Joseph Camp: Conservative Edgelord, Pro Se Nightmare and Jail Snitch

Blast Zone No. 48884 - 0 Comments
Set Up On:
Category: Snitches - Jailhouse
Last Known Other Address:
Joey Camp Snitch Paperwork:

Joseph Camp is a self-described conservative edgelord, pro se nightmare, social justice issues photographer, talent manager, and god fearing human, but he's also a jailhouse snitch. In 2011, Camp was a pre-trial detainee at Leavenworth Detention Center (LDC) formerly known as CCA Leavenworth in Kansas. There he was smashed out of his cell by a sex offender and told on him. A copy of Camp's complaint to prison staff is being uploaded as a PDF with this article. There are proper ways to deal with sex offenders in prison but letting them kick you out of your own house and snitching them out is not one of them. I've been aware of Camp's history for well over a month but found myself pre-occupied with subsequent discoveries some of which are trying to put Camp and his alleged associates in prison.


Snitching on your cellmate is not as bad as putting people in jail in the first place. That is what Camp's nemeses are trying to do to him and a married couple at the moment ( His archnemesis appears to be James McGibney of Camp has posted the names of McGibney's kids online. McGibney is understandably furious over Camp's reprehensible tactics, but it seems you don't need to target McGibney's kids to be targeted by McGibney. It looks like McGibney will target you if he thinks you've given Camp financial support, "I'm going after ANYONE who financially supports him" ( I consider that inappropriate because the only person responsible for what Joey Camp does is Joey Camp. Hypothetically, I would like to feel free to hire Joey Camp without being targeted for his other activities. I can think of several organizations and individuals against whom Camp's skills could be put to great use. Even if I could not, such targeting makes it more difficult for people to re-integrate into society, so should the campaign to send Camp back to prison succeed, he will be more likely to re-offend once released because people will be afraid to hire him.

I started following Bullyville a.k.a. James McGibney on Twitter shortly after seeing him in a Netflix documentary called The Most Hated Man on the Internet. McGibney seemed dedicated to blasting Hunter Moore for a good long while before announcing an upcoming Bullyville TV show targeting other people. McGibney's primary target appears to be Joey Camp. Camp's enemies consider him to be a serial internet stalker with a long list of victims amassed over the past decade. However, many of those claiming victimization at this point are at worst claiming to have been doxxed which is not a crime or falsely accused of pedophilia which might be a crime depending on where Camp is. Camp claims to be in South America right now but his online stalkers are convince they have undeniable proof of him being in Florida. The exception to that appears to be McGibney's children whose names were recently posted on Camp's Gab account. However, McGibney himself does appear to have used his own children in promotional material online or at least that is what a video by one of his associates appears to show ( That doesn't make posting their names alright.

The issue with McGibney's kids led to me having a falling out with Camp which culminated with him blocking me. I'd been talking to Camp a little bit because McGibney's online associates compared my writing to his pro se filings. Our first conversations were about the unconstitutionality of most revenge porn laws. Later our conversation turned to McGibney, but Camp was quick to ask me not to talk about McGibney because he doesn't consider "McFaggot" relevant anymore. When I wrote an article advising anyone contacted by a TV show called Bullyville to contact a lawyer, Camp posted the link and Bullyville referred to a quote from it as Camp "trying to intimidate his victims from coming on our TV show" ( The quote was not Camp at all but rather me. I was not trying to intimidate anyone from talking to Bullyville, but I do hope those contacted contact a lawyer before talking to the show it they think they might be asked to incriminate themselves or someone else. If the show is any good, it will likely move beyond McGibney's primary targets and focus on those currently unaware of being on his radar. If you think Bullyville might ask you to incriminate yourself or someone you know talk to a lawyer.

