“Don’t you worry Danesh, under no circumstance am I moving off of Joey,” McGibney vowed, referring to hero reporter Joey Camp, whose journalism exposed Antifa radicals, agitators, and rioters.
According to filed legal documents, Antifa has an international bounty on Camp’s head.
Photo by Joey Camp
McGibney - Danesh Chat
Photo by Joey Camp
Journalist Joey Camp
He even teased a dedicated hate site: “I am building a new website that I will launch by Friday. Ready to LOL at the url?”
In these chats, McGibney acts as puppet master and Danesh as eager accomplice. When McGibney asked for dirt on lawsuit defendant Jennifer “Jen” Couture – “Hey, Couture was found guilty of assault right? If so, can you please email me a screenshot of that conviction? I have her mugshot.” – Danesh promptly complied. McGibney then signaled a coming blitz of online humiliation.
Jennifer Couture
Dr. Ralph Garramone and his wife, Jen Couture
Dr. Ralph Garramone and his wife, Jen Couture
Dr. Ralph Garramone and his wife, Jen Couture
Dr. Garramone and Jennifer Couture with Florida U.S. Senator Rick Scott
Florida Businesswoman and Mom Jennifer Couture
The duo didn’t stop at public records. McGibney dug through Jen’s personal life and fed Danesh salacious and uncorroborated gossip to present as Gospel truth: “Jen also takes photographs of her and Ralph having sex and sends them to Ralph’s ex to piss her off… She will have Ralph’s ex confirm anything you want,” he wrote, even connecting Danesh with a willing informant.
Danesh and McGibney – Wild and Untrue Sex Claims
Danesh and McGibney – Wild and Untrue Financial Claims
Danesh’s response? Pure glee – he was “all in,” ready to weaponize every lurid detail.
These leaked messages expose in black and white what Danesh has long denied: a coordinated campaign of harassment and defamation, directed at lawsuit targets Joey Camp, Jennifer Couture, and Dr. Ralph Garramone, and orchestrated with gloating bad faith behind closed doors.
Trolls In Trouble: Defiance After Deadline
This toxic collusion would be damning under any circumstance, but it’s especially explosive given a federal judge’s recent ultimatum. On August 12, 2025, U.S. District Judge John E. Steele lowered the boom on Danesh for prior misconduct in Noshirvan v. Couture.
He baselessly accused the Black civil rights attorney of saying “black people look like monsters” and of sexually harassing Mrs. Noshirvan – claims the court confirmed were outright fabrications.
Courtroom sketch of U.S. District Judge John E. Steele
Any rational plaintiff would tread carefully after such a warning. Instead, Danesh poured gasoline on the fire. On October 24 – well past the court’s critical deadline – he filed a sworn affidavit that reporter Richard Luthmann dubbed a “Roadmap For Prosecution.” In it, Danesh outrageously claims that Joey Camp sent him “hundreds” of violent messages, including “threats of death…rape and sexual mutilation” against Danesh’s children and even urged Danesh to kill himself.
The problem? None of it is true.
Danesh provided zero evidence for these grotesque allegations and never reported any such threats to police. As Luthmann put it, “The only problem: it’s a grotesque lie.”
By fabricating a terror campaign narrative with himself as the victim, Danesh blatantly defied Judge Steele’s order. Legal observers say this post-deadline affidavit is a self-inflicted nuke. It “could derail the Noshirvan v. Couture case” entirely, opening Danesh and Chiappetta to sanctions or even perjury charges.
In short, after August 12, Danesh was on thin ice – and instead of stepping back, he tap-danced into deeper trouble.
Trolls In Trouble: The Handler Unmasked
The leaked Instagram chats also reveal that James McGibney – also known as Bullyville – served as Danesh’s troll handler and media hitman. McGibney, a former Marine who presents himself as an anti-bullying crusader, emerges in these messages as the shadow director of Danesh’s harassment campaigns. In court, Danesh himself admitted that he and McGibney operate under aliases, such as “@CredibleIntel,” to do McGibney’s dirty work.
Trolls In Trouble: McGibney finances Danesh’s Antifa-linked Internet Terror
Danesh confessed they were behind fake sockpuppet accounts such as “@JoeyScramps2020,” used to attack and intimidate Joey Camp on McGibney’s behalf. In other words, the man claiming to expose “bad guys” was secretly coordinating with a notorious internet troll to amplify lies.
McGibney’s fingerprints are all over Danesh’s smear operations. The chat logs show McGibney actively feeding Danesh intel, from court documents to personal scandals, effectively scripting Danesh’s content. McGibney wasn’t just a passive supporter – he was the strategist, particularly behind an apparent Antisemitic and Antifa-linked tirade.
