Woke TikToker’s Gag Gambit Bombs

Antifa “Anchor Baby” Danesh Noshirvan fails to muzzle the truth in Fort Myers Federal Court. Is he CRACKING?

LUTHMANN NOTE: I’ve covered cancel culture for years. What works online doesn’t always survive cross-examination. In Fort Myers federal court, Jennifer Couture and Dr. Ralph Garramone aren’t influencers. They’re community members and neighbors. The federal court just validated their counterclaims. That means jurors may hear more than Antifa-linked Danesh Noshirvan and his scumbag lawyer want them to. If the Mega Influencer hasn’t figured it out yet, he is learning quickly that this case isn’t about TikTok clout. It’s about reputation, intent, and accountability. And in the Free State of Florida, accountability cuts both ways. This piece is “Woke TikToker’s Gag Gambit Bombs.”

By Richard Luthmann

Trial Gag Strategy Backfires in Southwest Florida

(FORT MYERS, FL) – I’ve seen desperate moves in court, but this one takes the cake. Danesh “ThatDaneshGuy” Noshirvan and his attorney, Nicholas Chiappetta of Lake Worth, Florida, just tried to pull a fast one on a federal judge – and it’s blowing up in their faces.

In a motion in limine filed earlier this month, Chiappetta practically begged Judge John E. Steele to ban any mention of Noshirvan’s real greatest hits as an internet predator and social media terrorist. They wanted it all scrubbed: Danesh’s cozy Antifa ties, his racial agitprop, his army of AI social media bots, even the tragic fallouts (multiple) of his ongoing harassment campaigns.

This social media thug has a body count, and he’d have us think he’s the digital Mother Theresa. Imagine the audacity – blocking the jury from hearing how this “accountability” influencer doxxed six Supreme Court justices in 2022 (yes, he posted the Justices’ private info online, and soon thereafter an assassin tried to murder Justice Kavanaugh and his family.

Or hiding the fact that Texas high school football coach Aaron De La Torre took his own life after Danesh’s videos falsely and recklessly painted him as a child abuser.

Danesh was unrepentant. Like a typical sociopath, he believes he bears ZERO responsibility for his body counts.

Instead, he blames the dead and their loved ones, claiming to defend nameless, faceless, non-existent “phantom victims.” Maybe he’ll call a couple of them at his trial.

Chiappetta’s motion even pleads to censor words like “jihadist” and “anchor baby” – terms that hit a little too close to home for his client. Ironically, Danesh himself has proudly called himself an “Iranian Anchor Baby.”

This is Fort Myers, not some safe-space, liberal arts college campus. Attempting to gag courtroom truth here is like bringing a kazoo to a cathedral organ recital.

No one seems amused.

Reading the tea leaves, the recent factual recitation from Judge Steele’s February 24, 2026, Opinion and Order foreshadows the rough justice awaiting these cancel-culture clowns in a Southwest Florida courtroom that doesn’t cater to crybullies.

Woke TikToker’s Gag Gambit: Antifa Terror in Fort Myers

In Fort Myers federal court, Danesh Noshirvan’s number is finally up. This digital stalker weaponizes his massive online following to defame, harass, and outright destroy private individuals.

Call him what he is – a TikTok terrorist, a serial defamer – Noshirvan has made a twisted career of unleashing unholy hell on ordinary people, and he’s finally facing the consequences.

One of Noshirvan’s prime targets was Jennifer Couture, a Fort Myers businesswoman and mom who had the misfortune of starring in a Dunkin’ Donuts parking lot video that Danesh deceptively edited to frame her as a raging criminal.

He proceeded to hammer Couture relentlessly. Noshirvan republished that distorted clip over and over, publicly calling for her prosecution and plastering her personal details online for his 1.6 million followers to see.

He even warned her that “the fun hasn’t even started yet,” a chilling promise from a man who clearly intended to keep terrorizing her.

The results were as swift as they were horrifying. Couture was inundated with hundreds of threats and vile messages from Noshirvan’s digital minions. The onslaught became so extreme that this once-outspoken mother had to flee social media entirely to protect herself and her family.

But Danesh’s cancel culture jihad didn’t stop with Couture. The moment Jennifer’s husband, employer, and innocent bystander, Dr. Ralph Garramone, didn’t fire her on Danesh’s command, Noshirvan immediately trained his sights on Garramone’s plastic surgery practice. He unleashed the same online mob on the doctor—flooding Garramone’s business with lies, fake reviews, harassing calls, and even attacks questioning his skill as a surgeon.

