Danesh Noshirvan’s Victims Speak Out! TikTok Bully and Legal Team Under Fire
Victims Slam Attorney Nick Chiappetta, Expert Brad LaPorte's For Shielding a Serial Harasser
By M. Thomas Nast with Richard Luthmann
Brad LaPorte’s so-called “Expert Report,” submitted to defend TikTok influencer Danesh Noshirvan and his wife Hannah’s claims in a federal harassment case, is facing scathing criticism from advocates representing his victims.
Chief among the critics is the anonymous administrator of the "VictimsofThatDaneshGuy" (@DaneshVictims) social media pages, who, in October, provided confidential evidence to Middle District of Florida federal judges Sheri Polster Chappell, John Steele, and Kyle Dudek.
The evidence highlighted the devastating impact of Noshirvan’s harassment campaigns and the TikToker’s apparent perjury at a recent deposition.
The correspondence to the Middle District of Florida federal court stated:
I am the manager of the VictimsofThatDaneshGuy social media pages. I am writing to you today about cases 2:23CV-00340-SPC-KCD and 2:23-CV-01218-JES-KCD. In Danesh Noshirvan's deposition for 0340 case, I am accused of harassment similar to Joey Camp’s actions, but this claim is unfounded as are many other statements he has made. Noshirvan often distorts narratives, and I feel compelled to speak out following the tragic suicide of Aaron De La Torre, a man targeted by Noshirvan.
De La Torre, a respected Texas football coach, faced relentless harassment from Noshirvan via his platform, leading to his death on October 8, 2024. The family of the children involved chose not to pursue charges, yet the torment persisted, likely contributing to this tragedy.
I initially supported Noshirvan’s platform but later witnessed his harassment of a woman that led to her suicide attempt on December 31, 2021. Thankfully, she survived, but this incident underscores the severe impact of Noshirvan's actions on his targets.
Noshirvan will persist with his public harassment as long as it benefits him, generating extensive content about individuals until he ruins their lives. I know several victims deeply affected by his actions, some considering suicide.
Noshirvan claims I colluded with Joey Camp, but I only learned of him after being falsely accused of being him. My aim with the Victims page is to support those harmed by Noshirvan and validate their experiences. Noshirvan's tactics are dangerous and manipulative, revealing a troubling pattern of behavior.
I urge for action against Noshirvan’s ongoing harassment campaigns. In November 2022, I was doxxed by Danesh after speaking out, and an impersonating TikTok account emerged, causing distress among my contacts the account was having conversations with. Many affected individuals have filed police reports and complaints with the FBI.
Noshirvan’s actions require accountability; this goes beyond free speech.
Noshirvan weaponizes his 1.9 million TikTok followers to systematically destroy the lives of people.
1. Noshirvan will identify a would-be target and begin by posting their personal identifying information on his social media profile then in, so many words, direct his followers to attack them. This includes death threats as well as harassing phone calls, text messages, and emails. This is not limited to the target alone. Noshirvan and his followers will also attack extended family members and anyone who supports a target publicly.
2. Noshirvan and his followers will also harass a targets employer until the target is fired. In a recent situation with Nigel Ford this August, the employer spoke up for her employee that she took care of it internally and would not be firing him. Angered that “justice” wasn’t served, followers began harassing the employer.
3. In some instances, Noshirvan’s followers have shown up at physical addresses to confront victims, their family members, and the victim’s employers.
4. Noshirvan and his followers will even go so far as to file false reports with state agencies like Sheriff Departments, Probation Departments, and Child Protective Services.
5. Noshirvan has previously discussed his collaboration with hackers he encounters on the dark web. These individuals assisted him in acquiring personal information about specific targets. (These three show the most recent real time examples that fit his overall pattern of behavior)
6. Noshirvan removed most of his content about De La Torre after learning of his passing; but not before they were preserved. Noshirvan only reinstated certain videos that did not reflect Noshirvan’s incitement to harass.
7. Noshirvan continued to make content about Mr. De La Torre after learning of his passing. Continuing with such unsubstantiated claims that De La Torre sexually assaulted unsubstantiated claims that De La Torre sexually assaulted children with no more than an anonymous comment as his stance.
8. Noshirvan has made comments that the principal of De La Torre’s school and someone speaking up in the wake of De La Torre’s passing must be friend with Joey Camp. As Joey Camp seemingly posted about the very public passing of De La Torre.
