Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
2025-07808 · Lackawanna County
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.
Fidelity Deposit & Discount Bank filed a Complaint in Confession of Judgment — a Pennsylvania procedure letting a creditor obtain judgment directly, without trial, under a confession-of-judgment clause in a signed loan or financing document — against Free Range Meat LLC, FRM LLC, and Frank Tufano individually. Judgment of $14,228.28 was entered against all three on filing. The specific note terms and default basis were not independently read this session.
This page separates court/ruling records, party filings, research classifications, secondary sources and public statements. Unknown or unresolved fields remain labelled as such.
Outcome reason: Fidelity Deposit & Discount Bank filed a Complaint in Confession of Judgment against Free Range Meat LLC, FRM LLC, and Frank Tufano individually on 2025-09-24, with judgment of $14,228.28 entered against all three defendants on filing. On 2026-02-06, plaintiff's own counsel (Cipriani & Werner) filed a Praecipe for Discontinuance with Prejudice, ending the action. The underlying note terms and default basis were not independently read. Free Range Meat LLC and FRM LLC are now recorded as named parties on this case; the Lackawanna Judgment Index confirms the $14,228.28 confession judgment was indexed against both company names. The same firm discontinued the companion mortgage foreclosure, C103, on the same day.
Research status: Source-backed (direct LPA portal docket + case detail)
Research notes: Confirmed by direct review of the Complaint in Confession of Judgment and the Praecipe for Discontinuance via the Lackawanna Prothonotary's portal. This is a debt-collection matter in which Fidelity Deposit & Discount Bank is plaintiff and Tufano (individually, alongside his companies Free Range Meat LLC and FRM LLC) is defendant -- the reverse of most other cases in this tracker.
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Two days later the same bank filed C022, a Complaint in Confession of Judgment against Free Range Meat LLC, FRM LLC and Frank Tufano individually, with $14,228.28 entered against all three on filing.
Source — ic-access.com ↗Four days later the bank's counsel, Cipriani & Werner, filed Praecipes for Discontinuance with Prejudice in both C103 and C022 - the same day, by the same firm, with consecutive document keys on the Prothonotary's document server.
Source — ic-access.com ↗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.
We're here in the freezer down at Frankie's Herage Me. And this is the reason I left New York and got this building because to put a freezer up that is this size, 24x 24x 40 ft, which cost a fortune, probably over a million dollars, and this whole building, it was basically a few hundred,000 that I got a loan on. So, it was really the only option, and it was still within a few hours of the city.
Two distinct pieces of background that this research does not otherwise carry in the speaker's own words. First, the loan on the business premises. He states the building was acquired with a loan of "a few hundred thousand". The Fidelity Bank mortgage dispute is precisely a fight over a commercial mortgage on the business premises: C009 (Tufano v. Fidelity Bank, Lackawanna 2025-03929, filed 2025-05-27, discontinued with prejudice 2026-02-02), C103 (Fidelity Bank v. FRM LLC, Lackawanna 2025-07728, filed 2025-09-22 — the mortgage foreclosure on 25 Dundaff Street, in which a writ of execution and a Pa.R.C.P. 3129.1 affidavit issued 2025-12-01) and C022 (Fidelity Bank v. Free Range Meat LLC, 2025-07808, confession of judgment). This video is published between the first and the second of those, and it is a first-person description of the financed asset at the centre of them. Second, the relocation. "This is the reason I left New York… it was still within a few hours of the city" is a plain statement that the move out of New York was driven by the cost of the cold-storage facility — an ordinary commercial reason. That matters because the New York-to-Pennsylvania move sits behind the venue of most tracked filings, and behind the New York arbitration and state matters in the Starowicz-related litigation; his own stated reason for the move is worth recording rather than leaving the question open. It describes no filing conduct — no suit, no count, no ruling, no court. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor).
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗The action still in court. So, I don't know how they were able to get this issued. I think they filed a separate lawsuit against the LLC, which isn't valid. It's just a holding company. And now I got this notice in the mail from the sheriff saying they're going to auction it off because it's a commercial mortgage foreclosure.
A first person account of a counterparty splitting proceedings between a personal action and a separate action against his limited liability company, while the action he brought is said to be still in court. This is the entity name split described from the inside, the phenomenon that makes company name docket searches necessary. His remark that the separate suit is not valid is his own characterisation, not a ruling.
