as Fort Myers, FL (he lives in Pennsylvania) to tug at local heartstrings and mislead potential jury pools.

Florida authorities are now investigating this potential fraud, and a federal judge has warned that if Noshirvan doesn’t immediately pay the $62k sanction for his abusive behavior, his entire case could be thrown out.

Meanwhile, Noshirvan’s own attorney – Nick Chiappetta of Lake Worth, Florida – has earned infamy as Noshirvan’s enabler and attack dog. Couture calls Chiappetta “feckless” and a “scumbag lawyer” who abuses the courts to harass Danesh’s critics.

Internal emails appear to confirm a shocking bias: in one message, Chiappetta watched idly by as Danesh pushed rants with hashtags like “#FREEPALESTINE” and “#FKISRAEL,” vowing to “take down” a site that exposed Antifa violence, and deriding journalist Joey Camp as “evil… American scum.”

Permitting such vitriol from Noshirvan’s legal team – targeting Jews and “white” Americans with slurs – lays bare the extremism fueling Noshirvan’s “accountability” jihad. Far from blind justice, it appears to be a personal vendetta masquerading as virtue.

Even Judge John Steele rebuked Chiappetta alongside Noshirvan for “brazen bad-faith lies” and deceitful misconduct in court.

As Jennifer Couture put it, “This is not about justice… It’s about silencing critics.”

Noshirvan’s brand of activism has proven selective, destructive, and deeply cynical.

Woke Accountability Influencer Silent: The Unanswered Question

Danesh Noshirvan has shown he will move heaven and earth to “hold accountable” those he deems oppressors – so long as they fit his narrative. But when faced with blatant Jew-hatred from a fellow Woke-Antifa influencer, he said nothing.

His silence speaks volumes about the true nature of his jihad.

Why won’t Danesh use his platform to hold a fellow Woke-Antifa influencer accountable for blatant Jew hate?

Luthmann thinks he has the answer.

“Eman Masoud and Danesh Noshirvan have the same masters: Mohammad and Marx. The modern-day acolytes pay them – money flowing from Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and through the Soros coffers,” Luthmann said.

Accountability that only flows one way is not accountability. It is power. It is intimidation. It is propaganda dressed up as virtue.

Danesh Noshirvan built his brand by pointing mobs at people he hates and calling it justice. When a Jewish couple was publicly humiliated for their identity, he chose silence.

That silence is the tell.

It exposes the lie at the center of his operation. Danesh does not fight hate. He selects targets. He protects allies. He punishes enemies.

And every time he looks away from open antisemitism, he proves this was never about victims at all.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Editor’s Note: The following first appeared on FrankReport.com, and is fiction except, of course, for all the facts underlying it. Danesh Noshirvan has many alter egos, notably the very feminine Erica Sabonis. His partner, James ‘The Little Doc’ McGibney, has his all-caps friend CREDIBLEINTEL. Frank Parlato has Winston Velvet.

By Winston Velvet

After Danesh Noshirvan’s meltdown—which included profanity, allegations of racism, and a $62,000 sanction—I thought it prudent to consult a medical expert. Mostly to confirm it was, in fact, a meltdown.

Here’s what happened first:

Danesh sued someone for calling him a swinger. Then went ballistic when the lawyer asked about his OnlyFans account during depositions.

Danesh burst into the room. Called the attorney a “misogynistic piece of shit,” a “dumb shit,” a “motherfucker.” And he threatened: “I’ll remember this shit at settlement.”

Then he posted online, calling the attorney—who is Black—a racist, and because the attorney showed a photo from Danesh’s OnlyFans account during the deposition, Danesh accused him of sharing revenge porn, even though the image was shown in a legal proceeding and was entirely relevant to his defamation claims.

Within hours, thousands of threatening messages arrived. New accounts. Identical phrasing- the kind of uniformity only automation can achieve. Voicemails with different voices reading the same script – all threatening the lawyer.

The court sanctioned Danesh $62,000.

Danesh turned to his “millions” of followers for help. His GoFundMe raised $39,000 — roughly two cents per follower.

To understand what happened, I consulted the one man qualified to diagnose this phenomenon: Dr. Edwin H. Maxwell, MD, PhD, PsyD, ABPN, ABPP, LMFT, CCTP, FIPA.

Winston Velvet:

What is this, Doctor?

Dr Maxwell:

“It appears to be acute narcissistic dysregulation with indications of persecutory grandiosity complex. The violent affect discharge, the externalization, the ritualized profanity — indicate a maladaptive identity-protection spasm.

Velvet:

In other words… he had a tantrum?

Maxwell:

The subject appears to have undergone an implosion of compensatory grandiosity structures, followed by indications of a hypertrophic activation of persecutory ideation networks symptomatic of recurrent parasocial delusional destabilized identity-formation with concurrent hypervigilant grievance projection.

Velvet:

My grandmother had that.

Dr. Maxwell

The appropriate course of treatment is multi-axial and preconditionally requires the suspension of extrinsic narcissistic reinforcers —

Velvet:

You mean like cutting off WiFi access?

Maxwell:

For persistent delusional structures — such as in this case, where the belief that online mobs emerge spontaneously and not from self-generated parasocial fantasy-cognition — low-stimulation behavioral environments are calibrated to downregulate dopaminergic dependency on synthetic validation stimuli.

Velvet:

Would it just be easier to tell him bots won’t love him?

Dr. Maxwell:

The presentation of an acute ego-fragmentation paroxysm precipitated by confrontational stimulus exposure, characterized by instantaneous collapse of all inhibitory circuits, resulting in an affective decompensation spasm followed by a compensatory persecutory-inversion projection reflex—

Velvet:

Like when you drop your phone in the toilet?

Dr. Maxwell:

—including a dysphonic cognitive misattribution cascade triggered by a destabilized grandiosic self-schema encountering contradictory reality input, is not typically susceptible to self-cognition.

Velvet:

My uncle had something like that. Turned out to be gas.

Dr. Maxwell:

It appears to indicate long-duration psychogenic disinhibition convulsion with reactive projection artifacts directionally adjacent to an acute epileptoid manifestation with panphobic melancholia, with some indication of a neurostenic cordis.

Velvet:

Is that more expensive than a nervous breakdown?”

Maxwell:

Treatment protocols typically require years of intervention, provided the patient achieves complete digital quarantine and maintains absolute abstinence from follower-count metrics, and any reflective surface capable of triggering narcissistic re-inflation.

Velvet:

So what you’re saying is… he’s incurable?

Maxwell:

In the clinical vernacular, we prefer “therapeutically non-viable in the current sociotechnical environment.”

Velvet:

Very sad.

Maxwell:

Full recovery would require him to accept that his bots were never real—a cognitive leap equivalent to asking a fish to comprehend the desert.

Velvet:

That’s bleak.

Dr. Maxwell:

No internet. No mirrors. And absolutely no cameras.

Velvet:

So he’d basically have to live like a normal person?

Dr. Maxwell:

Correct—which is why the prognosis is terminal.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece was first published on FrankReport.com - often imitated, without equal.

By Frank Parlato

We have glad tidings. James “Dr.” McGibney — America’s Most Confused Man — has announced, with great fanfare, that he is producing an NXIVM docuseries.

Because, apparently, the world has not yet heard enough from

HBO,
Starz,
Investigation Discovery,
The New York Times,
CBC,
Vanity Fair,
The Frank Report

He announces an NXIVM docuseries with the pomp of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Here is this from his Instagram account.

DOCUSERIES ANNOUNCEMENT

By James McGibney of BullyVille fame:

“Coming soon:

http://www.nxivm.com

“The story of NXIVM has been told by the media, by the prosecutors, and by the self-proclaimed heroes. But those accounts often fail to highlight the true protagonists: the women who survived, testified, and broke the cult’s elaborate system of control.

“If you were the victim of the NXIVM sex cult (especially if you were the victim of convicted felon, Frank Parlato) and want to come on camera to tell your story, please feel free to reach out. This docuseries will be aired on a MAJOR platform.

“I find it so interesting that convicted felon and pedophile supporter Frank Parlato likes to take the credit for taking down NXIVM. But that’s a lie, he didn’t take down shit.

“Frank was employed by NXIVM and covered his own ass once the truth started to come out about the perverted and despicable things that were happening to these women and young girls.

“The victims of NXIVM are the true heroes, who paid the ultimate price to fight the cult’s legal machine, reclaim their bodies, and expose Keith Raniere and Frank Parlato for the frauds they were, and still are, to this day.

“And yes, I own the website

http://www.nxivm.com

. I’m building it out over the next couple of weeks.”

My Comments on This Development

This is wonderful news. Finally, someone – and a genius no less- is going to do a documentary on how I ran NXIVM.

McGibney — a man so informed about NXIVM that He thinks branding happened on the back

The image he posted shows a woman being branded on the shoulder blade like cattle at an auction.

Actually, DOS branding was done on the pelvic region, below the bikini line.

Something that has been documented in:

• HBO’s The Vow

• Starz’s Seduced

• Every news article for seven years

• Court transcripts

• Victim testimony

• The federal trial of Raniere

The Frank Report, including the first public announcement of branding in 2017

But no, McGibney — Doctor of Make-Believe — discovered something new. I am going to help him get his facts straight.

HIS FIRST AND BIGGEST ERROR: BASIC HISTORY

McGibney claims I “worked for NXIVM until it all came out.”

McGibney’s announcement makes me sound like I was a central NXIVM figure—some kind of Raniere lieutenant who “covered his own ass” when things got hot.

The reality? I worked four months as a consultant from October 2007 through January 2008 on a real estate project in Los Angeles. I left. Seven years later, in 2015, DOS was created. Two years after that, I broke the branding story that brought them down.

But facts have never been McGibney’s strong suit.

Reality:

I worked for four months, ending in January 2008.

I left long before DOS existed (DOS began in 2015).

I was the first journalist in the world to publish the branding story in 2017.

I was credited for exposing Raniere in:

• The New York Times

• HBO

• Investigation Discovery

• Starz

• CBC

• Vice

• Every major outlet that covered NXIVM

Someone should tell Dr. McGibney that Google exists, and he should try using the “real internet,” not that cartoon hamster wheel he thinks the internet runs on.

SECOND ERROR: THE “VICTIMS OF FRANK PARLATO” FANTASY

McGibney invites “victims of Frank Parlato” from the NXIVM cult to come forward.

This would require:

• A victim

• Of me

• Inside NXIVM

• That I was exposing

• In 2017

• After I had left the organization nine years earlier

One hesitates to remark upon the absurdity, but McGibney’s comment is so exquisitely misguided that it deserves preservation in print.

THIRD ERROR: CALLING ME A PEDOPHILE SUPPORTER

While McGibney calls me a “pedophile supporter,” and includes Raniere among those I support. Stupidity like his is not typically found in nature. He must have worked very hard at it.

Factually, NXIVM’s founder, Keith Raniere — the actual pedophile — attacked me personally, funded lawsuits and criminal complaints against me, and called me “dangerous” because I was exposing him. He actually forbade his followers from reading the Frank Report, which was the only outlet to write about his branding of women for months.

The federal government praised my reporting and used it to get search warrants in Mexico to apprehend Raniere.
HBO documented it. Media outlets cited it.

The pedophile supported me the way a cat supports the water hose aimed at it.

FOURTH ERROR: CLAIMING HE’LL AIR A “MAJOR” DOCUSERIES

McGibney promises the docuseries will be aired on a “MAJOR platform.”

Which one?

• YouTube?

• Vimeo?

• AOL Video?

• MySpace TV?

He says he’s building www.nxivm.com.

Great.

He bought a domain name that Keith didn’t renew. Congratulations, Jim — you own the world’s least profitable URL.

FIFTH ERROR: CALLING HIMSELF THE PROTECTOR OF WOMEN

McGibney, the self-anointed Sheriff of the Internet, has:

• Lost in court for defamation

• Been sanctioned

• Been exposed for false claims of military valor

• Been caught doctoring documents

• Victimized thousands of women on Cheaterville and later Bullyville

• And now positions himself as the curator of NXIVM victimhood.

It’s like watching a mall cop announce he’s taking over the Pentagon.

THE SUMMARY

The man can’t tell the difference between:

• A pelvic-branding sex cult

• And a shoulder-branding cattle ranch

• A whistleblower

• And a cult lieutenant

• A major platform

• And “a guy I met on Discord who says he works at Netflix.”

McGibney calling me a fraud is the projection comedy event of the month.

Convicted Felon

Something Right At Last

He did get one thing right. McGibney calls me a “convicted felon” as if it’s a mark of shame. Here’s what actually happened:

In 2015, Keith Raniere directed Clare Bronfman to file a criminal complaint against me with the FBI. They claimed I defrauded NXIVM of $1 million. The government indicted me on 19 counts of wire fraud, conspiracy, etc.

I responded by starting Frank Report. I exposed the branding. I exposed Raniere. I turned the tables.

Sara Bronfman fled the country. Clare Bronfman was arrested and sentenced to 81 months in federal prison. Keith Raniere got 120 years.

When my trial approached, the U.S. Attorney dismissed all 19 felony counts. In their place, I pleaded to a single non-statutory violation: failing to file IRS Form 8300 for cash transactions totaling less than $20,000. Not the millions they’d accused me of stealing—a paperwork violation.

The judge sentenced me to one year of probation with five months of winter home confinement in the Florida Keys. No ankle monitor. Four hours daily on my boat for “hydrotherapy.” Freedom to enjoy the grounds, the fresh air, the sunshine.

At the same time, the two who started it all were enjoying a different kind of sentence: Raniere was in the SHU, and Clare Bronfman was cleaning toilets and shoveling snow at the Philadelphia Detention Center.

So yes, technically I’m a convicted felon.

But the people who filed the complaint against me? Raniere is in federal prison for another 95 years, and Bronfman just got out and is on probation.

I spent five months decompressing on a boat in Florida.

McGibney can call me whatever he wants. But he should ask himself: who won?

As for his chances of getting a major platform to do yet another NXIVM documentary, the odds are about one in a million.

And like the guy in Dumb and Dumber, McGibney says, “So I have a chance then?”