It was a scorched-earth smear campaign: hundreds of rage-fueled calls, texts, and one-star reviews poured in, dragging a respected surgeon’s name through the mud.

The attack was so ferocious that it nearly paralyzed the medical aesthetics clinic’s operations, as panicked patients canceled appointments and long-time associates cut ties to dodge the fallout. Garramone’s sterling reputation in the community was left in tatters – exactly as Noshirvan intended.

All of this has caused severe, tangible damage – and now it’s coming back to bite Danesh Noshirvan where it hurts. The devastation he deliberately inflicted on Couture and Garramone forms the backbone of their powerful defamation counterclaims against him.

In plain English, the cyber bully who swaggered into Fort Myers to ruin lives is finally facing justice for his TikTok terrorism in a court of law.

Woke TikToker’s Gag Gambit: Lawyer Nick Chiappetta’s Hypocrisy

Nick Chiappetta – what a piece of work. I watched this Lake Worth ambulance chaser swagger into the Fort Myers federal courthouse as if his moral superiority would overawe the locals. Spoiler: it didn’t.

Chiappetta earned the moniker “Antifa lawyer” for a reason. He’s made a career of enabling Danesh’s smear campaigns, frivolous lawsuits, and commercial pornography production, allegedly involving underage talent. We don’t know because Noshirvan has dodged his record-keeping requirements under 18 U.S.C § 2257.

In court filings, Chiappetta paints Danesh’s enemies, many local Floridians, as bigots and bullies, essentially co-sgining on Danesh baselessly calling anyone who stands up to him a “terrorist,” a “child stalker,” and a “bigot” in so many words. He did it to me.

Yet in the same breath, Chiappetta cries to the judge that his client might be called a “jihadist” or “anchor baby.” The hypocrisy is richer than a Brooklyn cheesecake.

They love to sling mud – branding patriotic Floridians as extremists – but suddenly get the vapors at the thought of Danesh facing equally harsh labels. News flash, Nickless: if your TikTok terror client walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, a jury deserves to hear it. He’s been an Antifa-linked agitator by DHS’s own assessment.

Even Alex Jones (admittedly a professional bomb-thrower) pegged Danesh as a “terrorist” for his violent rhetoric – and Jones wasn’t off the mark.

We asked Chiappetta to put things into context. He declined to do so. Here is what we asked:

From: Richard Luthmann <richard.luthmann@protonmail.com>
Date: On Wednesday, February 18th, 2026 at 11:45 PM
Subject: Antifa Leader Danesh Noshirvan Press Inquiry: Questions Regarding Motion in Limine in Noshirvan v. Couture – Why is Danesh Noshirvan trying to hide his Antifa ties, foreign funding, and hatred for Trump and America?
To: Nick Chiappetta <nick@chiappettalegal.com>, Vicki Modaffari <vicki@chiappettalegal.com>, service@chiappettalegal.com <service@chiappettalegal.com>
CC: Dick LaFontaine <RALafontaine@protonmail.com>, Rick LaRivière <RickLaRiviere@proton.me>, Modern Thomas Nast <mthomasnast@protonmail.com>, Frank Parlato <frankparlato@gmail.com>, Frankie Pressman <frankiepressman@protonmail.com>, Richard Luthmann <rluthmann@flgulfnews.com>, richard@nynewspress.com <richard@nynewspress.com>, Cortney Kotzian <theomahaoracle@gmail.com>, Joey@YourDaddyJoey.news <joey@yourdaddyjoey.news>, Joseph A. Camp <joey@joeycamp2020.com>, Michael Volpe <mvolpe998@gmail.com>, Cara Castronuova <caracastronuova@yahoo.com>, jt@liquidlunchtv.com <jt@liquidlunchtv.com>, Jim Hoft <jimhoft@gmail.com>, showtips_nfocom@infowars.com <showtips_nfocom@infowars.com>, whistleblowers@infowars.com <whistleblowers@infowars.com>, mediacontacts@infowars.com <mediacontacts@infowars.com>, Troy@slingshot.news <Troy@slingshot.news>, managingeditor@afnn.us <managingeditor@afnn.us>

Dear Mr. Chiappetta,

We write on behalf of a coalition of journalists covering the ongoing federal litigation in Danesh Noshirvan v. Jennifer Couture et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. We’ve reviewed your February 17, 2026 Motion in Limine.

