Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
2026-00637 · 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.
Plaintiff Frank Tufano, pro se, filed this complaint in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas (later removed to federal court as 3:26-cv-00542, tracked separately as C064) bringing claims for fraud/fraudulent concealment (42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524) and civil conspiracy, plus a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 241, against former S.D.N.Y. judge Roman Stephen Nelson, Judith C. McCarthy, his own former attorneys Jeffrey Davis, Esq. and David D. Lin, Esq., Paul Saladino, MD, and “White Plains Lodge #473” (a Masonic lodge). He alleges these defendants — fellow Freemasons bound by oaths of secrecy — conspired to obtain a fraudulent default judgment against him in the earlier Saladino v. Tufano federal case, denying him due process and a jury trial.
He seeks roughly $3.3 million for lost business, $2.3 million for pain and suffering, and $330,000 reimbursing the challenged judgment, plus a jury trial.
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: Removed to the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 4, 2026. The latest accessible public docket snapshot showed a motion to dismiss and service-related proceedings; no final disposition was verified. Update 2026-09-03: The federal action this case became after removal (C064, M.D. Pa. 3:26-cv-00542) was dismissed and closed on Sept. 1, 2026 on an order adopting a report and recommendation and granting both motions to dismiss. See C064 for the order detail.
Research status: Docket snapshot; federal companion (C064) closure source-backed 2026-09-03
Research notes: Notice of Removal identifies Lackawanna County case 2026-CV-637. C030 and C064 are the same action before/after removal. The accessible docket snapshot runs through April 28, 2026.
Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
The removed federal action (M.D. Pa. 3:26-cv-00542) was dismissed and closed. The order adopted the Aug. 12, 2026 report and recommendation in its entirety, granted both motions to dismiss, and denied the plaintiff’s motion to strike as an objection.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Federal Notice of Removal identifies Lackawanna 2026-CV-637.
Federal source — dockets.justia.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.
Some of you guys are joking to sue the judge, and I've done that, but what do you expect? They just throw out the case. This is what happened when I sued the judge in the Saladin lawsuit, Nelson Staffen Roman. It was just thrown out last week.
The speaker states, in his own words, that he sued the judge who presided over the Saladino action and that the suit was dismissed "last week." Both halves are independently corroborated by the dataset: C030/C064 (*Tufano v. Nelson*) names Roman Stephen Nelson (D0230) as a defendant, and its closing order was entered 2026-09-01, nine days before publication. It cannot reach Strong because neither factor is one of the three core filing-conduct factors — confirming a filing and reporting a ruling against himself are a docket fact and an announcement, not repeat-filing conduct.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗And I didn't know that these judges could deny your right to a jury trial. And every single lawsuit I filed, I've always requested a jury trial. It's your amendment right, but I guess Frank Tufano isn't entitled to one.
This restates, on camera, the same jury-trial theory that C030/C064's claims summary records as pleaded — that the defendants denied him due process and a jury trial. It is the speaker's characterisation of how courts have treated his filings, not a court's finding, and it gives no count of filings, so `Self-reported filing volume` does not apply despite the phrase "every single lawsuit I filed."
Watch at 00:13 — 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. "Tufano v. Nelson (2026-00637)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/2026-00637-tufano-v-nelson/