Frank Parlato
Danesh Noshirvan, a TikTok creator who runs an online platform that targets individuals for public shaming, sued plastic surgeon Dr. Ralph Garramone, his medical practice, and his wife, Jennifer Couture, alleging harassment and defamation. Noshirvan has publicly stated that he seeks at least $20 million in damages and hopes to recover up to $40 million in his lawsuit.
He’s been publicly shamed himself and now claims Couture and Garramone are trying to kill him—that they’ve hired white supremacists and pedophiles to stalk his children, stolen his wife’s medical records and mailed them in packages labeled “from Santa,” and spent years executing a murder conspiracy that somehow involves billboards, TV ads, and threatening his neighbors’ butcher shop.
U.S. District Judge John E. Steele found that Noshirvan acted in “subjective bad faith,” engaged in intentional misconduct, and used false communications designed to incite harassment and intimidate opposing counsel. Judge Steele sanctioned Noshirvan and ordered him to pay $62,320 in attorneys’ fees to the defendants.
Noshirvan, whose handle is ThatDaneshGuy, got a bitter dose of reality: for the first time, he was the one being sanctioned.
For years, Danesh targeted hundreds—teachers, coaches, small business owners. Jobs were lost. Suicide attempts followed. One man, Texas high school coach Aaron De La Torre, died by his own hand ten days after Danesh’s relentless series of videos went viral. Some targets had money. Some hired lawyers. But none could withstand the relentless campaigns—the floods of messages, the calls to employers, the coordinated attacks that continued until they broke.
Then Danesh went after Dr. Garramone, one of the most successful plastic surgeons in America, and his wife Jennifer, who manages his practice. They had resources. But more importantly, they had something Danesh had never encountered: they simply would not quit. When the campaigns came, they didn’t fold. They sued back in federal court.
Now Noshirvan, who claims to have only $5,000 to his name though he claims 2 million “followers” on TikTok and more than half a million on Instagram and YouTube, has taken to GoFundMe to ask his followers to pay his $60,000-plus sanction. If he fails to pay, the judge may dismiss the case. He has paid nothing. On December 5, the defendants filed a motion asking the court to hold him in contempt and dismiss his lawsuit.
What follows is an examination of Noshirvan’s own words in the GoFundMe campaign to help prospective donors determine whether they should support him in his effort to keep his lawsuit alive—and those who have already donated to determine if Noshirvan has defrauded them. He has raised more than $45,000 from donors.
In short, he’s asking donors to spot him $60,000 so he can chase $40 million.
False Equivalence in the GoFundMe Appeal
Danesh Claim (GoFundMe)
“The judge recently issued sanctions against both parties, but since they’re millionaires they were able to afford it. Meanwhile, the judge issued more than $60,000 in sanctions against me.”
Danesh Noshrivan’s description is dishonest. The court imposed sanctions only against him for misconduct. Judge John E. Steele ordered him to pay $62,320 after finding that he acted in bad faith and engaged in intentional, sanctionable conduct.
A separate $2,500 sanction was imposed on a defense attorney for a missed deadline—an ordinary procedural matter unrelated to misconduct.
He was sanctioned for $62,320. A defense attorney was sanctioned $2,500 for a missed deadline. That’s not parity. That’s fundraising fraud.
Mischaracterization of the Basis for Sanctions
Danesh Claim (GoFundMe)
“Not because I lied. Not because I did anything malicious. But because I defended my wife and pushed too hard, too fast, trying to protect my family from people who’ve spent years defaming, stalking, and threatening us.”
The court did not sanction Noshirvan for “defending” his wife.
Court’s Finding (Sanctions Order):
“Noshirvan acted with subjective bad faith and engaged in intentional and not just reckless behavior.”
Noshirvan shouted expletives at opposing counsel, continued to do so despite being instructed to stop, and disrupted the proceeding. The judge rejected any suggestion that the behavior was impulsive, excusable, emotional, or, as Danesh’s himself would like donors to believe, valiant.
The court also found that Noshirvan’s subsequent social media posts and online communications were “not only inflammatory but false,” and “intentionally made to incite followers to engage in foreseeable harassment and intimidation.”
Danesh Claim (GoFundMe)
“My diagnosed CPTSD from Jennifer Couture’s ongoing stalking and harassment were not considered.”
Noshirvan claims that the judge punished a psychologically injured victim as though he were a willful aggressor. The sanctions order mentions no CPTSD. It mentions no diagnosis. It does mention bad faith.
No proof exists that he submitted evidence of this diagnosis, or that it was caused by defendants rather than, say, spending his days destroying lives. He calls it accountability culture. The judge is teaching him what that means from the receiving end.