“You will always think of October 7th as your birthday after you see my next post,” he bragged, reveling in the destruction he was about to unleash.
Trolls In Trouble: Media Conspirators
He orchestrated new websites and social media blitzes to target their foes, even procuring Couture’s mugshot and conviction records for Danesh to publish. This is a paid agitator alliance laid bare.
The chat has a “homo-erotic” flavor, which is ironic because the A&E TV marketing portrays “Bully Hunter” McGibney as a family man and crime-fighting crusader.
A&E’s James McGibney is marketed as a nice guy, a family man. Is he really?
Luthmann has previously described Danesh, McGibney, and Chiappetta as a “coordinated cyber harassment cabal,” and now we see why. McGibney acts as the banker and tech support, building platforms and sock accounts; Danesh acts as the front-facing hitman, blasting the smears to millions; and Chiappetta (Danesh’s attorney) lends a veneer of legal cover.
The chat contents raise serious questions about Couture’s 2022 arrest following an incident at Dunkin’ Donuts with Woke TikToker Anjlyke Reed. The chat confirms that Danesh and McGibney directly targeted, manipulated, and even ginned up the Lee County Sheriff’s Office investigation.
McGibney even dangled rewards for Danesh’s dirty work. By funding TikTok ad campaigns and offering resources for smear content, McGibney kept his pet troll well-supplied. In one exchange, he hints at the payoff of their efforts, telling Danesh to watch his latest post and get ready to “LOL.”
The tone is gleeful and conspiratorial – a stark contrast to Danesh’s public pose as an “accountability” activist.
Trolls In Trouble: Sock Puppets Exposed
These revelations eviscerate any pretense that Danesh was a lone do-gooder. The Bullyville.com founder is exposed as the puppetmaster pulling Danesh’s strings. Far from hunting bullies, McGibney became one – running a sockpuppet army and pumping toxic content into the internet bloodstream.
Now his role is out in the open.
The very tactics McGibney once condemned – cyber stalking, defamation, deceit – are the ones he helped Danesh perpetrate. It’s the ultimate hypocrisy, now backed by receipts. The only question that remains is: Why is A&E TV still standing behind him?
We asked James McGibney to comment prior to the publication of this article. He did not respond. Here is what we asked:
From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com> Date: On Thursday, October 30th, 2025 at 7:26 AM Subject: Request for Comment – Leaked Chat with Danesh Noshirvan (Antifa, Sockpuppets & Legal Exposure) To: James@bullyville.com <James@bullyville.com>, ptesq1@yahoo.com <ptesq1@yahoo.com> CC: Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Dick LaFontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, theomahaoracle@gmail.com <theomahaoracle@gmail.com>, Joey@YourDaddyJoey.news <joey@yourdaddyjoey.news>, Joseph A. Camp <joey@joeycamp2020.com>
Dear Mr. McGibney,
We hope you’re doing well. We are reaching out in our capacity as investigative journalists regarding the recently leaked private chat exchanges between you and TikTok personality Danesh “ThatDaneshGuy” Noshirvan. These messages, now circulating online, are causing quite a stir. Given your public persona as an anti-bullying crusader, the content of this leak is both explosive and ironic, and we wanted to give you a fair opportunity to address the specifics on the record. Usually, you are the one unmasking others’ bad behavior — now the spotlight has swung around, and we’re sure you’ll appreciate the chance to set the record straight.
Our reporting, along with the leaked Danesh–McGibney chat logs, raises serious questions about your activities behind the scenes.
1. Coordinated Harassment Tactics: You and Mr. Noshirvan plotted harassment campaigns and crafted “fake narratives” targeting private individuals. In fact, one post-characterization of the leak described “a digital terror cell” where you and Danesh planned attacks, even discussing “revenge porn ops” against your chosen targets. It comes across as an organized online hit squad rather than two independent do-gooders.
2. Ideological/Antifa Undertones: The nature of these chats suggests a possible political or ideological motive. Some observers note the operations bear “Antifa fingerprints” – indicating a far-left activist flavor – and that the targets were often conservatives or even members of the Jewish community (antisemitism has been flagged in commentary on these leaks). The leaked messages, in other words, raise concerns that you weren’t just hunting “bullies” indiscriminately, but instead zeroing in on people with particular viewpoints, under a banner of radical activism.
