![TikTok’s Danesh Noshirvan [L] and Investigative Journalist Richard Luthmann [R] are in a bitter legal and media feud with significant First Amendment implications.TikTok’s Danesh Noshirvan [L] and Investigative Journalist Richard Luthmann [R] are in a bitter legal and media feud with significant First Amendment implications.](https://flgulfnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/daneshguy-fotor-2025010672139-1.jpg)
Federal Court Showdown in Fort Myers Pits First Amendment Against Frivolous Legal Attacks by Danesh Noshirvan and Attorney Nick Chiappetta in SCOTUS Doxxer Subpoena Scandal
By M. Thomas Nast with Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe
The Battle for the Fourth Estate: SCOTUS Doxxer Subpoena Scandal
Journalists, including Richard Luthmann and Michael Volpe, are taking a stand. They oppose lawyers and litigants who use bad-faith legal processes to intimidate investigative reporters.
Their recent discussion on The Unknown Podcast highlighted the chilling impact of baseless subpoenas, particularly one issued by TikTok influencer and SCOTUS Doxxer Danesh Noshirvan.
The subpoena, served on Luthmann in a Fort Myers federal courtroom just seconds after the judge left the bench, was directed by Noshirvan’s attorney, Nick Chiappetta. It sought to compel the journalist to reveal his sources.
Luthmann has since filed a 438-page motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that it violates the First Amendment and constitutes an abuse of the legal system. Luthmann requests a protective order and sanctions as a remedy against the SCOTUS Doxxer Subpoena Scandal.
The case, now before U.S. Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek, has become a rallying point for press freedom advocates nationwide.
“This isn’t just about me,” Luthmann declared. “This is about defending the rights of journalists everywhere to investigate and report without fear of retaliation. I’ll be God-damned if these punks are going to piss on the Constitution.”
Weaponizing Subpoenas: A Clear Assault on Free Speech
The subpoena served on Luthmann is not an isolated incident. It represents a growing trend of weaponizing legal processes to silence journalists.
“This subpoena isn’t just bad faith,” Luthmann said on The Unknown Podcast. “It’s a cowardly attempt to silence critics and cover up Danesh’s own misconduct.”
Volpe, co-host of the podcast and an experienced investigative journalist, echoed these concerns. “This is about more than one journalist or case,” he said. “It’s about protecting the Fourth Estate from those who would destroy it.”
The timing and nature of the subpoena are particularly concerning. It was served while Luthmann covered Noshirvan’s legal feud with Florida businesswoman Jennifer Couture and her husband, Dr. Ralph Garramone. Critics, including Luthmann and Volpe, argue that the move was a calculated effort to intimidate Luthmann into ceasing his coverage of the case.
Historical Context: Pen Names and Press Freedom
Noshirvan and his lawyer, Nick Chiappetta of Lake Worth, Florida, are engaged in an all-out campaign to discredit Luthmann and his activities as a professional journalist in the SCOTUS Doxxer Subpoena Scandal. Chiappetta previously stated in an email to Luthmann, the Court, the attorneys, and the press:
On 1/3/25 9:38 AM, Nick Chiappetta wrote:
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
Attorney Chiappetta claimed that Luthmann was “harassing” Danesh Noshirvan and Hannah Noshirvan without detailing any of the alleged harassment. Luthmann responded.
Luthmann says he doesn’t trust Chiappetta or Noshirvan.
“I don’t trust either of them as far as I can throw my car. I could throw them very far. Believe me,” Luthmann said. “They hit me with a defective subpoena. Now, they’re claiming it’s withdrawn because they fear sanctions. But that’s not the end of it because it’s validly issued and served legal process. Only a Court can tell me it is null and void, and I’m entitled to a protective order to ensure that the press is protected here.”
This principle is at the heart of Luthmann’s motion to quash the subpoena, which he describes as a “malicious assault on the First Amendment.” The motion also seeks sanctions against Noshirvan and Chiappetta, arguing that their actions constitute an abuse of the legal process designed to chill investigative reporting.
He reached out to Attorney Chiappetta for comments. He did not respond as of press time. Here is what we asked:
From: Modern Thomas Nast <[email protected]>
Date: On Tuesday, January 14th, 2025 at 9:19 AM
Subject: Questions Regarding Allegations and Legal Actions Involving Danesh and Hannah Noshirvan
To: Nick Chiappetta <[email protected]>
CC: Richard Luthmann <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Michael Volpe <[email protected]>, RALafontaine <[email protected]>, Rick LaRivière <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, Frank Parlato <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>Dear Attorney Chiappetta,
I am M. Thomas Nast, a journalist investigating the ongoing legal and public disputes involving your client, Mr. Danesh Noshirvan, and his wife, Mrs. Hannah Noshirvan. Recent developments, including the bad-faith subpoena served on journalist Richard Luthmann in federal court, have raised numerous questions of public concern. I am seeking your responses to the following detailed inquiries to ensure accurate and balanced reporting.
