A Frank Report investigation into outrage, deception, and the machine-made mob.
$100K ON THE LINE: The Parable
(FORT MYERS, FLORIDA) – It began the way most things do—small and stupid. A quarrel in a parking lot. Two people. Two tempers. One phone. It should have ended there, with engines starting and doors slamming. But it didn’t. The camera stayed on.
And in the age we live in, that means the story was just beginning.
This is a parable for now. Once, parables warned men about sin and pride. Now they warn us about screens. About speed. About lies that travel faster than truth.
The new tools are simple: edits, hashtags, and algorithms. The new priest is an influencer. His church is the screen you stare at. His gospel is outrage.
He takes a small thing—a shove, a curse, a gesture—and trims it down to a single moment. He calls it accountability.
Soon, strangers are shouting. Mixed among the humans are bots—machines built to mimic rage and pull others in.
The humans do not know the people in the video. They do not care. What they know is what they’ve been shown—and that is enough.
This parable is not about mercy. It is about the power to twist a clip, to ruin a life with a tap of a finger. In this new world, there are no juries. No facts. Only the influencer and the crowd – real and artificial.
Reality is no longer what happens. Reality is what gets uploaded. And every one of us is one click away from being the next story.
This is the story of one of those clicks. This is Part Two of Danesh Noshirvan and the Case of Jennifer Couture.
The Lawsuit
It began as a quarrel in a parking lot—a near-accident at a Dunkin’ Donuts, edited into a viral lie. Based on the lie—the claim that Jennifer Couture tried to run over Anglyke Reed —a TikToker named Danesh Noshirvan built a narrative of “assault with a deadly weapon.”
He edited the video. He removed Reed’s threats, her screaming, her rage. He cut the part that showed Couture backing up to talk, not to hit her. In Danesh’s version, Couture was trying to run Reed down.
The internet’s jury watched the lie and found Couture guilty in a minute. What followed was an onslaught—not nearly as organic as it seemed.
A sheriff caved to what he believed was online pressure and arrested Couture, charging her with assault with a deadly weapon – the weapon being the car. The mob got what it wanted.
Later, the true facts were settled. The case was reduced to a misdemeanor.
Next, it was Danesh’s turn.
Couture and her husband, Dr. Ralph Garramone, a plastic surgeon, filed suit in May 2023 in federal court in Fort Myers. They alleged that Noshirvan defamed them, that he was a cyberstalker, and that he interfered with Dr. Garramone’s business in a tortious manner.
Danesh denied it. In his lawsuit, he defended his “accountability culture.” His lawsuit reads: “Noshirvan does not advocate for… harassment… nor has [he] ever directed his viewers to ‘go after’ any of the ‘bad actors.’”
He described himself as the victim. He alleged Couture, Garramone, and associates “devised a plan” to harm him. He accused them of hiring “social media terrorist,” Joseph A. Camp.
They flew north, he said, and put up flyers in his town for a “swingers party” with Danesh and his wife’s faces on them.
They built websites and wrote unflattering things. They bought ads criticizing him. They paid for a billboard that said Doxing is violent with his face beside the word.
Danesh said his wife and child moved away for safety. He said she had PTSD. Their goal, he said, was to make him “homeless, deplatformed, his child placed in foster care, and his wife forced to do immoral acts.”
It was ironic — the same pattern others accused Danesh of had become his defense. There are sites dedicated to the victims of Danesh. And now he was a victim, he said, of a woman and her husband, whom he had attacked, with a misleading video that led to her arrest.
Danesh said Couture, Garramone, and Camp ruined his life. Their plan would end only when he was a “broken human skeleton.”
Yet he was a journalist, he said. He fought for people who didn’t have a voice.
He asked the court for $5 million.
$100K ON THE LINE: The Deposition
April 15, 2025-
They met on Zoom. Julian Jackson-Fannin, a lawyer for Garramone and Couture, deposed Hannah Noshirvan, Danesh’s wife.