On behalf of your client, Danesh Noshirvan, you’ve asked a federal judge to strip the courtroom of what you call “irrelevant, prejudicial, and inflammatory” statements about your client, Danesh Noshirvan.

We have several questions concerning the legal strategy, public-interest implications, and factual scope of your request. Given the high-profile nature of this case and its broader reputational and political dimensions, we are seeking your on-the-record responses.

HYPOCRISY IN “INFLAMMATORY” LANGUAGE

You’ve publicly branded critics and opposing litigants with terms like “terrorist” and “extortionist.”

Yet you now argue that loaded language directed at Mr. Noshirvan must be barred as prejudicial.

• How do you justify that double standard?

• Is aggressive rhetoric acceptable when it benefits your side — but suddenly toxic when it cuts against your client?

• Is this about fairness, or narrative control?

SANITIZING THE CONTROVERSY

You seek to exclude terms like “digital jihadist” and “Iranian anchor baby.” Those phrases arose from a public firestorm surrounding your client’s online conduct.

• If this lawsuit grows out of digital campaigns and social media warfare, how can the language defining that conflict be “irrelevant”?

• Are you asking the Court to surgically remove the very controversy that brought this case into existence?

• Is this a motion in limine — or a motion to rewrite history?

VICTIM OR DIGITAL MOBILIZER?

• Your filings frame Mr. Noshirvan as the aggrieved party. Defendants describe coordinated online targeting, viral amplification, and reputational pressure campaigns.

• Which version is the truth?

• How do you reconcile your client’s “victim” narrative with documented instances where he publicly named individuals and rallied followers?

• What about Texas high school coach Aaron De La Torre? Your client issued an apology after his viral accusations preceded devastating consequences. Isn’t that directly relevant to intent, foreseeability, and credibility?

• Or is that another chapter you’re asking the Court to keep away from jurors?

COLLABORATION WITH JAMES MCGIBNEY

• Court filings repeatedly reference James McGibney, including sworn materials connected to this litigation. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zGAnQQbsPALc4Uj8WkdcHy242ovwrKCy/view?usp=sharing

• What is the precise nature of Mr. McGibney’s involvement in your legal strategy?

• Has Mr. McGibney assisted in developing evidentiary themes, drafting declarations, media coordination, or litigation messaging?

• Given Mr. McGibney’s own history of controversial online campaigns, do you believe his involvement strengthens or weakens your argument that Mr. Noshirvan is the aggrieved party rather than an active digital aggressor?

• How do you respond to critics who suggest that this litigation reflects coordinated reputational warfare rather than a straightforward defamation dispute?

POLITICAL MOTIVES AND EVIDENCE SUPPRESSION

Your motion seeks to block references suggesting partisan motivation.

• If individuals were targeted based on ideology, law enforcement ties, or political affiliation, how is that irrelevant? Your client laughs when ICE Agents get shot and killed.

• In your client’s very first Jennifer Couture video, you took “pot shots” at Donald Trump. Didn’t your client open the door to political motivation?

• Motive matters in defamation. Intent matters. Pattern matters. Are you concerned that jurors learning about potential partisan targeting would undercut your claims?

• Is the real fear that the jury might see a political campaign rather than a private grievance?

WHAT ARE YOU REALLY TRYING TO KEEP OUT?

You want references to bots, hacking allegations, doxxing claims, extremist rhetoric, and ideological alignment barred from trial. You call it prejudicial. Your client admits it:

• But is it prejudicial — or probative?

• Are you protecting due process, or protecting a reputation?

• If your client’s record can withstand scrutiny, why not let the jury hear it and decide?

DARK MONEY & PARTISAN FUNDING — WHO’S PAYING?

• Has Danesh received funding, consulting, media training, or strategic digital support from progressive advocacy organizations? From individuals or entities tied to Scott Dworkin? Tied to George Soros?

• Is he affiliated with — or has he ever been paid by — any PACs, nonprofit activism groups, digital organizing collectives, or partisan mobilization campaigns?

• Are any national left-wing legal defense funds, activist networks, or nonprofit intermediaries underwriting this lawsuit — directly or indirectly?

• Is this litigation being supported by professional digital mobilization groups active during election cycles and political flashpoints?

• Have any progressive foundations — domestic or international — funded projects, platforms, or media efforts tied to Danesh?

