By Frankie Pressman with Richard Luthmann
Danesh Noshirvan, the SCOTUS Doxxer infamous for his inflammatory TikTok videos and online antics, is now the center of another scandal.
On January 1, 2025, Noshirvan released a defamatory TikTok video targeting professional investigative journalist Richard Luthmann. The video, filled with baseless accusations and outright falsehoods, has sparked a firestorm.
In a swift response, Luthmann issued a formal demand letter on January 2, 2025, demanding a retraction, an apology, and $100,000 in liquidated damages for the defamatory content.
The TikTok Tirade
In the January 1 TikTok post, Noshirvan accused Luthmann of being a “hired troll.” He went further to allege that Luthmann engaged in “criminal behavior,” including coming after Noshirvan’s children, coming after Noshirvan’s family, and targeting and harassing Noshirvan.
These wild accusations were presented without evidence, aimed at tarnishing investigative journalist Richard Luthmann’s reputation.
“This guy is insane,” Noshirvan declared, addressing his audience of TikTok followers.
“These statements are unequivocally false and defamatory,” Luthmann wrote in his demand letter.
He highlighted how these claims falsely alleged he was engaging in felony crimes and maliciously sought to damage his ability to act as a professional journalist. Such malicious defamation and tortious conduct are actionable under Florida defamation and tort law.
The demand letter underscored the intentional malice behind Noshirvan’s statements and pointed to his history of engaging in targeted harassment campaigns against perceived adversaries.
“Danesh Noshivan and aiding and abetting his dog-lover lawyer Nick Chiappetta have made a fatal miscalculation. I can’t be canceled. The O-Biden Justice Department already did that to me,” Luthmann said. “I don’t give a flying f—- about Cheese Danesh and his WOKE band of blue-haired Garbage Pail Kids and Internet groupies.”
Luthmann’s legal demands have set the stage for a potential lawsuit, highlighting a pattern of behavior that has defined Noshirvan’s public persona.
This latest incident comes as Noshirvan continues to face legal scrutiny for previous doxxing activities, including publishing the home addresses of conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices, which led to death threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and his family.
With the demand letter, Luthmann included a copy of Chief Justice John Roberts' 2024 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, highlighting pressing concerns about the growing threats to judicial independence and integrity.
The Chief Justice warned against escalating attacks on judges and their families, particularly in the wake of doxxing incidents like those targeting Supreme Court justices after the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling. He condemned efforts to undermine the courts through misinformation and emphasized the importance of safeguarding the judiciary as a cornerstone of democracy.
“The rule of law requires a judiciary that is free to act without fear or favor,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, underscoring the urgency of protecting judges from personal and institutional attacks.
The report also called for increased security measures and public education to bolster confidence in the courts amid a volatile political landscape.
Luthmann’s Counterpunch
Luthmann has already received calls and threats from Danesh and his supporters. On December 31, at around 10:25 a.m., Luthmann received a threatening phone call from someone who identified themself as “David.” He managed to tape the tail end of it and then published it as media.
“I believe the stuttering prick was one of Danesh and McGibney’s followers, calling at their specific direction. They told me to ‘look in front of me and behind me,’ like they’re going to do something. I think I’ve gotten to Danesh by publishing a redacted version of his wife Hannah’s independent medical examination (IME) and the shot of her in Black Face,” Luthmann said. “Danesh injected his wife into the lawsuit. Now he can’t protect her, and that must make the Little Guy feel very small.”
Later in the day, at about 5:30 p.m., Luthmann received a voice message that said, “Bullyville is watching you.”
“It sounds like Danesh left me the message. Listen for yourself. I turned it into a video and published it for everyone to hear, especially the Mansfield Police Department, where Danesh continues to make false reports,” Luthmann said.
Luthmann thought it was strange that Noshirvan would inject McGibney and Bullyville into the battle so directly.
“Nick Chia Pet, the attorney, went out of his way to say in the last court appearance before Judge Dudek that Bully Bum James McGibney and Danesh are not the same person and are not alter egos. Then idiot Danesh makes Bully Bum a co-conspirator by leaving a traceable message with his voice easily identifiable AFTER he makes a post linking him to BullyVille and an attack on me earlier in the day. They’re a veritable brain trust over there,” Luthmann said. “The eight-year-old picture of me wasn’t very flattering. At least they got that right.”