Why this classification: Describes filings made by the opposing side and their effect on him rather than filings of his own, and names no entity, bank, court or docket number beyond the LLC.
Watch at 00:16 — youtube.com ↗And then today, what's [ __ ] insane is I got a notice that my building's being foreclosed on. Now, I filed a lawsuit last year. This issue is in the court system. It was being resolved, but they went to some crooked lawyer and filed new lawsuits against different entities and got a judgment against my building.
He confirms a suit he filed the previous year over the bank dispute and describes the bank filing new lawsuits against different entities that produced a judgment against his building, on the day he says a foreclosure notice arrived.
Why this classification: Moderate because it confirms a filing he made, which is a filing-conduct factor but not one of the three core factors, so Strong is unavailable. Both halves match the tracker on dates and subject matter, but he names no case number, no court and no entity, so the case links are inferences from the record rather than identifications he made.
Watch at 01:02 — youtube.com ↗Now, I responded to those lawsuits, but the judge probably ignore them because you can't represent yourself prosay. However, I also filed motions to consolidate in my prosay case, which I'm guessing the judge didn't even bother to look at.
Confirms filings he has made, responses to the bank's actions and motions to consolidate, and alleges in the same breath that the judge disregards them because he is unrepresented.
Why this classification: Moderate on two counts that are both non-core: he confirms filings he has made, and he alleges that the forum is disregarding them. The consolidation motions are a concrete and checkable docket claim, which is what gives this quote its value; the disregard is an expectation he states, not a ruling, and no judge is named or identifiable.
Watch at 01:25 — youtube.com ↗So I ended up filing a lawsuit in May of last year and that's been going through the courts. But the bank being the crooks they are had their lawyer file other lawsuits against my other LLC's for the same issue. But since it's the same mortgage issue, they shouldn't have done that. Of course, the Lacawana County Court pushed their lawyers documents through and they got a judgment against me. So, Fidelity Bank circumvented my lawsuit.
Three docket facts stated from memory - a suit he filed in May 2025, a responsive action against his LLC, and a judgment entered against him - each of which corresponds to a tracked record.
Why this classification: Confirms his own filings and describes a judgment entered against him. The account is of separate actions by different parties rather than his own repeat filing on one grievance.
Watch at 02:46 — youtube.com ↗You guys know we've been having a hard time with the uh bank trying to foreclose on the property. Thankfully, uh we got a lot of orders and we had enough working capital to pay off the bank loan and just No, we didn't really pay off the bank loan. We came to an agreement in the court and I paid the bank X amount of money. It wasn't too crazy, but you know, it was enough money that I I still am not able to make my bills, but you know, they're not necessarily bills that need to be paid. It's not like I'm losing my building anymore.
the strongest finding in this slice. This is the speaker's own account of why the four Fidelity Bank dockets ended when they did — a negotiated payment, reached "in the court", that stopped the sheriff's sale of his building. A praecipe for discontinuance does not state its consideration, so the docket record cannot supply this; the video can. He self-corrects mid-sentence from "pay off the bank loan" to "we came to an agreement", which is the substantive detail. Tier is Moderate, not Strong: the Strong rubric requires a core filing-conduct factor and this describes a settlement, not a filing. The factor is No filing-conduct factor for the same reason — a negotiated discontinuance is neither a filing he made nor a ruling against him — and the outcome itself is written up here so the call stays auditable.
Watch at 00:04 — youtube.com ↗And as I have stated, I've had people file lawsuits against me, against my different businesses. They did the exact same thing. They mailed me the complaint. I couldn't or didn't respond. They entered the default and then the motion for default was granted the day it was filed in the courthouse.
The comparison on which his whole grievance rests — that the same procedure produced a same-day default judgment when he was the defendant, but nothing when he is the plaintiff. Checkable: the tracked dataset already contains at least one case filed against him (C022, recorded as closed/discontinued with prejudice, found-6 pass). Whether any such case produced a same-day default judgment is a concrete docket question.
Why this classification: Contrasts his own unruled default motions with suits filed against him where, he says, default was granted the day it was sought.
Watch at 01:35 — youtube.com ↗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. "Fidelity Bank v. Free Range Meat LLC (2025-07808)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/2025-07808-fidelity-bank-v-free-range-meat-llc/