Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Case research · C019
Tufano v. Saladino
2025-05793 · Lackawanna County
Pending; Motion for Default Judgment filed 2026-02-19, no order enteredPennsylvania
CourtLackawanna County
FiledJuly 29, 2025
StatusPending; Motion for Default Judgment filed 2026-02-19, no order entered
Outcome—
Final disposition—
JurisdictionPennsylvania
Pro se—
Current / transferee court—
Transferred case—
Last researchedSeptember 23, 2026
About this case
Evidentiary treatment: This summarizes the plaintiff's own allegations as stated in the complaint or docket record cited below. It reflects what was filed, not a court finding, and is not a determination that the allegations are true.
Plaintiff alleges Dr. Paul Saladino stole and republished Tufano's original health/nutrition research and content as his own on social media, generating substantial views and revenue (fraud); that Saladino added Tufano's business entity, Frankie's Free Range Meat LLC, as a defendant in a separate, already-pending federal suit (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, No. 7:20-cv-09346) specifically to harm that business (tortious interference); and that Saladino, Tufano's own former attorney Jeffrey Davis, co-counsel David D.
Lin, and members of a Masonic lodge (White Plains Lodge #473) and "The Illuminati" secretly conspired to manipulate the federal case's outcome against him (civil conspiracy). Separately alleges Davis committed legal malpractice by failing to notify him of a default filing in the federal case. Relief sought: damages equal to 50% of Saladino's gross business sales, 100% of his gross social-media income, 50% of his gross book sales, plus reimbursement of legal expenses from Davis.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Research status: Source-backed (direct LPA portal docket + case detail); defendant list and overlapping causes of action against C055 confirmed (see VI021)
Research notes: A separate original federal complaint, C055 (3:25-cv-01400), was filed the same day, July 29, 2025. The federal docket names Paul Saladino, Jeffrey Davis, David D. Lin, White Plains Lodge #473 and The Illuminati. Because C055 Filing 1 is an original COMPLAINT rather than a Notice of Removal, do not treat C019/C055 as the same action without comparing the state pleading. Direct review of the Lackawanna Verified Complaint confirms all 5 defendants match the federal caption exactly, and the complaint brings Fraud, Tortious Interference, and Civil Conspiracy counts overlapping C055's five causes of action (see VI021). The case remains open with no disposition; a Motion for Default Judgment was filed 2026-02-19 but not yet ruled on. A full paragraph-by-paragraph factual comparison of the two complaints has not been performed.
Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
ModerateConcurrent same-day original federal complaint filed against same core defendants (Saladino trilogy)
A Lackawanna County Saladino complaint (C019, 2025-05793) was filed the same day, July 29, 2025, as the original federal Saladino complaint C055 (3:25-cv-01400) — the second of the already-documented C048/C055/C059 trilogy. Direct review of C019's Verified Complaint confirms all five named defendants match C055's federal caption exactly, and C019 brings Fraud, Tortious Interference, and Civil Conspiracy counts overlapping C055's five causes of action. C019 remains open with no disposition (a Motion for Default Judgment was filed 2026-02-19 but not yet ruled on); a full paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of the two complaints' factual allegations has not been performed.
No adjudication in C019 itself; direct review of the state Verified Complaint confirms all 5 defendants (Paul Saladino MD, Jeffrey Davis Esq, David D. Lin Esq, White Plains Lodge #473, The Illuminati) match C055's federal caption exactly, and the complaint's Fraud, Tortious Interference, and Civil Conspiracy counts substantially overlap with C055's five causes of action (which the trilogy R&R already found identical to C048's).
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Concurrent same-day complaint filed (state court)
A Lackawanna County Saladino complaint (C019, 2025-05793) was filed the same day as the original federal Saladino complaint C055 (3:25-cv-01400). Direct review of C019's Verified Complaint confirms all five named defendants (Paul Saladino MD, Jeffrey Davis Esq, David D. Lin Esq, White Plains Lodge #473, The Illuminati) match C055's federal caption exactly, and C019 brings Fraud, Tortious Interference, and Civil Conspiracy counts overlapping C055's five causes of action.