In his demand letter, Luthmann dismantled Noshirvan's falsehoods, presenting evidence to refute each claim. The claim that Luthmann is “targeting” Noshirvan through a series of investigative articles is especially spurious:
Mr. Noshirvan and his wife Hannah are also mentally ill, suffering from severe PTSD. They have represented as much to the U.S. Court for the Middle District of Florida in relation to the pending Noshirvan v. Couture et al. matter. Their claims that I or anyone is “coming after my children, coming after my family and…targeting and harassing me” ignores two important facts. First, Mr. Noshirvan appears to have perjured himself to the federal court.
Second, and most importantly, the best interests of the Noshirvan children is a serious moral, ethical, and legal question, and Mr. Noshirvan and Hannah Noshirvan have now made this issue one of public concern by their own actions.
Luthmann believes Noshirvan’s standard strategies of reputational harm will not work on him. He’s a reporter now, and not much can be dredged up to attack him that hasn’t already been slung.
“This isn’t about my reputation. Either you’ll believe I was railroaded, or you won’t. You’re going to like me or hate me immediately, and there’s not much that anyone can say but me that can change you from one column to the other,” Luthmann said.
He said what began as direct reporting about a First Amendment and internet law case first identified by Professor Eugene Volokh has morphed into a personal affront on the power of investigative journalism.
“I was initially on his side, believing he was a citizen journalist. The more I researched, the more I spoke to his victims, and the more I realized that real journalism is about holding people like Danesh Noshirvan accountable for their lies and dangerous, now deadly, rhetoric. They invited me into the game with a Bad Faith subpoena to silence my reporting. Well, Enter the Motherf—-ing Dragon.”
Luthmann’s letter demands a retraction and apology and seeks financial damages, signaling that Luthmann intends to vigorously pursue accountability in both the courts and the court of public opinion. He has demonstrated proficiency in both venues.
Luthmann gave Noshirvan until January 15, 2025, to comply. He responded almost immediately.
From: ThatDanesh Guy thatdaneshguy@gmail.com
Date: On Thursday, January 2nd, 2025 at 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: Legal Demand Letter - Danesh Noshirvan's TikTok Statements on January 1, 2025
To: Richard Luthmann richard.luthmann@protonmail.com, Nick Chiappetta nick@chiappettalegal.comI've asked you to stop contacting me several times. I'm going to call the police again. Stop contacting me you psychopath you've been sending nasty emails to my family you sick fuck. Leave us all alone and rot in prison and stop harassing my children and wife. I will not read your email and I will not respond to anything you send me because it is illegitimate and harassment.
Fuck off loser
Luthmann responded back:
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Thursday, January 2nd, 2025 at 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: Legal Demand Letter - Danesh Noshirvan's TikTok Statements on January 1, 2025
To: Nick Chiappetta <nick@chiappettalegal.com>, Danesh <daneshnoshirvan@gmail.com>, thatdaneshguy@gmail.com <thatdaneshguy@gmail.com>, daneshnoshirvan@yahoo.com <daneshnoshirvan@yahoo.com>
CC: Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, RALafontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, mthomasnast@protonmail.com <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, julian-jackson-fannin-8837@ecf.pacerpro.com <julian-jackson-fannin-8837@ecf.pacerpro.com>, AutoDocketMlA@duanemorris.com <AutoDocketMlA@duanemorris.com>, JMagarin@duanemorris.com <JMagarin@duanemorris.com>, ashaikh@duanemorris.com <ashaikh@duanemorris.com>, bcastillo@duanemorris.com <bcastillo@duanemorris.com>, cmackey@duanemorris.com <cmackey@duanemorris.com>, courtmail@duanemorris.com <courtmail@duanemorris.com>, hwgurland@duanemorris.com <hwgurland@duanemorris.com>, jjfannin@duanemorris.com <jjfannin@duanemorris.com>, ngounaris@duanemorris.com <ngounaris@duanemorris.com>, pnmendoza@duanemorris.com <pnmendoza@duanemorris.com>, aalfano@rolfeshenry.com <aalfano@rolfeshenry.com>, kdeglman@rolfeshenry.com <kdeglman@rolfeshenry.com>, pt@ptesq.com <pt@ptesq.com>, Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, frank.morano@wabcradio.com <frank.morano@wabcradio.com>, frankiepressman@protonmail.com <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, tips@thefp.com <tips@thefp.com>, news.tips@abc.com <news.tips@abc.com>, tips@cnn.com <tips@cnn.com>, tips@nypost.com <tips@nypost.com>, tips@nydailynews.com <tips@nydailynews.com>, chambers_flmd_dudek@flmd.uscourts.gov <chambers_flmd_dudek@flmd.uscourts.gov>, chambers_flmd_steele@flmd.uscourts.gov <chambers_flmd_steele@flmd.uscourts.gov>, info@rcfp.org <info@rcfp.org>, NWU Membership <membership@nwu.org>, jt@liquidlunchtv.com <jt@liquidlunchtv.com>, Cara Castronuova <caracastronuova@yahoo.com>Mr. Noshirvan and Mr. Chiappetta,
I received this email moments ago and I am documenting the same for legal purposes. The law of defamation requires that I make known the false and defamatory statements that Mr. Noshirvan, a public figure with an outlet that reaches over 2 million followers, has made prior to commencement of prospective legal action to give Mr. Noshirvan a chance at corrective action. These communications are a legal requirement.I will continue to follow the law, unlike Mr. Noshirvan. I truly hope he gets the help he needs given all of his other issues.
