Danesh Noshirvan’s Affidavit of Lies: A Roadmap For Federal Prosecution

ICE-Hating Antifa Agitator Caught Lying Under Oath—Feds Urged to Prosecute

FORT MYERS, FLORIDA

NOTE: This piece is intended for public awareness and as a roadmap for law enforcement and litigants regarding Mega Influencer and digital jihadist Danesh Noshirvan’s latest batch of lies and dishonesty in sworn federal court documents.

By Rick LaRiviere with Richard Luthmann

Sworn Lies Under Oath

Danesh “ThatDaneshGuy” Noshirvan filed a brazen affidavit in Fort Myers federal court on October 24, 2025 – and it’s a work of pure fiction.

In this sworn statement, the notorious Antifa-linked TikTok bully paints himself as a victim of journalist Joey Camp. Noshirvan outrageously claims Camp sent him “hundreds” of messages with “threats of death… rape and sexual mutilation towards my children,” even urging Noshirvan to kill himself.

The only problem: it’s a grotesque lie.

There’s zero evidence that any of it happened. Tellingly, Noshirvan never even reported these supposed threats to the police. Instead, he saved his tall tales for a federal courtroom.

Camp – a heroic investigative journalist known for exposing online predators and paid agitators – is being smeared by this Antifa-affiliated fabulist. And Noshirvan’s lawyer, Nicholas Chiappetta, helped shove these lies into the court record.

Chiappetta didn’t bother to independently verify a single wild claim before signing on. Bodycam footage even caught Chiappetta admitting he never checked Noshirvan’s story – some “officer of the court.” It’s the height of legal malpractice and deceit.

No wonder even seasoned investigators call Chiappetta a “scumbag” attorney for abetting Noshirvan’s hoaxes.

Danesh’s sworn statements put his attorney engagement agreement squarely in the crosshairs. Danesh says his contract is NOT a contingency agreement. Attorney Chiappetta claims he is owed or was paid a total of $277,304.60 in fees and other obligations under the attorney contract. Attorney Chiappetta ratified the amounts owed by filing Danesh’s affidavit with the federal court.

However, just weeks ago, Chiappetta represented to the Fort Myers federal court that Danesh was a man of “modest means” who could not afford a sanctions award exceeding $5,000.00. Danesh faces sanctions of $100k.

If you believe that Attorney Chiappetta is “hanging around” where the client is broke AND there is no contingency fee agreement or known assets, I have a bridge to sell you.

Sources say that Danesh previously admitted that his lawyer was handling the case on a contingency basis. Nick Chiappetta noted in open court to Judge Dudek that he “wasn’t making any money on the back and forth in this case,” leading the casual observer to believe there were no billable hours.

To paraphrase The Princess Bride, I don’t think “Modest” means what Noshirvan and Chiappetta thinks it means.

Otherwise, Nick Chiappetta may likely go down in Florida legal history as having the worst attorney business judgment – ever. Who lets a broke client get in the hole for $300,000?

This looks like yet another instance of Danesh and Chiappetta’s bad faith. Not only can the filed affidavit derail the Noshirvan v. Couture case, but Danesh and Chiappetta may also have opened themselves to criminal exposure.

Perjury and false statements under oath are federal crimes – and this affidavit is riddled with them. Noshirvan swore to these falsehoods “under penalty of perjury.” That penalty needs to be enforced. His sworn declaration isn’t just laughable – it’s criminal. Every lie he put on paper screams for scrutiny by federal prosecutors.

Why Prosecute Danesh?: Cheering a Shot ICE Officer

Danesh Noshirvan’s hatred for law enforcement isn’t hypothetical – he brags about it. In a recent TikTok livestream, this self-proclaimed “accountability” activist cackled with glee when a federal agent got shot during an ICE raid. He outright celebrated the violence.

“Who cares about that ICE agent who is shot? … Loser,” Noshirvan sneered.

He derided U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as “Trump’s Nazi force,” saying “I would never feel safe around ICE” and “You are seen as Trump’s Nazi force… That’s why when you get shot—” before bursting into laughter. This is the real Danesh: an Antifa agitator who mocks injured officers and treats would-be cop-killers as heroes.

His livestream rant defended an attempted fugitive who rammed officers with a car, while condemning the agents trying to arrest him. Noshirvan had the gall to accuse the feds of “attempted murder” for returning fire.

Then he laughed about a deputy U.S. marshal catching a bullet.

This vile tirade proves Noshirvan’s supposed concern about “harassment” is a sick joke. And it wasn’t his first time. Just days earlier, he said the same thing.

Danesh threatened ICE agents that masking their identities is pointless – boasting that hackers or “people like me” will eventually expose everyone who ever worked for ICE – and suggested agents’ families should receive “the EXACT same care [they] gave others” (e.g. activists showing up at their kids’ schools), urging them to “quit now before it’s too late.”