Danesh Claim (GoFundMe)
“These sanctions don’t reflect guilt, they reflect the reality that ordinary people are not built to withstand endless legal warfare funded by wealthier opponents. It’s rules for me, but not for them, but despite it, I’ll still win.”
This “ordinary person,” Noshirvan, with his two million TikTok followers, publicly names individuals and directs sustained campaigns to produce firings, ostracism, and official action. In short, he cancels people. This is not a private individual crushed by legal process. This rhetorical trick is familiar: power masquerading as helplessness. This is not David versus Goliath; it is Goliath discovering David.
Danesh Claim (GoFundMe)
“What did I do? While hearing my wife screaming, crying, and begging them to stop in deposition as they grill her over the abuse she’s endured and try to blame her for it, I overhear them asking about her sexual history, and I knew their plan was to use her answer to try to get my wife fired.
“I busted in and yelled ‘what the f***’ and called their lawyer a misogynist and a f*****’ pig and I promised I would remember this when they try to settle with me.”
No transcript, recording, court finding, or sworn statement reflects that Noshirvan’s wife was “screaming, crying, and begging” during the deposition.
Why did he interupt? Noshirvan sued Dr. Garramone, Garramone’s medical practice, and Jennifer Couture for defamation. One of his alleged defamatory statements in his lawsuit is that they allegedly called him and his wife swingers. By filing that claim, Noshirvan, whether he liked it or not, placed his marriage at the center of the lawsuit. During his wife’s deposition, opposing counsel asked her whether the marriage was monogamous.
The lawyer also showed her a single photograph of commercial pornography Noshirvan had published of himself online; it was a sexually explicit image from his gay-leaning, 13-subscriber OnlyFans paywalled account showing him engaged in sexual activity with two females of indeterminate age. The point wasn’t prurience. It was whether his “not a swinger” narrative he was asking the court to enforce against the defense was true.
When his wife appeared to be compelled to answer, Noshirvan interrupted the questioning by shouting expletives at opposing counsel. He was instructed to stop. He did not.
Judge Steele rejected any suggestion that the behavior was impulsive or excusable. After the deposition—with time to cool off—Noshirvan went online and issued false statements targeting the lawyer, intentionally designed to incite harassment and intimidation.
The threats came immediately. Death threats arrived through anonymous emails and accounts with no post history. Hundreds of phone calls followed—anonymous callers threatening to go after his wife, to sexually harass his mother, or simply screaming profanities before hanging up. None engaged in conversation. They delivered their message and disconnected, like automated scripts.
Many of the callers spoke in Noshirvan’s distinctive cadence and phrasing. Based on the pattern, Frank Report believes Noshirvan created the threats himself using voice-altering software and spoofed phone numbers—a tactic that would constitute felony cyberstalking under both Florida and federal law.
These two categories of conduct—deliberate disruption during the deposition and false post-deposition communications—formed the basis for the $62,320 sanction order. A large portion of that expense was reimbursement for security measures necessitated by threats Noshirvan incited—or made himself using AI and voice-altering software.
In short, he tried to bulldoze the process when the facts threatened to blow up his case. Then he used his standard method of trying to cancel the attorney.
Claiming Victory Contrary to the Record
Danesh Claim (GoFundMe):
“They know they can’t win this case… They keep doubling down hoping we’ll break… I will never break no matter what they do.”
Noshirvan asserts that the defendants “know they can’t win,” yet the court entered a substantial sanctions order against him—a legal victory for the defendants.
Noshirvan describes himself as traumatized, overwhelmed, and breaking. And in the same GoFundMe appeal, he claims absolute invulnerability. The contradiction is not accidental. Invincibility attracts followers; victimhood opens wallets.
Danesh Claim (GoFundMe):
“I’m swallowing my pride and asking for help covering these sanctions so I can keep defending my family, keep fighting this case, and keep standing up to the people who thought they could break me. I’ve carried this as far as I can on my own.”
Noshirvan presents his fundraising appeal as an act of humility undertaken to protect his family. His online operation has repeatedly doxxed individuals, sustained long-running campaigns against them, and mobilized public pressure that has resulted in reputational damage, employment consequences, false arrests, and severe personal distress.
“Swallowing my pride” is spectacularly hypocritical for a man who has spent years shouting names into his cell phone camera and exulting in others’ destruction. He even sings a “Consequences Song” when he announces the harm that has befallen his targets.
Danesh Claim (GoFundMe)
“(The defendants Garramone and Couture) “Hired goons they’ve used to try to target my family and children include:
“Joseph Camp
“Richard Luthmann
“Suze Miller
“Cortney Kotzian
“Frank Parlato
They will work with any felons, low-life, abuser, white supremacist, or pedophile with no restrictions so long as they harm my family. The only thing I’ve done that they’re mad about is telling all of you the abuse I’ve endured from them. I haven’t done anything to them. All I’ve been asking for is justice….”
