LUTHMANN NOTE: I publish reporting. Somebody answers with promises to kill me, threats against Ralph Garramone and Jennifer Couture, and warnings about our mail. That demands action. I sent the recordings to Chiappetta and copied authorities because evidence deserves a response. Judge Steele already documented counsel’s failure to restrain his client in an earlier episode. The new calls require their own investigation. I want the caller identified and anyone responsible held accountable. My demand is simple: preserve the evidence, investigate the threats, and protect the people named. A journalist should never have to trade silence for safety. This piece is “ Danesh Death Threats Hit Home.”
Richard Luthmann went on * Two Lees in a Pod* with death threats to play. The messages threatened to kill him, warned about packages, and named Dr. Ralph Garramone and Jennifer Couture. During the October 22 broadcast with Lisa Lee and Robbie Keszey, further threats arrived. A discussion about cancel culture became a live demonstration of the danger Luthmann says its targets face.
One caller promised to find Luthmann and kill him. Another threatened to slit his throat on his street. Garramone and Couture were threatened alongside him. A fourth message threatened sexual assault.
Luthmann attributes the calls to what he calls Noshirvan’s cancel-culture mob and believes his reporting triggered them. The recordings establish the violent language; the caller’s identity and any connection to Noshirvan require investigation.
00:00:00 Privacy complaints and the opening discussion00:05:34 Luthmann describes threatening calls00:13:09 Danesh coverage and the courthouse video00:17:05 Chiappetta’s disclosures come under scrutiny00:23:26 First threatening voicemail played00:26:30 Second threatening voicemail played00:31:22 “Danesh’s Lawsuit Meets Reality”00:32:27 Emotional-distress evidence and Judge Dudek’s rulings00:34:11 Defamation, public figures, and the remaining disputes00:38:45 Answering online pressure through the law00:43:27 What does a trademark protect?00:47:27 Luthmann shows the filed opposition00:50:05 Jeremy Hales the person, What The Hales the brand01:05:21 Fed 2 and Luthmann’s claimed professional interest01:09:08 The specimen account and sworn channel testimony01:14:29 The failure-to-function argument01:22:13 Early reporting correspondence with Hales and Megan Fox01:26:47 The TTAB institution notice and 2028 schedule01:33:02 Reading the “Hey GERM” transmission email01:35:26 Proposed discovery into use, promotion, and commercial records01:38:31 The hypothetical $100,000 fee calculation01:49:45 Another threatening recording interrupts the discussion01:53:01 Lisa describes the wider consequences of online attacks01:59:16 Lisa’s argument for accountability through the courts02:02:07 Luthmann discusses seeking protection02:07:33 Victor Orena and a family’s appeal02:20:32 Leslie Ferderigos’s correspondence to Shochet02:25:45 Lisa reads the correspondence02:38:46 Another threatening voicemail is played02:44:12 Luthmann’s jiu-jitsu blue belt02:57:18 Closing discussion and sign-off
The first message, played about 24 minutes into the show, warned Garramone and Couture that the caller had their addresses. They would receive the same package as Luthmann. “I’d be very careful opening up your mail for the next couple of weeks,” the caller said. He told Luthmann to “enjoy the last couple of days of your life.” Luthmann interpreted the package warning as a bomb threat, although the message did not expressly identify an explosive.
The next recording recited an address and telephone number associated with Luthmann, then threatened to circulate that information. “I’m gonna find you and I’m gonna fucking kill you,” the caller said. The message tied the threat to Luthmann’s online speech. Lisa urged him to contact the sheriff and document what happened. The address is omitted here because publishing the threat should not help someone carry it out.
About one hour and 50 minutes into the broadcast, another message escalated the threat. The caller described cutting Luthmann’s throat in public and threatened all three people. “I’m gonna kill each and every one of you on my own,” he said. Luthmann told the panel he needed to go to the police because Garramone and Couture could be hurt. He said he had forwarded the recordings to them.
A fourth message played near the end of the program threatened to track Luthmann down and sexually assault him at an Italian restaurant. It also invoked sexual violence against his mother. The messages mixed threats with insults about his body and criminal history. The repeated demand was that he stop speaking online. That coercive language supplies the strongest connection between the threats and his work.
Robbie initially said the voice sounded like Danesh. Lisa agreed, while acknowledging that her familiarity came mainly from clips. Later, both questioned whether the newest recording sounded the same. Luthmann then said, “I don’t think it was Danesh. I think it’s somebody else.” Those changing impressions cannot identify a caller. Neither the broadcast nor the supplied correspondence establishes that Noshirvan made, directed, or authorized the calls.
The calls followed two October 22 reports: Danesh’s Lawsuit Meets Reality, by Rick LaRivière with Luthmann, and Florida Lawyer Nicholas Chiappetta Perjury?, by M. Thomas Nast with Luthmann. One examined Judge Kyle C. Dudek’s rulings and the claims remaining for trial.
The other challenged Chiappetta’s disclosure of disciplinary proceedings when seeking admission in New Jersey. The perjury accusation remains contested. No perjury conviction is established by that report.