This serious issue demands immediate attention to prevent further harm. I am willing to answer any questions and provide supporting evidence for my statements.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
[VictimsofThatDaneshGuy Administrator]
Rule 2.9(B) of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 2 describes the type of ex parte communication the MDFL federal court received in October:
(B) If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall make provision promptly to notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.
Only Judge Steele’s chambers acknowledged the information communicated by the VictimsofThatDanehGuy administrator was received:
On Thursday, October 17, 2024, 11:13 AM, CHAMBERS FLMD STEELE <CHAMBERS_FLMD_STEELE@flmd.uscourts.gov> wrote:
We have received your email, however the contents and/or any requested relief will not be addressed or considered by the Court. The Chambers box is not for correspondence or Court filings. See M.D. Fla. R. 3.01(k) ("A party must not use a letter, email, or the like to request relief or to respond to a request for relief.").
The email will be deleted.
Thank you.
Radhika K. Rivera
Career Law Clerk
The Honorable John E. Steele
United States Senior District Judge
(239) 461-2140
No docket entry or notification of the parties to the litigation or their attorneys appears on the MDFL Court’s public PACER records for the Noshirvan v. Couture et al. matter before Judge Steele or the related matter before Judge Polster Chappell.
LaPorte’s Questionable “Expert Report”
The Expert Report states: “Danesh Noshirvan was unnecessarily impacted by hatred, ridicule, contempt, and unfounded accusations of committing crimes.”
LaPorte concluded that the harm to Noshirvan and his wife Hannah was substantial.
“The total [damage] is $3,631,000, plus the loss of direct revenue, which is to be calculated once the cleanup portion is completed,” the Expert Report said.
Operating under a protected identity to avoid retaliation, the administrator has condemned LaPorte’s report as a “fraudulent whitewash” designed to obscure the truth. The administrator said that any “reputational damage” to Noshirvan was earned.
“Danesh’s campaigns have destroyed lives,” the administrator stated. “Brad LaPorte’s report erases the harm done to hundreds of victims while pretending Danesh is the one under attack.”
The administrator also says that Noshirvan admittedly commits crimes as part of his marketed “services.”
According to a legal expert, at least 45 out of 50 states have private investigator statutes, including Pennsylvania. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, PIs are regulated by the Private Detective Act of 1953. The statute clearly states that seeking a person's identity on behalf of a third party requires a private investigator license.
“Danesh investigates persons as part of his self-defined judicial system that only he knows, where he is the judge, jury, and executioner,” the administrator said. “Since his content isn’t journalism and is meant to punish individuals for crimes committed as judged by @ThatDaneshGuy or Daneland, a private investigator’s license is required.”
The administrator appears to be legally correct. Noshirvan cannot argue that his activities are free speech, as First Amendment case law holds that time, place, and manner restrictions do not infringe on protected freedoms. Nor could he apply for a license to continue his conduct because most, if not all, jurisdictions require two to three years of prior law enforcement experience as a legal prerequisite, which Noshirvan does not have.
Additionally, Noshirvan has a body count. The administrator’s October communications with the Middle District of Florida federal court judges were prompted by the death of Aaron De La Torre, a Texas high school football coach who took his own life following relentless harassment attributed to Noshirvan.
The tragedy underscored the stakes of the ongoing legal battle, which has drawn attention to the TikTok influencer’s alleged pattern of digital vigilantism and abuse. Noshirvan boasts over 2 million TikTok followers and has orchestrated innumerable targeted harassment campaigns against private citizens, public figures, and grieving families. His victims include educators, healthcare workers, law enforcement officers, and even Supreme Court Justices.
The administrator’s previous submission to Judges Steele, Polster Chappell, and Dudek outlined numerous examples of Noshirvan’s misconduct, including his public doxxing of Supreme Court Justices following the Dobbs decision. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, one of the justices targeted, received death threats as a result.
“LaPorte’s report completely ignores these incidents, which are central to understanding the harm Danesh has caused,” the administrator noted.
A Flawed and Self-Serving Report
LaPorte’s 60-page report, commissioned by Noshirvan’s attorney, Nick Chiappetta, has been widely criticized for its selective use of evidence and lack of substantive analysis. Legal analysts and advocates for the victims argue that the report is a calculated attempt to shield Noshirvan from accountability while deflecting attention away from his actions.
“This isn’t an expert report; it’s a public relations stunt disguised as legal analysis,” the administrator stated. “LaPorte cherry-picks anecdotes to support Danesh’s victim narrative while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of harm.”
Critics have heavily scrutinized Brad LaPorte’s qualifications, highlighting his lack of meaningful experience in digital harassment cases. His report, commissioned to defend TikTok influencer Danesh Noshirvan, not only glosses over critical evidence but also entirely omits key incidents of harm caused by Noshirvan.
These omissions paint a misleading picture of the situation, minimizing the serious consequences suffered by Noshirvan’s victims.
The controversy surrounding LaPorte’s report has amplified scrutiny of Attorney Chiappetta, who was accused of enabling Noshirvan’s behavior through questionable legal tactics.
A subpoena issued by Chiapetta to investigative journalist Richard Luthmann has been described as a blatant attempt to intimidate and silence a critic. Luthmann is a contributor to this outlet and provided background, confidential and protected source materials, and comments.
The subpoena demands a sweeping array of records, including Luthmann’s communications with individuals targeted by Noshirvan, such as Jennifer Couture and Joseph Camp.
“This isn’t about justice. It’s about silencing anyone who dares to stand up to Danesh,” the administrator told MDFL federal court judges back in October.
The administrator and others have argued that Chiappetta’s actions represent an abuse of the legal system. Using the court to issue overly broad and burdensome subpoenas, they claim Chiappetta is weaponizing the legal process to protect his client while targeting critics.
The Victims Speak Out
The administrator’s efforts to expose the harm caused by TikTok influencer Danesh Noshirvan have revealed many victims from multiple professions and walks of life. Through the "Victims of Danesh" social media pages, over 300 individuals have been identified as targets of Noshirvan’s orchestrated harassment campaigns.
This growing list underscores the systemic and wide-reaching impact of his actions, which often result in reputational damage, financial loss, emotional distress, and even death. Highlighted victims include individuals and institutions who were subject to relentless harassment and intimidation:
Aaron De La Torre (TX): A high school coach who tragically took his own life after being relentlessly targeted by Noshirvan’s false accusations and harassment campaigns.
Supreme Court Justices: Conservative justices were doxxed by Noshirvan following the Dobbs decision, leading to protests and death threats, particularly against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Dr. Edith Del Mar Behr (PA): A healthcare professional harassed over unfounded allegations related to medical controversies, facing threats that disrupted her career and patient relationships.
Keshia Brinkerhoff (WY): A teacher falsely accused of promoting divisive ideologies, enduring threats that jeopardized her safety and professional standing.
Dr. Ryne Paulson (WY): A pediatric dentist falsely maligned, leading to threats and damage to his professional reputation.
Jennifer and Thomas Kehs (PA): Residents were harassed by online mobs after baseless allegations were amplified by Noshirvan, resulting in personal and emotional distress.
Jennifer Couture (FL): A private citizen subjected to selective video editing and doxxing that led to threats against her family and harm to her husband’s business, Garramone Plastic Surgery.
Shelly Schwarz (CA): A small business owner whose company faced damaging reviews and a loss of customers due to unfounded accusations promoted by Noshirvan.
Sheriff Carmine Marceno (FL): Noshirvan targeted the Lee County Sheriff in social media posts, questioning his integrity and accusing him of misconduct without evidence. He undermined public trust in law enforcement to fraudulently influence Jennifer Couture’s arrest.
State Prosecutor Amira Fox (FL): A Florida prosecutor falsely accused of engaging in unethical behavior, drawing harassment from Noshirvan’s followers, and creating potential safety risks for her and her office, done to fraudulently influence the prosecutorial decision whether to charge Jennifer Couture.
Healthcare Workers Nationwide: Nurses, doctors, and pharmacists, such as Scott Wertz (PA) and Crystal Lauver (PA), faced coordinated harassment campaigns related to medical misinformation.
Small Business Owners: Businesses like Paparoni’s Grill (SC) and Countryside BBQ (SC) were forced to contend with boycotts, threats, and closures after being falsely associated with controversies.
Law Enforcement Personnel: False allegations of misconduct targeted officers like Nick Moore (GA) and departments like the Arlington Police Department (TX), leading to reputational harm and public distrust.
Families of Deceased Individuals: Grieving families, including those of Robert LeMay (WA) and Matthew Lee Rupert (IL), faced relentless online abuse in the wake of losing their loved ones.
Education Professionals: Administrators like Ryan Lewis (CA) and Heather Williams (CA) were targeted with false claims of promoting controversial ideologies, damaging their reputations and careers.
Politicians and Public Figures: Noshirvan attacked political figures such as State Senator Anthony Bouchard (WY) in campaigns to discredit their public service.
“These aren’t isolated incidents,” the administrator of the "Victims of Danesh" pages stated. “Danesh has weaponized social media to systematically destroy lives. What makes it worse is that his lawyer, Nick Chiappetta, defends these actions and enables them through legal maneuvers aimed at silencing critics.”
The administrator has provided extensive evidence to federal judges documenting the tactics used by Noshirvan to amplify harm. These include selective editing of videos, doxxing personal information, and leveraging his massive TikTok following to launch coordinated attacks. The damage to victims has been catastrophic, with many suffering long-term emotional and financial fallout.
By monetizing outrage through TikTok’s revenue-sharing program, Noshirvan profits directly from the harm he causes. “Every attack video generates income for him,” the administrator explained. “This isn’t just about attention—it’s about financial exploitation.”
The administrator’s detailed submissions to federal judges have called for accountability, including sanctions against Noshirvan and his legal counsel. They argue that attorney Nick Chiappetta’s actions—such as commissioning a flawed expert report and issuing overbroad subpoenas—represent bad faith attempts to shield his client and harass critics like investigative journalist Richard Luthmann.
“Danesh’s victims deserve justice,” the administrator concluded. “This isn’t just about one influencer or one case. It’s about stopping a pattern of abuse and holding enablers accountable.”
Financial Motives and Ethical Concerns
The administrator also highlighted the financial incentives driving Noshirvan’s harassment campaigns. By monetizing outrage through TikTok’s revenue-sharing program, the influencer profits from the harm he inflicts.
“Every time Danesh posts a video attacking someone, he makes money,” the administrator stated. “LaPorte’s report ignores this entirely.”
We contacted “Expert” Brad LaPorte and Attorney Nick “Chip” Chiappetta but received no response as of press time. We will publish a follow-up if there is a response. Here are the questions we asked:
Questions for Brad LaPorte Regarding His Expert Report on Danesh Noshirvan:
From: Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>
Date: On Saturday, December 14th, 2024 at 11:29 PM
Subject: Questions for Brad LaPorte Regarding His Expert Report on Danesh Noshirvan
To: brad@hightide-advisors.com <brad@hightide-advisors.com>
CC: RickLaRiviere@proton.me <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, richard.luthmann@protonmail.com <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>, ralafontaine@protonmail.com <ralafontaine@protonmail.com>, frankiepressman@protonmail.com <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, frankparlato@gmail.com <frankparlato@gmail.com>, frank.morano@wabcradio.com <frank.morano@wabcradio.com>, chambers_flmd_steele@flmd.uscourts.gov <chambers_flmd_steele@flmd.uscourts.gov>, chambers_flmd_dudek@flmd.uscourts.gov <chambers_flmd_dudek@flmd.uscourts.gov>, mvolpe998@gmail.com <mvolpe998@gmail.com>
Dear Mr. LaPorte:We are investigative reporters covering the case of Noshirvan v. Couture et al. in the Middle District of Florida federal court, Fort Myers Division. We have obtained a copy of your expert witness report from a protected source and we are about to publish a piece about it. We have substantial questions and would like to afford you an opportunity to comment:
Qualifications and Expertise:
Can you explain your qualifications in digital harassment and social media ethics?
Have you previously served as an expert witness in cases involving allegations of harassment or doxxing?
Why does your CV lack significant experience in cases related to online harassment or digital vigilantism?
Methodology:
What methodology did you use to assess the claims of harassment and harm in this case?
How did you ensure the impartiality and comprehensiveness of your analysis?
Why does your report fail to address well-documented incidents of harm linked to Mr. Noshirvan, such as the harassment of healthcare workers, law enforcement, and educators?
Omissions in the Report:
Why does your report omit critical incidents, including the public doxxing of Supreme Court Justices and the threats it incited?
How do you explain the exclusion of Aaron De La Torre’s case, which has been widely attributed to Mr. Noshirvan’s harassment campaigns?