McGibney is a man who faked his educational and military credentials and now claims to be making a ‘MAJOR platform’ NXIVM docuseries, which he promoted with an AI-generated image that gets the most basic fact wrong: where the branding happened.

McGibney promotes his ‘victim-centered’ docuseries after a career of exploiting women.

Cheaterville (2011-2015): Monetized women’s humiliation, charged them to remove posts

Bullyville (2015-present): Exposed and humiliated “bad actors” for clicks and payments.

And now he wishes to cast himself as the champion of NXIVM’s survivors. A noble cause, to be sure, though somewhat incongruous coming from a man whose prior professional pursuits included monetizing women’s humiliation for profit.

McGibney promotes his docuseries with this AI-generated image:

Odd, the gaunt face in the AI image looks more like McGibney than Raniere. I submit he might be planning to star in his own docuseries.

The AI image appears to have borrowed its beard from one man and its bone structure from another, resulting in a composite likeness that resembles reality only by accident — much like McGibney’s résumé.

The fake Marine/fake doctor playing the fake scientist/phony guru.

Both built followings on false credentials, both exploited women, and both created systems of humiliation.

McGibney may be closer to Raniere than he realizes.

That said, stay tuned for his docuseries. It’s gonna be a laugh riot. I will be promoting the hell out of it.

(Note: Paying for musical scores in documentaries is expensive. I will compose some of the cues for him for free. Here is one – the musical cue for McGibney asking women for money to take down their photos on Cheaterville. It’s called the “Moral Highground.”)

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece first appeared on FrankReport.com.

By Frank Parlato

James “Bully Hunter” McGibney likes to say the Marines made him into the “scorched earth” defender he is now, hunting bullies across the world. The Marine Corps taught him how to fight online.

“Sometimes you have to be a bully to stop bullies,” he said.

He told Wired and Newsweek that he was nineteen when the Marines assigned him to the Third Surveillance Reconnaissance Intelligence Group in Okinawa. Teenage James was responsible for the entire unit’s computer security. At twenty, he was handling computer security at Quantico. Newsweek even reported that he “was responsible for the cybersecurity of 128 embassies throughout the world.”

Imagine that: embassies scattered across multiple continents, all guarded by one corporal barely old enough to legally rent a car.

His old Wikipedia (2017) page versions show his emabassy protection status, though updated verisions quietly eliminated the claim.

Semper Fi or Semper Fib: What the Records Actually Show

Then the actual Marine records came out.

The records put him at Marine Security Guard School in Quantico, scheduling classes, handling attendance, and coordinating with instructors. There was nothing about intelligence work. Nothing about cyber operations. Nothing about overseas duty.

The paperwork listed him as an administrative clerk, MOS 0151. His DD-214 called him a clerk.

His Navy–Marine Corps Achievement Medal citation said he worked through “last minute schedule changes” in bad weather in Quantico from January to February 1996 and credited him with “scheduling, logistics and classroom coordination.” It said nothing about 128 embassies.

But for babysitting a training schedule through a rough patch of winter weather.

No Okinawa. No embassies. No cybersecurity. He was an administrative clerk.

His service record included four decorations. The Achievement Medal practically thanks him for making sure Class 2-96 got to school on time. In another universe, perhaps, he saved the world. In this one, he saved a calendar.

His military specialty, there is no ignoring it, was 0151 — administrative clerk. In the mid-1990s, the men who handled battalion-level computer security were senior enlisted Marines, warrant officers, or men trained in intelligence or signals. Embassy network security fell to Staff Sergeants, Gunnery Sergeants, or the Colonel in charge of the entire Embassy Security Group.

His DD-214 showed three years and three months of active duty. He left as a corporal.

His awards: Rifle Qualification Marksman Badge- the lowest passing score on the rifle range.

National Defense Service Ribbon, which is automatic.

The Good Conduct Medal is awarded after three years of service without an incident of misconduct.

Marines who served in Okinawa carry ribbons and unit awards from III MEF or SRIG. McGibney had none.

But the cyber war stories helped build the image of a man who said the Marines taught him to fight on the new battlefield. He sports a large tattoo of the flag-raising on Iwo Jima on his back.

Semper Fi or Semper Fib: The Embassy Math Problem

Maybe the records missed something. He said he managed cybersecurity for 128 embassies.

The U.S. has 172 embassies. McGibney says he handled cybersecurity for 128 of them as a teenage corporal. Do the math: that’s three-quarters of American diplomacy. If you count all diplomatic posts — 268 — then he still claims fifty percent. A corporal guarding half the U.S, diplomatic secrets?

Let’s talk about who normally handles cybersecurity for embassies. It’s not the lowest-ranked NCO in the building. You don’t hand the keys to 128 embassies to a corporal.

But the story keeps getting told because it sounds “cyber” and heroic. Meanwhile, the real cyber guys — the 02xx, 26xx, 86xx Marines — were the ones doing the actual intelligence, signals, and computer security.

Semper Fi or Semper Fib: The Anti-Bullying Hero With a Bullying Past

His military mythology didn’t hold up, but his internet persona was just getting started. Then the Internet hands him a gift: Hunter Moore’s revenge-porn website. McGibney buys the domain, shuts it down, and suddenly he’s the Saint of Anti-Bullying.

McGibney would become the hunter of bullies, the vanquisher of online villains, the man who shut down a notorious revenge-porn empire while running a remarkably similar operation of his own.

So what do we have?

A man who hates bullies.

A man who became famous shutting down a bullying site.

A man who ran his own bullying site before that.

A man who invented a military mythology that evaporates under modest sunlight.

His public persona became a sort of comic-book version of morality: the bully who bullies bullies because someone has to do it. So we end up with two James McGibneys: The one in the interviews—the mythic cyber-sentinel forged in Okinawa, standing watch over embassies from a terminal at Quantico. And the one in the records—the clerk who kept the classroom lights on and the rosters straight.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece was first available on FLGulfNews.com.

By Dick LaFontaine with Richard Luthmann

Influencer Jeremy Hales turned multiple federal lawsuits into a “drama factory” for YouTube, court papers say. Now defendant Richard Luthmann seeks over $50,000 in Rule 11 sanctions, accusing Jeremy “GERM” Hales and attorney Randy “POCKET ROCKET” Shochet of bad-faith tactics – from frivolous filings and botched service stunts to a deposition outburst caught on record.

Lawsuit Morphed into “Drama Factory” for Clicks

Jeremy Hales – a YouTube personality with 730,000+ subscribers – is accused of exploiting a federal lawsuit as entertainment fodder. Luthmann’s motion blasts Hales for turning the case into a personal “drama factory” on his monetized channel. Rather than pursue legitimate grievances, Hales and his lawyer allegedly “weaponized the litigation as entertainment and harassment.”

“Hales has made us all into characters on his YouTube show. He calls me PAINT CHIPS. He calls fellow journalist Michael Volpe VOLMIT. He and his entire group even call the federal court judge BOZO THE CLOWN,” Luthmann said.

The Rule 11 motion, served on Hales and his lawyer, can be filed in the Northern District of Florida after 21 days have passed. Luthmann demands “no less than $50,000” in sanctions against Hales and his counsel.

Luthmann, a defendant in one of Hales’s content-generating lawsuits, claims the YouTuber treats Gainesville Federal Court as just another stage.

“Far from treating the litigation with seriousness, Mr. Hales has made it part of his show. Literally,” the motion declares.

Hales’s own boasts suggest he discovered that suing critics and neighbors drives up his views and income.

In a prior interview, Luthmann summarized Hales’s approach: “He’s using legal battles to generate drama and YouTube cash, and the federal courts are indulging him and his crooked lawyer, Randy Shochet.“

POLAMOP, or Protraction of Litigation and Multiplication of Proceedings, is an acronym that attorney Bruce Matzkin coined to describe Hales’s strategy.

What might have been a minor dispute “morphed into an internet sensation” as Hales fed the feud via federal filings and YouTube updates. Luthmann’s lawsuit boasts eleven defendants (including Matzkin) – from neighbors to online commentators – all who have become unwitting cast members in a monetized courtroom circus.

Frivolous Pleadings and Service Fiasco

Critics say Hales’s 74-page complaint reads “more like a manic YouTube rant than a legal document,” essentially a “textbook shotgun pleading” stuffed with “vague, bloated, and riddled with unsupported accusations.”

Luthmann’s Rule 11 motion notes that, after two amendments, the complaint remains a haphazard jumble of claims lacking both factual and legal basis. It accuses Hales and Shochet of procedural gamesmanship – filing meritless claims to bully critics – in blatant violation of Rule 11(b).

The motion also details a saga of botched service attempts. Hales allegedly failed to properly serve Luthmann within 90 days, yet “claimed he was properly served when, in fact, he wasn’t.”

According to court records, Luthmann’s address is open and notorious in Naples, Florida. Yet Hales’s team tried an improper “drop service” at the home of Luthmann’s elderly father over 300 miles away, even inventing a fictitious “stepmother service.”

A federal judge already rejected that stunt as unlawful. The court refused to bless these maneuvers: an October 30 order denied Hales’s bid to declare service valid, noting that leaving papers at someone else’s residence doesn’t meet federal or Florida requirements.

Hales then insinuated Luthmann was evading service to excuse these missteps. Still, the motion asserts the opposite – Luthmann was “openly challenging the litigation (hardly hiding)” while plaintiffs were “simply going to the wrong addresses, having unethical process servers who would sign anything… swearing to lies.”

One such process server, Eugene Griffin of G-Man Private Investigators / Process Servers, was even accused on social media of misconduct – a GAB post casting doubt on Hales’s tactics.

“I hope that when GERM says ‘The FBI is involved,’ he doesn’t mean the G-Man. That guy looks like a scumbag to me,” Luthmann said.

After missing the service deadline on July 27, 2025, Hales’s counsel mailed a waiver of service to a bad address.

Recently, U.S. Magistrate Judge Zachary Bolitho gave Hales one last chance to serve Luthmann, extending the time to properly tag him until November 25, 2025.

Instead of attempting personal service or communicating with Luthmann, Hales, and his lawyer, Randy “Pocket Rocket” Shochet is attempting a last-ditch “Secretary of State” substitute service with a glaringly defective summons.

“On Thanksgiving Day, when Hales’ grace period is over, he’s going to be the turkey,” Luthmann said. “Even his latest defected foray with the Secretary of State fails to identify me by name or by my address. These fools already know where I live and that there is more than one person named ‘RICHARD LUTHMANN’ in the State of Florida.”

Luthmann calls it a pattern of “careless and vexatious” legal abuse.

Deposition Meltdown Caught on Tape

Hales’s conduct hit a low point during his own deposition. Transcripts show the YouTuber launching into tirades and insulting opposing counsel on the record.

At one point, as defense attorney Bruce Matzkin pressed him, Hales erupted: “Shut up, and listen. Keep your mouth shut. Gosh, for as big of a nose that you have, your mouth is even bigger.”

Sources say Hales was heard making further Anti-semitic statements at the deposition and in the hallway outside that didn’t make it into the record, like “Kike,” “Jewboy,” and “Deuce Foreskin.”

Later, when questioned about video evidence, Hales snapped again.

“Shut up, and listen. Shut your mouth,” Hales screamed.

The poor litigation behavior, racist language, and conduct prompted Matzkin, the astonished Jewish attorney, to end the deposition on the spot. Hales’ lawyer, Randy Shochet, did little to nothing to control his client.

Under the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-8.4(d) states that a lawyer must not engage in conduct “that is prejudicial to the administration of justice,” including discriminatory or harassing behavior. The accompanying commentary makes clear that this extends to bias based on race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socioeconomic status.

Moreover, under Rule 4-5.3, lawyers may not condone, direct, or ratify such conduct by their clients, employees, or agents.

The federal magistrate overseeing that case was alarmed and intervened. However, there was no discussion of Anti-semitism.

“The only person who behaved appropriately during the deposition was the court reporter,” Judge Bolitho wrote in a subsequent order, finding that “name-calling, personal attacks, and obstructionist behavior” by Hales and both attorneys had derailed the proceeding.

The judge ordered Hales to sit for a new deposition under court supervision, warning “everybody in this case is now on notice. If this type of behavior continues, then there will be sanctions… Those sanctions will not be light.”

Luthmann’s Rule 11 motion cites this disruptive performance as further evidence of bad faith. It argues that no reasonable plaintiff “truly seeking justice” would behave as Hales has, “turning a federal lawsuit into a monetized sideshow”.

The motion concludes that Hales’s litigation spree is not about vindicating rights at all – it’s about showmanship, harassment, and keeping the online drama boiling.

“Enough is enough,” Luthmann writes, urging the court to send a strong message now.

$50K Sanctions ‘Not Outlandish’ amid Influencer Misconduct

Luthmann points out that steep sanctions are warranted – and hardly unprecedented – when social media personalities abuse the courts. As an example, he highlights the recent downfall of Hales’s own ally, TikTok agitator Danesh “ThatDaneshGuy” Noshirvan.

In another recent Florida Federal Court case, U.S. District Judge John Steele slapped Noshirvan and his attorney with $62,320 in sanctions for deposition misconduct. Noshirvan had sabotaged a deposition by shouting profanities and hurling baseless accusations at opposing counsel, then siccing his online followers on the lawyer with false claims of racism.

Noshirvan is also tied up in allegations that his OnlyFans commercial pornography included underage girls.

The court condemned Noshirvan’s outburst as “committed in bad faith” and serving “no purpose other than to harass and intimidate.”

His lawyer was publicly reprimanded for failing to rein him in, and now faces Bar discipline and potential disbarment.

Hales himself has publicly teamed up with Noshirvan – their legal teams “linked up” as part of an alleged “cancel culture” campaign against critics. Hales even featured the TikTok influencer in his content, boasting of their collaboration.

Given that Noshirvan’s courtroom tantrum cost him over $62k, Luthmann argues his own $50k sanctions demand is not out of line.

“This is not a routine case of a minor Rule 11 misstep. It is a brazen campaign of abuse,” the motion declares. “Hales makes nearly $200,000 a month in YouTube revenues, according to sources. This isn’t even a drop in the bucket for him. But the federal courts have to start somewhere to establish deterrence.”