------- Forwarded Message -------
From: ThatDanesh Guy thatdaneshguy@gmail.comDate: On Thursday, January 2nd, 2025 at 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: Legal Demand Letter - Danesh Noshirvan's TikTok Statements on January 1, 2025
To: Richard Luthmann richard.luthmann@protonmail.com, Nick Chiappetta nick@chiappettalegal.comI've asked you to stop contacting me several times. I'm going to call the police again. Stop contacting me you psychopath you've been sending nasty emails to my family you sick fuck. Leave us all alone and rot in prison and stop harassing my children and wife. I will not read your email and I will not respond to anything you send me because it is illegitimate and harassment.
Fuck off loserPlease be further advised to the US Supreme Court's discussion of public figures. Mr. Noshirvan knows the U.S. Supreme Court. He has doxxed several of its justices, placing their lives and the lives of their families at risk. He should really read what was attached from Chief Justice Roberts about the harm he has caused and continues to cause to the Republic and the institutional integrity of the courts.
https://x.com/i/status/1853498993348694126
In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 (1974), the Supreme Court discussed at length the distinction between private and public figures. The Court noted two fundamental differences between public and private figures. First, public figures usually have greater access to the media which gives them "a more realistic opportunity to counteract false statements than private individuals normally enjoy." Id. at 344, 94 S. Ct. at 3009; see also Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 136, 99 S. Ct. 2675, 2688, 61 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1979) ("Regular and continuing access to the media . . . is one of the accouterments of having become a public figure.").
Second, and more importantly, "public figures . . . voluntarily expose themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehoods concerning them." Id. at 345, 94 S. Ct. at 3010. In short, public figures "invite attention and comment." Id. See also Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publications, Inc., 201 U.S. App. D.C. 301, 627 F.2d 1287, 1292 (D.C.Cir.1980) ("[Plaintiffs] thus accept the risk that the press, in fulfilling its role of reporting, analyzing, and commenting on well-known persons and public controversies, will focus on them and, perhaps, cast them in an unfavorable light.")
Mr. Noshirvan has over two million TikTok followers. He meets the the two basic Gertz criteria which distinguish public figures from private figures. See, e.g., Silvester v. Am. Broad. Cos., 839 F.2d 1491, 1494 (11th Cir. 1988).
Any claim that Mr. Noshirvan or his family is being "harassed" is disingenuous at best and patently absurd. Any "police claim" to that affect would be a knowing abuse of process and the filing of a false claim with authorities. Any local police department or prosecutorial office that would take up such a claim on Mr. Noshirvan's behalf would open themselves up to a monumental civil suit.
Unless of course Mr. Noshirvan is lying about his 2 million followers and it's just him, Mr. McGibney, a half-dozen others, and a bunch of AI and AI-generated bots. If those are the facts, the Gertz analysis might change.
Does Mr. Noshirvan want to come clean? I'm a professional journalist and I'm always here for an interview. If he wishes, I can come to him in the Mike Wallace-style.Regards,
Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
Luthmann responded as to how he was going to deal with Noshirvan.