Though he claims “this is not a threat…just logical advice,” the intimidation is unmistakable – especially given that DHS officials have reported ICE officers’ families being doxxed and threatened online.

An administration source says that Danesh and his recent posts threatening law enforcement are already under investigation. There is a file that extends at least as far back as to Danesh’s 2022 SCOTUS doxxing.

“Don’t be surprised if he gets a knock on his door in Mansfield,” the source said. “[This administration] recognizes the men and women who put their lives on the line. We protect law enforcement and their families. Period.”

He incites harassment and worse against law enforcement, then cries victim in court. The man gleefully cheered an agent’s shooting on camera – yet wants us to believe he’s cowering in fear of Joey Camp’s Tweets. It’s hypocrisy at its finest, dripping with anti-law enforcement bile.

Noshirvan is not an “accountability” crusader; he’s an extremist bully who glorifies violence against the heroes who keep us safe.

Why Prosecute Danesh?: Woke Doxxer’s Trail of Victims

Noshirvan’s militant activism has left real victims in its wake. His idea of “justice” is doxxing and destroying anyone he deems an opponent. After the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, Noshirvan publicly posted the home addresses of six conservative justices, siccing his 3-million-strong mob on them.

Not long after, an armed man was arrested en route to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh – the inevitable result of the online hysteria this agitator helped fuel. Noshirvan has ruined ordinary people’s lives with his witch hunts. In one case, he falsely branded Texas coach Aaron De La Torre a child predator in viral videos. The onslaught of hate was so severe that the innocent coach took his own life just ten days later.

 This is the blood on his hands. Critics have rightly labeled Danesh Noshirvan’s fanatical cancel-culture campaign a “digital jihad” bankrolled by leftist dark money.

He’s not some grassroots do-gooder – he’s a paid hitman for the woke elite. Documents show he even tried to join a secret $8,000-a-month dark-money influencer program to amplify partisan propaganda. In other words, shadowy Democratic donors have been funding his campaigns to “cyber-terrorize” conservatives, and in particular, White people.

Noshirvan claims to “help people,” but his trail of devastated families and dead victims says otherwise. As journalist Richard Luthmann put it, Danesh’s brand of “justice “would be a joke if it didn’t leave a trail of death and mayhem in its wake.”

Roadmap For the Feds: Falsehoods in Noshirvan’s Affidavit

Ignoring the Original Doxing Context

Danesh Noshirvan’s affidavit paints him as the innocent victim of a nefarious conspiracy, but it conspicuously omits the critical backdrop of this feud. In reality, Noshirvan is a “cancel culture” TikTok creator who built a following by doxing people for pay. As U.S. Judge Sheri Polster Chappell summarized, he reposts videos of purported wrongdoers with an overlay identifying their real names, contact information, employers, etc., siccing his millions of followers on the targets.

Noshirvan himself has described his mission as making “content geared towards helping people who the police won’t help,” essentially acting as an Internet vigilante. In one instance, he targeted Fort Myers businesswoman and mom Jennifer Couture – after someone sent him a video of her in an argument and paid his fee – and proceeded to post at least 12 videos attacking her.

He even encouraged followers to report Couture to CrimeStoppers and falsely reported her to child protective services for child abuse.

Noshirvan didn’t stop at Couture: he went after her employer and family (Garramone Plastic Surgery), prompting harassing calls, texts, and negative reviews. By Noshirvan’s own brag, he caused business losses – contracts terminated, patients canceled surgeries – at Dr. Garramone’s practice.

This pattern of online harassment and internet terror by Noshirvan is the tinder that sparked the entire conflict. Couture (and others affected) understandably fought back. She sued Noshirvan for stalking, conspiracy, and other torts in early 2023.

In return, Noshirvan launched this case (in which he filed the apparently fraudulent affidavit) against Couture and a host of others (including her lawyer, Patrick Trainor, Dr. Garramone, and associated businesses), claiming they “conspired” to destroy him.

Crucially, Noshirvan identifies non-party Joseph “Joey” Camp as the “central antagonist” of the supposed conspiracy. He alleges the defendants “hired Camp to stalk and harass him” as revenge for the negative publicity he caused them.

Why is this context important?

Because Noshirvan’s sworn affidavit whitewashes his own role as an instigator, he presents the backlash against him as a baseless campaign, when in fact it was sparked by his own conduct.

By ignoring the initial doxing and harassment he committed, Noshirvan’s affidavit is misleading by omission. Any analysis of his claims must start with the reality that he was not an innocent victim, but an aggressor whose tactics provoked others to respond.

