By Dick LaFontaine with Richard Luthmann
Florida lawyer Nick Chiapetta is facing mounting criticism for his role in representing controversial TikTok influencer and SCOTUS Doxxer Danesh Noshirvan, also known as @ThatDaneshGuy. Allegations of unethical behavior have been leveled against Chiapetta, whose legal maneuvers, critics claim, prioritize harassment and intimidation over justice. Investigative journalist Richard Luthmann has been one of the most vocal opponents, accusing Chiapetta of abusing the judicial system to silence critics of his client.
Luthmann, a Southwest Florida-based journalist known for his investigative reporting on digital vigilantism, contributes to this outlet and gave background and comments for this piece. He has taken particular aim at Chiapetta’s tactics in the federal case Danesh Noshirvan v. Jennifer Couture et al. According to Luthmann, Chiapetta used the court system as a weapon against him, serving a legally questionable subpoena in a calculated move to intimidate.
“This is not about justice,” Luthmann said in a statement. “This is about silencing anyone who dares to expose the truth about Noshirvan’s harassment campaigns.”
Free Press Harassment Case: SCOTUS Doxxer Strikes, Journalist Fights Back
The subpoena, issued on December 5, 2024, demands that Luthmann produce extensive records related to the case, including communications with sources and unpublished journalistic material. However, it was served in the courtroom of Magistrate Judge Dudek in the Middle District of Florida just seconds after the judge left the bench.
“It was an ambush, plain and simple,” Luthmann explained. “I was there as a journalist covering a public proceeding, and they used that opportunity to try and intimidate me.”
The timing of the subpoena service has drawn sharp criticism. Legal experts and First Amendment advocates have pointed out that serving the legal process on a journalist in a courtroom while they are conducting constitutionally protected activities undermines the principles of ordered justice.
“Serving a journalist in these circumstances is not only bad optics; it’s a fundamental breach of professional ethics,” said a Florida attorney who wished to remain anonymous. “It shows a level of disregard for judicial decorum and the role of the press.”
Adding to the controversy, Luthmann has filed a motion and seeks to quash the subpoena, citing multiple procedural and legal violations. The subpoena, which commands document production in Tampa, Florida, is unenforceable under Rule 45(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it requires compliance at a location more than 100 miles from Luthmann’s stated residence in Naples.
“This subpoena violates basic procedural rules, but that’s not surprising,” Luthmann said. “Chiappetta and Noshirvan are not interested in playing by the rules; they’re interested in silencing critics.”
Luthmann has also accused Chiapetta of acting in bad faith by drafting an overbroad and burdensome subpoena designed to harass. Among the 18 requests in the subpoena are demands for Luthmann’s communications with individuals targeted by Noshirvan’s TikTok campaigns, such as Jennifer Couture and Joseph Camp. Luthmann argues that these requests are fishing expeditions irrelevant to the underlying case.
“They want everything—published articles, private emails, even interview notes,” Luthmann said. “This isn’t about discovery; it’s about chilling investigative journalism.”
The broader context of the case makes Chiapetta’s tactics even more troubling. His client, Noshirvan, has been accused of using his TikTok platform to orchestrate harassment campaigns against private citizens, public figures, and even Supreme Court Justices. Following the Dobbs decision, Noshirvan doxxed conservative justices by publishing their home addresses, inciting protests and threats. Critics argue that Chiapetta’s legal representation enables these harmful actions.
“Instead of addressing the harm his client has caused, Chiapetta has decided to attack the people exposing that harm,” Luthmann said.
Chiappetta’s actions have also been scrutinized for potential ethical violations. Legal ethics rules prohibit attorneys from using the court system to harass or intimidate. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct specifically caution against issuing subpoenas that impose an undue burden or serve no legitimate purpose.
“It’s hard to see how Chiapetta’s subpoena serves any purpose other than intimidation,” said a former bar association president who wished to remain unnamed. “He’s walking a fine ethical line, if not crossing it outright.”
Wicker Smith Ditches SCOTUS Doxxer Danesh Noshirvan Case Over Discovery Doxxing
The backlash against Chiapetta extends beyond Luthmann. Victims of Noshirvan’s social media campaigns have expressed frustration at the legal shield Chiapetta provides for his client. Jennifer Couture, who Noshirvan targeted in a widely publicized harassment campaign, said that Chiapetta’s legal tactics have compounded the harm she and her family have suffered.
“He’s enabling a bully,” Couture said. “Instead of holding Noshirvan accountable, he’s using the courts to attack anyone who stands up to him.”