Luthmann’s motion urges the judge to hit Hales and Shochet with a penalty stiff enough to deter further antics. Besides the monetary hit, Luthmann suggests non-monetary measures – from striking Hales’s complaint to forcing him to broadcast the sanctions order on his channel.

In Luthmann’s view, Hales’s lawsuit was never about justice. It was a weapon for YouTube clout – and now that weapon may blow up in his face.

“Only a robust sanction will suffice,” he insists, to put an end to this courtroom circus once and for all.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece first appeared on FrankReport.com.

By Frank Parlato

They were men who exposed bad actors and stood up to bullies. Tough guys — online. Danesh Noshirvan and James McGibney.

McGibney, the virtual vigilante, whose work, he says, is to help the helpless and make the web a safer place. His handle is Bully Hunter; his website is Bullyville.

Danesh Noshirvan, “ThatDaneshGuy,” (pronounced Don-nish) the TikTok influencer, described himself in a lawsuit as an “online entertainer,” “journalist,” and “shock jock,” and admitted his “work often depicts bad actors behaving badly on camera…which unfortunately in some cases, results in public cancellation.”

They built their names on fights online in the economy of attention, where engagement is currency, conflict drives clicks, and followers mean clout. These aren’t necessarily seeking resolution; they are seekers of outrage. They have consolidated all the functions of a justice system into a single entity: Themselves. They are the investigator, the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury. They post names, form conclusions, and, sometimes aided by fake accounts and AI, they identify and then fight the bad actors.

They are not the only ones. But they are famous in their niche. We hear about these online vigilantes, and the fear they engender, but rarely do we ever get a peek behind the scenes of how they operated and importantly how they communicate with each other privately.

In the federal defamation lawsuit Noshirvan v. Garramone, nearly 200 pages of messages between the two online gunslingers were revealed during discovery, showing how these two men work together. It is a fascinating insight into the online vigilante business.

#Cocks and Condoms: The Partnership Begins

The messages begin in 2022.

McGibney:
Yoooooooooooooooooooooo!
Go check out my Twitter timeline lol.

Danesh:
Hello. I’ll take a look.

McGibney:
Pounding JoJo.

For those unfamiliar, JoJo is their nickname for Joey Camp, their much-despised nemesis, who seems to wield many of the same tools they use.

McGibney:
Also I’d like to hire you for a couple of things — one of them is running our TikTok account.

Danesh:
Holy shit.

McGibney:
You’re obviously very good at it.

Danesh:
Really?

McGibney:
Feel free to call me at —–…
That number better not end up on a bathroom stall lol

They discussed a documentary series featuring McGibney, and he would have Danesh on his first episode.

#Cocks and Condoms: Bonding

McGibney:
It’s about Camp and his financial supporters.
And it’s on a MAJOR network.
So call me biiiiitttcccchhhh!!!

Also, Credible Intel told me that he wants to feel your ass so be careful

Credible Intel is an anonymous Instagram account suspected by some to be operated by McGibney hiimself. McGibney and Danesh spoke about a target of theirs — Dr. Garramone.

McGibney:
I want to hire you for developing my TikTok presence immediately.

Danesh:
Give me a couple of hours max.

McGibney:
#cocks.

Danesh:
#assNcocks. I’m excited.

McGibney:
LOL you are the very first person I followed on TikTok. You were my first, Danesh. You took my TikTok virginity

#image_title

They spoke about their operations.

Danesh:
I told people to follow — your numbers should start to go up.

It was September 8, 2022.

McGibney:
Love you. Do you have Venmo? Did Credible try to touch you yet?

Danesh:
I have Venmo.

(He gave his Venmo address.)

McGibney:
Just sent some money #cocks.

Danesh:
#COCKS. Thank you. What is that for?

McGibney:
Just for your help last night and today … and for condoms for Credible

Days passed. They spoke about Danesh working on his social media and other matters.

Danesh:
I’m verified.

McGibney:
Yeeeeeees! Let’s have a verification orgy~ LOL.

Danesh:
Joey is going to be so mad.

McGibney:
We both got verified on the same day.

Danesh:
Now we have to 69 — it’s tradition.

McGibney:
Ahahahahahahaha. In what country is that a tradition?

Danesh:
In the Amazon. Everyone is doing it. Joey did it with his fake dog Happy when he got verified on Gab.

McGibney:
Hahahahahahahhahahaha. You are too fucking much, man.

#Cocks and Condoms: Target Practice

They spoke over the weeks and months about helping each other and cross-promoting, and of attacking Joey Camp.

McGibney:
I love watching your stories. You’re fucking brilliant bro. Just stop trying to touch my penis.

Danesh:
Never

McGibney:
Is today your birthday?

Danesh:
Yes.

McGibney:
Happy motherfucking birthday Mine’s on Halloween .

More discussion followed about people they were going after. One day, McGibney asked Danesh for a phone call.

McGibney:
Call me bitch. Loooooool

McGibney:
I had someone email yesterday asking why I was friends with a bully. They were referring to you. Here was my response: ‘I consider Danesh much more than a friend. He’s going to be my lover one day.’ I haven’t received a response yet Lol.

Danesh:
Ha ha ha.
Push bullies back — it’s the only thing they respond to. #cocks

McGibney:
They all respond to cocks.

Danesh:
Who wouldn’t?
I hope that when Joey raided my OnlyFans he cried about my giant dong staring him down.

As a bit of explanation, apparently Danesh had an OnlyFans account at one point. Joey Camp uncovered it, captured the photos, and revealed that Danesh had 12 subscribers – apparently, from the names, they were men. Danesh, like McGibney, is married with children.

McGibney:
Hahahahahahaha.

Danesh:
He went around posting a photo of two girls giving me a BJ at the same time. Oh no, I’m so embarrassed ha hahahaha.

McGibney:
Lucky bastard

Danesh:
It’s everything you dreamed it would be. That’s posting revenge porn though (by Camp). I should be on with you.

McGibney:
For real!!!!

Danesh:
And say, ‘Sup doc, I’m back, bitch.’

McGibney:
Do you want to?

Danesh:
Hahaha YES, that would be so funny.

They talked more about a show, the online platform Gab, appearing on Dr. Phil, and people they were after.

McGibney:
Do you want to be on Dr. Phil’s podcast?

Danesh:
Possibly — to discuss what?

McGibney:
Ummmmm your penis, obviously — To discuss all the good work you do.

#Cocks and Condoms: The Operations

Their messages show a willingness to employ a full spectrum of digital tools, from creating spoof accounts for intelligence gathering to discussing methods for account suspension demonstrating a proactive approach to their campaigns. Some of their work appeared to be hacking, by trying to find people’s account passwords.

Much of their messages detailed their criticisms of others, how they were going to harm someone, and how they were going to help each other out. They exchanged questions about Instagram and how to do videos. And they shared each other’s content with each other.

McGibney:
I truly you — like, sit on your lap . cocks.

More talk followed about Joey Camp, Garramone, and his wife Couture — what they posted, what they were doing, the Netflix deals they might get, the tools they used to hack and spy, and many compliments.

McGibney:
Netflix reached out to me earlier this week. Looks like we may be doing another documentary . Anything that involves me thinking that my penis is getting bigger will have my undivided attention .

Danesh:
That’s wonderful — you totally deserve it, bud.

They spoke about their posts and more technical questions, sometimes drifting into hints at amour.

McGibney:
I just told a sock account that I loved you — just FYI lol.

Danesh:
Are you toying with sock puppets again?

McGibney:
Lol I thought you were doing well, my friend.

Danesh:
Doing pretty well actually — how about you?

McGibney:
Oh, you know… meow .
Ha ha ha ha ha. I fucking heart you so very much .

Danesh:
What did I do?…. What can I say? You’re rubbing off on me.

McGibney:
Legendary.

They spoke about Joey Camp.

McGibney:
I am about to create the website digitalenema dot com with all of his info.

Danesh:
Hahahahah.

McGibney:
You’re a good man, Danesh. Thank you for all your support — you are a loyal friend .

Danesh:
Thank you, I appreciate it and I’m grateful to you. I’m a fan of what you do too.

They spoke about the risks and dangers of being suspended on social media platforms for offensive content, their contacts, and the people they were targeting.

One day, both of them received a similar email—a bizarre missive that seemed to come from a fake account.

McGibney:

Lol and these idiots are sending these emails to the most brutal heavy hitters out there — you and me . Hope you’re well, brother meow .

Danesh:
I’m flattered that you would compare me to yourself, and I only hope to make the kind of impact you’re making. I am well, thank you, sir — hope you are too.

They sent each other many links, often their own content, a lot of discussion about JoJo—about taking him down and the fight with Couture and Garramone, who had allegedly engaged Camp to fight back.

Danesh:
Cocks.

McGibney:
Yooooooo
Go look at my latest post… meow. Alleged hacking is fun!

Danesh:
Hahahahahha you’re insane…

McGibney:
I just outed Nick.

Danesh:
I’ll check it out.

Danesh:
cocks

McGibney:
I was finally able to use the word ‘cock’ in a post!!!!

They spoke about collaboration and bad actors they were going to cancel, then back to JoJo. They talked about meeting in person and doxxing.

Danesh:
What they should do is dox whatever CEO they’re mad at and make his life a living hell. Cocks

They went on about Joey, stalking, interviews, battles with different people on social media, and asking each other for help. They spoke of building websites for spoofing others — particularly JoJo.

McGibney:
Mark Zuckerberg knows who I am. A friend of mine told me that when Mark found out the site was shut down by Believable, he said, ‘Really? Damn, that dude’s pretty badass.’

McGibney:
Do you have any proof that Ralph cheated on his wife?

Danesh:
Not physical proof.

McGibney:
Call me right meow if you can. What area code are you? Also cocks— the Donkey Kong referencing your latest post is hilarious.

They spoke about creating a fake site — JoJoCouture.camp — to spread misinformation targeting Camp, Couture and her husband, plastic surgeon Ralph Garramone.

McGibney:
When you end up owning his plastic surgery business, can you put me down for a penis enhancement procedure?

Danesh:
You’re already at the legal limit, sir. Actually, we’re going to use that money to set up a team and headquarters, streamline what we do, and get people to work on the smaller stuff so we can take on the bigger things. We need to make it so that people like Joey can be shut down quickly. We bully your bully, we stalk your stalker, we abuse your abuser.

McGibney:
You had me at head.

At one point, Danesh generously offered to give McGibney $1 million from the proceeds of his lawsuit against Dr. Garramone. This was before the lawsuit turned against him, where he was sanctioned and fined $62,000, and his attorney was publicly reprimanded by the judge.

McGibney was on another track. He spoke about a documentary series.

McGibney predicted:
And now you are probably starting to see, Danesh, I don’t play around…this dosuseries is going to smash all the records!!!! Lol.
When you really want to exact revenge on someone, you do it in a docuseries!

Danesh:

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .

The docuseries did not come to fruition, though McGibney did appear in a documentary on A&E called Bully Hunter.

Realscreen described the program as a “one-off” special. There has been no announcement that A&E has ordered a full series, and the show is not currently airing in rotation, indicating that the initial run did not meet the thresholds for a series order.

But that came later. In their texts, they were talking about getting people arrested, and sharing Google Drives. They spoke about revenge, the age of consent, and JoJo. McGibney spoke of doing a new site, Jojo.camp

Danesh:
I love you

McGibney:
Tease

McGibney wrote:
I’m very proud of you, Danesh.

Danesh wrote:
Thank you. This has been very difficult, I’m sure you know. Joey is going down so hard. Thank you for everything. Credible genuinely saved my mental health.

McGibney:
He’s a good man — Credible, though, he is constantly hitting on me lol. You would have gone through exactly what you were going through. If you ever need to reach out, call me.

On New Year’s, McGibney wrote:

Guess who’s about to have the worst day of his life lol. Hitting 2024 hard.

McGibney added:

Apparently, I’m gay, so if you ever want to go out on a date, ha ha ha ha.

Danesh:
With that money you’re collecting, I’ll be there with bells on.

McGibney:
You had me at bells.

Danesh::
Balls — I’ll attach my balls for the evening.

McGibney said:
I want bells

Danesh wrote:
You’ll get what you get,

More discussions about the lawsuit, then about the bad actors they were exposing for what they determined was wrongdoing. One morning, Danesh offered a one-word question.

Danesh:

Meow?

McGibney:
Meow meow.

Then they talked about posts and other things as they discussed collaborating. There were people to get arrested. People to DOX. About TV shows and docuseries, people to get fired and how they were going to get Joey Camp.

It is the correspondence of two virtual vigilantes not normally seen by outsiders and but for discovery in a lawsuit, we would not have seen it

Two men, Bullyville and ThatDaneshGuy: soldiers in the online war against bad actors, have granted, via discovery in a federal civil case, a rare peek into their lives, their motives, their friendship, their aspirations and the business they have chosen.

Are you the victim of Danesh Noshirvan or James McGibney? We would like to hear from you. Call (239) 631-5957 or email richard.luthmann@protonmail.com.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece first appeared on FLGulfNews.com.

By Rick LaRivière with Richard Luthmann

Fort Myers Federal Judge Lowers Boom with $62,320 Sanction

A federal judge has dropped an unprecedented $62,320 sanction on TikTok Mega Influencer Danesh “ThatDaneshGuy” Noshirvan. U.S. District Judge John E. Steele, presiding in Fort Myers, Florida, ordered the massive penalty after finding Noshirvan engaged in bad-faith litigation tactics against Fort Myers plastic surgeon Dr. Ralph Garramone and his wife, businesswoman Jennifer Couture.

The sanction – essentially a reimbursement of the defendants’ legal fees – is due immediately and marks a crushing blow to Noshirvan’s years-long courtroom campaign. Steele’s order, issued October 30, bluntly grants Garramone’s practice (Garramone Plastic Surgery, or “GPS”) attorney fees and denies all Noshirvan’s objections.

Noshirvan’s own conduct led to this reckoning. Over the summer, he barged into a deposition of his own wife, disrupted proceedings with profanity-laced outbursts, then weaponized social media to smear opposing counsel.

He falsely accused Garramone’s attorney – a Black civil rights lawyer – of making racist statements and harassing Mrs. Noshirvan, claims the court confirmed were pure fabrications.