Fabricated Harassment: No Evidence of “Hundreds” of Violent Threats (¶14)

One of Noshirvan’s most shocking claims is that Joey Camp sent him “hundreds” of messages, including death threats, racist/homophobic slurs, urging Noshirvan to kill himself, and even threats of rape and sexual mutilation of Noshirvan’s children. If true, this would be despicable—but Noshirvan has provided no verifiable evidence for these extreme allegations.

Nowhere in the affidavit does he attach verified copies of these supposed emails, texts, or voicemails. Danesh fails to show that, if the communications exist, they came from Camp. He simply declares it as fact.

Given the gravity of the accusation, one would expect police reports or forensic evidence backing it. None are cited. Noshirvan’s word is all we have, and that word is highly suspect.

In the ongoing litigation, Noshirvan has repeatedly made sweeping accusations about Camp’s conduct, but judges have noted his tendency toward “rhetoric and hyperbole.”

For example, his Second Amended Complaint alleged a litany of outrageous acts by Camp – from calling Noshirvan a “child predator” and claiming he caused a teenager’s suicide, to hacking Noshirvan’s accounts and distributing explicit images of him. These claims, like the ones in his affidavit, were uncorroborated and based on Noshirvan’s say-so.

In reality, Danesh appears to be the one exploiting his own young child, Casper, as a prop in his Woke content creation.

When the Defendants challenged the inclusion of Camp’s alleged wrongs, the court struck several of Noshirvan’s claims for lack of specificity and evidentiary support. Judge John E. Steele emphasized that if Noshirvan wanted to blame Defendants for Camp’s supposed actions, he needed to clearly allege the “independent wrongs” Camp committed and tie each to specific defendants – something he failed to do.

This judicial skepticism suggests that Noshirvan’s broad claims about Camp’s threats were not taken at face value due to a lack of proof.

Moreover, Camp was never even made a defendant in this case, despite being the alleged prime culprit. Noshirvan pointedly did not sue Camp himself, which is telling. As Judge Steele noted, “While Camp is named in the caption of counts 6-14 and 17 as if a defendant, he is not a named party… no summons was ever issued for Camp.”

If Camp truly sent hundreds of criminal threats, why wouldn’t Noshirvan pursue him directly? The likely answer: because these wild allegations would not hold up under scrutiny or discovery. By keeping Camp as a shadowy boogeyman in the narrative rather than a party in court, Noshirvan can make inflammatory claims without having to prove them in front of a judge or jury.

In short, there is no credible evidence outside Noshirvan’s own statements that Camp engaged in the grotesque campaign of threats Noshirvan describes. It appears to be a fabrication or gross exaggeration, intended to smear Camp (and by extension the named defendants) and inflame the court.

Until Noshirvan produces actual messages with verifiable headers or source data tying them to Camp – which he has not – we must conclude this narrative is unsupported. Swearing under oath to such inflammatory claims “to the best of [his] knowledge” without evidence is, at best, irresponsible.

If done willfully, it edges into perjury.

The “Doxing Is Violent” Flyer and Alleged Attorney Intimidation (¶17–¶21)

Noshirvan’s affidavit places heavy emphasis on an incident involving his former attorney, Robson Powers, and a string of anonymous emails sent from the account daneshfiles@yandex.com.

Noshirvan flatly asserts that this account belonged to Joey Camp and that Camp “directly harassed and intimidated Mr. Powers and [his] family, which caused [Powers’] withdrawal from my case.”

These dramatic claims, however, are highly dubious – they rest on speculation and inference rather than concrete facts. Let’s break down why Noshirvan’s story doesn’t hold water.

First, Camp’s activities were anything but secret. In fact, by Mega Influencer and public figure Noshirvan’s own account, Camp was waging an open, public campaign against him. On a YouTube channel (user @josephcamp8732), Camp explicitly described his mission as “documenting the … conduct of Danesh Noshirvan … for education, documentation, and community awareness.” He even promoted a Change.org petition to get Noshirvan (aka “thatdaneshguy”) banned from TikTok—a petition that Noshirvan admits was ultimately denied.

In other words, far from operating in the shadows, Camp was out in the open, rallying people against Noshirvan’s behavior. Most tellingly, the very screenshot Noshirvan provides from that YouTube page shows that Camp listed daneshfiles@yandex.com as his email contact on the public profile.

Camp wasn’t hiding this alias at all—he literally broadcast it. This fact undercuts Noshirvan’s insinuation that the daneshfiles@ account was used solely for clandestine threats. On the contrary, it appears to have been part of Camp’s public-facing effort to hold Noshirvan accountable.