At the outset, Jackson-Fannin went “over a couple of ground rules” with Hannah, including the “need to make sure that there’s no external influences.”
“Is there anyone in the room with you right now?”
‘No,’ she said.
During the deposition, Jackson-Fannin shared his screen. A photograph appeared—a smiling woman in dark makeup. Across the top, someone had written, “Hannah Noshirvan in Blackface.”
Jackson-Fannin asked, “Is this you?”
“Yes,” she said.
She explained that she had makeup on because she played a ”burnt charcoal-covered zombie.”
“So you don’t harbor any animosity towards African-Americans or black people?”
“No, I do not, and I also take offense at that picture as labeled, ‘Blackface picture.’ That is not blackface.”
“Okay.”
“It’s been taken out of context.”
“Okay. You can see I have zombie contact lenses on.
They moved on.
Jackson-Fannin inquired about an explicit picture uploaded to an OnlyFans account with the handle “@thatdaneshguy,” the same social media handle Noshirvan uses on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and other platforms.
It was a fair question since Danesh’s complaint alleged he was harmed by Couture and Garramone’s false statements that he and his wife are “swingers.”
Jackson-Fannin asked Hannah whether she was aware that Noshirvan had an OnlyFans account, who was in the picture, whether she and her husband had an open marriage, and other similar questions.
Hannah did not answer.
Jackson-Fannin: Mrs. Noshirvan, please. Mr. Chiappetta, please advise your client that she needs to answer my question.
At that moment, a voice interrupted the proceedings. It was the voice of Danesh off camera.
Danesh: Whoa, I’ll remember this at settlement. I’ll remember this shit at settlement.
Jackson-Fannin: … Is Mr. Noshirvan in the room with you, Mrs. Noshirvan?
Hannah: No. No. He’s not. He was in the hallway.
Jackson-Fannin: Was he there just a moment ago in the room with you?
Hannah: No, no, he was not.
Jackson-Fannin: Well, then what was the voice that we just heard, Mrs. Noshirvan?
Hannah: He’s in the hallway. He’s in the hallway.
Jackson-Fannin: Is the door open, and is he visible from you right now?
Hannah: No. The door was cracked.
Jackson-Fannin: Okay. So then, Mr. Chiappetta, please advise your client to answer my question.
Hannah: Stop, Danesh, stop.
Danesh: Act with decency, motherfucker, and maybe I will. What are you asking her about, you dumb shit? You’re asking her about photos –
Nick Chiappetta (Danesh’s lawyer): Danesh, stop.
Danesh: What the fuck is wrong with you?
Chiappetta: Danesh, stop. Walk away.
Danesh: I’m sorry, I hear him from the hallway and I had to come and tell him he’s a fucking misogynistic piece of shit. Fuck you.
Jackson-Fannin: Mr. Chiappetta, would you like to advise your client?
Hannah: I closed the door.
Chiappetta: No, I think your entire line of questioning is inappropriate. This is not a conversation between — that involves the deponent in any which way whatsoever. It’s between two other individuals, and you are just trying to get some type of impression or create a reaction, which you just did, which is fantastic. So I hope that Ms. Couture and Dr. Garramone, who are on this deposition as well, see just how great of a job you’re doing, because, oh, you definitely inspired my client to take this all the way. So, good job, Julian. Let’s move on.
Jackson-Fannin concluded his deposition without further interruptions from Danesh.
$100K ON THE LINE: AfterMath
The morning after the deposition, Danesh posted on Substack.
“Breaking! Lawyer Julian A. Jackson allegedly stated he cannot tell the difference between BLACK PEOPLE and MONSTERS! Shares Revenge Porn in court!”
He called Jackson-Fannin a “low-class racist” who had “gone on a hyper-racist tangent.” He said Jackson-Fannin “held up a photo of my wife and thought it would be funny to say it was blackface.”
“Do you hate Black people, Julian?”