3. Sockpuppet & Bot Usage: There are indications of sockpuppet social media accounts and bots being used to amplify the campaigns. Investigators allege that you leveraged your IT expertise (and possibly even workplace resources) to manage fake accounts that pummeled targets with abuse. In the Couture case, for example, Danesh created a phony persona (“Erica Sabonis”) to deceive and ridicule the victim during the onslaught. The leaked chats seem to suggest this was not an isolated trick but part of a broader strategy, possibly with your knowledge or participation.
4. Possible Funding Streams: Questions have arisen about who financially supports these operations. There is chatter that you or your associates may have bankrolled Danesh’s activities or legal efforts. Notably, in the ongoing Florida litigation, it was alleged that Danesh received a $5,000 payment from an unknown party to target Jennifer Couture with his viral video smear. This naturally leads to speculation about whether that “unknown party” might have been connected to your network, given your alliance with Danesh. Are these “cancellations” and doxxing campaigns purely organic, or is there a financial motive at play behind the scenes?
5. Legal & Ethical Boundaries: The content of the chats arguably blurs legal lines – discussing doxxing people, spreading defamatory narratives, and other potentially unlawful harassment tactics. This is especially relevant as Mr. Noshirvan is currently embroiled in federal defamation lawsuits in Fort Myers, Florida (where multi-million dollar claims are at stake). In fact, a recent court filing in that case argued that Danesh’s bad-faith conduct could “torpedo the case.” He’s now facing possible sanctions of up to $100,000 for litigation misconduct. The leaked chat could be seen as further evidence of bad faith or even wrongdoing. In short, what was revealed in your private conversations may have profound legal implications – both for Danesh’s case and potentially for you personally.
Given the above, I have several specific questions to which your prompt response is requested. Your answers (or a statement) will be included in our upcoming article. The tone of my inquiries is candid because of the gravity of the issues, but I remain open to your side of the story. Feel free to address these as thoroughly or as succinctly as you wish:
– Authenticity & Intent: First, can you confirm whether the leaked chat messages are genuine? If they are authentic, in what context were you and Mr. Noshirvan discussing topics such as harassment strategies and “fake narratives”? For example, one leaked line has you two allegedly discussing how to spin a narrative or deploy a smear—what was your intent there? (If you contend the messages are fabricated or taken out of context, please elaborate.) In essence, how do you explain what we’re seeing in those logs?
– Antifa Affiliations & Ideology: Do you have any affiliation with Antifa or other extremist activist groups? The content and coordination style in the chats have been described as having “Antifa fingerprints all over it.” It appears the campaigns often targeted people based on their political stance (e.g., conservatives) or other personal attributes – hence the accusations of an ideological vendetta. How do you respond to claims that you and Danesh were pursuing a partisan (far-left) crusade under the guise of “anti-hate” work? Are you, Dr. McGibney, aligned with Antifa’s goals/tactics in any way, or is this “Antifa” label misplaced? Additionally, what do you say to those raising antisemitism concerns – the notion that some of your collective targets were singled out due to being Jewish or otherwise “out of favor” with your political views?
– Sockpuppet Accounts & Online Personas: Have you ever created or operated sockpuppet (fake/anonymous) accounts to covertly influence discourse or harass individuals online? The leaked chats imply a coordinated use of burner accounts and bots in your circle. In fact, multiple sources allege that you used your position as an IT professional to run a stable of fake accounts as part of these campaigns. Did you, for instance, help orchestrate inauthentic “support” or pile-ons via dummy profiles? Furthermore, were you aware of Danesh’s own sockpuppeting – like when he posed as “Erica Sabonis” to deceive Ms. Couture during the Dunkin’ Donuts incident fallout? Do you condone these tactics, and can you categorically deny engaging in any alias-driven operations yourself?
– Financial Support for Danesh: Have you or any organizations you’re involved with supported Danesh Noshirvan’s activities financially? This includes payments for content, bounties for “exposures,” covering legal fees, or any material sponsorship. Given your close alliance, it’s natural to ask if you’ve helped fund his campaigns or his court battles. As mentioned, the Couture lawsuit asserts that Danesh was paid $5,000 by someone to amplify that incident. So, to put it bluntly: Did you ever pay Danesh (directly or indirectly) to target someone or to pursue a particular narrative? If not, do you have insight into who bankrolled those efforts or how Danesh finances his relentless online operations? And if yes, on what grounds do you justify such funding while maintaining a stance as an anti-bullying advocate?