Now consider the emails sent to Attorney Powers. Noshirvan portrays these as nefarious threats, but the known details suggest they were more about exposing Noshirvan than intimidating his lawyer. According to the affidavit, one email (Exhibit C) recommended that Powers “call Patrick Trainor” and included an image identical to the “Doxing is Violent” flyer (also seen on a billboard).

Let’s put that in context. Patrick Trainor was opposing counsel in the related litigation (and is a defendant here), and the slogan “Doxing is Violent” refers to a public awareness campaign. In fact, in May 2022, shortly after Noshirvan’s online attacks against Couture, concerned members of the community plastered Noshirvan’s hometown with flyers and even put up a billboard reading “DOXXING IS VIOLENT” alongside Noshirvan’s photo.

Camp has openly taken credit for pointing to the dissemination of those flyers and ads – not as personal threats, but as a public service announcement warning the community about Noshirvan’s behavior. So if an email to Mr. Powers included that flyer image, the message was likely: “Look at what your client’s victims are saying about him publicly.”

Likewise, suggesting that Powers speak with Trainor could be seen as urging him to hear the other side of the story. That’s not a direct threat; if anything, it’s whistleblowing. It may have been embarrassing or unwelcome for Noshirvan’s attorney, but it’s a stretch to call it criminal intimidation.

What about the claim that “a threat was clearly implied” by these emails (specifically one that contained photographs of Mr. Powers and/or his family, per Exhibit D)? Noshirvan leans on this interpretation, but provides zero evidence to support it. He does not share what the photos actually were or what context they were presented in—were these publicly available images from social media? Did any menacing language accompany them?

We have no idea because Noshirvan hasn’t produced the actual emails; he’s only given his own spin.

It’s entirely possible the email with photos said something like, “We know who you are, because you’re representing a notorious doxer.” While that would understandably unsettle Mr. Powers, it isn’t necessarily an illegal threat at all – it could simply be a blunt notice that people are watching this case. Noshirvan is essentially asking us to trust his characterization that these communications were criminally intimidating, without providing the underlying evidence.

Given his documented penchant for exaggeration, such an ask should rightly be met with healthy skepticism.

Crucially, Noshirvan has no solid proof that Joey Camp actually authored the anonymous Yandex emails. His entire attribution of daneshfiles@yandex.com to Camp is built on circumstantial guesswork.

In ¶16 of the affidavit (right before the discussed section), Noshirvan lists five reasons why he “believes” the emails came from Camp: (1) Camp had purchased the domain Daneshfiles.com (suggesting the moniker was on his mind); (2) Camp “is not smart enough to keep his lies straight,” and the writing in the Yandex emails was “distinctly similar” to that of another email address linked to Camp; (3) Camp uses many online aliases (Noshirvan rattles off a bunch of handles like “theresearcher2020,” “yourdaddyjoey,” “daneshfiles,” etc.); (4) Camp wasn’t exactly hiding – he publicly used the name “daneshfiles” on social media accounts; and (5) this fits Camp’s modus operandi (apparently he’s used similar “…$files$” aliases, like “antifafiles,” in other contexts).

What’s missing from this list?

Any actual evidence tying Camp to the Yandex account? Noshirvan offers no forensic data, no server logs or IP addresses, no admission from Camp – nothing beyond his own hunch.

In fact, Noshirvan had to resort to a third-party subpoena to Google (YouTube’s parent company) to try to unmask the identities of those behind various online accounts interacting with him. That subpoena (issued in March 2025) explicitly sought “all basic subscriber information” for any YouTube profiles linked to Joseph A. Camp, including associated email addresses, phone numbers, and IP addresses. The request even provided Camp’s known usernames, phone number, and several email handles to help Google locate the accounts.

In other words, months after swearing in his affidavit that daneshfiles@ was Camp, Noshirvan was still fishing for proof of which accounts actually belonged to Camp. If it were already a proven fact that Camp was behind daneshfiles@yandex.com, such broad discovery wouldn’t be necessary.

Swearing “to the best of my knowledge” that Camp sent those emails is doing a lot of heavy lifting – basically covering for the lack of proof by labeling an educated guess as testimony. That’s not how evidence under oath is supposed to work, especially when you’re accusing someone of criminal harassment.

Finally, consider the supposed outcome of this email saga: Mr. Powers withdrawing as Noshirvan’s counsel. Noshirvan flat-out blames Camp’s harassment for his attorney quitting. Yet we have no statement from Mr. Powers himself backing this up, nor any indication that authorities or the court were informed of such attorney intimidation. If a lawyer truly felt forced off a case by threats, you would expect to see some mention of it in his motion to withdraw or a report to a judge.

We don’t see any such corroboration.