Danesh added: “Julian cried in deposition that he was going to tell the judge I threatened him after I may or may not have interrupted when I heard his perverted questions and may or may not have called him a ‘fucking pig’ and a ‘misogynist.’ That’s what you call men who share revenge porn. Men need to stand up to men.”
After the article appeared, Jackson-Fannin emailed Chiappetta to say that Danesh had made “patently offensive, false, and defamatory statements.”
Chiappetta replied that Danesh had deleted the post. Then he added: “Your actions in yesterday’s deposition reflect poorly … on yourself… Take responsibility for your actions.”
Within hours, Danesh wrote, “My lawyer says I can restore (the post) now.”
On April 17, Danesh published two Substack posts calling Jackson-Fannin a ‘low-class racist,’ a ‘misogynist,’ and a ‘pig’—claiming he said that “he thinks black people look like monsters.’ On Instagram, Danesh tagged professional groups: ‘This man sexually harassed my wife.’ He told his followers, “Share this everywhere. Thank you.”
Likes came by the thousands. Comments turned violent.
“I’m gonna kill him. Want to come?”
“GET HIM !!!!!!!”
“oh, he’s meat.”
“Time to bring back Real Justice,”
“Sounds like street justice time.”
“You are invited to end this piece of trash.”
“Find him and his wife make the score even but make sure she suffers cause of him and let it be known too.”
Voicemails followed on Jackson-Fannin’s phone and the phones of his law firm, Duane Morris:
“We know where you live… we’re going to sexually harass them… You’re a dirty fucking disgusting pig.”
“Hey Julian, we gotcha. We know where you live, we know who your mother is, we know who your sisters are… any female relative you have, we are going to sexually harass them…
“We’re thinking about it. We’re figuring out who we need to call, what we need to do. But you’re a dirty fucking disgusting pig. You’re a disgrace to all men everywhere. You’re a disgrace to lawyers everywhere… Fuck you, you piece of fucking shit.”
$100K ON THE LINE: A Clarification
The violent comments poured in, but they felt inauthentic—posted from new accounts using similar phrasing. Then came the voicemails: different voices, but the same scripted threats. Based on available evidence, Frank Report believes Danesh may have created and sent these messages himself, using voice-altering and call-spoofing software. What looked like an enraged mob was, in all likelihood, one man and a machine.
On April 19, Danesh emailed Jackson-Fannin, copying other Duane Morris lawyers. He called him a pig. He asked, “Do you hate brown people just like you hate women, Julian?”
The “voice” in the emails was the same one from the deposition, the same from his Substack—same rhythm, same rage, the same words his bots used.
Chiappetta told Jackson-Fannin he would “advise Danesh to stop emailing you.” He added that “nothing my client said is actionable and there is a factual basis to support certain statements.”
At Jackson-Fannin’s office, Duane Morris heightened security. He made a motion for sanctions, asking the court to order Noshirvan to remove social media posts targeting Jackson-Fannin, to issue a retraction, and instruct his followers to cease harassment and threats. He asked the court to reprimand Chiappetta and “to control his client.” They asked for fees.
When he read it, Chiappetta called the motion “very cute,” and wrote to Jackson-Fannin: “Way to destroy your own reputation… Don’t worry, we will correct all of your false statements.”
On April 23, Danesh posted to Substack.
“I never directed any harassment towards [Jackson-Fannin] and have absolutely no issue saying what I’ve said many times on my platform, which is: I do not support harassment, bullying, or threatening anyone.”
In defense of the motion, Chiappetta argued that Jackson-Fannin forced Hannah Noshirvan to answer private and painful questions. He blamed it on Couture and Garramone.
“[E]very step of the way, information that …has somehow been disseminated without [her] consent,” the filing says. “She endured an ‘onslaught of torture’ at the Defendants’ hands…. She is a true victim here. She lived with major depression, severe anxiety, and CPTSD.”