Judge Steele found Noshirvan’s post-deposition tirade served “no purpose other than to…harass and intimidate” the defendants. In August, the judge sanctioned Noshirvan for this misconduct and warned that any further antics “may include dismissal of his case.”

Noshirvan didn’t heed the warning, and now Judge Steele’s hammer has come down: pay over $62K in fees for dragging this dispute into a fiasco.

Bloated Legal Bill Slashed to Size

The sanctioned fees didn’t come without a fight – or a haircut. Garramone’s legal team at Miami firm Duane Morris LLP initially demanded $99,909.90 to cover the cost of corralling Noshirvan’s bad behavior. They detailed over 175 hours of work by three attorneys and two paralegals, including two senior partners who sifted through Noshirvan’s sprawling social media posts.

But Judge Steele found that the price tag was excessive and took a scalpel to the bill. Citing “excessive, unnecessary, and redundant” entries, he slashed the fee request by more than a third. The final award: $62,320 – a steep sanction, but significantly less than what the lawyers had requested.

Steele zeroed in on overbilling and clerical fluff. Duane Morris’s top lawyer on the case, Harvey Gurland, had touted Miami-level hourly rates – $860 an hour for himself, $640 for a senior associate – as justified given their expertise in defamation and media law.

Yet Fort Myers isn’t Miami, and the judge wasn’t about to pay South Beach prices. He noted that GPS tried and failed to find any local Fort Myers counsel willing to take the case, which forced Garramone to hire out-of-town attorneys. Acknowledging this, Steele granted a “slightly higher” rate than usual for the region, but nowhere near what was asked.

He pegged Gurland’s reasonable rate at $600/hour, and cut the other rates to $450 for the associate and $300 for junior counsel. Even the paralegals’ rate was trimmed to $200. In short, the judge told the Miami lawyers to check their big-city rates at the door.

Then came the pruning of hours. Steele combed through the billing line by line and struck charges he deemed wasteful or clerical. He wiped out the time a paralegal spent merely indexing case law (0.9 hours) and calling the court clerk about an “emergency” filing (0.2 hours). He balked at a paralegal billing 3.0 hours to prepare binders and exhibits, calling those tasks administrative overhead.

Even lead attorney Gurland got dinged – the judge chopped 0.2 hours Gurland billed for “calling Chambers regarding the emergency motion,” labeling it “a clerical task that did not warrant counsel’s attention.”

The order also reduced the time spent on excessive preparation. Both Gurland and his colleague Julian Jackson-Fannin had personally pored over Noshirvan’s social media feeds; Steele found it redundant for two senior lawyers to tag-team that chore.

He further refused to let Jackson-Fannin bill for hours he spent preparing as a witness (not as an attorney) in the sanction hearing, axing over 20 hours of that prep work as beyond the scope.

In the end, the judge approved 58.2 hours for Gurland (down from the 63.4 hours claimed) and similar reductions for the others, resulting in a total of $62,320.

Steele didn’t stop at fees. He flatly denied $2,739.06 in extra expenses Duane Morris had sought. That tab included nearly $1,990 for unspecified “travel away from home, local travel, meals, and car rental” and $750 for color printing – all of it undocumented. The judge refused to reimburse such vague add-ons.

He also shot down a $3,000 expert fee for a Miami attorney who opined that Duane Morris’s high rates and hours were reasonable. Steele found the expert’s declaration unpersuasive, noting it relied on Miami market rates and overlooked the fact that one lawyer (Jackson-Fannin) billed significant time as a witness in the hearing.

In short, every penny of the $62,320 sanction is pure attorney’s fees – no miscellaneous expenses, no expert costs, no fat. It’s the exact amount Judge Steele calculated as the “reasonable” price of Noshirvan’s misbehavior, and he wasn’t about to let a dollar more slide.

Pay Up Now – And It’s Just the Start

Judge Steele’s message to Noshirvan is clear: Pay up now and straighten up, or face even worse. This six-figure sanction is due immediately, underscoring the court’s impatience with Noshirvan’s antics. His pleas for mercy fell on deaf ears – Noshirvan had frantically argued the fee sanction should be capped at $5,000 or severely limited to 25 hours of work at bargain rates.

Steele flatly rejected that gambit.

By slamming Noshirvan with the full $62K penalty, the judge made good on his warning that bad faith would have serious consequences. Back in August, Judge Steele had explicitly cautioned that if Noshirvan committed any further post-deadline misconduct, “more severe sanctions…may include dismissal of his case.”

Now, with this brutal fee award, the judge is one step from dropping the ultimate hammer – tossing Noshirvan’s case entirely.

For Noshirvan, the financial pain may only be beginning. If Judge Steele does throw out his lawsuit (a very real possibility given the escalating sanctions), that would free up Garramone and Couture to pursue their remaining counterclaims against him with a vengeance. Those counterclaims – essentially the defendants’ own accusations that Noshirvan defamed and harassed them – could expose the TikTok instigator to as much as $500,000 in additional damages and attorney fees, according to legal insiders.

In other words, the $62,320 sanction might be just a down payment on the half-million-dollar hit waiting in the wings if Noshirvan’s case collapses. The man who dragged a plastic surgeon and his wife into court could end up owing them a small fortune for his trouble.

Noshirvan’s opponents are smelling blood in the water. Dr. Garramone and Jennifer Couture have fought Noshirvan’s allegations for nearly two years, and now they hold the upper hand. Richard Luthmann, a journalist closely following the saga, put it bluntly.

“Dr. Garramone and Jennifer Couture are within inches of the death blow. I just hope there’s something left on the carcass when they’re done,” he said. “There are many out there that want a piece of this trophy.”

Noshirvan’s lawsuit is hanging by a thread, and even observers who once saw him as a social-media giant are watching his legal offensive turn into a self-inflicted disaster. The judge has effectively flipped the script: Noshirvan lit this fire, and now he’s getting burned.

As one court watcher quipped, the TikTok “avenger” has become “a dead man walking” in his own case – and the bill for his misdeeds has started to come due.

Slander Suit and ‘Antifa’ Accusations Close In

Adding to Noshirvan’s woes, he now faces a $20 million defamation slugfest brought by none other than Richard Luthmann, who has been waiting for his own pound of flesh. Luthmann, a Southwest Florida-based journalist and former political operative, sued Noshirvan after the TikTok star branded him a “pedophile” in an April 2025 Substack post and blasted the smear to 2.5 million followers.

The lawsuit calls Noshirvan’s accusation libel per se – essentially criminal slander, the kind of false charge (pedophilia) that inherently inflicts severe reputational harm.

According to the complaint, Noshirvan never retracted or apologized for the vile claim. Instead, he allegedly doubled down, emailing the article far and wide in Florida and beyond. Luthmann says he “has the receipts” showing Noshirvan blasted the defamatory post to countless inboxes and social media threads.

Now, Luthmann is suing for up to $20 million in damages, aiming to make the TikTok instigator answer for what he calls a blatant, malicious lie.

“Danesh used the federal courts to run a Woke censorship scam,” Luthmann said, referring to Noshirvan’s pattern of abusing lawsuits to silence critics. “Others, including Jeremy Hales, are doing the same thing, and I’ve already pledged my life, liberty, and sacred honor to help Save America by defeating these paid agitators one by one.”

With Garramone and Couture closing in from one side and Luthmann launching a legal broadside from the other, Noshirvan is boxed into a nightmare of his own making.

The broader picture painted by critics is even more damning. They depict Danesh Noshirvan as a social media hitman with ties to extremist networks.

In leaked communications, Noshirvan has been described as an “Antifa-linked” agitator who runs coordinated smear campaigns under the guise of activism. His crafted online persona – a do-gooder exposing “bad guys” – hides a darker reality: a paid internet troll on jihad, who weaponizes cancel-culture tactics for personal vendettas.

Evidence shows Noshirvan secretly teamed up with known internet provocateurs to target conservative figures. In one bombshell leak, former Marine James McGibney (creator of Bullyville.com) acts as Noshirvan’s puppet-master, feeding him dirt and even funding his attacks as part of an Antifa-like online harassment ring.

The chat logs reveal McGibney urging Noshirvan to unleash hell on people like Jennifer Couture and right-wing hero journalist Joey Camp – going so far as to obtain Couture’s mugshot and court records for Noshirvan to post.

It is also inescapable that the messages between Danesh and McGibney have a certain homoerotic flair.

“I think Danesh and McGibney are gay lovers, in my opinion,” Luthmann said. “I saw one of Danesh’s OnlyFans videos where he shoved a ‘white bullet’ up his ass, and I think it had ‘Dr. James’ written on it. Danesh appeared extremely happy while doing the deed.”

For all Noshirvan’s talk of holding others accountable, his own operation looks more like a mercenary smear machine. From creating fake “sockpuppet” accounts to impersonate his targets’ allies, to coordinating with shadowy donors and enablers, Noshirvan has turned social media into a weapon. Now, those same tactics are boomeranging back.

Even law enforcement is taking notice. In Texas, authorities are reportedly investigating Noshirvan in connection with the suicide of high school football coach Aaron De La Torre that followed a blatantly false TikTok harassment campaign. Noshirvan falsely accused De La Torre of child abuse online – spurring a barrage of posts and calls that drove the man to take his own life.

Texas Law Enforcement found zero evidence for Noshirvan’s claims, and now a grand jury is probing whether the TikTok agitator’s actions amount to death-resulting criminally negligent homicide. It’s a grim reminder that Noshirvan’s “cancel culture” crusades can have real-world consequences – and that he may finally be held to account beyond just civil court.

Noshirvan built his fame by meting out vigilante justice on social media, but the tide has turned. He once doxxed Supreme Court justices’ home addresses to sic angry crowds on them. He reveled in getting people fired, shamed, and ostracized for their missteps.

Now, with multiple lawsuits and sanctions bearing down, the self-proclaimed avenger finds himself on the receiving end of a much more official form of justice. As Judge Steele’s actions demonstrate, the federal courts have little patience for Noshirvan’s brand of chaos.

“This isn’t TikTok. It’s a federal court. Play by the rules,” one court commentator proclaimed.

In other words: Danesh Noshirvan’s days of dishing out punishment are over – it’s time to take his own medicine. The online tormentor is now a cautionary tale in the making: play games in court, and you’ll pay the price. The $62,320 sanction is just the beginning of Noshirvan’s comeuppance, and it won’t be the last.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece first appeared on FLGulfNews.com.

By Dick LaFontaine and M. Thomas Nast with Richard Luthmann

Danesh Noshirvan, an Antifa-linked paid online agitator, has built a notorious persona as a Woke TikTok “activist” by aggressively doxxing and harassing his perceived foes on the right.

His modus operandi is to publicize targets’ personal details – names, employers, contact info – and sic his millions of followers on them under the guise of “accountability,” effectively running a pay-for-doxxing vigilante service fueled by gifts and tips on social media.

Noshirvan’s targets have ranged from private citizens to high-profile officials. After the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, he published the home addresses of sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices, putting those families in danger.

In one recent online rant, he even threatened ICE agents that masking their identities is pointless – boasting that hackers or “people like me” will eventually expose everyone who ever worked for ICE – and suggested agents’ families should receive “the EXACT same care [they] gave others” (e.g. activists showing up at their kids’ schools), urging them to “quit now before it’s too late.”

Though he claims “this is not a threat…just logical advice,” the intimidation is unmistakable – especially given that DHS officials have reported ICE officers’ families being doxxed and threatened online.

An administration source says that Danesh and his recent posts threatening law enforcement are already under investigation. There is a file that extends at least as far back as to Danesh’s 2022 SCOTUS doxxing.

“Don’t be surprised if he gets a knock on his door in Mansfield,” the source said. “[This administration] recognizes the men and women who put their lives on the line. We protect law enforcement and their families. Period.”

Noshirvan’s unchecked online vigilantism and menacing posts have now spilled into real life, sparking serious legal blowback. Together with his attorney, Nick Chiappetta of Lake Worth, Florida, he stands accused of dragging these ruthless tactics into a federal courtroom – turning a Florida lawsuit into a “bizarre spectacle” of baseless smears and procedural abuse.

This dangerous fusion of online threats and lawfare sets the stage for the Chiappetta story to follow, where Noshirvan’s enabler finds himself entangled in the fallout of an escalating cancel-culture crusade.

Paid to Lie: Legal Misconduct

Nick Chiappetta is accused of warping legal processes for deceit. He represents controversial far-left Antifa-linked activist Danesh Noshirvan, earning Chiappetta the moniker “Antifa lawyer.” Critics call him an enabler of lies. Police and court records reveal a pattern of false reports and frivolous filings.

From bogus police calls to sanction-worthy court briefs, Chiappetta seemingly stops at nothing to smear his client’s critics.

Recently revealed documents show that Chiappetta aided and abetted a dishonest smear campaign against journalist Joey Camp, a person with whom Danesh and Antifa have been trying to settle the score for years.

Two days after he took Danesh’s case in 2023, Chiappetta contacted the Palm Beach, Florida, police, claiming Camp sent threatening messages.

Camp is a conservative journalist, photographer, and activist known for documenting the Antifa-fueled George Floyd riots and their aftermath. He would film Antifa members engaged in violence and the destruction of property, identify them, and publish his media and findings.

Due to his activism and threats from the left, Camp now resides abroad. Antifa placed an international bounty on his head.

Chiappetta wasted no time in reporting Camp to the police, three days into his representation of Noshirvan, and one day after they had a phone conversation where Camp denied any wrongdoing and Chiappetta could not articulate what Camp had done wrong.

Chiappetta was similarly short of factual details when he went to the police. Deputies found “there were no threats made” in the emails, only “suspicious” content. No harassment. No crimes.

Bodycam footage unequivocally exposes Chiappetta’s lies.

Chiappetta characterized Camp, a journalist, as a “paid agitator,” trying to spin a harassment narrative. In reality, Danesh, Chiappetta’s client, is the paid agitator. The claims Chiappetta made are demonstrably false, lack evidence, and were made in bad faith.

Palm Beach Sheriff’s Investigators confirmed “no crime was alleged or determined,” documenting the complaint “for informational purposes only.” Chiappetta’s report manufactured drama without evidence.