“We realized their whole plan was to kill me. That was the plan.”
“Well, actually, trying to convince me to kill myself as well.”
Noshirvan alleges his legal opponents ‘hired goons’—naming journalists, commentators, and critics—in a coordinated effort to harm or kill him.
His claim that he has “done nothing to them” is incompatible with the publicly documented operation of his platform, which has long relied on naming individuals and mobilizing pressure against them. To accuse critics of conspiring in murder without proof is character assassination. The absence of evidence is not a gap; it is the point.
Danesh Claim (GoFundMe)
“They’ve been doing this every day for the entirety of my younger child’s life. My children don’t know parents who aren’t depressed or scared, and the police won’t help when you’re in a court case with someone. They have been attacking the school my wife is a teacher at nonstop with lies to try to get her fired. They even took my wife’s private medical records and gave it to felon Richard Luthmann to write defamatory articles about, with Frank Parlato… to try to break her. When I say ‘break,’ I want to be clear that they’ve said very directly through text messages that their goal is to get us to kill ourselves.”
Noshirvan alleges daily harassment spanning his child’s entire life, attacks on his wife’s school, theft of medical records, coordination with criminals, and an explicit goal of driving his family to suicide. No documents, police reports, or court findings are provided.
School attacks.
Medical theft.
Murder plots.
Suicide threats.
When the story gets this big, and the evidence stays this small, you’re being worked.
Danesh Claim (GoFundMe)
“Their terrorism needs to end and they must be held accountable. Help me reach this goal. Please help. I’m asking because I have no other avenue. I promise to hold them accountable to the fullest extent of the law and take every penny they owe me.”
The court ordered him to pay money. He reframes that as a temporary setback before he ‘takes every penny’ from them. And somewhere between a bill to be paid and a fortune to be taken, is a tantrum with a donation link.
Don’t touch the money.
Criminal Exposure for Danesh
Once money is solicited online, across state lines, based on representations about a judicial order, accuracy is not optional. If those representations materially diverge from the court record—or omit known sources of income—the risk shifts from civil litigation into something more serious.
Noshirvan’s attorney disclosed that Noshirvan receives substantial income from a trust established by his late father, which is available to pay court-ordered sanctions. That disclosure contradicts his public statements that he has no means of paying.
Final Word on Donors
The donor list on his GoFundMe shows unusual patterns: nearly 40% of donations are anonymous—more than double the typical rate for grassroots fundraising—and multiple donations appear in oddly specific amounts like $143, $1,234, and $78. Several donors appear multiple times under the same names, and larger anonymous donations of $500 to $2,000 are clustered in ways uncommon for small-dollar crowdfunding campaigns. While these patterns alone do not prove fraud, they raise questions about the authenticity of the donor base—questions that could be answered through payment processing records and IP address analysis, which are available to law enforcement.
If any portion of the donor list consists of fabricated donations designed to create the appearance of grassroots support and induce legitimate donors to contribute, that conduct would constitute wire fraud under federal law. The practice—known as ‘seeding’ or ‘astroturfing’—is prosecuted as a distinct and aggravating form of fraud because it exploits social proof to deceive third parties into parting with their money. Each fake donation made with intent to induce real donations constitutes a separate count of wire fraud, punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison.
The smart move is obvious: return the money. All of it. Now.
If any portion of those donations was fabricated to create the appearance of momentum and induce real donors to give, the lies and the fake donors don’t just add up—they multiply. The false statements provide the motive to donate. The manufactured social proof provides the confidence to donate. Real donors, believing both, part with their money. That’s not one potential crime. That’s a coordinated scheme—and under federal law, it’s wire fraud on two levels, each element reinforcing the other.
A $62,320 judgment is a solvable problem. It accrues interest. It can be paid over time. It can even be negotiated. It’s a financial obligation with a defined end.
A wire fraud investigation doesn’t have a defined end. It starts with subpoenas for payment records, IP logs, and email patterns. It moves to interviews with donors about what they were told and why they gave. It ends with prosecutors counting: how many false statements were made, how many fake donations were created, and how much money was obtained through the combination of both. Each fake donation is a separate count. Each materially false statement is a separate count.
My advice to Danesh is return the money. Cite concerns about the fundraising process. Apologize to donors. Pay the judgment however you can—installments, negotiations, earning it over time.
Because the alternative is federal prosecutors presenting a donor list with highlighted suspicious patterns, a fundraising appeal with court-contradicted claims, and a wire fraud case built on the simple, devastating argument that you manufactured both the story and the support to back it up.
Sixty-two thousand dollars is expensive. Federal prison is permanent. One requires a check. The other starts when you lie about why you need one—and then create fake people to make the lie look true.
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!