$100K ON THE LINE: The Reckoning
August 12
The court issued its decision. U.S. District Judge John E. Steele ruled:
“Noshirvan’s interruption and language at the deposition show subjective bad faith and merits sanctions…
“Noshirvan repeatedly hurled expletives at Jackson-Fannin, even after being told to stop, which establishes that his behavior was intentional and was so egregious that it could only have been committed in bad faith. Such misbehavior at a deposition justifies sanctions.
“If Noshirvan’s wife was being improperly questioned by Jackson-Fannin, the appropriate reaction was to present a motion and seek relief from the Court…
“Noshirvan’s post-deposition communications were not only inflammatory but false and intentionally made to incite followers to engage in foreseeable harassment and intimidation.
“Noshirvan asserted that Jackson-Fannin ‘said that he thinks black people look like monsters…’
The deposition transcript establishes Jackson-Fannin did not say that or anything remotely close. Nor did Jackson-Fannin sexually assault Mrs. Noshirvan, as Noshirvan asserted.“Noshirvan baselessly called Jackson-Fannin a ‘low-class racist,’ a ‘pig,’ and a ‘misogynist.’
“Noshirvan’s communications are sanctionable because they served no purpose other than to improperly influence the litigation by disrupting the court proceedings and harassing and intimidating opposing counsel….
“For his conduct, Noshirvan will be sanctioned with the imposition of … attorney’s fees and costs in connection with bringing the matter to the Court’s attention. Noshirvan is warned that if he engages in similar conduct in the future, he will be subject to more severe sanctions, which may include dismissal of his case.
“Chiappetta also acted in bad faith when he declined to restrain Noshirvan…
“Chiappetta will be sanctioned with the following public reprimand: Nicholas Chiappetta has failed to meet the professional standards expected from officers of the court in connection with the deposition and its aftermath.”
$100K ON THE LINE: The Sanctions
As for costs, Duane Morris said it spent $100,000 on lawyers, cybersecurity, and security experts to counter Noshirvan’s attacks and protect Jackson-Fannin from potential violence. Noshirvan told the court he had only $5,000 to his name.
His lawyer now faces a Florida Bar review that could mean a warning, suspension, or even disbarment. He has had to hire legal counsel and spend his own money to defend himself because he failed to control his client.
Danesh faces monetary penalties of up to $100,000 in court-ordered sanctions. If Danesh only has five grand, the court still has its judgment. The debt stays. It collects interest. It waits. If he gets a job, they can take part of his pay. If he opens a bank account, they can seize it. It will go to Couture and Garramone. If he buys a car or a house, Couture and Garramone can slap a lien on it.
He can say he’s broke. The court will say, Fine. You’re broke—but you still owe. He won’t go to jail for being poor. But if he lies, hides assets, or ignores orders, that’s contempt. Then it’s different. But the debt stays until it’s paid.
Danesh faces another kind of accountability. A Denton County grand jury is probing the 2024 suicide of high school coach Aaron De La Torre, a death tied to Danesh’s digital crusades.
$100K ON THE LINE: The Parable Returns
It is a strange kind of justice — the hunter accused of becoming his own prey. The story has come full circle. In the end, the parable turns. The man who built mobs from mirrors faces one now.
The virtual crowd is gone. Only the judge remains. And in Texas, a grand jury waits.
The story that began small and stupid ends the same way—only this time, the camera points back at him.
The trouble with building mobs is that someday you hear them calling your name. You don’t need to look over your shoulder to know they mean you. You just stop and understand. All the shouting, all the judgment — it was only ever an echo.
Original Editor’s Note: This story is part of an ongoing investigation into digital harassment, media manipulation, and the weaponization of social platforms. It is conducted independently under a professional journalism retainer. Every effort has been made to ensure fairness, accuracy, and balance. All parties named in this and forthcoming reports are invited to provide comment.
Any use of artificial intelligence or related technology to harass or intimidate others in response to this reporting may constitute criminal cyber crimes.
Leave a Reply