This same strategy spilled into federal court. U.S. District Judge John E. Steele sanctioned Noshirvan in August 2025 and publicly reprimanded Chiappetta. The judge warned that “there is no justification” for their “reprehensible conduct.”

Yet Chiappetta persisted with dubious litigation tactics. A recent defense sanctions motion says Chiappetta’s filing “is part of a smear campaign.” It “reads like a tabloid” rather than a legitimate court document. The motion lists numerous false statements that Chiappetta presented to the court, less than a month after admonishment.

Chiappetta has also been accused of misusing civil procedure to intimidate. He once served investigative reporter Richard Luthmann with a subpoena inside a courthouse.

“It was a scumbag tactic from a scumbag lawyer,” Luthmann said. “Now, Chiappetta is facing license suspension and disbarment, and he’s hired Florida Scumbag Lawyer Defenders, Inc., also known as Smith, Tozian, Daniel & Davis P.A. It appears that law firm’s sole mission in life is to ensure that predator lawyers can continue to victimize the general public.”

Experts blasted the ambush as an unethical assault on press freedoms. One attorney called this tactic a “fundamental breach of professional ethics.”

Critics argue Chiappetta’s legal maneuvers prioritize silencing opposition over truth. Evidence suggests he files baseless claims and reports to advance a narrative – effectively getting paid to lie.

Paid to Lie: Smear Campaign – Doxxing and Defamation

Danesh Noshirvan built his name by weaponizing social media outrage. Known as @ThatDaneshGuy on TikTok, he targets individuals with doxxing and accusations. He has published private details of Supreme Court Justices, prompting protests and threats.

His campaigns label targets as bigots or worse. Joey Camp, one such target, says Noshirvan called him “KKK, white supremacist, or pedophile.” Camp insists these slurs have no basis in fact.

Camp also claims Noshirvan “forges a lot of stuff,” creating fake screenshots to fabricate evidence.

Attorney Nick Chiappetta has bolstered Noshirvan’s onslaught. Instead of reining in his client, Chiappetta repeats and legitimizes these defamatory narratives in legal filings. In one federal motion, Chiappetta echoed outrageous claims. He suggested a defendant “may have a sexual relationship with Camp.” He also smeared a married couple as a “cuckhold couple”.

The filing even accused Noshirvan’s critics of a hate-crime conspiracy without any basis.

Defendants note each sensational allegation “is false” and argue these supposed “facts” serve no legitimate purpose in the case.

Chiappetta’s involvement lends Noshirvan’s online claims a veneer of legitimacy. Noshirvan’s doxxing and media manipulation tactics have led to real-world harm. Victims of his harassment say Chiappetta’s lawsuits intensify the damage.

One target, Jennifer Couture, says Chiappetta is “enabling a bully” by attacking anyone who stands up to Noshirvan.

While Noshirvan rallies a digital mob, Chiappetta wields court procedure as a weapon. This one-two punch amplifies a false narrative: social media character assassination backed by spurious legal claims. Critics warn that this collaboration crosses ethical lines. It turns the justice system into an extension of an Antifa-style smear campaign.

Paid to Lie: Escalating Attacks Against Journalist Joey Camp – Timeline Since 2023

Chiappetta’s campaign against journalist Joey Camp began in September 2023 and only intensified. On September 14, 2023, Camp confronted Chiappetta by phone. He told the lawyer to honor his “professional obligation” to the truth. He urged Chiappetta not to “perpetuat[e]… false evidence” for Noshirvan.

A day later, Chiappetta lodged a police complaint. On September 15, 2023, he told Palm Beach County deputies about “possible threats” from Camp. The responding deputy found Chiappetta’s emails “suspicious in nature” but noted “no threats made”. The incident report confirmed no crime occurred and was filed “for informational purposes only”.

By August 2024, the harassment narrative took a bizarre twist. Chiappetta reported that an unknown international caller left a chilling voicemail for his wife.

“I need you to let Nick know that I am coming after him… I am coming after you, and your entire family,” the message warned.

He immediately blamed Camp-Danesh’s “boogeyman behind every tree” – and claimed the journalist had fled overseas to “Mexico or Belize.”

Police investigated the alleged threat, but again found no crime to charge.

In August 2025, Judge Steele sanctioned Noshirvan and “publicly reprimanded” Chiappetta.

Only weeks later, Chiappetta filed another libelous motion. It accused Camp’s allies of sexual impropriety and even “hate crimes across state lines.”

In October 2025, the defendants sought Rule 11 sanctions, noting Chiappetta’s brief “reads like a tabloid” of smears.

Today, Joey Camp lives abroad, still hunted by Noshirvan’s network. Chiappetta’s own filings note Camp is “no longer in the country.”

Court filings suggest an international Antifa bounty on Camp, forcing him into exile. Despite the danger, the journalist continues to expose Noshirvan’s operation.

Camp refuses to be silenced, even as he remains a target of this vendetta.

Attorney Nicholas Chiappetta’s abuse of the legal system on behalf of the Antifa-linked Danesh Noshirvan continues.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece was first published on FrankReport.com.

By Frank Parlato

A Frank Report investigation into outrage, deception, and the machine-made mob.

$100K ON THE LINE: The Parable

(FORT MYERS, FLORIDA) – It began the way most things do—small and stupid. A quarrel in a parking lot. Two people. Two tempers. One phone. It should have ended there, with engines starting and doors slamming. But it didn’t. The camera stayed on.

And in the age we live in, that means the story was just beginning.

This is a parable for now. Once, parables warned men about sin and pride. Now they warn us about screens. About speed. About lies that travel faster than truth.

The new tools are simple: edits, hashtags, and algorithms. The new priest is an influencer. His church is the screen you stare at. His gospel is outrage.

He takes a small thing—a shove, a curse, a gesture—and trims it down to a single moment. He calls it accountability.

Soon, strangers are shouting. Mixed among the humans are bots—machines built to mimic rage and pull others in.

The humans do not know the people in the video. They do not care. What they know is what they’ve been shown—and that is enough.

This parable is not about mercy. It is about the power to twist a clip, to ruin a life with a tap of a finger. In this new world, there are no juries. No facts. Only the influencer and the crowd – real and artificial.

Reality is no longer what happens. Reality is what gets uploaded. And every one of us is one click away from being the next story.

This is the story of one of those clicks. This is Part Two of Danesh Noshirvan and the Case of Jennifer Couture.

The Lawsuit

It began as a quarrel in a parking lot—a near-accident at a Dunkin’ Donuts, edited into a viral lie. Based on the lie—the claim that Jennifer Couture tried to run over Anglyke Reed —a TikToker named Danesh Noshirvan built a narrative of “assault with a deadly weapon.”

He edited the video. He removed Reed’s threats, her screaming, her rage. He cut the part that showed Couture backing up to talk, not to hit her. In Danesh’s version, Couture was trying to run Reed down.

The internet’s jury watched the lie and found Couture guilty in a minute. What followed was an onslaught—not nearly as organic as it seemed.

A sheriff caved to what he believed was online pressure and arrested Couture, charging her with assault with a deadly weapon – the weapon being the car. The mob got what it wanted.

Later, the true facts were settled. The case was reduced to a misdemeanor.

Next, it was Danesh’s turn.

Couture and her husband, Dr. Ralph Garramone, a plastic surgeon, filed suit in May 2023 in federal court in Fort Myers. They alleged that Noshirvan defamed them, that he was a cyberstalker, and that he interfered with Dr. Garramone’s business in a tortious manner.

Danesh denied it. In his lawsuit, he defended his “accountability culture.” His lawsuit reads: “Noshirvan does not advocate for… harassment… nor has [he] ever directed his viewers to ‘go after’ any of the ‘bad actors.’”

He described himself as the victim. He alleged Couture, Garramone, and associates “devised a plan” to harm him. He accused them of hiring “social media terrorist,” Joseph A. Camp.

They flew north, he said, and put up flyers in his town for a “swingers party” with Danesh and his wife’s faces on them.

They built websites and wrote unflattering things. They bought ads criticizing him. They paid for a billboard that said Doxing is violent with his face beside the word.

Danesh said his wife and child moved away for safety. He said she had PTSD. Their goal, he said, was to make him “homeless, deplatformed, his child placed in foster care, and his wife forced to do immoral acts.”

It was ironic — the same pattern others accused Danesh of had become his defense. There are sites dedicated to the victims of Danesh. And now he was a victim, he said, of a woman and her husband, whom he had attacked, with a misleading video that led to her arrest.

Danesh said Couture, Garramone, and Camp ruined his life. Their plan would end only when he was a “broken human skeleton.”

Yet he was a journalist, he said. He fought for people who didn’t have a voice.

He asked the court for $5 million.

$100K ON THE LINE: The Deposition

April 15, 2025-

They met on Zoom. Julian Jackson-Fannin, a lawyer for Garramone and Couture, deposed Hannah Noshirvan, Danesh’s wife.

At the outset, Jackson-Fannin went “over a couple of ground rules” with Hannah, including the “need to make sure that there’s no external influences.”

“Is there anyone in the room with you right now?”

‘No,’ she said.

During the deposition, Jackson-Fannin shared his screen. A photograph appeared—a smiling woman in dark makeup. Across the top, someone had written, “Hannah Noshirvan in Blackface.”

Jackson-Fannin asked, “Is this you?”

“Yes,” she said.

She explained that she had makeup on because she played a ”burnt charcoal-covered zombie.”

“So you don’t harbor any animosity towards African-Americans or black people?”

“No, I do not, and I also take offense at that picture as labeled, ‘Blackface picture.’ That is not blackface.”

“Okay.”

“It’s been taken out of context.”

“Okay. You can see I have zombie contact lenses on.

They moved on.

Jackson-Fannin inquired about an explicit picture uploaded to an OnlyFans account with the handle “@thatdaneshguy,” the same social media handle Noshirvan uses on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and other platforms.

It was a fair question since Danesh’s complaint alleged he was harmed by Couture and Garramone’s false statements that he and his wife are “swingers.”

Jackson-Fannin asked Hannah whether she was aware that Noshirvan had an OnlyFans account, who was in the picture, whether she and her husband had an open marriage, and other similar questions.

Hannah did not answer.

Jackson-Fannin: Mrs. Noshirvan, please. Mr. Chiappetta, please advise your client that she needs to answer my question.

At that moment, a voice interrupted the proceedings. It was the voice of Danesh off camera.

Danesh: Whoa, I’ll remember this at settlement. I’ll remember this shit at settlement.

Jackson-Fannin: … Is Mr. Noshirvan in the room with you, Mrs. Noshirvan?

Hannah: No. No. He’s not. He was in the hallway.

Jackson-Fannin: Was he there just a moment ago in the room with you?

Hannah: No, no, he was not.

Jackson-Fannin: Well, then what was the voice that we just heard, Mrs. Noshirvan?

Hannah: He’s in the hallway. He’s in the hallway.

Jackson-Fannin: Is the door open, and is he visible from you right now?

Hannah: No. The door was cracked.

Jackson-Fannin: Okay. So then, Mr. Chiappetta, please advise your client to answer my question.

Hannah: Stop, Danesh, stop.

Danesh: Act with decency, motherfucker, and maybe I will. What are you asking her about, you dumb shit? You’re asking her about photos –

Nick Chiappetta (Danesh’s lawyer): Danesh, stop.

Danesh: What the fuck is wrong with you?

Chiappetta: Danesh, stop. Walk away.

Danesh: I’m sorry, I hear him from the hallway and I had to come and tell him he’s a fucking misogynistic piece of shit. Fuck you.

Jackson-Fannin: Mr. Chiappetta, would you like to advise your client?

Hannah: I closed the door.

Chiappetta: No, I think your entire line of questioning is inappropriate. This is not a conversation between — that involves the deponent in any which way whatsoever. It’s between two other individuals, and you are just trying to get some type of impression or create a reaction, which you just did, which is fantastic. So I hope that Ms. Couture and Dr. Garramone, who are on this deposition as well, see just how great of a job you’re doing, because, oh, you definitely inspired my client to take this all the way. So, good job, Julian. Let’s move on.

Jackson-Fannin concluded his deposition without further interruptions from Danesh.

$100K ON THE LINE: AfterMath

The morning after the deposition, Danesh posted on Substack.

“Breaking! Lawyer Julian A. Jackson allegedly stated he cannot tell the difference between BLACK PEOPLE and MONSTERS! Shares Revenge Porn in court!”

He called Jackson-Fannin a “low-class racist” who had “gone on a hyper-racist tangent.” He said Jackson-Fannin “held up a photo of my wife and thought it would be funny to say it was blackface.”

“Do you hate Black people, Julian?”

Danesh added: “Julian cried in deposition that he was going to tell the judge I threatened him after I may or may not have interrupted when I heard his perverted questions and may or may not have called him a ‘fucking pig’ and a ‘misogynist.’ That’s what you call men who share revenge porn. Men need to stand up to men.”

After the article appeared, Jackson-Fannin emailed Chiappetta to say that Danesh had made “patently offensive, false, and defamatory statements.”

Chiappetta replied that Danesh had deleted the post. Then he added: “Your actions in yesterday’s deposition reflect poorly … on yourself… Take responsibility for your actions.”

Within hours, Danesh wrote, “My lawyer says I can restore (the post) now.”

On April 17, Danesh published two Substack posts calling Jackson-Fannin a ‘low-class racist,’ a ‘misogynist,’ and a ‘pig’—claiming he said that “he thinks black people look like monsters.’ On Instagram, Danesh tagged professional groups: ‘This man sexually harassed my wife.’ He told his followers, “Share this everywhere. Thank you.”

Likes came by the thousands. Comments turned violent.

“I’m gonna kill him. Want to come?”

“GET HIM !!!!!!!”

“oh, he’s meat.”

“Time to bring back Real Justice,”

“Sounds like street justice time.”

“You are invited to end this piece of trash.”

“Find him and his wife make the score even but make sure she suffers cause of him and let it be known too.”

Voicemails followed on Jackson-Fannin’s phone and the phones of his law firm, Duane Morris:

“We know where you live… we’re going to sexually harass them… You’re a dirty fucking disgusting pig.”