Same-day parallel original complaints (defendants/claims confirmed overlapping)Medium
The Lackawanna compilation and federal docket share the same date/title context; federal Filing 1 is an original complaint, not a removal. Direct review of the state Verified Complaint confirms all 5 defendants match the federal caption exactly, and its Fraud, Tortious Interference, and Civil Conspiracy counts overlap C055's five causes of action (see VI021).
Same action: No · Yes - direct LPA complaint reviewed; defendants and overlapping claims confirmed (see VI021)
Public statements are displayed separately from court findings. Quotations are transcribed from the video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and timestamped from the caption cues covering the passage quoted. The Strong / Moderate / Context tier is this project’s research classification of how closely a statement bears on the documented filing patterns — it is not a judicial finding. Any second badge names the filing-restriction factor the statement’s own words describe; it records what the speaker said, not that a court found it.
How quotations are marked: An ellipsis (…) inside a quotation marks words left out between two passages of the same video, which can sit some minutes apart. The omitted wording is not reproduced here, and a clip on the statement supercut plays the whole span from the quotation’s first word to its last — so it includes the omitted material. Quotations without an ellipsis are continuous speech.
And that's actually what's happening with the um the Saladino case. I filed a new one and I actually named, you know, the lawyer that screwed me over. I named the secret societies and I named That's a that was filed. I could talk about that in a separate video
An announcement of a completed filing on an already-litigated dispute, with its defendant composition described rather than listed. C055 and C019 were both filed 2025-07-29, two days before publication, and both name exactly what he describes — a lawyer (Jeffrey Davis Esq; David D. Lin Esq) and secret societies (The Illuminati; White Plains Lodge #473) alongside Paul Saladino MD.
Uh I guess we'll find out what happens with the Saladin court case. Well, technically I already tried it once. I filed that case like five or six months ago and the judge dismissed it for failure to state a claim or something and then like I appealed it. It went to court of appeals. They didn't mail me the paperwork and then they dismissed it because I didn't pay the court fee or something. So, I had to refile it.
This is the speaker's own first-person account of the sequence the tracker records as a repeat-filing pair. He names the dispute ("the Saladin[o] court case"), dates his first attempt ("five or six months ago"), states the ground of dismissal ("failure to state a claim"), states that the appeal was itself dismissed on a fee/notice failure, and says he refiled as a result. Every element is checkable against the docket data and every element matches: C048 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00262) was filed 2025-02-12 — 5.6 months before this video published — and dismissed 2025-06-11 after an R&R recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim with leave to amend that he did not use. C055 (3:25-cv-01400) was filed 2025-07-29, two days before publication, and carries previous_related_case_id: C048 and refiling_of_prior_case: Yes. The appellate leg he describes is not currently in the tracker's C048 row and is a research lead. The dismissal-to-refiling core factor is satisfied by the new action, not by the appeal: the appeal is the ordinary appellate remedy and is expressly excluded by the factor's definition. The Strong tier rests on the refiling.
because uh basically this corrupt secret society Illuminati agent, whatever group he's a part of, is using his connection to likely Freemason judge uh to just go after me and ruin my life because this case is completely unjustified.
this is the only place the title's claim is actually spoken. Note he hedges it — "likely Freemason judge" — and at this point he names neither the plaintiff nor the judge. The judge is not named until [7:25]; the plaintiff is never named in the entire video (he states at [1:10] that the injunction bars him from doing so).
Ever since I started my business in 2019, it's been a struggle against the secret society members, the elite, just to keep things going. And whether they're hiring people to directly place chargebacks, whether they're leaving fake reviews and slandering my business, it's always something.
This is the pleaded theory of the Shopify / business-platform dispute, stated on camera. The case tracker describes C040 as raising a "chargeback conspiracy", and describes C054 as "the same chargebacks-as-conspiracy theory and the same 18 U.S.C. 241 count that C040 lost", re-pled against a substantially identical defendant list. Here that theory is stated in his own words — organised actors "hiring people to directly place chargebacks" — on a dated public record, while four Shopify chargeback actions were live (C047, C050, C054, C095). It also fixes his business start date at 2019, a checkable fact. He describes no filing conduct: no case, court, docket, filing, lawyer or judge is named anywhere.
Each video has its own research page with its verified publish date, timestamped statements and case links. A researched link between a video and a docket record is not a finding of causation in either direction.
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Tufano v. Saladino (2025-05793)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/2025-05793-tufano-v-saladino/