• Bottom line: Who is financing this fight?

FOREIGN AMPLIFICATION — ANY INTERNATIONAL HANDS?

• Has Danesh collaborated with activist organizations or NGOs operating outside the United States?

• Have foreign-based advocacy groups or coordinated digital networks systematically amplified his campaigns?

• Has Danesh ever “simped” for the Mexican Cartels?

• Does Danesh remain loyal to the Islamic Republic of Iran?

• Does Danesh support of the establishment of Sharia law and a Muslim Caliphate in the United States?

• Is any portion of this legal battle or its media strategy supported by international advocacy networks?

• Have you examined whether foreign-based bot networks amplified Danesh’s online pressure campaigns?

• If evidence of international coordination exists, are you prepared to admit that it goes directly to motive, reach, and reputational damage?

ANTIFA CONNECTIONS — YES OR NO?

• Has Danesh Noshirvan ever coordinated — formally or informally — with individuals tied to Antifa or militant left-wing street movements?

• Have you examined whether the accounts that regularly amplify his campaigns overlap with known Antifa-aligned or black bloc activist networks?

• Have self-identified Antifa activists publicly supported or boosted Danesh’s campaigns? If so, was that organic… or organized?

• Has Danesh ever communicated with groups that promote “direct action” tactics — including doxxing, swarm reporting, armed insurrection, violent overthrow, digital targeting, or organized reputational destruction?

• Has Danesh ever tried to disappear people, as he’s previously stated?

• If evidence surfaces showing ideological alignment or operational crossover between Danesh’s campaigns and organized leftist activist networks, will you still argue it’s “irrelevant”?

THE “ANTIFA LEADER” CLAIMS

Commentators — including coverage at outlets like The Gateway Pundit — have branded Danesh an “Antifa agitator” and linked him to calls for armed leftist mobilization. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/antifa-tiktok-agitator-urges-armed-leftist-militias-fight/

• Has Danesh ever urged armed political militias to confront ideological opponents?

• Has he ever advocated violent resistance, paramilitary organization, or militant “street defense” tactics?

• Alex Jones and others have publicly claimed Danesh is a “leader of Antifa.” Does Danesh categorically deny that?

• If those claims are absurd and false, why not let them be aired and demolished before a jury instead of trying to bury them pre-trial?

• What exactly are you afraid jurors might hear?

• Has Danesh ever “made frogs gay” as he’s claimed in his videos? If so, how many? How is that even physically possible? Does Danesh believe that these so-called “gay frogs” should have full LGBTQIA+ rights?

FULL TRANSPARENCY — OR LAWFARE SHIELD?

You’ve framed criticism as “xenophobic” and “inflammatory.” That’s serious language. But here’s the real question:

• Will you provide a categorical, on-the-record denial that Danesh has ever received financial, strategic, or operational support from Antifa-affiliated networks or partisan left-wing funding groups?

• Will you disclose every third-party donor, nonprofit intermediary, digital strategist, and political entity connected to this litigation?

• Or is this lawsuit being driven by forces the public hasn’t seen yet?

You are asking a federal court to silence discussion of entire ideological ecosystems surrounding your client. Before that happens, we expect straight answers.

Given the political, reputational, and First Amendment dimensions of this case, these questions are of substantial public interest. We welcome your detailed responses. As we intend to go to press soon, if we receive your response after publication, we will incorporate your comments fairly in our ongoing coverage.

Oh, one last question. When is Danesh going to pay his sanctions bill?

We await your response.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Regards,

Richard Luthmann

Writer, Journalist, and Commentator
Tips or Story Ideas:
(239) 631-5957
richard.luthmann@protonmail.com
LINKTREE
Muck Rack Profile
Substack: This is For Real.
Editor-In-Chief: FLGulf.news
Editor-In-Chief: NYNewsPress.com
Editor-In-Chief: TheFamilyCourtCircus.com
Contributor: Frank Report
Contributor: Sun Bay Paper
Follow Me on Facebook X Instagram LinkedIn TRUTH Rumble Newsbreak

Chiappetta’s courtroom crocodile tears over “prejudicial” terms fooled no one. As Jennifer Couture put it, Chiappetta is “using the courts to attack anyone who stands up to Danesh.”

That’s exactly what this in limine stunt was: a bid to attack the truth itself. I can’t help but laugh as Chiappetta’s Woke double-standard unraveled.