“Hey Julian, we gotcha. We know where you live, we know who your mother is, we know who your sisters are… any female relative you have, we are going to sexually harass them…

“We’re thinking about it. We’re figuring out who we need to call, what we need to do. But you’re a dirty fucking disgusting pig. You’re a disgrace to all men everywhere. You’re a disgrace to lawyers everywhere… Fuck you, you piece of fucking shit.”

$100K ON THE LINE: A Clarification

The violent comments poured in, but they felt inauthentic—posted from new accounts using similar phrasing. Then came the voicemails: different voices, but the same scripted threats. Based on available evidence, Frank Report believes Danesh may have created and sent these messages himself, using voice-altering and call-spoofing software. What looked like an enraged mob was, in all likelihood, one man and a machine.

On April 19, Danesh emailed Jackson-Fannin, copying other Duane Morris lawyers. He called him a pig. He asked, “Do you hate brown people just like you hate women, Julian?”

The “voice” in the emails was the same one from the deposition, the same from his Substack—same rhythm, same rage, the same words his bots used.

Chiappetta told Jackson-Fannin he would “advise Danesh to stop emailing you.” He added that “nothing my client said is actionable and there is a factual basis to support certain statements.”

At Jackson-Fannin’s office, Duane Morris heightened security. He made a motion for sanctions, asking the court to order Noshirvan to remove social media posts targeting Jackson-Fannin, to issue a retraction, and instruct his followers to cease harassment and threats. He asked the court to reprimand Chiappetta and “to control his client.” They asked for fees.

When he read it, Chiappetta called the motion “very cute,” and wrote to Jackson-Fannin: “Way to destroy your own reputation… Don’t worry, we will correct all of your false statements.”

On April 23, Danesh posted to Substack.

“I never directed any harassment towards [Jackson-Fannin] and have absolutely no issue saying what I’ve said many times on my platform, which is: I do not support harassment, bullying, or threatening anyone.”

In defense of the motion, Chiappetta argued that Jackson-Fannin forced Hannah Noshirvan to answer private and painful questions. He blamed it on Couture and Garramone.

“[E]very step of the way, information that …has somehow been disseminated without [her] consent,” the filing says. “She endured an ‘onslaught of torture’ at the Defendants’ hands…. She is a true victim here. She lived with major depression, severe anxiety, and CPTSD.”

$100K ON THE LINE: The Reckoning

August 12

The court issued its decision. U.S. District Judge John E. Steele ruled:

“Noshirvan’s interruption and language at the deposition show subjective bad faith and merits sanctions…

“Noshirvan repeatedly hurled expletives at Jackson-Fannin, even after being told to stop, which establishes that his behavior was intentional and was so egregious that it could only have been committed in bad faith. Such misbehavior at a deposition justifies sanctions.

“If Noshirvan’s wife was being improperly questioned by Jackson-Fannin, the appropriate reaction was to present a motion and seek relief from the Court…

“Noshirvan’s post-deposition communications were not only inflammatory but false and intentionally made to incite followers to engage in foreseeable harassment and intimidation.

“Noshirvan asserted that Jackson-Fannin ‘said that he thinks black people look like monsters…’
The deposition transcript establishes Jackson-Fannin did not say that or anything remotely close. Nor did Jackson-Fannin sexually assault Mrs. Noshirvan, as Noshirvan asserted.

“Noshirvan baselessly called Jackson-Fannin a ‘low-class racist,’ a ‘pig,’ and a ‘misogynist.’

“Noshirvan’s communications are sanctionable because they served no purpose other than to improperly influence the litigation by disrupting the court proceedings and harassing and intimidating opposing counsel….

“For his conduct, Noshirvan will be sanctioned with the imposition of … attorney’s fees and costs in connection with bringing the matter to the Court’s attention. Noshirvan is warned that if he engages in similar conduct in the future, he will be subject to more severe sanctions, which may include dismissal of his case.

“Chiappetta also acted in bad faith when he declined to restrain Noshirvan…

“Chiappetta will be sanctioned with the following public reprimand: Nicholas Chiappetta has failed to meet the professional standards expected from officers of the court in connection with the deposition and its aftermath.”

$100K ON THE LINE: The Sanctions

As for costs, Duane Morris said it spent $100,000 on lawyers, cybersecurity, and security experts to counter Noshirvan’s attacks and protect Jackson-Fannin from potential violence. Noshirvan told the court he had only $5,000 to his name.

His lawyer now faces a Florida Bar review that could mean a warning, suspension, or even disbarment. He has had to hire legal counsel and spend his own money to defend himself because he failed to control his client.

Danesh faces monetary penalties of up to $100,000 in court-ordered sanctions. If Danesh only has five grand, the court still has its judgment. The debt stays. It collects interest. It waits. If he gets a job, they can take part of his pay. If he opens a bank account, they can seize it. It will go to Couture and Garramone. If he buys a car or a house, Couture and Garramone can slap a lien on it.

He can say he’s broke. The court will say, Fine. You’re broke—but you still owe. He won’t go to jail for being poor. But if he lies, hides assets, or ignores orders, that’s contempt. Then it’s different. But the debt stays until it’s paid.

Danesh faces another kind of accountability. A Denton County grand jury is probing the 2024 suicide of high school coach Aaron De La Torre, a death tied to Danesh’s digital crusades.

$100K ON THE LINE: The Parable Returns

It is a strange kind of justice — the hunter accused of becoming his own prey. The story has come full circle. In the end, the parable turns. The man who built mobs from mirrors faces one now.

The virtual crowd is gone. Only the judge remains. And in Texas, a grand jury waits.

The story that began small and stupid ends the same way—only this time, the camera points back at him.

The trouble with building mobs is that someday you hear them calling your name. You don’t need to look over your shoulder to know they mean you. You just stop and understand. All the shouting, all the judgment — it was only ever an echo.

Original Editor’s Note: This story is part of an ongoing investigation into digital harassment, media manipulation, and the weaponization of social platforms. It is conducted independently under a professional journalism retainer. Every effort has been made to ensure fairness, accuracy, and balance. All parties named in this and forthcoming reports are invited to provide comment.

Any use of artificial intelligence or related technology to harass or intimidate others in response to this reporting may constitute criminal cyber crimes.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece first appeared on FrankReport.com. If you have been cyberstalked or bullied, we want to hear your story. Write the author at frankparlato@gmail.com or Richard Luthmann at richard.luthmann@protonmail.com.

By Frank Parlato

This story is the first in a series on cyberstalking. I am publishing unedited exchanges with online harassers.

All reveal something about how bullies use the internet: Often with anonymity as a shield, and always with free speech as their excuse.

Hiding behind anonymity may give bullies some legal cover.

Some are crude, others infantile—some psychotic, some ridiculous.

I suspect the nature of bullying has not really changed over time, but the means for bullying have improved with social media and AI technology.

In the past, a bully had to be physically present to stand before his target. That meant courage of a sort — or at least the willingness to face a punch in the nose.

Today, the coward’s advantage has multiplied. With a screen for a shield, anyone can be a bully. No strength required, no courage needed, no consequences likely.

Anonymity pushes it even further: the troll can strike, vanish, and strike again, never risking the retaliation that kept bullies in check when face-to-face.

I’m grateful to an Instagram user who sent me a message.

I cannot identify the sender. In social-media bullying, the bully’s real name is often kept hidden. The bully knows the target’s identity but prefers to keep their own identity secret.

The Instagram account is Made You Look Faggot (handle: chill_inwithhomies420), created in September 2025. The account had one follower and followed two accounts.

The Exchange with Made You Look Faggot

MYLF (Tue 8:21 AM):
You, Ralph and Jennifer are well and truly fucked now

Frank (3:57 PM):
Thank you for your message. It is coincidentally timed with an investigation into cyberstalking and bullying. Would you care to be interviewed—and if so, would you be willing to do it in your true name?

In either event, would you care to explain your techniques for attempting to bully people? — Frank Parlato.

MYLF:
Nope.
Just expressing my 1st Amendment rights.
Goodbye, and good luck.

Frank:
It is a proud thing—the First Amendment, and I encourage you to use it.
Perhaps you would care to use it a little further and explain how you mean the word ‘fucked.’ It can have several meanings.

I don’t wish to bully, harass, or frighten you. But since you initiated this conversation, perhaps you might be emboldened—protected as you are by the First Amendment—to answer a couple of questions.

Of course, I would prefer you to use your real name, but as I study the nature of bullying and cyberstalking, it seems that online bullies generally prefer to use anonymity to protect themselves. Would you care to comment?”

Analysis of Troll: Made You Look Faggot

The troll’s words were more revealing than they might at first appear. The troll begins with a threat: “You are well and truly fucked.” The phrase stuck out.

Today, in the mouth of a troll, the old oath has warped into a threat.

For centuries, English and American jurors swore to “well and truly try.” Office-holders pledged to “well and truly execute.” Even couples promised to “well and truly solemnize” their vows.

As background, MYLF lumps me with two others (Ralph and Jennifer) in their threat. It is not common knowledge that I have worked with Ralph and Jen on, among other matters, the online attacks on their character and reputation.

This demonstrates that this anonymous individual likely knows my work and may have already bullied or attempted to bully Jen and Ralph.

My approach is to ask questions, not trade insults.

In this case, MYLF had nothing more to say. Ironically, after invoking free speech, MYLF deleted the page.

It is illustrative of how cyberstalking begins:

• Anonymous threats.

• Retreat behind “free speech.”

• Silence when pressed.

To Readers:

If you have been cyberstalked or bullied, I want to hear your story. Write me at frankparlato@gmail.com.

If you’ve bullied others, I’d like to hear your story. What drives you? What do you gain?

Is it fun?

I also hope to hear again from Made You Look Faggot. Perhaps in their real name. Or an equally clever name such as: MadeYouLookSmall (Chill_InWithMom’sWiFi)

If I were a psychiatrist, I might call it narcissistic fragility. Since I’m not, I’ll call it cowardice.

Lamentably, Made You Look Faggot has vanished—and left behind only the yellow streak he meant to hide. I smell the lingering odor of a coward.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece first appeared on FLGulfNews.com.

By Rick LaRivière with Richard Luthmann

Outrage Erupts Over Noshirvan’s Kirk ‘Footnote’ Post

Danesh Noshirvan – a Woke Mega Influencer and social media vigilante – is under fire after an inflammatory Instagram post about the assassination of Christian conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk. In the post, Noshirvan argued, “We don’t need to honor his memory… We need to add a footnote to his memory that he encouraged the violent culture that led to his death,” suggesting Kirk’s pro-gun rhetoric helped seal his fate.

The comments were widely condemned as gloating over Charlie Kirk’s murder.

Ironically, in the wake of Kirk’s killing, many Americans have already lost jobs for far milder remarks. Hundreds have been fired or suspended from their jobs after discussing the killing online, including teachers, professors, and even a Nasdaq employee who was ousted over social media posts about Kirk.

From coast to coast, educators who posted “inappropriate” rejoicing at Kirk’s death have been sacked “effective immediately.”

Now observers are asking: will Noshirvan – who built his brand holding others “accountable” for such speech – face the same consequences for his own gleeful take on Kirk’s assassination?

Cancel Danesh the Canceler: A Long Trail of Targets

Noshirvan is no stranger to online outrage campaigns – in fact, he pioneered them. Known on TikTok as @ThatDaneshGuy, he rose to fame by publicly naming and shaming people for perceived misconduct. He calls it “accountability.” Critics call it cancel culture.

His typical pattern involves doxxing alleged wrongdoers (exposing their names, workplaces, and contact info) and inciting his 3+ million followers to inundate them with harassment. Often, he explicitly urges that a target be fired or even arrested.

The results are devastating: scores of individuals have lost jobs or faced legal trouble after Noshirvan’s videos went viral.

By monetizing outrage through TikTok’s creator fund, he profits from these public pile-ons – “every attack video generates income for him,” one advocate noted. As a leading figure of this “accountability culture,” the 38-year-old Noshirvan has unapologetically ruined careers and reputations over what people say or do online.

Now, the canceler has become the target of cancel cries himself. After conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Noshirvan effectively cheered the murder. This vitriolic reaction to a political killing struck many as gross hypocrisy. Noshirvan built his career on zero tolerance for “hateful” speech from others; by his own standard, critics argue, he should be just as swiftly canceled for his Kirk comments.

And it’s not the first time. Danesh previously told Dr. Phil that the results of his subversive comments and online actions – even suicides and deaths – are “not his responsibility.”

Now he dishonors Charlie Kirk’s memory.

What follows are several case studies of Noshirvan’s past targets – and how his campaigns upended their lives.

It should not be lost on the readership that Danesh’s targets featured here are three white, traditional, heterosexual women.

Jennifer Couture: Doxxed, Defamed, and Fighting Back

Jennifer Couture, a Fort Myers mom and business owner, was thrust into the spotlight as one of Danesh Noshirvan’s earliest targets. She has had enough.

In 2022, a viral TikTok video captured Couture in a heated altercation outside a Fort Myers Dunkin’ Donuts. Unsurprisingly, Danesh took the side of a Woke TikToker named Anjlyke Reed (@spammanj1).

Noshirvan seized on the clip: he identified Couture, broadcast her personal details, and painted her as a violent menace. The fallout was immediate. Harassment and threats poured in against Couture, her family, and her husband’s practice (Garramone Plastic Surgery) after Noshirvan’s videos about her spread online.

Danesh never provided the context for the altercation. Reed allegedly nearly t-boned Couture’s car with her teenage daughter in it. Couture believes the distracted driving was marijuana-induced and that Anjlyke Reed is the real criminal.

Based on Noshirvan’s AI-driven cancel culture campaign, Couture was arrested and charged (for assault related to touching Reed’s cell phone). She ultimately pleaded guilty and received probation, but Noshirvan didn’t stop at reporting. He continued to vilify her on TikTok, calling for maximum punishment and rallying his followers to pressure local authorities.

According to court documents, he selectively edited footage to make Couture look as bad as possible, and even targeted the local sheriff and prosecutor with accusations to influence her case. Couture’s name and photos were plastered online as Noshirvan pushed a false narrative that she was some “predator” – falsely accusing her of “stalking” his own children, an utterly baseless claim.

