Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
3:24-cv-01117 · U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
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 that his online meat-shipping business drew a 2022 visit from Pennsylvania agriculture regulators, and that defendant Amos Miller (a competing organic farm) and several YouTube-based media outlets (“Off Grid with Doug and Stacy,” “Riverside Homestead Life,” “Maple Leaf Media”), later amplified by Fox News Network, mischaracterized an unrelated, year-old incident at Miller's farm as an active “raid,” diverting public sympathy and customers away from Tufano toward Miller. He further alleges Miller solicited hundreds of thousands of dollars through GiveSendGo and GoFundMe campaigns based on exaggerated claims while continuing to sell products normally, and pleads claims for deceptive/fraudulent business practices (18 Pa. C.S. § 4107), criminal conspiracy (18 Pa. C.S. § 903), and violations of Pennsylvania's charitable-solicitation statute, plus a request for pre-complaint discovery.
He seeks removal of the allegedly false content, a public acknowledgment of wrongdoing, return of the donated funds, and compensatory damages of no less than $100,000.
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: District court adopted Magistrate Judge Carlson's R&R in its entirety and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. Update 2026-08-25: The dismissal order (Doc. 13, Dec. 16, 2024) was read in full. It adopts Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson's report and recommendation in its entirety and dismisses the amended complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to comply with the court's Aug. 28, 2024 orders, directing the Clerk to mark the case closed. The Rule 41(b) ground was not previously recorded here.
Research status: Source-backed (dismissal order read in full via the RECAP document store)
Research notes: Final Dec. 16, 2024 order is now verified. The adopted R&R had described the case as legally infirm, without merit, involving frivolous claims and jurisdictional manipulation.
Findings recorded only where they are tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation.
Record labels distinguish final orders/opinions, reports and recommendations, non-final orders, and tentative/indexed ruling records.
R&R described the pro se case as legally infirm, said the claims were without merit, referred to frivolous claims and transparent attempts at jurisdictional manipulation, and recommended dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The district court later adopted the R&R in full on Dec. 16, 2024; that final adoption is recorded separately.
August 28, 2024 ruling source — storage.courtlistener.com ↗District court adopted Magistrate Judge Carlson's R&R in its entirety and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The adopted R&R had described the case as legally infirm, without merit, involving frivolous claims and jurisdictional manipulation. Update 2026-08-25: the order itself, read in full, dismisses the amended complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to comply with the court's Aug. 28, 2024 orders.
December 16, 2024 ruling source — courtlistener.com ↗Strength labels are research classifications, not judicial declarations that the litigant is vexatious.
Final order adopted in its entirety an R&R that had described the litigation as marked by frivolous claims and transparent attempts at jurisdictional manipulation and found the claims without merit; amended complaint dismissed with prejudice.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Tufano filed federal complaint C041 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Amos Miller and fundraising/media-related defendants (Fox News Network, GiveSendGo, GoFundMe, Maple Leaf Media, Off Grid with Doug and Stacy, Riverside Homestead Life).
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Tufano filed C001 in Lackawanna County against Amos Miller and related defendants, naming the same underlying Amos Miller dispute already pending federally as C041.
Source — ic-access.com ↗District court adopted Magistrate Judge Carlson's R&R in its entirety and dismissed C041's amended complaint with prejudice; the adopted R&R had described the case as legally infirm, without merit, involving frivolous claims and jurisdictional manipulation.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Tufano filed C081 in M.D. Pa. against the identical seven-defendant caption named in the dismissed C041, roughly 19 months after C041 was dismissed with prejudice on frivolous/meritless grounds. As of 2026-08-23 C081's docket is confirmed (filed 2026-07-29, Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella, nature of suit 320 Assault Libel and Slander, cause 28:1332, fee-paid at $405 rather than in forma pauperis), and three opening entries appear with no response or order docketed. The complaint itself remains unread, so no direct comparison of C081's claims with C041's has been made.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Direct review of C001's Verified Complaint via the Lackawanna County Prothonotary portal confirmed it names GoFundMe Inc., Off Grid with Doug and Stacy LLC, Riverside Homestead Life LLC, and Maple Leaf Media LLC — all four already established on the dismissed federal case C041 — and that C001 remains actively litigated (a 2026 motion-to-transfer-venue/order-to-show-cause sequence running through 6/16/2026).
Source — ic-access.com ↗Federal Miller case was filed July 8, 2024 and had an R&R recommending dismissal on Aug. 28, six days before the Lackawanna Miller case was filed.
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.
I mean and I remember when I uh when we got raided by the USDA at Frankie me [= Frankie's Free Range Meat] I was so stressed out for like two weeks the only thing I can stomach was like those French pastries just like the butter and the bread lightly sweet that's literally all I ate for like two weeks
A first-person account of a government enforcement action against his own business, delivered in passing inside a food video with no legal framing at all. It is dispute/damages background, not filing conduct — he describes no suit, no filing, no threat and no court, and the whole point of the anecdote is what he could stomach eating. Moderate rather than Context because it bears on the factual background of a tracked dispute rather than being general commentary; Moderate rather than Strong because there is no case link and no core factor. This is a statement, never a court finding and never a research classification about the agency's conduct.
Watch at 08:45 — youtube.com ↗they're lying again they're lying to steal money they did this back in July of 20122 [= 2022] when I was raided by the USDA my business they set up their own fake campaign to distract from me they did this whole Shop Story [= sob story] thing oh give us money give us money I personally didn't any of that no s story [= sob story] for me I didn't beg for money I didn't get a dime and they're doing it again Amos Miller the greedy Thief
States the central factual theory of the tracked Miller litigation — a 2022 USDA action against his own business, and a Miller fundraising campaign allegedly staged to divert attention from it — naming Amos Miller directly. The conduct described is the opponent's, and no filing of his own is mentioned anywhere in the quote, which fixes the tier below Strong. (Tier: Moderate — No filing-conduct factor)
Watch at 00:11 — youtube.com ↗at most he got jerked around by his lawyer for 55 grand and he owes a $5,000 fine either way at this point he's stolen over $300,000 in total
The $300,000 figure is the one number in this video with an independent point of comparison: another researched statement, from a different video, quotes “people like Amos Miller that steal $300,000 from people fraudulently”. The same figure therefore appears in the channel's account in January 2024 and again years later. That is a fact about the channel's consistency, not corroboration of the amount. And within this very sentence the fine is $5,000 where 19 seconds earlier it was $50,000 — the two disagree and are not reconciled here. The tier is Moderate, with no filing-conduct factor.
Watch at 04:04 — youtube.com ↗let me explain what Amos Miller did to me for those of you still defending him my meek [= meat] business was rated [= raided] by the USDA in summer of 2022 as soon as I announced that on social media Amos Miller pretended to be rated [= raided] at the same time diverting attention from me and starting a fundraiser for himself so instead of helping me or speaking up for me he kicked me while I was down using my suffering and Misfortune to to fraudulently build his own wealth
Names Amos Miller, a tracked defendant, and states, in thirty-three seconds and in the first person, the complete factual theory that the tracked Miller complaints later plead — a 2022 USDA action against his own meat business, Miller allegedly staging a simultaneous raid narrative to divert attention, and a fundraiser built on it. It describes the opposing party's conduct, not any filing of his own, which is what fixes the tier at Moderate rather than Strong.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗AMS [= Amos] Miller sent out an email today saying most of their food products are available yet on their fundraising campaign they claim to be out of business so you can't tell me that this guy isn't lying to make money
The specific deception alleged — soliciting donations on an out-of-business claim while continuing to sell normally — is the allegation C041's claims summary records as pleaded ("Miller solicited hundreds of thousands of dollars through GiveSendGo and GoFundMe campaigns based on exaggerated claims while continuing to sell products normally"). Its evidentiary value here is that the statement is made 184 days before that complaint was filed, and that "today" dates the underlying observation rather than leaving it undated. Again the conduct described is the opponent's, not a filing. (Tier: Moderate — No filing-conduct factor)
Watch at 00:44 — youtube.com ↗last week we had a department of a come in and inspect uh you guys know like Mr scammer Miller nonsense uh well he didn't want Department of a to do an inspection so he denied him and then they had to get a warrant and inspect his farm so me we passed our department of a inspection with flying colors no Fox News main page with a $300,000 GoFundMe for Frankie boy huh right I guess that's what happened when you uh I guess that's what happens when you do things a legitimate way
This is the Miller-dispute theory of the case, with the defendant named, 49 days before C041 and 106 days before C001. C041's claims summary pleads that Amos Miller and "several YouTube-based media outlets, later amplified by Fox News Network, mischaracterized an unrelated, year-old incident at Miller's farm as an active 'raid,' diverting public sympathy and customers away from Tufano toward Miller", and that "Miller solicited hundreds of thousands of dollars through GiveSendGo and GoFundMe campaigns." Every load-bearing element of that pleading is in this thirty-three-second passage: the regulator, the enforcement action against Miller's farm, Fox News, the GoFundMe, and the diversion-of-sympathy framing — stated as grievance, with no lawsuit, court, lawyer or filing mentioned anywhere in the video. No filing-conduct factor is correct and is the point: this is the grievance in its pre-litigation state.