It’s quite possible that Powers withdrew for mundane reasons – a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, non-payment of legal fees, or simply because representing Noshirvan (a highly controversial internet persona) became more trouble than it was worth. Noshirvan seized the opportunity to demonize his adversaries, but without evidence, it’s just an unproven accusation.

Tellingly, when Noshirvan later tried to sue these defendants for “tortious interference” with his attorney-client relationship, Judge Steele tossed that claim out. In a June 2025 order, Judge Steele noted that Noshirvan failed to allege any specific actionable conduct by any defendant that caused the lawyer’s departure; indeed, the complaint admitted the lawyer was already a “former” attorney at the time of the alleged interference.

In plain terms, the court saw a lot of smoke in Noshirvan’s story but no fire – no concrete wrongful act by Joey Camp (or anyone else) that legally caused Mr. Powers to quit. All we have is Noshirvan’s insistence that “Camp did it,” which the judge found insufficient even to state a claim.

Speculative Conspiracy Links: Payments, Domains, and “John Batman” (¶15–¶16)

Noshirvan’s affidavit devotes a significant section to spinning a grand conspiracy theory: that the defendants (Jennifer Couture, Dr. Ralph Garramone, Patrick Trainor, etc.) “hired” internet troll Joey Camp as a mercenary to wage an online war against him.

In support of this tale, Noshirvan points to a few tidbits in ¶15–16 of his statement that he portrays as evidence – specifically, one suspicious payment, a domain name registered under an alias, and some suggestive social media breadcrumbs.

Let’s unpack how Noshirvan stretches these pieces into something nefarious.

The Mysterious May 5, 2022 Payment

Noshirvan claims that Garramone’s business paid Joey Camp on May 5, 2022. Four days later, on May 9, Camp allegedly registered the domain “Daneshfiles.com,” and just over a week after that, an anti-Danesh billboard and flyers were deployed in Noshirvan’s hometown.

Danesh’s insinuation is clear: Garramone’s firm paid Camp, and almost immediately Camp launched an anti-Noshirvan campaign (buying the domain and helping coordinate the “Doxing is Violence” billboard).

But what actual evidence does Noshirvan provide for this supposed payoff? Virtually none. His affidavit declares that “GPS paid Camp on May 05, 2022” as if it were an established fact, without attaching any proof or exhibit to substantiate it.

Even if such a payment exists (perhaps something gleaned from discovery), the affidavit offers zero insight into its purpose. Was Camp being paid for legitimate work — say, as a social media consultant — or reimbursed for some expense? Camp said he was one of several vendors paid to clean up GPS’s online reputational damage caused by Noshirvan.

Noshirvan leaps straight to the conclusion that the money was a bounty to sic Camp on him, a theory unsupported by any concrete facts.

It’s also worth noting that the court has previously reprimanded Noshirvan for this type of conjectural storytelling. Judge Steele warned him not to conflate a grab-bag of unrelated “wrongs” into one grand conspiracy, instructing Noshirvan to clearly tie each alleged act to a specific defendant.

Yet here he goes again: taking a circumstantial coincidence (a payment shortly before some harassment) and spinning it into a sinister agreement with no solid proof. The “mystery payment” theory is more of the same – a speculative connect-the-dots narrative rather than evidence of an actual deal.

Domain Registration Under an Alias

Next, Noshirvan highlights that Camp acquired a website domain registered in his name, but under an alias. Specifically, Camp confirmed in emails that he bought “thatdaneshguy.com” (a domain referencing Noshirvan’s moniker), and on May 09, 2022, he registered “Daneshfiles.com” using the registrant name “John Batman.” Noshirvan presents this detail with ominous flair, implying that Camp’s use of a fake name to register a domain is itself proof of a covert scheme.

In reality, using an alias for a domain registration is neither uncommon nor incriminating – especially for someone like Joey Camp, who frequently hides behind pseudonyms. In fact, Noshirvan’s own evidence shows Camp maintaining multiple online alter egos (“Yourdaddyjoey,” “Daneshfiles,” “theresearcher2020,” and so on). Employing a tongue-in-cheek fake name like “John Batman” in a WHOIS record is just Camp being Camp – avoiding plastering his real name on a public registry. It’s hardly a smoking gun of a conspiracy.

Noshirvan did trace the Daneshfiles.com domain back to Camp’s contact information (via a Whoxy lookup in Exhibit C.1). So yes, it appears Camp bought that site. But registering a website isn’t a crime, nor does it by itself prove coordination with anyone else. A far more likely scenario is that Camp purchased Daneshfiles.com simply to create a site dedicated to shaming Noshirvan – essentially an online repository for his “Victims of Danesh” content.

In fact, around that same time, new accounts named “victimsofthatdaneshguy” surfaced across social media platforms – further evidence that Camp was openly running a public smear campaign against Noshirvan, not acting in the shadows on some secret paymaster’s orders.

Despite this, Noshirvan insists that the timing of the domain purchase – coming just days after the alleged GPS payment – means it must have been coordinated. But correlation is not causation. He offers no actual evidence tying the payment to the domain registration or any explicit instruction like “go harass Danesh now.” It’s just Noshirvan connecting dots that suit his narrative.

“Coordination and Concerted Efforts are Undeniable” – Actually, Danesh, They’re Very Deniable

Toward the climax of his affidavit section, Noshirvan grandly concludes that the timing of all these events makes the defendants’ “coordination and concerted efforts” against him “undeniable.” He writes as if this grand conspiracy were an established fact. The reality? The court is not convinced in the least.

In the June 26, 2025, opinion, Judge Steele effectively dismantled Noshirvan’s conspiracy allegations. The judge noted that while Noshirvan alleged a far-reaching plot, his pleadings were woefully vague about who did what. The court even struck some of Noshirvan’s claims because he had improperly lumped together different defendants’ supposed actions (Camp’s, Couture’s, Garramone’s, Trainor’s) without distinction.

As stated above, Judge Steele found that Joey Camp isn’t even needed in this lawsuit. He concluded that Camp “is not a required party” because the Court can “accord complete relief” among the existing parties without Camp’s presence. Noshirvan’s supposed conspiracy linchpin is, in the court’s eyes, entirely optional to the case.

Stepping back, Noshirvan’s grand tale in ¶15–16 contains a kernel of truth drowned in a sea of speculation. Yes, Joey Camp was actively trolling and attacking Noshirvan online in 2022. Yes, Camp bought domains invoking Noshirvan’s name to host content about him. And yes, the defendants Noshirvan sued – like Dr. Garramone’s medical practice – had obvious reasons to dislike Noshirvan’s antics and might have welcomed efforts to expose him.

But no, Noshirvan has provided no proof of any secret agreement among them, nor evidence that any particular defendant was directing Camp’s every move.

In the end, Noshirvan is presenting coincidences and conjecture as if they were “undeniable” facts. He’s essentially swearing to a conspiracy theory without solid evidence, which is highly misleading. Federal court is not the place for wild connect-the-dots accusations under oath – yet that’s precisely what Noshirvan has offered here.

Mischaracterizing Defendants’ Actions as “Defamation”

Noshirvan’s affidavit also accuses the defendants – especially Jennifer Couture – of spreading malicious falsehoods about him. He cites, for instance, Couture’s social media posts calling him a “stalker”, accusing him of “unwelcome communications, stalking, sextortion, and blackmail,” and dubbing him the *“Sheriff of the Internet.” Noshirvan labels these as defamatory lies.

A closer look reveals that most of Couture’s statements align with documented reality or at least her reasonable belief, meaning the real deception is Noshirvan’s claim that they are baseless smears.

For example, Couture wrote publicly: “He has demonstrated time and again that he believes he is the Sheriff of the Internet… God help you if you defend yourself against his vile conduct.” – Given Noshirvan’s own description of his vigilante “content” and the court’s recognition that his followers harass people on his cue, calling him a self-appointed Internet sheriff is fair commentary, not a lie.

She also said: “He has been suspended from Twitter…and two Patreons already for doxxing, stalking, and harassment… He has been caught by OnlyFans posting Revenge Porn. He has an open criminal investigative case against him in Mansfield, PA (his hometown). These are factual assertions that Noshirvan doesn’t actually refute in his filings. In fact, it’s true that multiple platforms suspended Noshirvan for violating their terms of service (doxxing and harassment often lead to bans—and who better fits that description?).

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of “Predator” is: “one who injures or exploits others for personal gain or profit.” That describes Danesh perfectly. And the callousness of his predation is also confirmed by Danesh’s own words.

Far from remorseful, Noshirvan bragged on Dr. Phil that he wouldn’t feel responsible if someone died because of his videos.

A man did die, and Noshirvan shrugged it off on national TV.

The “revenge porn” reference suggests an episode where Noshirvan posted his own commercial-produced pornographic content. Danesh and his wife, Hannah Butcher Noshirvan, admitted as much in sworn testimony.

The statement about an open police investigation in Pennsylvania implies authorities were indeed looking into his conduct. Noshirvan certainly doesn’t admit these facts, but neither does he disprove them.

Meanwhile, Couture filed police charges against Noshirvan for his harassment – a fact she noted online – and given Noshirvan’s relentless targeting of her, her allegations are far from far-fetched.

In short, Couture’s statements reflect her personal experience as Noshirvan’s victim and reports she made to law enforcement and platforms. Labelling those statements as “defamation” is itself misleading. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation – if Noshirvan did do the things she says (and much evidence suggests he did), then her statements aren’t defamatory at all.

Notably, when Couture and Garramone sued Noshirvan, their claims were dismissed on legal grounds (Section 230 immunity, etc.), but not because Noshirvan proved his innocence.

In fact, the court’s description of Noshirvan’s conduct in that case validates why Couture would call him a stalker: he really did orchestrate a campaign that looks like stalking and harassment.

Thus, Noshirvan’s sworn portrayal of himself as slandered by baseless accusations is dishonest. The allegations weren’t unfounded – they were responses to very real behavior on his part.

Judge Steele’s Rulings Contradict Noshirvan’s Narrative

Judge John E. Steele’s court orders have repeatedly undercut Danesh Noshirvan’s sworn narrative. There are several clear examples where Noshirvan’s allegations don’t line up with what the court has found (or required) so far. Here are three key areas of contradiction that cast serious doubt on Noshirvan’s version of events, as the judge’s rulings show.

The “Camp Conspiracy” Claims vs. the Court’s Findings

Noshirvan’s affidavit portrays Joey Camp as an agent of the defendants, implying Camp was doing their bidding as part of a grand conspiracy. In reality, Judge Steele has already struck or dismissed multiple claims built on that agency theory for lack of factual support.

For instance, the court noted that Noshirvan’s pleadings failed to clarify which specific acts by Camp were being attributed to which defendant, leaving the conspiracy allegations muddled.

In response, Judge Steele explicitly instructed Noshirvan to fix this in his amended complaint by “separat[ing] each alleged underlying independent wrong into a separate count” and specify “which defendants are liable for what acts of Camp.”

This directive signaled the court’s skepticism that Camp’s wrongdoing was actually connected to each defendant in the sweeping way Noshirvan insinuated.

Danesh did amend, but like this affidavit, it didn’t help. In plain terms, the judge saw Noshirvan throwing around broad accusations without pinning down the facts—a warning sign that the evidence behind the “Camp conspiracy” was thin.

Camp’s Absence as a Defendant (Indispensable or Not?)

Noshirvan’s filings blame Camp for a litany of harassing acts, yet tellingly, he never actually sued Camp or named him as a defendant. The other defendants seized on this omission, arguing that Camp was an indispensable party who must be joined to the case (given that, by Noshirvan’s own account, Camp was the primary perpetrator of the harassment).

Judge Steele flatly rejected the notion that Camp was a required party. He emphasized that “the Court can accord complete relief without Camp’s presence” in the lawsuit.

In other words, Camp isn’t needed for the court to resolve the claims among the existing parties. The judge even pointed out that if the defendants truly believe Camp is responsible for the alleged wrongs, they may implead Camp as a third-party defendant.

This was a not-so-subtle reminder that Noshirvan himself chose not to sue Camp.

The implication aligns with our analysis: Noshirvan likely left Camp out because his claims against Camp are flimsy or unprovable. Judge Steele’s ruling indicates that while Camp’s antics are central to Noshirvan’s narrative, the court did not see enough substance linking Camp to each defendant to force Camp into the case.

In short, the judge perceived a series of independent or parallel actions – not a single coordinated plot requiring every alleged player’s presence.

New Allegations in the Affidavit vs. Prior Filings

Another red flag is the emergence of new “facts” in Noshirvan’s latest affidavit that were absent from his earlier verified complaints. As discussed above, Noshirvan now swears that attorney Robson Powers (his former counsel) quit representing him due to harassment and intimidation by Camp. Judge Steele found Noshirvan’s tortious interference allegations regarding his “former lawyer” to be lacking and dismissed that portion of the claim as insufficient.

Now, suddenly, Noshirvan’s affidavit tries to draw a direct causal line that he hadn’t drawn before. This kind of after-the-fact embellishment smacks of desperation. It raises the obvious question: If Powers honestly quit because of Camp’s harassment, why didn’t Noshirvan allege this earlier?

The timing suggests Noshirvan “remembered” or decided on this narrative only once he needed to shore up a faltering case. Such inconsistencies cast serious doubt on Noshirvan’s credibility.

Retrofitting his story under oath – essentially changing or adding key details at the eleventh hour – edges into the territory of making false statements if these details are not genuine.

Overall, Judge Steele has not been impressed with Noshirvan’s ever-evolving conspiracy tale. The court gave Noshirvan multiple opportunities (through amended complaints) to get his story straight, yet still dismissed the bulk of his claims for want of merit.

In the 56-page June 2025 opinion, the judge essentially gutted Noshirvan’s case – tossing out all of his counts (some with prejudice, others with one last chance to amend). This outcome speaks volumes. It reflects a pattern documented in the court record: Noshirvan’s accusations have been long on sensational claims but short on substantiating facts.

The affidavit’s new lies/embellishments appear to be a continuation of that pattern. Each time Noshirvan embellished his narrative, the court pressed for specifics and evidence, and each time the allegations collapsed under scrutiny. Judge Steele’s rulings to date stand in stark contrast to Noshirvan’s sworn narrative, underscoring that the affidavit’s story is on very shaky ground.

One Inescapable Conclusion: Perjury in Plain Sight

In evaluating Danesh Noshirvan’s affidavit as a whole, a stark conclusion emerges: it is riddled with falsehoods, half-truths, and unsubstantiated accusations sworn under penalty of perjury. Noshirvan has attempted to rewrite the story of his feud with Couture, Garramone, and others – casting himself as a victim of a criminal conspiracy, when in reality he was the instigator of an online harassment campaign that spiraled into mutual hostilities.

Line by line, we have refuted Noshirvan’s key claims with public records and court evidence:

• He claims to have been menaced by horrific threats from Joey Camp, yet provides no proof and didn’t even pursue legal action against Camp. The court itself found his broad allegations about Camp lacking in specifics or credibility.

• He claims the defendants hired Camp to sabotage him, pointing to a conveniently timed payment and a domain registration—but again, no direct evidence of an agreement, just conjecture. The judge’s rulings make clear that this supposed conspiracy is far from “undeniable” despite Noshirvan’s sworn insistence.

• He claims his attorney quit solely because of Camp’s intimidation, yet offers nothing from the attorney or the authorities to back it up. It’s a self-serving narrative that appears to be invented after the fact, and the court pointedly did not credit such a theory in dismissing Noshirvan’s interference claims.

• He paints defendants like Couture as liars, when in fact contemporaneous evidence shows Couture’s descriptions of Noshirvan’s conduct were grounded in truth (platform bans, police reports, etc.). Noshirvan calling these “defamation” is itself a defamatory characterization of Couture’s good-faith efforts to protect herself.

In sum, Noshirvan’s affidavit crosses the line from zealous advocacy to outright falsehood. He did not merely shade the truth; he asserted numerous facts that are contradicted by evidence or for which he has no proof.

And he did so under oath.

Perjury and making false statements in sworn declarations are federal offenses—and this affidavit is a prime example that cries out for scrutiny by prosecutors. As we have shown, nearly every major claim Noshirvan makes is either directly refuted by the public record or unsupported by any credible proof.

Noshirvan ended his declaration with: “I certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America… that the foregoing is true and correct.”

Given the overwhelming indicators of dishonesty we’ve detailed, that statement itself is blatantly false. The “penalty of perjury” exists for exactly this scenario – to punish those who would brazenly lie in sworn statements.

Danesh Noshirvan’s laughable affidavit is not just a bundle of lies – it is a crime in writing. It should indeed draw the attention of federal prosecutors, because allowing such perjury to go unchecked would constitute a miscarriage of justice.

Every lie on that paper has now been exposed with evidence and prior rulings. It’s time for Noshirvan to face the consequences of his false swearing. The court – and if necessary, criminal authorities – should take “penalty of perjury” not as empty words, but as a mandate to hold Noshirvan accountable for these egregious fabrications.

Time for Federal Action

Enough is enough – it’s time for federal law enforcement to hold Danesh Noshirvan and Nick Chiappetta accountable. They haven’t just waged an online war on citizens and cops; now they’re lying to a federal judge.

Making false statements to federal authorities is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Noshirvan’s perjurious affidavit appears to violate 18 U.S.C. §1001, which makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully” submit false statements in any matter under U.S. jurisdiction.

His lawyer, Chiappetta, is equally culpable if he knowingly helped file lies. This duo thought they could weaponize the courts with impunity – they must be proven wrong.

Federal investigators should be all over this.

Did Noshirvan lie under oath about Camp? The evidence (or rather, the lack of any) says yes.

Did Chiappetta knowingly aid this fraud on the court? His own admissions suggest as much.

These actions aren’t just unethical – they’re illegal. If an ICE-hating agitator can swear to blatant falsehoods to muzzle a journalist and face no consequences, what message does that send? It tells every extremist that they can hijack our justice system with lies.

We cannot allow that.

Joey Camp’s courageous reporting has already unmasked Noshirvan’s tactics; now it falls to law enforcement to finish the job. The FBI and DOJ should investigate Noshirvan and Chiappetta immediately for perjury, false statements, and any other applicable charges. Let them feel the handcuffs since they laugh at accountability.

A clear message must be sent: falsifying sworn statements and inciting violent chaos have consequences. If justice means anything, Danesh Noshirvan and his crooked lawyer belong under federal investigation – and, if the evidence confirms these lies, behind bars.