After enduring nearly four years of online persecution, Couture is now fighting back on both legal and public fronts. She and her husband have sued Noshirvan, accusing him of harassment, cyberstalking, and defamation.

In August 2025, a federal judge in Florida officially rebuked Noshirvan and his lawyer for “brazen bad-faith lies” in the Couture case. Judge John E. Steele is expected to slap Noshirvan with nearly $100,000 in sanctions in another case after blasting his “reprehensible conduct” in litigation.

In another case, Noshirvan was a no-show at a mandatory federal court conference in Fort Myers in July, ditching the hearing to play at a California theme park and tape a podcast. A furious magistrate ordered him to explain why he shouldn’t be sanctioned or hit with a default judgment for flouting the court.

Empowered by that vindication, Couture recently released a scathing public statement condemning Noshirvan and his attorney. She says both men smeared her family with lies and “operated in bad faith to destroy [her] reputation.” Couture didn’t mince words about Danesh’s lawyer – calling him “feckless” and “a scumbag” who enables Noshirvan’s bullying instead of stopping it.

“He’s using the courts to attack anyone who stands up to Danesh,” she said of the lawyer.

In her statement, Couture recounted how she stayed silent for years on legal advice while Noshirvan’s lies ran rampant, tarnishing the reputation she and her husband spent a lifetime building. Now she’s done being quiet.

“I am truly disgusted by the lies spread about me and Ralph… Three years and nine months… I’m over it,” Couture declared.

She blasted Noshirvan as “a complete stranger to us” who nevertheless orchestrated malicious campaigns against her and her family, amounting to “cyberstalking, intimidation, libel, persecution, defamation – not the other way around.” And she reserved special wrath for Danesh’s lawyer, accusing him of lying in court and even to her face during depositions.

“He is a scumbag… He lied throughout these proceedings,” Couture said. “Nick is demented and a money-grubbing whore… They are con men. I hope they both rot in hell.”

It’s an extraordinary turnaround: the once-doxxed “Fort Myers mom” is now one of Noshirvan’s loudest critics, determined to hold him accountable for the very tactics he used against her.

Sydney McDaniel: From 30 Views to 20 Million and a Ruined Life

Another of Noshirvan’s targets was Sydney McDaniel, a young cosmetologist from Bridgeport, West Virginia. Her ordeal began with a trivial TikTok video in 2023 – a 15-second clip in which she defended Elon Musk against a media accusation that he made a “Nazi salute.” The post was innocuous and garnered only “maybe 30 views” initially, McDaniel recalls.

But then Danesh Noshirvan found it. Without reaching out or learning who Sydney was, he screenshotted her video and “blew it up” across his platforms. Noshirvan branded McDaniel a Nazi sympathizer, even posting her TikTok side-by-side with a photo of an actual Nazi to maximize outrage. He tagged her workplace in the post and broadcast her location, effectively painting a target on her back.

The effect was instantaneous: “The video went viral,” Sydney says – skyrocketing to 20 million views after Noshirvan’s amplification. Suddenly, this ordinary woman’s face was infamous online. She was doxxed, inundated with hate, and even accosted in public.

“My workplace got mass-called. I was approached at gas stations. I couldn’t go anywhere alone,” McDaniel remembers of the nightmare that unfolded.

Noshirvan’s mob demanded justice against the supposed “racist.” They barraged McDaniel’s employer – Platinum Salon in Bridgeport – with calls and threats, intent on getting her fired. At first, the salon owner (a close friend of Sydney’s) tried to stand by her. But as the pressure mounted, he caved.

Without warning, Sydney was fired and even blocked by her boss of four years.

“No discussion. He said I couldn’t return, then he blocked me,” she says. “I lost my job, my income, my safety. All because I told people to stop being negative.”

In Noshirvan’s quest for a “scalp,” her life was upended overnight.

“Danesh knew what he was doing,” Sydney says. “He wanted a scalp – and I was it.”

To this day, McDaniel is picking up the pieces. She became yet another victim of Noshirvan’s “cancel culture jihad.” But she’s not staying silent either. Sydney has spoken out in the media, condemning Noshirvan’s tactics. She and many observers note the irony that Danesh himself exhibits the bigotry he claims to fight.

“He hates white people and overwhelmingly targets them with his ‘accountability’ videos,” the Florida Gulf News reported, citing the pattern of who Noshirvan goes after. McDaniel flatly calls Noshirvan akin to a “digital Al Sharpton” – essentially a race-baiting agitator for clicks.

“He targets certain people to rile up a mob… It’s not about justice. It’s about views,” she says.

His so-called accountability, in her view, is really performative outrage for online clout. McDaniel’s case also highlighted the evolving public backlash to these tactics. In her hometown, many were disgusted that Platinum Salon gave in to the mob. Sydney McDaniel, for her part, hopes that shining a light on Noshirvan’s “rampage” will spur accountability.

“He’s dangerous,” she warns. “He leads a cult. And people follow.”

Coco” Briscoe: TikTok Dating Tales Turned Into a “Criminal” Target

One of the more bizarre episodes in Noshirvan’s cancel catalog involves Coco Briscoe – a DC-based TikToker and comedienne who gained modest fame for her light-hearted “Dating DC” video series. Briscoe’s content was essentially an ongoing vlog about her love life and the quirky characters she encountered.

By all accounts, it was harmless fun – until Danesh Noshirvan latched onto a distorted version of her story. According to Briscoe, Noshirvan twisted her situation into a false criminal narrative and unleashed his digital army on her.

The context: Briscoe had a falling out with some local bar staff (after she spoke about them on TikTok), which led to a contentious restraining order dispute in 2021. Danesh, without knowing the facts, jumped in and cast Briscoe as the villain – implying she was a dangerous stalker or mentally unhinged troublemaker.

His followers swarmed, and before long “Coco” found herself smeared across the internet by people who knew nothing of her beyond Danesh’s posts.

In reality, Noshirvan himself eventually admitted he had no idea what he was talking about in Briscoe’s case. At one point, he even apologized to her, writing, “I was never going to even comment on it… I should not have said anything.”

But that mea culpa was fleeting. When Briscoe tried to set the record straight publicly, Danesh turned on her again – doubling down with insults. He branded Coco Briscoe as “insane,” a “liar,” and “toxic” in front of his massive audience.

The damage was done: Briscoe’s reputation was wrecked by a flood of strangers convinced she was a menace. She even ended up jailed briefly over the original dispute (in what many saw as an overreaction fueled by the social media frenzy).

Her case illustrates the capricious cruelty of Noshirvan’s vigilantism – he parachuted into a complex situation, grossly mischaracterized a woman as a criminal, and when challenged, attacked her character further instead of admitting error.

“Coco was just documenting the dating scene in DC,” reporter Richard Luthmann explains. “Danesh twisted that into some criminal narrative, sending his digital army after her.”

To this day, Briscoe is trying to rebuild her life and name. Her takeaway from the ordeal is a cautionary one: internet mobs led by influencers like Noshirvan can ruin innocent people on a whim, with little to no accountability.

Noshirvan, she says, “knows nothing about us, yet he feels entitled to destroy us.”

Her story is a stark reminder of how reckless and damaging this brand of “cancel culture” can be when the mob gets it wrong.

Cancel Danesh the Canceler: Backlash Builds

Noshirvan’s long trail of targets – from private citizens like Couture, McDaniel, and Briscoe to teachers, doctors, police officers, and even Supreme Court justices – has not only spurred civil lawsuits but also a profound shift in public sentiment.

Cancel culture has significantly changed since Noshirvan first began his TikTok crusades. No longer is outrage mobbing a one-way street dominated by “woke” activists. Now, the backlash is striking back. High-profile controversies have galvanized conservatives and free-speech advocates to counter “cancellations” with equal force.

Bud Light’s ill-fated 2023 marketing stunt with a transgender influencer, for example, provoked a nationwide boycott that shaved billions off the beer brand’s value.

And earlier this year, when Cracker Barrel unveiled a seemingly innocent new logo, it faced fierce MAGA-world condemnation – some dubbed it the company’s “Bud Light moment.” One pundit lambasted Cracker Barrel as “the Bud Light of formerly great restaurants.”

In other words, companies that cave in to online pressure (or are perceived to go “Woke”) now risk being “canceled” by the other side. This growing climate of counter-boycotts and skepticism has put Noshirvan’s tactics under a harsher spotlight than ever before.

Crucially, law enforcement is also taking notice. In the most tragic case linked to Noshirvan, a Texas high school football coach named Aaron De La Torre took his own life in October 2024 after being relentlessly targeted, harassed, and defamed by one of Danesh’s campaigns.

Noshirvan had falsely accused the coach of heinous acts (even after the initial allegations were discredited) and continued to sic the online mob on him even after the man’s death. The outcry over that tragedy finally moved authorities to act. Prosecutors in Denton County, Texas, are reportedly preparing felony charges against Noshirvan in connection with De La Torre’s death.

Investigators believe Noshirvan’s cyber-harassment may have crossed the line into criminal extortion and stalking, contributing directly to the coach’s deadly despair.

In addition, law enforcement agencies in multiple states and the FBI have opened files on Noshirvan based on complaints from victims. For the first time, the self-styled TikTok vigilante faces the real possibility of legal consequences beyond the civil courts.

Danesh Noshirvan spent years weaponizing social media outrage to punish others – ruining careers, upending families, and even abetting loss of life. Now, with the tide turning, he finds himself in the crosshairs. His former targets, once isolated and intimidated, are banding together and speaking out.

Public opinion is shifting against the kind of one-sided “accountability” Danesh peddled. And significantly, the justice system may soon catch up to what he’s done. As one commentator put it, “The canceler has finally been canceled – and maybe even about to be charged.”

Each of the cases above underscores a common theme: mob “justice” on the internet can inflict real harm – but eventually, real justice and truth have a way of prevailing. Noshirvan’s long trail of targets is coming full circle, and this time, he is the one being held to account.

Democrats’ Dilemma: Will Allies Cancel the Canceler?

For years, Noshirvan was embraced in certain progressive circles as a digital vigilante fighting the far-right. Prominent Democrats and anti-Trump activists amplified his content – none more than Scott Dworkin, co-founder of the Democratic Coalition. Dworkin once hailed Noshirvan as a “citizen watchdog” with formidable “investigative skills,” even calling him “one of the hardest working investigators out there right now.”

That praise came in 2020, because Noshirvan’s antics – like publicly shaming COVID rule-breakers – aligned with liberal causes. But after the Charlie Kirk post and a string of scandals, Danesh Noshirvan has morphed from asset to potential liability. Even his one-time allies are now pressed to renounce him.

“Dworkin needs to answer why he ever supported this maniac,” journalist Richard Luthmann wrote pointedly, noting that today “many think Danesh Noshirvan is a digital assassin, a cancel culture killer.”

Luthmann unloaded.

“Danesh Noshirvan has blood on his hands, and he’s unapologetic. His entire mission in life is to amplify poisonous Woke rhetoric and mute the voices of conservatives,” he said. “He should apologize immediately, and then get down on his knees and pray to the one true God for forgiveness. The same God that saved his family from certain death when He delivered them safely from the Islamic Republic of Iran to the greatest nation that God ever gave to mankind.”

We asked Scott Dworkin about Danesh Noshirvan. We received no answer as of press time. Here is what we asked:

From: Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>
Date: On Sunday, September 14th, 2025 at 7:51 PM
Subject: Do You Still Stand With Danesh Noshirvan After His Charlie Kirk Post and Legal Scandals?
To: dworkin@substack.com <dworkin@substack.com>, scott@democraticcoalition.org <scott@democraticcoalition.org>, scottjdworkin@yahoo.com <scottjdworkin@yahoo.com>
CC: RALafontaine@protonmail.com <ralafontaine@protonmail.com>, richard.luthmann@protonmail.com <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>, mthomasnast@protonmail.com <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, frankiepressman@protonmail.com <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, mvolpe998@gmail.com <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, frankparlato@gmail.com <frankparlato@gmail.com>

Mr. Dworkin,

We are a group of independent journalists. We are preparing a piece about the above-referenced Danesh Noshirvan, an individual known to you.

We’re following up on your past support for Danesh Noshirvan (@ThatDaneshGuy), who you once praised as a “citizen watchdog” and “one of the hardest working investigators out there.” That endorsement now looks radioactive.

After Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Noshirvan posted:

“We don’t need to honor his memory… We need to add a footnote to his memory that he encouraged the violent culture that led to his death.”

That’s not “accountability.” That’s dancing on a grave.

Meanwhile, teachers, professors, firefighters, and even Nasdaq employees have been fired for far tamer posts about Charlie Kirk’s death.

Noshirvan himself built his career getting people fired for what they said online. The man who destroyed lives for bad tweets is now exposed for gleeful rhetoric after a political murder.

So here are our direct questions to you:

1. Do you still stand by your endorsement of Danesh Noshirvan? Or was that a mistake you now regret?

2. Do you consider Noshirvan’s Charlie Kirk post a celebration of assassination? If so, should he face the same career-ending consequences he’s demanded for others?

3. Noshirvan is facing several multi-million dollar federal defamation suits in Florida, sanctions for “reprehensible conduct,” and a Texas grand jury probe into the death of high school football coach Aaron De La Torre. Do Democrats risk reputational suicide if they continue associating with him?

4. You have been called “a Charlie Kirk on the Left,” based in part on your ability to organize youth vote. If something happened to you, would it now be “fair game” for conservatives and others to say your rhetoric brought it on, trample your memory, and “piss on your grave”—the exact standard Noshirvan applied to Charlie Kirk?

5. Should Democrats now draw a hard line and disown this man, or will silence be interpreted as approval of his post and his pattern of harassment?

6. You once called him an “investigator.” With his trail of canceled careers, AI-driven harassment campaigns, and looming felony charges, do you still believe that label applies—or was he always a digital executioner masquerading as an activist?

Mr. Dworkin, these are not abstract questions. They cut to the heart of whether Democrats will practice what they preach or be exposed as hypocrites.