This isn’t TikTok, counselor. In federal court, facts don’t care about your feelings.

Cancel-Culture Crybully Exposed

Danesh Noshirvan built his fame as a digital hitman – a cancel-culture jihadist who doxxes, shames, and mob-attacks anyone he deems a “bad guy” or a “bad gal.” Most of his targets are white, traditional, conservative, Republican, and political supporters of Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Sheriff Carmine Marceno – speading falsehoods about revered conservative figures.

He calls it “accountability.” His Woketard audience in theri echochamber believe him. They eat up every word he says.

Down here, we call it harassment and in some cases, elder abuse.

Now this self-anointed social justice hatchet man is terrified a jury will see the full picture of his tactics. No wonder he wanted to bar any mention of his unsavory exploits.

We’re talking about a guy who openly boasts “The Ayatollah is paying me… we have an agenda to turn America into Sharia law.”

A guy who urged armed militias to “fight ICE” agents and put federal officers’ families in the crosshairs.

A guy who was banned by TikTok for posting a grotesque video fantasizing about why conservative Charlie Kirk deserved to get shot.

Danesh’s content isn’t harmless; he doesn’t make kitten videos. And his means of deployment are just as dangerous: he “weaponizes bots and online mobs to harass people in real life.”

This “influencer” isn’t some innocent content creator; he’s an internet bully with a Messiah complex. His followers – real and fake – swarmed coach Aaron De La Torre – and days later, that coach was dead by suicide[2]. Danesh didn’t pull the trigger, but he damn sure loaded the gun with his viral poison.

In another fiasco, he sicced his 2-million-strong mob on Black civil rights lawyer Julian Jackson-Fannin, by falsely calling the attorney a “low-class racist.” Judge Steele saw through that stunt and slapped Danesh with $62,320 in sanctions for “subjective bad faith” conduct. (Of course, Deadbeat Danesh still hasn’t fully paid up – classic).

Jackson-Fannin and his law firm, Duane Morris LLP, will join counsel’s table in the legal effort to bring Danesh down for good.

While Noshirvan and Chiappetta may try to frame half a dozen lawyers against them as “David vs. Goliath,” in reality, the fact that somuch legal firepower is trained on the social media terror and his crooked lawyer shows exactly how dangerous they really are.

This is the real Danesh Noshirvan: an “Antifa operative” turned crybully who loves to dish it out but can’t take it.

And now, thanks to Chiappetta’s bungled gag motion, even more of Danesh’s dirty laundry is on the court’s record for the jury to smell.

Woke TikToker’s Gag Gambit: The Free State of Florida Strikes Back

This legal circus isn’t just a quirky defamation case – it’s a full-blown culture clash. On one side, you have Antifa-operator Danesh and his woke lawyer, outsiders who thought they could steamroll a proud Southwest Florida community with cancel-culture lawfare.

On the other, you’ve got folks like Jennifer Couture and Dr. Ralph Garramone – respected locals, a businesswoman and a surgeon – who decided they wouldn’t be intimidated by a blue state internet bully.

Florida is Trump country, and people here don’t bend the knee to politically correct tantrums. Couture and Garramone’s claims are rock-solid and heading to trial.

Danesh is no longer on offense; he’s on defense now. His bid to get their claims thrown out was laughed out of court. The message is clear as a Florida sunset: you come for these people’s reputations with lies and smears, be ready to have your own actions put on trial.

Ambulance Chaser Chiappetta and Deadbeat Danesh Noshirvan walked into a Fort Myers federal courtroom thinking they’d spin a victim narrative. Instead, they’re getting a reality check in real time. This courtroom showdown has become a proxy war between conservative America and woke “accountability” clout-chasers. And let me tell you, local patriots refusing to sanitize the truth.

The Antifa crybully and his slick lawyer are learning the hard way that in federal court, justice doesn’t play by Woke, cancel culture, social media rules. As a journalist who’s been following every twist, I can’t help but grin at the outcome.

The truth will be allowed. The counterattack stands. Danesh’s lawsuit is on the ropes, and the woke lawfare racket is getting a Florida-style whooping.

In the end, it’s not just a victory for Couture, Garramone, and free speech – it’s a triumph for every American fed up with elitist outsiders and their ambulance chasers thinking they can terrorize patriots and get away with it.

Not on our watch, not in our town, and not in the Free State of Florida.