Nick Chiapetta Unethical Lawyer?
Calls for accountability are growing louder. Luthmann intends to formally request that the court not only quash the subpoena but also impose sanctions on Chiapetta for his bad-faith litigation tactics.
“This kind of behavior has no place in our legal system,” Luthmann said. “Courts have a responsibility to send a message that these tactics won’t be tolerated.”
As the controversy unfolds, how the court will respond to Luthmann’s motion remains to be seen. For now, Chiapetta’s reputation as a “scumbag lawyer,” as some critics have labeled him, continues to grow.
License to Doxx: Did a Florida Federal Court Just Sanction Doxxing as a Litigation Strategy?
“This is about more than just one case,” Luthmann said. “It’s about protecting the integrity of the legal system and the First Amendment. Nick Chiapetta unethical lawyer is a threat to both.”
Chiappetta has not responded to multiple requests for comment:
From: Dick LaFontaine, Investigative Journalist <[email protected]>
Date: On Saturday, December 14th, 2024 at 8:56 AM
Subject: Request for Comment
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected] <[email protected]>, Richard Luthmann <[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]>Attorney Chiapetta,
We are about to go to press with a piece and we request comment on the following:
About Subpoena Tactics
- Why did you serve journalist Richard Luthmann with a subpoena in Judge Dudek’s courtroom while he was conducting constitutionally protected activities?
- Was serving a journalist immediately after a judge left the bench part of a deliberate strategy to intimidate?
- How do you justify the geographic overreach of the subpoena, which violates Rule 45(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by requiring compliance more than 100 miles from Mr. Luthmann’s residence?
- What legitimate purpose does your subpoena serve, given that much of the requested information is publicly available or irrelevant to the underlying case?
- Do you believe issuing subpoenas designed to chill investigative journalism aligns with ethical obligations under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct?
About Allegations of Bad Faith
- Why does the subpoena request private communications between Mr. Luthmann and individuals targeted by your client, such as Jennifer Couture and Joseph Camp?
- How do you respond to accusations that your subpoena amounts to a fishing expedition designed to harass Mr. Luthmann rather than furthering the case?
- Have you or your client considered how these tactics might infringe on Mr. Luthmann’s First Amendment rights as a journalist?
- What is your response to critics who argue that your actions represent a misuse of the legal system to silence your client’s critics?
- Are you concerned that your actions may result in court sanctions for bad-faith litigation practices?
About Your Client, Danesh Noshirvan
- How do you reconcile representing a client accused of doxxing Supreme Court Justices and inciting harassment campaigns against private citizens?
- Do you condone Mr. Noshirvan’s use of his platform to disseminate personal information, such as home addresses, that puts individuals and their families at risk?
- What is your response to allegations that your client’s actions violate federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. § 115 (threatening federal officials) and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2257 and 2257A (pornography record-keeping requirements to protect minors from exploitation)?
- Are you aware of allegations that your client uses AI bots to simulate engagement on his TikTok account to amplify his harassment campaigns?
- Does your client’s history of targeting journalists, healthcare workers, law enforcement, and small business owners concern you as his legal representative?
About Ethical Concerns
- How do you respond to claims that your legal tactics enable and amplify your client’s harmful behavior?
- Have you taken any steps to ensure that your client’s legal actions do not infringe upon the rights of those he has targeted?
- Do you believe it is ethical to use the court system to subpoena journalists for published, publicly available materials under the guise of discovery?
- Have you reviewed your client’s social media activities to assess whether they align with legal and ethical standards?
- Do you think your conduct in this case reflects the professionalism expected of an officer of the court?
About Accountability
- Are you prepared to address the potential legal and professional consequences of issuing a subpoena widely considered invalid and harassing?
- How do you plan to respond if the court imposes sanctions against you or your client for abusive litigation tactics?
- Given the widespread criticism of your role in this case, do you intend to continue representing Mr. Noshirvan?
- What steps are you taking to ensure compliance with court rules and ethical guidelines in your representation of Mr. Noshirvan?
- Do you have any comment on allegations that your legal tactics undermine the integrity of the judicial system and the press?
Please respond so that we may provide a fair and balanced assessment of the story.
Regards,Dick LaFontaineInvestigative Journalist
Chiapetta’s silence has done little to quell the criticism surrounding his actions.
With Luthmann seeking a motion to quash, the spotlight is firmly on Chiapetta and his role in this high-profile case.
Leave a Reply