We intend to go to press and would like your responses and comments to give our readers a balanced perspective on the issues. If you respond after press time, we will incorproate your response in a follow-up.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Regards,

Rick LaRivière
Independent Journalist

Democrats once hailed Danesh Noshirvan as a digital vigilante, a hero of the resistance. Now he’s radioactive. Their silence in the face of his ghoulish Charlie Kirk post isn’t neutrality—it’s complicity. Every day they duck the question, the stench of hypocrisy grows stronger.

The Right already knows what to do with him. They’ve tagged him as one of the ghouls who “celebrated” Charlie Kirk’s death—precisely the sort of conduct Noshirvan built his empire punishing. It is the ultimate reversal: the executioner strapped into his own guillotine.

But America knows how to celebrate its heroes, from teachers and coaches to cultural icons and founders of movements. We never forget that all death can do to the believer is deliver him into the arms of Jesus.

So here’s the real question, the one that hangs like a sword over Danesh’s brand, his allies, and his career: Should the canceler be canceled? If Democrats don’t cut him loose, they own him. If they do, they admit they were played by a con man all along.

Tick-tock, Danesh. The mob you unleashed is circling back. The cancel culture king is about to find out what it feels like when the mob comes for him.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece first appeared on FLGulfNews.com.

By M. Thomas Nast with Richard Luthmann

Danesh Blows Deadline and Torpedoes His Own Case

Danesh Noshirvan – a TikTok terror infamous as @ThatDaneshGuy – just committed a legal faceplant of epic proportions. He missed the deadline to answer Richard Luthmann’s discovery requests in a $20 million defamation lawsuit, a blunder that automatically admits every allegation under federal rules.

In one stroke, the 38-year-old internet “vigilante” essentially confessed to Luthmann’s claims, handing his opponent a near-automatic win. “Failure to respond in a timely manner” means each fact Luthmann asked Noshirvan to admit is now conclusively established.

For a man who built his brand on exposing others, Noshirvan has exposed himself as a legal liability. This self-inflicted disaster is a bombshell broadside to his defense.

Mega Influencer Noshirvan previously and publicly branded Richard Luthmann a “pedophile,” “child predator,” “child stalker,” and “predator with a blog” to his three million followers across all social media platforms. The claims are baseless, intentional, and malicious. When Luthmann – an outspoken critic of Noshirvan’s tactics – didn’t receive a retraction and apology, he sued.

Now armed with Noshirvan’s own admissions to prove the case, Luthmann is in the legal catbird seat. As one court observer quipped, the TikTok terror just torpedoed his own case.

In the war of words turned court battle, Danesh’s deadline disaster may go down as the moment his crusade collapsed.

Danesh’s Discovery Deadline Disaster: Noshirvan Admits to Lies and Harassment

By blowing off the discovery deadline, Noshirvan is legally deemed to admit an avalanche of damning facts. The once-defiant influencer now agrees, as a matter of law, that:

• He smeared Luthmann with lies: Noshirvan admits he publicly branded Richard Luthmann a “pedophile,” “child predator,” “child stalker,” and “predator with a blog” – all with zero factual basis. He concedes that each of those vile accusations was false and unfounded.

• He weaponized his online empire: He admits he ran a monetized social media persona (“ThatDaneshGuy”) with millions of followers and leveraged that huge audience to broadcast the falsehoods about Luthmann far and wide. He even called his harassment campaigns “accountability” work – now proven a sham.

• He enlisted an online mob: Noshirvan admits he urged his followers to file reports to authorities accusing Luthmann of crimes he didn’t commit. He also used sock-puppet accounts and bots to amplify attacks and coordinated with notorious internet provocateurs (like James “BullyVille” McGibney) to further smear Luthmann.

• He ignored the truth and doubled down: Even after Luthmann sent formal retraction demands in writing, Noshirvan admits he refused to retract or apologize for calling Luthmann a pedophile and other slurs. Instead, he kept pumping out defamatory content, showing a willful disregard for the truth.

• He abused legal process to harass: Noshirvan admits that in a separate case, he had a subpoena improperly served on Luthmann with no legitimate purpose – purely to intimidate a journalist covering that case. He now concedes Luthmann wasn’t even involved in that case, and the subpoena was baseless. After Luthmann fought back, Noshirvan withdrew the bogus subpoena, effectively admitting it was a harassment tactic.

• His lawyer aided the scheme: In a jaw-dropping admission, Noshirvan confirms that Florida attorney Nick Chiappetta was working behind the scenes – ghostwriting Noshirvan’s court filings like his motion to dismiss and initial disclosures – even though Chiappetta only recently appeared as counsel of record. Noshirvan also admits Chiappetta threatened Luthmann with phony criminal charges to try to silence Luthmann’s news reporting, despite having no evidence for any such crime.

Each admission is a nail in the coffin of Noshirvan’s defense. He has, by his own inaction, validated Luthmann’s entire narrative: that Danesh Noshirvan ran a malicious online vendetta fueled by lies, intimidation, and abuse of the system. It’s a catastrophic reversal for a defendant who once painted himself as an “accountability” activist.

In reality, Noshirvan now admits to being the very thing he accused Luthmann of – a purveyor of baseless smears and harassment.

Danesh’s Discovery Deadline Disaster: Delay, Deceit and Bad Faith “Bottom-Feeder” Tactics

This latest debacle didn’t happen in a vacuum – it fits a pattern of bad faith and delay that has defined Noshirvan’s approach to litigation. From the outset, he treated court rules as optional. He blew off multiple pre-trial duties, skipping required meetings, ignoring scheduling orders, and stonewalling basic procedures.

In fact, court filings note that Noshirvan “has stonewalled the litigation at every turn,” earning him the moniker “the theme park fugitive” of Fort Myers federal court. Magistrate Judge Nicholas Mizell’s patience is exhausted.

In another case in the same courthouse, U.S. District Judge John E. Steele previously warned that Noshirvan’s chronic non-compliance “threatens the orderly administration of justice” and “warrants remedial action.”

Simply put, Noshirvan’s dilatory tactics have pushed the court to the brink of tossing his defense entirely.

Noshirvan’s bad behavior is a fixture in his federal cases. In August, his antics triggered a judicial smackdown of historic proportions when Judge Steele found Noshirvan acted in “subjective bad faith” during a deposition – hurling profanities at opposing counsel and siccing his online followers on the lawyer in a campaign of harassment. Judge Steele’s August 12 order blasted Noshirvan’s “false and inflammatory” posts designed to disrupt the litigation.

The judge even branded Noshirvan’s conduct “reprehensible,” publicly reprimanding Nick Chiappetta for failing to rein in his client. The result: nearly $100,000 in expected sanctions slapped on Noshirvan – a crushing penalty for his courtroom bullying.

“Judge Steele saw right through this guy’s bullshit,” Luthmann said after that scathing ruling, noting that most of Noshirvan’s wild claims were dismissed as baseless. Luthmann has since alerted the Florida Bar to Chiappetta’s behind-the-scenes scheming in that case.

His opinion of Noshirvan’s lawyer is blunt: “Nick Chiappetta is a bottom-feeder attorney,” Luthmann said, accusing Chiappetta of letting his client run amok.

It’s a one-two punch: judges and opponents alike see Noshirvan’s legal strategy for what it is – delay, deceit, and scorched-earth tactics with no regard for the rules. Now, with the discovery admissions gutting his defense, those tactics have finally backfired spectacularly.

Judge Summons Danesh After Theme Park “Vacation” Stunt

Noshirvan’s woes don’t end there. His habit of treating court dates like suggestions already landed him in hot water. On July 17, the TikTok provocateur was a no-show at a mandatory federal court conference, leaving Judge Mizell waiting in vain.

What was so important? A meet-and-confer with the Super Mario Brothers, apparently.

Instead of appearing for the pre-trial hearing in his defamation case, Noshirvan ditched court to romp around Universal Studios Hollywood and even tape a celebrity podcast. When the judge demanded an explanation, Noshirvan filed a sworn declaration claiming it was all an “innocent” calendar mix-up and a “long-scheduled family vacation.”

Missing court was a “genuine mistake,” he insisted – not disrespect.

But hard evidence blew apart that alibi. Court exhibits show that at the exact hour he was supposed to be in a federal hearing, Noshirvan was in line for the Mario Kart ride at Super Nintendo World.

Later the same day – while the judge’s conference proceeded without him – Noshirvan was on camera co-hosting rapper Snow Tha Product’s podcast in Los Angeles.

And his West Coast escapades didn’t stop there: within days, investigators tracked him partying in Las Vegas, even filming content at a swanky Hilton resort on the Strip. So much for a “family vacation.”

Judge Mizell was not amused. In a blistering show-cause order, the judge noted Noshirvan’s brazen truancy and failure to even call the court. Noshirvan was clearly flouting court procedures. Such contempt for the rules could bring sanctions or even a default judgment against Noshirvan.

Judge Mizell summoned Noshirvan to appear in person and explain himself – essentially, to answer why he shouldn’t be held in default for playing hooky. The evidence is overwhelming that Noshirvan lied to the court, and even Luthmann – who caught him in the lie – is seething.

“I’m not gonna let him go in and lie to the court,” Luthmann fumed, calling Noshirvan “very dishonest” about the absence. He and other observers call this fiasco part of a broader “pattern of dishonesty” by Danesh.

Now, Judge Mizell’s evidentiary hearing (set for September 10) will be Noshirvan’s day of reckoning. The TikTok star who once danced on graves and doxed his critics will have to answer, under oath, for his theme-park priorities and false excuses.

Court watchers suspect Mizell will be “deeply skeptical” of Noshirvan’s vacation yarn – and “ready to drop the hammer.” If Noshirvan’s cavalier attitude continues, the consequences could be severe.

In plain English: the “theme-park fugitive” of Fort Myers federal court is about to face real-life consequences, and no fast-pass is getting him out of this one.

Richard Luthmann, for his part, believes that Danesh Noshirvan’s judicial free ride is over.

“I’m confident that justice will prevail,” Luthmann said, vowing that Noshirvan will be held to account.

After years of smearing others and thumbing his nose at the system, Danesh Noshirvan is finally about to pay the price – in his own words, actions have consequences. The crusader has become the defendant, the hunter now the hunted, and a federal courtroom is poised to deliver a very public comeuppance.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

NOTE: This piece was first published on FLGulfNews.com.

By Richard Luthmann

Sanctions Storm Hits Noshirvan

TikTok jihadist Danesh Noshirvan is facing the bill of a lifetime. On September 2, 2025, powerhouse law firm Duane Morris LLP filed a motion in the Middle District of Florida demanding that Noshirvan cough up nearly $100,000 in sanctions for his courtroom antics.

The request comes after a federal judge found Noshirvan acted in “subjective bad faith” during a deposition of his wife, hurling expletives at opposing counsel Julian Jackson-Fannin and then inciting his online followers to harass him. The harassment escalated to threats of violence against Jackson-Fannin, his family, and colleagues.

Judge John E. Steele didn’t mince words in his August 12 Opinion and Order: Noshirvan’s “false and inflammatory” posts were meant to “improperly influence the litigation by disrupting court proceedings and harassing and intimidating opposing counsel.”

The sanctions ruling hit both Noshirvan and his lawyer, “Nickless” Chiappetta. The court publicly reprimanded Chiappetta for failing to rein in his client. Now, the financial hammer is falling, and the tab is steep: $96,498 in attorneys’ fees, $2,739 in costs, and $3,000 for an expert witness.

Danesh Is Screwed: Duane Morris Brings Heavy Artillery

Duane Morris didn’t play small ball. The Miami-based team, led by Harvey W. Gurland Jr. and Jackson-Fannin, put in over 175 hours on the sanctions fight. Gurland billed at $860 an hour, Jackson-Fannin at $640, and associate Anoosheh Shaikh at $500. Even the paralegals clocked in at nearly $300 an hour.

After a 10% discount, the grand total still came in at $99,909.90, with an expert trimming the number to $96,498.

“GPS is not seeking a windfall here,” the filing states, referring to Garramone Plastic Surgery, the Duane Morris client. “Rather, GPS is simply seeking reimbursement of the fees and costs reasonably incurred in successfully defending its constitutionally protected right to due process.”

The court already agreed Noshirvan’s behavior forced the sanctions motion. Now Duane Morris wants him to pay for the privilege.

And they’re not shy about their rates. As the motion argues, Miami is now a “national legal market,” with top firms charging national prices. Compared to $1,000-plus rates in South Florida, Duane Morris insists their billing was a bargain.

Danesh Is Screwed: Noshirvan’s Staggering Misstep

Noshirvan could have dodged this disaster. Duane Morris lawyers tried to resolve the fee issue without dragging the court back into it. They held a Microsoft Teams conference with Chiappetta on August 29. According to the filing, Noshirvan’s camp objected to everything—hourly rates, time expended, and costs—but offered nothing concrete.

Even after Duane Morris cut rates again in a revised proposal on August 31, Noshirvan stayed silent. That left the firm no choice but to march back into court, receipts in hand.

The bill covers more than time sheets. Security measures had to be tightened at Duane Morris’s Miami office, and escorts hired for depositions. Travel to Fort Myers and stacks of evidentiary exhibits added thousands more. Add in $3,000 for expert Lawrence A. Kellogg, and the tally hits six figures.

For a man already drowning in lawsuits, this sanction is a gut punch. And worse, it’s a federal order, not an angry creditor. Failure to pay could mean escalating penalties, liens, or worse.

Bottom Line: Danesh Is Screwed

This is the nightmare Danesh Noshirvan never saw coming. His self-styled image as TikTok’s “accountability crusader” has collapsed into legal chaos. Instead of exposing corruption, he’s been exposed as a courtroom bully whose online mob tactics triggered real-world threats.

Now the same federal court that called him out for “reprehensible conduct” is ready to make him pay dearly. Duane Morris isn’t bluffing. They’ve laid out their case, complete with affidavits, expert reports, and line-by-line billing records.

The demand is simple: $100,000 within 30 days. No payment plan. No discounts. No mercy.

For Noshirvan, the message is crystal clear: actions have consequences. And in federal court, those consequences come with a price tag he may not be able to afford.

Go WOKE, Go BROKE. Danesh is SCREWED.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment