By M. Thomas Nast with Richard Luthmann
Richard Luthmann, an old-school journalist known for diving into the muck to expose corruption, is at the center of a legal war in federal court. The case of Noshirvan v. Couture et al., pending before Magistrate Judge Kyle Dudek in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, has turned into a battleground over free speech, judicial integrity, and the future of journalism in America.
The controversy centers on a lawsuit filed by Danesh Noshirvan, a self-styled TikTok influencer notorious for spearheading Cancel Culture campaigns targeting individuals and businesses.
Known infamously as the “SCOTUS Doxxer,” Noshirvan made headlines in 2022 when he exposed the home addresses of U.S. Supreme Court justices after the landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.
Fueled by outrage over the ruling, which overturned Roe v. Wade, Noshirvan weaponized social media to incite public anger, putting the justices and their families at significant risk. The fallout included death threats against Justice Brett Kavanaugh and a near-fatal attempt on his life when an armed man was arrested outside the justice’s home.
Luthmann began reporting on the case over a year ago. Last month, the professional journalist was served with a subpoena while exiting a Florida federal courtroom where proceedings in the case had just concluded, seconds after Magistrate Judge Kyle Dudek left the bench.
Luthmann says the subpoena is Noshirvan’s brazen tactic to chill his investigative journalism.
Last week, Luthmann filed a comprehensive Motion to Quash the subpoena, seeking additional relief, including a Protective Order and sanctions of over $100,000.
A Legal Battle Unfolds: Noshirvan v. Couture
In the underlying case, Noshirvan accuses Jennifer Couture—herself a victim of one of his aggressive campaigns, along with her husband, a respected medical doctor, and their practice—of orchestrating a campaign of harassment against him and his wife, Hannah.
Noshirvan alleges that Couture and company’s supposed actions caused him and Hannah severe emotional distress, seeking millions in damages.
Couture and her supporters vehemently deny the allegations, calling the lawsuit a baseless attempt to silence criticism and deflect attention from Noshirvan’s own troubling behavior.
“Danesh is flipping the script,” one observer said. “He’s the one who relentlessly targets others through TikTok smear campaigns, phone calls, and social media ‘drive-bys,’ all powered by AI. Now he’s claiming to be the victim? It’s absurd.”
Jennifer Couture’s ordeal began when Noshirvan launched a TikTok Cancel Culture campaign against her, using his platform to rally his followers for harassment that extended to phone calls and malicious online posts targeting her, her family, and their livelihood. According to Couture, the lawsuit is nothing more than an effort to intimidate her and shift blame for his own reprehensible behavior.
Reporter Luthmann began covering the case in December 2023, after renowned legal scholar and former SCOTUS Clerk Eugene Volokh highlighted it as one to watch in emerging First Amendment and Internet Law areas. A contributor to this outlet, Luthmann provided background and comments on this article.
A Federal Judiciary Under Assault
In his 2024 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts condemned the dangerous practice of doxxing, which has placed public servants and their families at significant risk.
“[Doxxing] can prompt visits to the judge’s home, whether by a group of protestors or, worse, an unstable individual carrying a cache of weapons. Both types of activity have occurred in recent years in the vicinity of the Nation’s capital. Activist groups intent on harassing judges have gone so far as to offer financial incentives for posting the location of certain judicial officers,” the Chief Justice wrote.
After Noshirvan published the home addresses of the SCOTUS Justices, Justice Brett Kavanaugh received a credible death threat at his home. Though not explicitly cited, the tragic case of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, whose son was murdered and husband critically injured in a targeted attack on her New Jersey home in 2020, also springs immediately to mind.
“A judiciary that operates under the shadow of fear cannot uphold the Constitution,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
He warned that spreading misinformation and disinformation compounds threats to judicial independence. These tools often inflame public outrage and erode trust in the judicial system.
“The rule of law requires a judiciary that is free to act without fear or favor,” Roberts emphasized.
The Chief Justice highlighted the critical role of public servants in upholding constitutional principles, condemning the dissemination of harmful rhetoric like that propagated by Noshirvan’s incendiary TikTok videos, which often distort facts to inflame and manipulate public opinion. Chief Justice Roberts’ call to action serves as a stark reminder of the pressing need to protect those who serve the justice system from intimidation, violence, and digital smear campaigns.
Picking a Fight with the Wrong Guy: The SCOTUS Doxxer’s Latest Misstep
Fast forward to 2025, and Noshirvan is once again in the spotlight—but this time, he’s picked a fight with the wrong man. Joined by his lawyer, Nick Chiappetta—an “ambulance chaser” whose career might otherwise be limited to dog bite cases in Lake Worth—Noshirvan sought to silence journalist Richard Luthmann by issuing a subpoena for his confidential records. The case has become a SCOTUS Doxxer showdown.
“There’s no way in hell I’m giving up my confidential, protected sources,” Luthmann said.
Their goal was clear: shut down Luthmann’s investigative reporting, which had exposed glaring issues in what he called Noshirvan’s “lottery ticket” lawsuit—a case seemingly designed to profit from outrageous claims rather than pursue justice.
But Luthmann, a modern-day throwback to the fearless reporters of old, wasn’t having it.
“I’m not just a professional journalist,” he said. “I’m a modern-day Viking with an Ivy League degree. I’m just as comfortable giving a tough interview or filing court papers as settling things mano a mano to defend myself. But I think we’ll leave this one to our better angels in the federal judiciary to resolve.”
In true Hemingway-esque fashion, Luthmann ran into the gunfire, producing a blistering motion to quash the subpoena. He demanded a protective order to safeguard journalists from what he called a “malicious assault on the First Amendment.”
Far from cowing under pressure, he turned the tables, exposing Noshirvan’s tactics and putting Chiappetta on notice for their bad-faith conduct.
“They thought they could intimidate me,” Luthmann said. “They’re about to learn just how wrong they are.”
Luthmann’s motion, filed last week, is more than a defense against a subpoena—it’s a call to arms for journalists and defenders of the free press. It paints a damning picture of Noshirvan and Chiappetta as reckless, malicious litigants who have crossed every ethical and legal line in their quest to shut down critical reporting.
“This subpoena is not only frivolous but a direct assault on press freedom,” the motion argues, citing decades of legal precedent protecting journalists from disclosing their sources.
To deter such brazen future conduct by these parties or others against journalists in the federal courts, Luthmann asks the court to penalize Noshirvan and his lawyer with over $100,000 in sanctions.
“This isn’t just a request for a tactical win,” Luthmann said. “This motion exposes the depths of their malicious behavior and sends a message: you don’t mess with the press in America. It’s the bedrock of our constitutional republic. There are consequences, and damn harsh ones.”
SCOTUS Doxxer Showdown: Strategic Blunders and Fatal Consequences
For Danesh Noshirvan and his attorney, Nick Chiappetta, the decision to target Richard Luthmann may be one of their career's most catastrophic legal missteps. Instead of silencing the investigative journalist, they’ve unleashed a tidal wave of scrutiny that threatens to dismantle their case and expose a broader pattern of malicious, bad faith, and allegedly criminal behavior.
“They thought they could bully me into silence. Big mistake. Now they’re looking at sanctions, and their case might get tossed,” Luthmann quipped. “This is the legal equivalent of playing chicken with a freight train. And they’re about to get flattened.”
With a colorful history, Luthmann’s Florida journalism career is his second act. In New York, he was formerly dubbed the “Game of Thrones Lawyer” when he requested “Trial By Combat” against a legal adversary. Also, the Law Chair of the Reform Party, Luthmann, made many legal and political enemies, and he said that in 2017, they took him out.
“They indicted me in 2017. They said I was dangerous. They said I was mob-connected. They said I was a criminal. In 2017, I was none of those things. In 2024, I’m steeled, and the abyss goes far deeper than they could have imagined when Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Joe Crowley, and the rest concocted their LawFare against me,” Luthmann said.
He has a point. Luthmann was at the top of the food chain and was canceled, spending four years in federal prison. Now, he says Noshirvan and Chiappetta have limited options.
“What is dead may never die but rises again harder and stronger,” Luthmann smiled. “That’s the prayer of baptism to the Drowned God in the Iron Islands in Game of Thrones. How are they going to cancel me? An internet campaign? VICE and NY Magazine did far better than these stooges could come up with in a thousand years with their sh—-y social media videos.”
The courts don’t look like a safe option either. Luthmann’s filings are devastating. He meticulously dismantles the subpoena’s relevance, describing it as a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate and discredit him for his reporting. Luthmann said he was happy as a journalist, but the former barrister says he has no problem teaching Noshirvan and Chiapetta a lesson.
Attorney Chiappetta has not been the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “the sharpest.” It is his instant Bad Faith Subpoena and Boneheaded litigation strategy that opened the door to a former attorney disbarred in two jurisdictions and now a professional journalist to walking into this case as a MOVANT. I was very happy on the other side of the rail.
He characterizes Chiappetta’s legal maneuvers with the subpoena as malicious.
Attorney Chiappetta’s deliberate choice of a courtroom—a place symbolizing the rule of law and impartial justice—as the venue for such a service magnifies the impropriety of this tactic. I thought the discovery process was not to be used as a tool for harassment or oppression. I feel harassed and oppressed … Attorney Chiapetta’s lack of respect smacks of the same lack of brazenness Noshirvan showed in Doxxing the SCOTUS Justices he disagreed with after the Dobbs leak, which brazenness has now become a point of emphasis for the institutional integrity per Chief Justice Roberts’ recent 2024 report on the Federal Judiciary.
The documents paint a vivid picture of Noshirvan as a manipulative opportunist, weaponizing the legal system to deflect attention from his own controversial actions while attempting to muzzle critics like Luthmann, Couture, the family of Aaron De La Torre, the deceased Texas high school football coach, and hundreds of other Victims of Danesh.
“Chiappetta is a small-time lawyer playing a big-time game, and he’s hopelessly outmatched,” Luthmann observed. “If Duane Morris LLP would stop playing the ‘billing game’ and start playing the ‘lawyer game,’ this case would already be over. Watching them litigate is like ordering off a McDonalds menu.”
“As for Danesh, he’s trying to use the courts like he uses TikTok—as a tool for harassment—but this time, it’s backfiring spectacularly.”
The filings go further, alleging that the entire lawsuit represents bad-faith litigation, with Noshirvan using it to shield himself from accountability while attempting to portray himself as a victim. Luthmann’s motion to quash and request for sanctions against Chiappetta and Noshirvan could result in financial penalties exceeding $100,000—an amount that would likely cripple their legal campaign and cast doubt on the viability of their case.
But the consequences extend far beyond monetary sanctions. By targeting Luthmann, Noshirvan and Chiappetta have inadvertently highlighted fatal weaknesses in their “lottery ticket” lawsuit. Luthmann not only reveals contradictions in Noshirvan’s claims, raises questions about the couple’s mental fitness, and challenges the credibility of their entire narrative, but he lampoons them and their lawyer at the same time:
After reading the Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) of Danesh Noshirvan and Hannah Noshirvan in this case authored by Dr. Robert M. Gordon, I believe I have PTSD. I think that if I go pay Dr. Gordon, he can write me a report medically justifying that the service of the Bad Faith Subpoena is responsible for all the problems in my life including but not limited to: anxiety, depression, PTSD, fatigue, irritable bowels, loss of virility, flaccidity, penis size and girth, emotional unavailability in my romantic relationships since the age of 15, my ex-wife, former EDNY AUSA Moira Kim Penza from HBO’s “The Vow,” the New York Jets, the “Run and Shoot” offense, the 2024 Chicago Bears, the failure of the Alta Vista search engine, Bobby Kennedy’s “worm” and the bear in NYC’s Central Park, supervillain Hugo Drax from the 1979 James Bond film Moonraker, the vile lie that Die Hard is not a Christmas movie, the Bee-Gees, the popularity of candy corn, and many more things too innumerable and personal to say here.
“This isn’t about shutting down their case. I could care less about this glorified ‘dog-bite’ case,” Luthmann explained. “It’s about defending the principles of free speech, judicial integrity, and the public’s right to know.”
Luthmann says the SCOTUS Doxxer showdown is a battle worth fighting, especially against Danesh, who “has hurt many” and “attempted to deal a blow against the public servants of our venerated institutions.”
“As a red-blooded American, I won’t let this Soros-backed Chinese Communist Party lackey destroy the backbone of our constitutional republic,” he said.
Luthmann is concerned that Noshirvan Chiappetta seemingly break all the rules with impunity:
This Court will never know whether others who would have the temerity to cover Noshirvan’s exploits – were driven away by the legal process – the Bad Faith Subpoena – hijacked for malfeasance and misconduct, rather than to serve the search for truth and the Congressionally-ordained regularity of the process contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To quote Walter Sobchak, a character from the film “The Big Lebowski,” portrayed by John Goodman: “This isn’t ‘Nam. There are Rules!” Here Noshirvan and Attorney Chiappetta make their own rules. And here I thought Congress and the Article III Judges made the rules.
As Noshirvan’s legal campaign falters, the strategic blunder of targeting Luthmann may not just cost him the lawsuit—it could unravel the fragile facade he’s carefully constructed, with consequences rippling far beyond the courtroom.
Danesh Noshirvan Dodges Reporters’ Questions; Lawyer Aids and Abets
We tried to get Noshirvan and Chiappetta’s side of the story. While he is plenty outspoken in his TikTok echo chamber, he says little to the press in an environment where he can be challenged.
Noshirvan has emailed Luthmann on numerous occasions, claiming to be his “victim” and that Luthmann is engaging in “harassment.” Luthmann’s emails look like a combination of legitimate inquiries and legally-based notices.
The latest exchanges began last Thursday, January 2, and continued on January 3, 2025. The author and several members of the press, the attorneys on the case, several court chambers, and others were copied. The first email from Noshirvan was sent just after midnight:
On Thursday, January 2nd, 2025 at 2:42 AM, Richard Luthmann richard.luthmann@protonmail.com wrote:
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 give all of his other issues.
——- Forwarded Message ——-
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 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
Noshirvan sent Luthmann another email to Luthmann just after 8:00 AM:
On Thursday, January 2nd, 2025 at 10:44 AM, Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Noshirvan and Mr. Chiappetta,
I received this email earlier today and I am documenting the same for legal purposes. Tort law and 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.
On Thursday, January 2nd, 2025 at 8:09 AM, ThatDanesh Guy thatdaneshguy@gmail.com wrote:
Once again ass wipe stop contacting me I can smell your hot pocket body odor from here. The Court will see how many times I’ve demanded you stop contacting me and how you did not listen because Ralph paid you to be annoying and to harass my wife and kids here you’re both sick fucks. i promise you’ll be held accountable and i can’t wait because you won’t last in prison.
Go awayBy this communication, I understand Mr. Noshirvan’s legal position to be that he is waiving any and all legal, administrative, and other preconditions to suit as Mr. Noshirvan has communicated “Go away.”
I dispute all other factual claims and insinuations made by Mr. Noshirvan and reserve all rights. Particularly, I was never “paid” by “Ralph” or anyone related to this lawsuit.
Additionally, it is legally impossible for Mr. Noshirvan, a public figure who has injected his family’s physical and mental health into public court proceedings to be “harassed” on that issue.
https://luthmann.substack.com/p/tiktok-tyranny-at-home-dangerous
Also, the factual record shows “you won’t last in prison” to be false.
https://frankreport.com/2023/01/30/luthmann-at-brooklyn-mdc-i-was-a-jailhouse-lawyer-for-gangsters-paid-in-fish/
Moreover, I hope Mr. Noshirvan gets the help he needs.
https://luthmann.substack.com/p/drugged-up-danesh-tiktok-infamy-troubling
Regards,Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
Attorney Nick Chiapetta replied on behalf of Mr. Noshirvan:
From: Nick Chiappetta <nick@chiappettalegal.com>
Date: On Friday, January 3rd, 2025 at 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: Legal Demand Letter – Danesh Noshirvan’s TikTok Statements on January 1, 2025To: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.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>Good morning Mr. Luthmann a/k/a RA LaFontaine, Rick LaRiviere, and M. Thomas Nast.
Please allow this email to serve as a final attempt and warning for you to stop harassing my client and his family. Legal authorities have already been notified of your actions. Should you continue down this path, my client will seek criminal enforcement for your actions (I am not speaking about this email chain. You know which actions I speak of).
Further, my client waived no rights by his statement telling you to leave him alone because of your ongoing illegal harassment. Nor have you been defamed in any way. To the contrary, your publications are not news sir. They appear to be incoherent ramblings from a very disturbed individual. I strongly encourage you to seek mental help.
Lastly, your unwarranted intrusion into the 1218 Case AFTER YOU WERE TOLD THAT THE SUBPOENA WAS WITHDRAWN indicates your connection to certain parties and want to disrupt the proceeding. I will respond to your frivolous motion accordingly.
In closing, I again ask you to refrain from contacting my client in any way whatsoever.
Sincerely,
Nick Chiappetta | Founder
Luthmann replied to Chiappetta:
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Friday, January 3rd, 2025 at 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: Legal Demand Letter – Danesh Noshirvan’s TikTok Statements on January 1, 2025Mr. Chiappetta,
You continue to be a professional disgrace and a eyesore stain on the tapestry of the law and the integrity of the institutions of our constitutional republic.
I am not anyone but who I am, a professional journalist who defends the First Amendment and the Free Press.
You client is debating me and engaging me in the digital public square. Additionally, I have legitimate legal and journalism reasons to report on Danesh Noshirvan, and now Hannah Noshirvan based on her mental condition, an issue YOU opened the door to.
And speaking of opening the door, that’s what you did with me.
You could have agreed to stop using the legal system to attack journalism. You didn’t. Your client’s position is self created.
You can’t keep your SCOTUS Doxxing Client under control, as evidenced by his cabal’s Internet assault on me, other journalists, Danesh’s victims, and anyone who tells the truth.
Your client and his wife are mentally damaged. That’s according to your expert and his IMEs. And their children are in a state of danger. Maybe you have an ethical obligation to call Tioga County PA child services. You know the contents of the report better than anyone.
And Chip, you’re not “dealing” with my request for a protective order. You’re not dealing with shit. Let’s call it what it is. You’re chasing ambulances. 🚑
Ruff Ruff
Regards,
Richard Luthmann
Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
Attorney Chiappetta alleges that M. Thomas Nast, the writer of this article, is Richard Luthmann. This is not true. M. Thomas Nast is the pen name of a New York City-based reporter. His identity is known to Luthmann and other journalists. M. Thomas Nast, copied on the email string containing the parties, the lawyers, the judges’ chambers, and others, made it known that he was not Richard Luthmann. He also asked Attorney Chiappetta several questions:
From: Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>
Date: On Friday, January 3rd, 2025 at 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Legal Demand Letter – Danesh Noshirvan’s TikTok Statements on January 1, 2025
To: Nick Chiappetta <nick@chiappettalegal.com>
CC: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>, daneshnoshirvan@gmail.com <daneshnoshirvan@gmail.com>, thatdaneshguy@gmail.com <thatdaneshguy@gmail.com>, daneshnoshirvan@yahoo.com <daneshnoshirvan@yahoo.com>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, RALafontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, 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>, membership@nwu.org <membership@nwu.org>, jt@liquidlunchtv.com <jt@liquidlunchtv.com>, caracastronuova@yahoo.com <caracastronuova@yahoo.com>I can confirm that I am not Richard Luthmann. I am an independent NYC-based journalist. I have experience and connections with law enforcement, political figures, and city and state government.
I write under a pen name to protect the information I receive from confidential sources. If my actual name were in print, my sources would dry up.
I do not know you, Mr. Chiappetta, nor do I care to know you or your client, Mr. Noshirvan, beyond reporting the news and related commentary on this case.
I know Mr. Luthmann from his days in New York. And I hate to break it to you, Mr. Luthmann knows and deals with a lot of people.
To that end, do you or your client have any comment on Mr. Luthmann’s filing? Are you still reviewing it?
Is Mr. Luthmann correct that you are using a subpoena tactic to silence his coverage of this case and your client, Danesh Noshirvan?
How is Mr. Luthmann’s request to protect from interference with journalism “harassment”?
Can a public figure like Danesh Noshirvan with 2 million TikTok followers be “harassed” by a journalist asking questions? Particularly when Mr. Noshirvan is engaged in back-and-forth on social media?
Do you believe you and your client should be sanctioned? Do you believe you should resign from you representation of Mr. Noshirvan because you’ve become a witness?
Any comments are appreciated.
Regards,
Modern Thomas Nast
Boss Tweed was just the beginning. Operating in the shadows to expose the shady.
M. Thomas Nast also reached out directly to Danesh Noshirvan:
From: Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>
Date: On Friday, January 3rd, 2025 at 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Legal Demand Letter – Danesh Noshirvan’s TikTok Statements on January 1, 2025
To: thatdaneshguy@gmail.com <thatdaneshguy@gmail.com>
CC: Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>Mr. Noshirvan,
I am not Mr. Luthmann.
I took Mr. Luthmann off this email because you and he aren’t getting along (to say the least).
I copied Frank Parlato as well. He is also a straight shooter.
Would you like to give me your side of the story?
Why do you feel Mr. Luthmann has threatened your children?
How do you feel you are “harassed” as a public figure?
What is your relationship with Joey Camp? What started your ‘feud’ with him (for lack of a better term)?
Are you still doing work with Scott Dworkin? Do you do work on political campaigns?
Any comments would be appreciated.
You can always call Mr. Parlato at 305-783-7083.
Regards,
Modern Thomas Nast
Boss Tweed was just the beginning. Operating in the shadows to expose the shady.
As of press time, Noshirvan has not responded personally or through Attorney Chiapetta. If we receive a response, we will publish a follow-up.
A Call to Action: Defending the Press and the Rule of Law
As the case progresses, Richard Luthmann’s battle has become a rallying cry for journalists and citizens who value the free press and the integrity of our judicial system.
“This fight is about defending the pillars of our constitutional republic—the First Amendment, judicial integrity, and the public’s right to know the truth.”
We asked Luthmann about Attorney Chiappetta’s claim that he was not reporting the news:
“To the contrary, your publications are not news sir. They appear to be incoherent ramblings from a very disturbed individual. I strongly encourage you to seek mental help.“
Luthmann responded with his typical bluntness.
“They can play the ‘crazy’ card all they want. It’s clear DARVO table-turning by an echo-chamber of narcissists. They are the ones who claim they are mentally damaged to get a payday. Now, anyone who doesn’t believe them is crazy? No one is buying it,” Luthmann said. “And you can never trust a narcissist. They will say anything and then deny saying it in the next instant. This is why a protective order is necessary.”
He said the more significant issue is that Attorney Chiappetta uses the censor’s playbook.
“I’m fully prepared for Chip to say I’m not a ‘real’ journalist. ‘They’ did the same thing to Glenn Greenwald when he broke the Edward Snowden / NSA Spying story. It’s the first card they play to try to discredit you. Now, some call Greenwald the Greatest Journalist of All Time,” Luthmann said. “And the sad irony is that Chip isn’t a real lawyer. He’s an ambulance chaser. Lawyers have a love and reverence for the law. Chip owes his obeisance to dog bites and sirens.”
With his meticulously crafted and comprehensive motion now before Magistrate Judge Kyle Dudek, Luthmann believes the stakes could not be higher. At its core, the case challenges whether the courts will protect the constitutional rights of journalists from bad-faith actors like Danesh Noshirvan and his lawyer, Nick Chiappetta, or whether such tactics will continue to erode the public’s trust in vital institutions.
“This is about drawing a line,” Luthmann said. “If the court allows this type of abuse to go unchecked, it sets a dangerous precedent. Danesh and his lawyer turned a federal courtroom – a hallowed place of justice – into a playground free for all. This case is vital for all citizens who do not want to see the intentional and calculated denigration of our venerated institutions. It is also crucial for professional journalists like myself and all daring to hold power accountable.”
Luthmann’s case has exposed the chilling effects of digital harassment and legal intimidation aimed at silencing dissenting voices. It has also highlighted the importance of protecting journalists who risk their safety and livelihoods to shine a light on corruption and misconduct. His unrelenting resolve has turned the spotlight on Noshirvan’s dubious tactics and Chiappetta’s legal ineptitude, showing how misuse of the judicial system threatens the very fabric of the constitutional republic.
As the SCOTUS Doxxer showdown unfolds, all eyes are on the federal court in Southwest Florida. Will the judiciary stand firm against these assaults on press freedom and judicial integrity? Or will bullies like Noshirvan and Chiappetta be allowed to weaponize the courts for personal gain?
One thing is clear: Richard Luthmann will not be silenced. Whether battling in the courtroom or exposing corruption in his stories, Luthmann has proven that he is willing to fight for truth and justice—no matter the cost.
“I stand for every journalist, every citizen, and every institution that believes in the rule of law. And I’m not going anywhere.”
Share this post