Questions on Alleged Harassment
1. What specifically constitutes the alleged “harassment” of Mr. Danesh Noshirvan, who boasts over two million TikTok followers and has publicly engaged in doxxing, including targeting SCOTUS justices?
2. How does Mr. Noshirvan reconcile his self-proclaimed victimhood with his extensive use of TikTok and other platforms to attack others?
3. Can you provide evidence of actual harassment beyond criticism or coverage of his public actions?
Mental Health and Court Documentation
4. Was Danesh or Hannah Noshirvan found to be mentally damaged in Robert Gordon’s report prepared for the court in the Noshirvan v. Couture et al. case? If so, how does this impact their credibility as litigants and accusers?
5. Are there other documents or reports that support or challenge their claims of victimization?
Validity of Legal Claims
6. Does Danesh’s case have legitimate legal merit, or do you acknowledge that these claims lack substance and waste valuable court resources?
7. Have you or your client considered the potential consequences of filing frivolous or bad-faith claims under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
Allegations of a Pattern of False Claims
8. Has Mr. Noshirvan developed a pattern or modus operandi of falsely claiming harassment to deflect attention from his own misconduct?
9. What steps, if any, have been taken to verify the legitimacy of Danesh’s allegations before pursuing legal action?
Service of the Subpoena and Ethical Considerations
10. Why did your client serve a journalist with a subpoena in a federal courtroom moments after the judge left the bench?
11. Do you believe this timing was ethical or appropriate, and if so, please explain why?
12. Were you present during the service of the subpoena, and did you direct this action?
13. Do you believe this act aligns with principles of legal ethics, or do you concede that it may appear retaliatory and intimidatory?
Financial and Foreign Allegations
14. Does Mr. Noshirvan receive foreign money, or is he acting as an agent of any foreign government or entity?
15. Can you confirm or deny ties between Mr. Noshirvan and payments allegedly linked to leftist operatives or foreign actors, including those with connections to George Soros or the Chinese Communist Party?
Underage Content Allegations and Platform Removal
16. Was Mr. Noshirvan deplatformed from OnlyFans for violating 18 USC §§ 2257 or 2257A regarding content involving underage girls?
17. What is your client’s response to allegations regarding such violations, and has he been cleared of wrongdoing?
Preparation for Potential Criminal Prosecution
18. Is Mr. Noshirvan preparing for potential prosecution under the incoming Trump Justice Department?
19. Are you advising him on criminal defense strategies related to the above allegations?
Aiding and Abetting Allegations
20. Do you deny allegations that you may be aiding and abetting your client in actions that constitute fraud or other criminal activities?
21. What steps have you taken to ensure your legal representation of Mr. Noshirvan complies with ethical and legal standards?
Press Freedom and the Subpoena’s Broader Implications
22. Do you acknowledge the chilling effect that bad-faith subpoenas have on journalists and the free press?
23. What is your response to claims that the subpoena served on Mr. Luthmann was not only frivolous but also maliciously intended to intimidate him?
Additional Questions
24. Has your client been advised on the consequences of violating press freedoms as they relate to journalistic protections under the First Amendment?
25. What is your response to concerns that Mr. Noshirvan’s actions and claims, rather than holding individuals accountable, have become tools for personal vendettas?
Your timely and detailed response to these questions will ensure that our reporting fairly and accurately reflects all perspectives involved in this matter. Please respond as we are preparing a comprehensive piece on these critical issues.
If we do not hear from you by press time, you can submit responses and comments for inclusion in a follow up where your and your client’s side will be presented.
Regards,
Modern Thomas Nast
Investigative Journalist
Luthmann doesn’t think much of Noshirvan or his legal representative in the SCOTUS Doxxer Subpoena Scandal.
“Chip should stick with ambulance chasing. First, it was Joey Camp, who was the boogeyman behind every tree. Now it’s me because I have the temerity to ask about Danesh’s and Hannah’s own court reports that say they are mentally damaged. That claim is central to their case. Now, they don’t want to talk about it and scream ‘harassment’ and ‘pedophilia’ about anyone who calls them on their bullshit. Give me an F—ing break,” Luthmann said.
“I sent Danesh and Chip a legal demand letter based on Danesh’s latest round of defamation. I fully intend to sue them, and a demand letter is a legal requirement,” Luthmann said. “How that turns into a ‘package’ sent to Danesh’s ‘in-laws’ shows Danesh’s modus operandi. His in-laws must technically have signed the lease where Danesh and Hannah live. He thinks he’s slick but only does this to mislead his echo chamber audience. It’s textbook malicious,” Luthmann said.
“Using a pen name is a tradition as old as journalism itself,” Luthmann said. “It allows reporters to uncover and publish truths that powerful entities would rather keep hidden.”
Volpe elaborated on the importance of anonymity in protecting journalists and their sources.
“Pen names aren’t about hiding; they’re about shielding journalists and sources from retaliation,” he said. “The First Amendment doesn’t just protect what we write; it protects how we do our work.”