Did you review the evidence provided by the administrator of the "Victims of Danesh" pages? If not, why?
Bias and Objectivity:
Were you compensated for your report, and if so, how much were you paid by Mr. Noshirvan or his legal team?
What steps did you take to ensure your report was not biased in favor of your client?
How do you respond to critics who say your report reads as a defense brief rather than an independent expert analysis?
Conclusions:
How did you conclude that Mr. Noshirvan is the victim of harassment rather than the instigator?
Why does your report downplay or ignore the financial incentives Mr. Noshirvan has in perpetuating these campaigns?
Are you aware that your conclusions have been described by critics as a "whitewash" of Mr. Noshirvan’s actions?
Please respond so that we may provide a fair and balanced assessment of the story.
Regards,
Modern Thomas Nast
Boss Tweed was just the beginning. Operating in the shadows to expose the shady.
Questions for Nick Chiapetta Regarding His Role and the LaPorte Expert Report - Noshirvan v. Couture - MDFL
From: Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>
Date: On Saturday, December 14th, 2024 at 11:35 PM
Subject: Questions for Nick Chiapetta Regarding His Role and the LaPorte Expert Report - Noshirvan v. Couture - MDFL
To: nick@chiappettalegal.com <nick@chiappettalegal.com>
CC: RickLaRiviere@proton.me <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, richard.luthmann@protonmail.com <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>, ralafontaine@protonmail.com <ralafontaine@protonmail.com>, frankiepressman@protonmail.com <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, frankparlato@gmail.com <frankparlato@gmail.com>, frank.morano@wabcradio.com <frank.morano@wabcradio.com>, chambers_flmd_steele@flmd.uscourts.gov <chambers_flmd_steele@flmd.uscourts.gov>, chambers_flmd_dudek@flmd.uscourts.gov <chambers_flmd_dudek@flmd.uscourts.gov>, mvolpe998@gmail.com <mvolpe998@gmail.com>
Attorney Chiappetta,We are about to go to press with a piece and we request comment on the following in the above-referenced Noshirvan v. Couture case where you are the counsel for Danesh Noshirvan:
Selection of Brad LaPorte:
How did you select Brad LaPorte as an expert witness in this case?
What criteria did you use to ensure that Mr. LaPorte had the necessary expertise in digital harassment and its impacts?
Were you aware of Mr. LaPorte’s lack of prior experience with harassment-related cases before retaining him?
Purpose of the Expert Report:
What was the intended purpose of Mr. LaPorte’s report in defending Mr. Noshirvan?
Do you believe the report provides a full and accurate account of the harm caused by Mr. Noshirvan?
Why does the report fail to address key incidents, such as the doxxing of Supreme Court Justices and the death of Aaron De La Torre?
Ethical Considerations:
How do you respond to allegations that commissioning this report was a bad-faith attempt to mislead the court?
Did you instruct Mr. LaPorte to omit or minimize evidence of harm caused by your client?
Do you believe the report adheres to ethical standards required of court submissions?
Role in Legal Strategy:
What role did you play in shaping the scope and content of Mr. LaPorte’s report?
How do you justify using the report to portray Mr. Noshirvan as a victim despite overwhelming evidence of harm caused by his campaigns?
Were you involved in reviewing or editing the report before its submission to the court?
Broader Implications:
How do you reconcile the harm caused by Mr. Noshirvan with your ethical obligations as an officer of the court?
What is your response to accusations that your legal strategy has enabled and amplified your client’s harmful behavior?
How do you intend to address the growing public criticism of your actions in this case?
Please respond so that we may provide a fair and balanced assessment of the story.
Regards,
Modern Thomas Nast
Boss Tweed was just the beginning. Operating in the shadows to expose the shady.
What’s Next?
Calls for accountability are growing louder. Advocates have urged the court to reject LaPorte’s report and sanction Chiappetta for what they describe as a bad-faith attempt to mislead the court.
“This report is a fraud,” the administrator concluded. “It’s not just an insult to the victims; it’s an insult to the justice system.”
As the case unfolds, the administrator’s evidence and testimony serve as a critical counterweight to LaPorte’s findings. For the victims of Noshirvan’s campaigns, the hope remains that the court will see through the smokescreen and deliver justice.
“This case isn’t just about one influencer or lawyer,” the administrator said. “It’s about whether we allow the legal system to be weaponized against the truth.”