McGibney quickly sent me a direct message accusing one of Camp's followers of trying to contact his kids at school. I responded by letting him know I don't approve of that. Then I sent Camp a message thanking him for sharing my link, but also letting him know of the accusation. I told him I didn't approve of targeting kids and asked that he direct his followers not to contact anyone's kids for any reason. He responded with several comments I've never been able to read because he blocked me. Shortly after that he posted a court document containing the names of McGibney's kids. That is conduct I do not support, but at the same time I don't think he committed a crime. Camp appeared to be posting an old court document and told McGibney to say "hi" to his wife for him. McGibney's wife is well known and her name appears alongside her husband's in several mainstream news articles. Such conduct does not rise to the level of a true threat under federal law, so it cannot be considered internet stalking despite what McGibney's associates claim ( To charge Camp with internet stalking under federal law using the theory presented by "CredibleIntel" the government would need to prove he intentionally put McGibney, Danesh or a member of their families in fear for their physical safety. That is a high bar legally which cannot be met simply by posting the names of someone's kids or telling him to say "hi" to his high profile wife. Even contacting someone in person is not necessarily enough because that contact would have to include threatening conduct. Camp could stand outside McGibney's house with a sign and yell "hello" to his kids without committing a crime. He would have to do something else capable of elevating such an encounter from annoying, weird, and inappropriate to a threat of bodily harm. Something like what Andy Castillo did (

I am qualified to discredit internet stalking claims because I was once wrongfully indicted by the feds under the same statute but using a different theory. The theory in my case was substantial emotional distress which had no merit because you can't criminalize free speech based on claims of emotional distress. That argument is just as relevant today as it was when the feds dismissed the charge against me, but "CredibleIntel" argues a different theory. They claim Camp's conduct was intended to place people in fear of death or serious bodily injury. Anyone can claim an internet post made them fear for their life, so they need more than someone simply posting a name, home address, or pictures of people with vile comments. They need to show behavior like Castillo's which included specific threats of violence, or they need a pattern of behavior which is clearly intended to produce the same result without serving a legitimate purpose. Sometimes the latter can be satisfied by showing up physically at someone's home but even that behavior can be legal if politically motivated and peaceful (

I thought it was messed up how McGibney's been targeting Jennifer Couture and her husband for allegedly hiring Camp to smear Danesh Noshirvan. Noshirvan, better known as ThatDaneshGuy on Tiktok, habitually targets people by posting videos of them breaking laws, figuring out who they are, and getting them kidnapped by the government. Danesh claims responsibility for several past government kidnappings and nearly put himself in a position to claim responsibility for Couture's road rage charges, but the police report revealed her license plate is what led police to her ( I was disturbed by the online activities of McGibney and his associates to the point that I prioritized them as a greater threat to the public than Camp. If McGibney's TV show ends up being anything like his Twitter feed it will make getting people kidnapped by the government a priority. I'm all for people who've been bullied online saying something about it, but I draw the line at trying to put someone in prison for cyberbullying.

Some have accused Couture of physically showing up at Danesh's home. I have not seen any video footage of this alleged incident. One person claimed to have CCTV footage of it but wouldn't give it to me unless I removed an article about Danesh ( I've asked for links to any videos put out by Danesh or anyone else showing anyone at Danesh's home but have received nothing. Likewise, when I asked for any sex offender paperwork on Camp I was told "I have never claimed that Camp is listed as a sex offender" ( which confirmed my suspicion that Camp has never been convicted of a sex crime. Despite this several of his enemies accuse him of being a sex offender online ( Camp seems equally guilty seeing as how he accused several people of being pedophiles who've never been convicted of sex crimes either. Danesh and McGibney are of course alleged victims. I say "alleged" simply because for all I know they could both be closeted pedophiles but absent any evidence I won't accuse them.

Couture was convicted of several misdemeanors after being falsely accused of felonies due in part to a viral video ( She flipped out on Anjalyke Reed at a Dunkin Donuts, tried to grab Reed's phone, and backed her car up in Reed's direction before leaving. Nobody was hurt and nothing was damaged, but that didn't stop Reed from making a big deal out of it. Reed sent her video to Danesh and went to the cops. I thought that approach heavy handed under the circumstances. While I fully support Reed's decision to upload the video and publicly shame Couture for her flip out, I am adamantly against getting someone kidnapped by the government over it. Likewise, I am against efforts currently underway to thwart her effort to get off probation early. McGibney's associates repeatedly Tweet what they say are violations of her probation ( They clearly want to get her violated or at least keep her on paper as long as possible hoping to get her violated eventually. I'll always take a stand against such things because of a personal experience.