– Concerns About Legal Exposure: Are you personally concerned that your involvement in these leaked discussions might expose you to legal liability? Thus far, you have portrayed yourself as an independent “good Samaritan” in the fight against online hate. However, the chat logs paint a picture of possible collusion in harassment or defamation, which could have legal consequences (civil or potentially criminal if, say, interstate stalking or conspiracy could be argued). Do you believe all of your actions with Danesh were above-board and lawful? Have you reviewed whether coordinating social media hit-jobs could violate any laws or court orders? In short, do you fear any legal blowback from these revelations – or conversely, are you confident that you’ve done nothing that could land you in hot water? Any comment on whether you’ve sought legal counsel in light of the leak is also welcome.
– Impact on Danesh’s Fort Myers Cases: In your view, what does this leak mean for Danesh Noshirvan’s pending federal lawsuits in Fort Myers? As you know, Danesh positions himself as a crusader against harassment (claiming he never directs mobs, etc.), but these leaked chats seem to starkly contradict that narrative. Are you worried that this could tank Danesh’s case? Opposing counsel has already argued that Danesh’s continuing pattern of bad faith misconduct could “torpedo the case.” Given that a judge is weighing sanctions that could potentially dismiss his claims outright, do you think the exposure of your behind-the-scenes coordination will undermine Danesh’s credibility in court? Also, are you prepared to be subpoenaed or examined in that case now that your role has come to light? Essentially, I’m asking whether you foresee these chat logs crippling Danesh’s litigation and what your level of concern is about being implicated in his alleged wrongdoing. Any thoughts on how this might affect both Danesh’s legal prospects and your own reputation would be helpful.
We realize these questions are pointed. The situation at hand is highly charged, and our duty is to present the facts and allegations to our readers – along with your side of the story. In the spirit of genuine journalistic inquiry, we remain servants of the truth.
Please respond immediately with any comments or clarifications, as we intend to go to press shortly. If we do not receive your responses by press time, we will incorporate them into a follow-up. We sincerely hope you will address these issues, given their severity. If there is any context or exculpatory detail you feel is being overlooked, now is the time to bring it forward.
Judge Steele explicitly warned that further misconduct could get his defamation case tossed out (Danesh’s latest demand, $35 million, lacks any legal or factual justification). Danesh’s brazen post-deadline affidavit may be the final straw. By swearing to outright lies under oath, he’s given the court all the ammunition needed to dismiss his claims as a bad-faith sham.
In plain terms, Danesh admitted to illegal porn production. He and his “swinger” wife weren’t role-playing – they were breaking the law. This stunning admission strips away Danesh’s facade of moral crusader. While he pointed fingers at others, he was literally in the business of illicit obscenity. Sources say a criminal referral over the 2257 violations is on the table, compounding Danesh’s troubles.
Another Debunked Danesh Claim
Danesh says he is a man of “Modest Means.”
Danesh Dishonest Affidavit 12
Meanwhile, evidence suggests Danesh has been less than honest about his finances as well. He cried poverty to the court – claiming to be of “modest means” who couldn’t pay more than $5,000 in sanctions – yet his own affidavit acknowledges owing his lawyer over $277,000 in fees. Danesh denied a contingency engagement with Chiappetta, which directly contradicts his earlier statements to McGibney.
Either Danesh has secret funds or he’s setting his attorney up for a very expensive IOU.
This discrepancy reeks of deceit, prompting observers to dub Danesh’s plea of poverty another “Tax Lies Exposed” moment.
In total, Danesh Noshirvan’s empire of lies is crashing down. The very tactics he used to terrorize others – lies, smears, manufactured outrage – have now entrapped him. Couture and Garramone’s attorneys are armed with proof of Danesh’s ongoing bad faith after the court’s deadline.
The Federal Judge has a clear path to throw out Danesh’s lawsuit entirely – a righteous comeuppance for a plaintiff who continually mocks the court’s authority.
Beyond that, Danesh faces potential criminal consequences, from perjury charges for the false affidavit to federal obscenity charges for his illegal OnlyFans exploits. His troll handler McGibney is exposed and could be dragged into the fray as a co-conspirator.
Even embattled Lake Worth, Florida attorney Nick Chiappetta, who filed Danesh’s lie-filled affidavit, may face sanctions or worse for aiding these frauds.
What began as Danesh’s quest to “hold others accountable” has boomeranged. Now Danesh is the one under the microscope – for lies, for porn, for harassment, for everything.
The man who once weaponized the internet against his targets is watching his own reputation go down in flames. And as the evidence mounts, one thing becomes brutally clear: Danesh Noshirvan’s campaign of bad faith didn’t just fail – it backfired, spectacularly.