Luthmann believes the timing and the caller’s references to Garramone and Couture connect the threats to those articles. He also told viewers nuisance calls had been coming for roughly two weeks related to his coverage of the Cornell Seven Jane Doe accuser, whom Luthmann unmasked as Lucille H. Craig, formerly of Birmingham, Alabama.
“They don’t like LucyCraig.blog. The difference is Lucy Craig is a slut who had a train run on her. But Danesh Noshirvan is an Antifa-linked Cancel Culture Killer,” Luthmann said, referring to Denton, Texas, high school football coach Aaron De La Torre.
Luthmann says the unwanted calls began after publication. His central concern is retaliation: expose the operation, then become its next target.
At 2:52 a.m. on October 23, Luthmann emailed Nicholas Chiappetta an urgent notice about the recorded death and sexual-assault threats. The supplied email shows four attached voicemail files. He copied the State Attorney’s Office, Lee County Sheriff’s Office, lawyers, Bar officials, and journalists. He demanded that Chiappetta review the recordings, speak with Noshirvan, preserve relevant communications, and provide a substantive response.
“Get control of your client’s conduct and communications concerning me,” Luthmann wrote. He asked whether Noshirvan recognized the voice, knew the caller, or had shared identifying information. The letter expressly acknowledged that the recordings alone did not establish who called or whether Noshirvan directed anyone. As of publication, Luthmann reports that Chiappetta has not responded. He regards that silence as another failure to confront the danger surrounding his client’s public campaigns.
That criticism has a documented history. In his August 12, 2025 sanctions order, the late U.S. District Judge John E. Steele found that Noshirvan disrupted a deposition and then published false accusations against attorney Julian Jackson-Fannin. Steele found those communications intentionally incited foreseeable harassment and intimidation. The episode involved verbal abuse and online targeting.
Steele also found that Chiappetta acted in bad faith, declined to restrain Noshirvan during the deposition, and later approved renewed posting. He publicly reprimanded the lawyer. An October 30, 2025 order awarded Garramone Plastic Surgery $62,320 against Noshirvan. Those findings explain why Luthmann demands action from counsel now. They do not identify the person making the new calls.
Luthmann initially answered the calls with laughter and bravado, repeatedly minimizing his personal fear. His present account is more serious.
“I spoke to some very big-time people about this, and they said I should be worried. The real concern is that Danesh’s case is reeling and he may tap into his Antifa network to take me out. That is what I now believe,” Luthmann said.
Luthmann was previously convicted of non-violent federal conspiracy crimes, but he cannot lawfully possess firearms or body armor under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
“It’s like A Clockwork Orange,” Luthmann said. “Federal law is so fucked up that I can’t sit in my residence in Florida, where people literally want to blow me up, and wear body armor so that I have a fighting chance. Good thing I know a thing or two about blades.”
As of publication, he reports no response from the State Attorney’s Office or Lee County Sheriff’s Office. The email establishes that officials were copied; it does not establish what investigative work, if any, has occurred.
He is considering putting the recordings before Judge Dudek and seeking emergency relief supported by evidence. He is also considering lawful private security, the “equalizers and protectors” he says he needs.
“I might ask Judge Dudek for a limited restoration of my rights to defensive measures in light of these threats. What harm am I to anyone if I’m sitting on my couch with body armor, a flak jacket, and a couple of machetes?,” Luthmann said. “What they don’t realize is that I am THE WEAPON. My body and my mind. My big beautiful brain.”
His written notice reserves lawful self-protection and rejects retaliation. The practical demand is protection while investigators identify whoever threatened three people. On-air bravado does not make the recordings less serious.
For Luthmann, the danger also exposes a weakness in treating cancel culture as a feud confined to named litigants. A campaign can reach a journalist’s home, a physician’s practice, or a family member. His email argues that threats teach witnesses and sources the price of speaking. Courts must establish individual responsibility through evidence. The effects of intimidation can spread long before a court identifies the perpetrator.
The program also examined ▶Luthmann’s newly filed trademark opposition against Jeremy Hales. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board instituted Opposition No. 91311273 on October 21. Luthmann challenges the JEREMY HALES application, Serial No. 99597033, for commentary webcasts. His pleaded argument is that the name identifies Hales personally, while WHAT THE HALES identifies the commercial brand. The Board has not decided that claim.
The schedule opens discovery January 19, 2027, and closes it July 18. Luthmann’s opening brief is scheduled for March 29, 2028; Hales’s response for April 28; and a reply for May 13. Luthmann wants account histories, specimen-selection records, audience evidence, and financial records bearing on the claimed mark. Relevant revenue, promotional spending, and licensing arrangements may face scrutiny, subject to discovery limits and protective orders.
His trademark challenge carries a blunt cost warning. In his October 21 email to Hales, Luthmann illustrated 200 hours at $500 an hour: $100,000 before expenses. Further work could increase that figure; actual costs depend on counsel and litigation choices. Hales could defend, settle, or abandon his application, with the consequences governed by the proceeding. Luthmann’s taunt is whether Hales will defend his claimed brand or retreat when required to answer questions himself.
The trademark fight will follow its calendar. The death threats demand attention now. Luthmann has supplied recordings and asked counsel and authorities to act. He wants to keep reporting without wondering whether the next package, telephone call, or encounter will turn a caller’s promises into an attack.
Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.