My personal experience was being on federal supervision while doing something the feds get a lot of complaints over. We had status conferences with the judge every few months during which my lawyers would renew my request for early termination. Every request was denied until I had just two weeks left at which point I was let off early for good behavior. That good behavior included being on supervision for two weeks shy of three years with zero violations. However, the judge denied my early termination requests citing the extraordinary nature of early termination in the federal system which is entirely an issue of judicial discretion. Generally, if a supervisee is the subject of complaints from the public on a regular basis they won't get off supervision early. The government doesn't even need to provide evidence of complaints to thwart early termination. There was one point when my P.O. came to talk to me saying the FBI would send "a couple suits" if he didn't ask me some questions for them. When my lawyers tried to get discovery from the government they called it an active investigation and the court didn't feel they should be compelled to turn anything over unless they charged me with a violation or a new crime. This will likely be the case at Couture's hearing on Halloween. The government will probably tell the court about all the complaints they've received and even though they might not prove a violation it will probably be enough to make the judge keep her on probation. I will usually speak out against efforts to keep someone on supervision, especially when those efforts appear motivated primarily not by the crime itself but rather political, ideological, social or economic objectives.

There are of course other accusations against Camp, but most of them appear too old to be considered for prosecution. Anything more than 5 years old is not chargeable. Bullyville Tweets out old information on a regular basis. Much of that information did not result in criminal charges. Some of it includes restraining orders and injunctions that Camp allegedly violated, but I've learned over the years not to trust claims made in restraining orders. Just about anyone can get a restraining order as long as they are willing to make certain accusations under oath. They don't need to prove anything.

Camp has been repeatedly targeted by Antifa while filming protests. They also accuse him of posting their personal information. That seems to be the most common reason people want Camp kidnapped by the government again. Posting personal information is not a crime, so that could explain why the government has not kidnapped him again yet.


Camp claims he was wrongfully classified as medium security by the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) which has since been rebranded as CoreCivic. His classification claim might have merit. I am intimately familiar with the classification system used by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) which is supposedly the same. I was wrongfully classified as high security due to a false allegation of escape which I eventually got overturned. The "escape" was really just a BOP incident report about me being placed in a police car at a halfway house against my will. I should have been medium security. Based on what I know of Camp's history at the time and the seriousness of his offense (hacking) he should have probably been low security.

Despite being in a medium security unit, Camp should have had recourse for dealing with his sexer celly Brian LeGault ( without needing staff intervention unless he was in a protective custody unit. That sex offender wouldn't have even been there to smash Camp out in a proper active medium security housing unit. In a normal general population situation, sexers like LeGault are taken care of quickly. You just go to your racial representative with evidence and the rest is automatic. There will likely be people waiting to put in work willing to back you up when evicting the sexer. How the eviction is handled depends on where you are. In the softest of units sexers are forced to move in with other sexers, better units simply threaten to smash them if they don't leave the unit, many places simply smash them out in front of the staff so its known they can't walk the yard there, and some places send torpedoes ( with shanks to stab them. All those options are preferable to getting beat up, snitching, and checking into protective custody (PC).

This is called a "career killer" in the feds because it means he will never be safe in general population again. The best he could hope for would be getting sent to a PC yard full of snitches, sex offenders, and gang dropouts. Unfortunately for him, it can take years to get to a PC yard. The BOP usually experiments with people like him to see if they can make it in general population a few times before finally sending them to a PC yard. PC cases are often run off or smashed off before being put in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) for their own protection. SHU is also the disciplinary unit, so they are on lockdown 23 hours a day, have limited access to commissary, can only make one phone call a month, may rarely access a small law library, and are almost always denied access to medical care. I know someone who died in a SHU because medical ignored him ( It often takes about 6 months for the transfer to be approved and the inmate moved to a new prison. The process repeats until they make it to a PC yard.

People like McGibney, Danesh, and just about anyone who's never been to prison probably don't realize they're endangering someone's life every time they try to get them kidnapped by the government. If people thought of calling the police as endangering someone's life, like they should, they probably wouldn't pick up the phone so much. Nobody should call the police without asking themselves, "do I really want to endanger someone's life today?" I don't see anything Joey Camp has done that would justify legally endangering his life over. A conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2161A ( would probably result in years of cruel treatment far worse than anything he appears to have done online. I don't agree with a lot of stuff Camp posts, but I'm glad someone like him can still find a place like Gab to express his views. If he can still have a platform in 2022 then maybe the rest of us will still have one in 2032.

Finally, check out the video below featuring an alleged Joey Camp threatening to call the police on someone.


Joseph Anthony Camp is a jailhouse snitch, but snitching on your celly is not as bad as trying to put people in prison in the first place.

Login to Comment using a Cop Blaster Account.


Register if you don't have a Cop Blaster account.