Busted by Numbers: Danesh’s Tax Lies Destroy His “Modest-Means” Defense
By Dick LaFontaine with Richard Luthmann
Modest Means? Not with Million‑Dollar Assets
TikTok Mega Influencer and paid agitator Danesh Noshirvan built a brand as a digital accountability Jihadist. But now that he faces nearly $100,000 in sanctions in his federal defamation case, he claims to be broke.
On August 12, 2025, U.S. Judge John E. Steele sanctioned him for bad-faith conduct in Noshirvan v. Couture et al., where Danesh claims millions of dollars in damages. His bad behavior revealed that the case rests on shaky legal and factual grounds and may get tossed by the Fort Myers federal court.
In a September court filing, Danesh’s lawyer Nicholas A. Chiappetta asked to slash the sanction to $5,000, insisting his client was “a man of modest means.” Chiappetta portrayed Danesh as a struggling father who could not afford a six-figure levy.
Danesh’s story is “stunning bullshit,” to borrow a term from comedian George Carlin.
Danesh’s 2023 IRS Form 4562 – filed into the case – lists TikTok as his business. It shows that he placed $1,160,000 in property into service, with a threshold cost of $2,890,000. Remarkably, the form reports a business income limitation of $56,573 and a Section 179 deduction of $3,600.
The bottom line: Danesh claimed depreciation on residential and commercial property worth millions.
These numbers contradict Chiappetta’s plea. As investigative reporter Richard Luthmann previously noted, Judge Steele’s order provided “concrete proof that Danesh acts with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.”
A man depreciating million‑dollar assets cannot credibly cry poverty. If the tax return is accurate, Danesh misled the court. If his poverty claim is accurate, his IRS filing is fraudulent. Either way, the “modest means” narrative collapses.
Danesh’s Tax Lies Exposed: Tax Forms and Court Deceit
The details of the Form 4562 are damning. Section 179 deductions allow immediate expensing of equipment. To claim them, property must actually be placed into service. Danesh’s return shows that he claimed the maximum deduction allowed by his income, listing a video-editing laptop and a Galaxy phone as expensed assets.
More important are the large numbers on line 4 and line 6: $1,160,000 and $2,890,000. Danesh depreciated assets worth millions while telling Judge Steele he could not pay a sanction.
Judge Steele’s opinion underscores why this matters. He found Danesh’s behavior showed “subjective bad faith” and that his post‑deposition statements were “false and intentionally made to incite followers to engage in foreseeable harassment and intimidation.”
The judge also blasted Chiappetta for acting in bad faith and failing to control his client. Against that backdrop, the tax returns show deliberate deception. Danesh presented himself as a victim while quietly claiming deductions for a million‑dollar property.
Courts treat intentional financial misrepresentations as fraud. Rule 11 requires attorneys to verify facts. By filing the poverty plea while possessing tax documents that prove the opposite, Chiappetta may have violated his professional duty.
If the tax returns are genuine, Danesh lied to the court. If they are false, he lied to the IRS. Both scenarios invite sanctions and potential criminal referral.
Danesh’s Tax Lies Exposed: A Long Pattern of Lies and Dark Money
Danesh’s financial duplicity fits a broader pattern of lies and intimidation. Investigative journalist Richard Luthmann reported that he is a “paid agitator” and “digital arsonist” who burns reputations with “fake evidence, malicious claims, manufactured outrage, AI generation, and troll farms.”
They once circulated a doctored photo of an Interpol arrest to intimidate journalist Joey Camp, even though Interpol does not arrest anyone. Luthmann called the hoax “almost certainly cooked up by Danesh.”
He also alleged that Antifa‑adjacent networks, backed by figures like Scott Dworkin and George Soros, funnel money to Danesh.
Danesh’s lies extend beyond hoaxes. In the Couture defamation case, he barged into a deposition he was barred from attending and unloaded a profanity‑filled tirade at opposing counsel.
Afterward, he falsely accused the Black civil‑rights lawyer of racism and condoning assault, inciting his millions of followers. Judge Steele labeled his outburst “reprehensible” and noted that his statements were intentionally false.
Outside the courtroom, Danesh misrepresented his online stature. He told Judge Steele he was not a “mega influencer,” despite boasting over 2.5 million followers; even his own expert report describes him as a mega influencer.
He refused to produce model releases for his OnlyFans content, violating federal record‑keeping requirements. Luthmann condemned his version of justice as “reckless, malicious, and criminal.”
On The Unknown Podcast, Luthmann and co-host Michael Volpe exposed Danesh’s lies and shady past, including potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2257.
Danesh’s pattern is clear: he attacks critics, fabricates narratives, and uses his children as props in politically charged videos, all while profiting off outrage. This pattern of deception reinforces why his poverty plea cannot be trusted.
Danesh’s Tax Lies Exposed: A Feckless Lawyer and the Reckoning Ahead
The “modest means” deception also implicates Nick Chiappetta. Jennifer Couture, the target of Danesh’s lawsuit, called Chiappetta a “feckless” lawyer and a “scumbag” who enables a bully. She accused him of using the courts to attack anyone who stands up to Danesh.
Chiappetta’s law firm website continued to repeat lies that directly contradicted Judge Steele’s findings, even after the August 12 order. Luthmann blasted him as a “bottom‑feeder attorney.”
Judge Steele’s order admonished Chiappetta for acting in bad faith and failing to meet professional standards. The court ordered Danesh to pay Dr. Ralph Garramone’s legal fees and warned that another stunt could result in dismissal.
Chiappetta’s involvement goes deeper. In the $20 million defamation case, Danesh admitted that Chiappetta ghost‑wrote his court filings and threatened Luthmann with phony criminal charges. Such admissions undermine attorney‑client privilege under the crime‑fraud exception.
They also suggest Chiappetta has been orchestrating a bad‑faith campaign to harass opponents.
Danesh’s litigation tactics illustrate why typical sanctions won’t deter him. He missed discovery deadlines, automatically admitting he smeared Luthmann as a “pedophile” and “child stalker.”
He encouraged his followers to file false reports and used bots to amplify attacks.
He skipped a mandatory hearing to ride the Mario Kart attraction at Universal Studios, then lied about it.
He used each violation to create content and solicit donations. As Luthmann observed, “He sues to smear, silence, and scare, with the added benefit of content creation.”
Such behavior shows that small fines are treated as marketing expenses. Real accountability will require stronger remedies, such as bar discipline for Chiappetta, contempt orders, or criminal referrals for fraud.
The numbers don’t lie. Danesh’s tax return exposes his poverty claim as a fabrication. The question is whether the Fort Myers federal court will follow the paper trail to its logical conclusion.
Leave a Reply