Julie Holburn’s Struggle Against Legal Intimidation
Luthmann and Volpe pointed to the case of journalist Julie Holburn as another example of how unethical litigants misuse subpoenas to silence critics. Holburn was subpoenaed while covering a contentious family court case, an experience she described as profoundly unsettling.
“They didn’t like the truth getting out, so they tried to intimidate me,” Holburn said.
With the help of the First Amendment Coalition, she successfully quashed the subpoena, but the experience left a lasting impression.
“It’s a tactic designed to scare journalists into silence,” she added.
Volpe noted that Holburn’s experience underscores the need for stronger protections for journalists.
“Julie was lucky to have legal support,” he said. “Not every journalist has those resources. The chilling effect is real.”
The Courts’ Role in Curbing Abuses
Federal courts have long been empowered to curb frivolous subpoenas through Rule 45 and the imposition of sanctions. Congress designed these measures to prevent the misuse of legal processes, particularly against journalists.
“The courts must act decisively,” Luthmann argued. “If they allow this, they’re giving a green light to every bad actor who wants to crush press freedom.”
Luthmann’s motion, now pending before Judge Dudek, seeks over $100,000 in sanctions against Noshirvan and Chiappetta. It also calls for a protective order to prevent further abuse.
“This isn’t just about holding them accountable,” Luthmann said. “It’s about sending a message that the courts won’t tolerate this kind of behavior against our constitutionally-enshrined institutions.”
The Hypocrisy of Cancel Culture’s Champions
Noshirvan’s actions reveal a troubling double standard. While he portrays himself as a victim of harassment, he simultaneously uses his TikTok platform, bolstered by AI-generated bots, to target his critics.
Frank Parlato, a journalist known for exposing corruption, has detailed how Noshirvan inflates his follower count and manufactures outrage.
“Danesh is fooling people into believing his attacks represent mass sentiment,” Parlato said. “It’s not just unethical; it’s dangerous.”
Luthmann and Volpe both highlighted the hypocrisy of Noshirvan’s claims.
“You can’t weaponize your platform against others and cry harassment when someone fights back with the truth,” Volpe said.
A National Security Threat?
Beyond the legal and ethical concerns, Luthmann has raised alarms about Noshirvan’s potential foreign ties. Payments from leftist operative Scott Dworkin and other entities linked to George Soros and the Chinese Communist Party have fueled suspicions about Noshirvan’s motivations.
Luthmann emphasized the broader implications.
“We’re talking about someone who’s weaponizing social media to destabilize American institutions,” he said. “This isn’t just a domestic problem—it’s a national security threat.”
According to outgoing FBI Director Christopher Wray, the Chinese communist regime is the greatest threat to the United States.
“The greatest long-term threat facing our country, in my view, is represented by the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese government, which I consider to be the defining threat of our generation,” Wray told CBS’s 60 Minutes.
Luthmann draws stark parallels between Noshirvan’s social media tactics and those historically employed by the CCP in campaigns against dissident groups like Falun Gong.
According to Luthmann, the coordinated use of disinformation, doxxing, and intimidation bears the hallmarks of a sophisticated foreign influence operation
“Noshirvan’s playbook isn’t just about harassment; it smacks of a larger agenda,” Luthmann asserted. “The CCP has long used coordinated attacks against its targets, relying on bots, fabricated narratives, and intimidation to silence critics and sow discord. The methods we’re seeing from Danesh—weaponized social media, AI-driven bots, and targeted harassment campaigns—are more than eerily similar to the CCP’s approach.”
Falun Gong practitioners, who have been subjected to decades of persecution in China, have experienced CCP-sponsored smear campaigns that involve doxxing and reputational damage on international soil. Reports have shown that these tactics are amplified by unregistered foreign agents operating in the United States, leveraging American communication infrastructure to spread propaganda and incite public outrage.
Luthmann suggests that Noshirvan’s campaigns are part of these tactics, raising questions about whether foreign state actors are influencing and/or supporting them to subvert American society more broadly.
He sent a letter to Devin Nunes, former Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, current CEO of Truth Social, and President-Elect Trump’s appointee as Chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.
In the letter to Nunes, Luthmann outlined “non-investigation-compromising” evidence of Danesh Noshirvan’s concerning activities.
The Path Forward: Defending Press Freedom
As the case against Noshirvan unfolds, it has become a flashpoint in the battle to protect press freedom. Luthmann and Volpe remain resolute in their commitment to exposing abuses of power and defending the rights of journalists.
“This fight isn’t just about me,” Luthmann said. “It’s about every journalist who risks their safety to tell the truth.”
Volpe agreed, adding, “The court has a chance to set a precedent here. They can either protect the press or let this abuse continue.”
Parlato, who has extensively covered the feud, praised Luthmann’s resilience. “Richard is tenacious,” Parlato said. “He won’t be canceled.”
For now, all eyes are on Judge Dudek as the legal battle intensifies. The stakes for press freedom—and the integrity of the Fourth Estate—have never been higher.
Leave a Reply