“I don’t expect Danesh (or the Chia Pet lawyer) to acquiesce. Since he hates Israel, I’m going to employ an IDF strategy. I’m going to turn everything he knows, loves, and holds dear into glass - legally and figuratively - in both the courts and the mass media,” Luthmann said.
“I’m going to turn his pathetic media footprint into the equivalent of a parking lot and build a King David Hotel II of triumph on top of it. I’m already living rent-free in his head.”
Danesh’s Larger Pattern of Behavior
Noshirvan’s defamatory claims about Luthmann are part of a larger pattern of behavior, which includes doxxing public figures and spreading disinformation. The TikTok provocateur’s online antics have often escalated into real-world consequences.
“Danesh, the SCOTUS Doxxer, is exactly the type of danger Chief Justice Roberts warns us about,” Luthmann asserted. “Justice Kavanaugh and his family faced a murderous maniac because of Danesh’s dangerous social media activities. He should be prosecuted, and in my opinion, Pam Bondi will take him and his ilk to the woodshed. Judicial integrity demands it.”
This isn’t the first time Noshirvan’s actions have raised legal and ethical questions. From his involvement in controversial litigation to his inflammatory online behavior, he has consistently demonstrated a willingness to weaponize misinformation for personal gain.
Luthmann’s letter also highlighted the broader implications of Noshirvan’s actions, emphasizing their potential to destabilize public discourse. By calling out Noshirvan’s falsehoods and taking a firm legal stance, Luthmann aims to set a precedent for accountability in the Age of Digital Defamation.
Mental Health and Dangerous Affiliations
The demand letter also sheds light on court documents revealing the mental health struggles of Noshirvan and his wife, Hannah. Diagnosed with PTSD and depression, both Noshirvans have a documented history of severe emotional instability.
“This is not harassment,” Luthmann stated. “It’s a matter of public concern when children are involved.”
The couple’s mental health issues are compounded by allegations of drug abuse, particularly Danesh’s reported misuse of Adderall. Sources close to the Noshirvans allege that Danesh’s substance abuse exacerbates his erratic behavior, making him a potential danger not only to himself but also to those around him.
“If Danesh is battling addiction, he should seek help,” Luthmann said. “But his behavior has real-world consequences, and accountability is crucial.”
The demand letter further accused Noshirvan of receiving financial support from foreign sources, including the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). According to Luthmann, this funding aims to destabilize American institutions by amplifying divisive rhetoric and misinformation.
These allegations align with Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2024 Year-End Report, highlighting threats to judicial independence, potentially from foreign influence operations.
The Narcissistic "Little Guy"
Luthmann is the latest in a series of critics who have long described Noshirvan as a “little guy” with delusions of grandeur. Despite claiming a massive online following, evidence suggests much of his engagement is artificially inflated through AI bots and fabricated interactions.
A few years ago, Noshirvan reportedly sold explicit photos of himself to gay men, further raising questions about his authenticity and credibility.
A history of questionable behavior undermines his attempts to portray himself as a victim or hero. Fabricated “fan mail” and dubious claims about his influence reveal a desperate need for validation.
The Bigger Picture
Luthmann’s demand letter also referenced Noshirvan’s involvement in the harassment campaign that preceded the tragic suicide of Texas football coach Aaron De La Torre.
Investigations into this incident and others have cast a long shadow over Noshirvan’s already tarnished reputation.
In addition to legal challenges, Noshirvan faces mounting public scrutiny. His reputation in Mansfield, Pennsylvania, and Tioga County has plummeted, with locals describing him as a “cyberbully who thrives on conflict.”
Many residents have been silenced because they fear retaliation, but those who have spoken out are clear: the Noshirvans’ behavior is a growing concern.
What’s Next for Noshirvan?
The stakes are higher than ever for Noshirvan. Luthmann’s demand for retraction, apology, and damages represents a critical turning point.
Will Noshirvan take responsibility for his actions, or will the authorities step in to address his escalating behavior?
“Danesh has finally met his match,” Luthmann said. “He will be held accountable whether it’s me or the authorities. I predict that in six months’ time, he’ll be indicted and fade into obscurity. If not, the boy is all mine.”
For now, the demand for accountability looms large as the saga of the SCOTUS doxxer enters its most dramatic chapter yet.
Share this post