Watch at 01:15 — youtube.com ↗So, we made a private website on botbytabbond.com. You guys can donate. Uh some of you suggested GoFundMe, but GoFundMe is owned by these people. They would just shut it down. Uh that happened when I I tried to start my business years ago. We had a GoFundMe and uh they actually took down the page and we had to make a private donation page.
GoFundMe Inc and GiveSendGo LLC are both named defendants in C001, C041 and C081 — the Miller-related litigation, Tufano v. Miller et al. This is a first-person, dated narration of the conduct underlying that defendant pairing: a fundraising page taken down "years ago" when he "tried to start my business." C041 was filed 2024-07-08 and C001 on 2024-09-03, so both were already on file when this was published — post-filing narration of the grievance, not a pre-filing announcement. It also records his stated reason for not using a fundraising platform this time, which is directly responsive to the same grievance.
Watch at 00:46 — youtube.com ↗One of you guys suggested I start a give send go. But you don't understand that the elite control all these platforms and this doctor is so connected that there is no way they are going to allow me to collect any money for what this guy did to me. You can't even leave a Google review. These people will continue to censor, shadowban, and harass me.
"Give send go" resolves to GiveSendGo LLC, a tracked defendant named in C001 (Lackawanna 2024-06106, filed 2024-09-03, pending) and C041 (M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-01117, filed 2024-07-08, closed) — both in the Miller-related litigation group, the Amos Miller fundraising and media grouping. The notable thing is the cross-dispute posture: on 2025-05-06 he is publicly contemplating raising money on a platform he was concurrently suing in a pending action over that platform allegedly removing his campaigns, and he predicts in advance that it will not let him collect. Google is likewise a tracked defendant, though only later (C084, filed 2026-08-05), so on this date the Google reference is not yet a party reference. Party statement, no source offered.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗um that it's the same website that um that Amos Miller fraudulently got $300,000 in donations when he faked he faked his farm getting raided by the USDA and then he got $300,000 in donations. Basically stole people's money. Yeah. Here I am sitting with my eyes gouged out half blind and I got 20 bucks.
This restates, on camera, the substance of what C001/C041 plead — that Miller solicited donations through GiveSendGo on an exaggerated account of a raid on his farm, with C001 seeking "no less than $300,000". It is delivered as an aside about his own fundraiser, not as commentary on a case: no court, docket or filing is mentioned, and the federal version (C041) had already been dismissed with prejudice five months earlier.
Watch at 11:33 — youtube.com ↗This is why you should never donate money online to anyone, especially if they're getting a lot of views. Because the elite secret society members, these people control all online platforms and they only funnel money to themselves. If you're not in the club, regardless of what happens to you, they won't let you raise money.
The Miller-related grievance in its general form. It is near-verbatim the framing already recorded from another video — "all these websites are for people in the club, members of the elite … if you're not part of them, they will ban your campaign" — and in two further researched statements. This video is another dated instance of the same statement; its value is chronological, not novel content.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗When these clowns like Amos Miller pretend they got raided by the USDA and raised $300,000, he stole $300,000 from people and people feel bad for him. No one knows the truth.
The only named party in the video, and he is tracked: Amos Miller is a defendant in C001 (Tufano v. Miller, Lackawanna 2024-06106, filed 2024-09-03, pending), C041 (Tufano v. Miller et al, M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-01117, filed 2024-07-08, dismissed) and C081 (M.D. Pa. 3:26-cv-02134, filed 2026-07-29) — all part of the Miller-related dispute group, described in the dispute-group record as "repeated litigation involving Amos Miller and associated fundraising/media defendants," whose defendant roster in all three actions is the identical seven names including GiveSendGo LLC and GoFundMe Inc. The quote also states the grievance theory behind that group in a way the case records do not: that a rival raised money through crowdfunding while his own campaigns were removed. Miller is a tracked party, so the name is not withheld. This research takes no position on whether the theft allegation is true; no source for it is offered on camera.
Watch at 00:41 — youtube.com ↗I mean, I think one of my lawsuits is actually against them, too. I could I could probably file a new one against them now for discrimination,
Two pieces of filing conduct in one sentence: he confirms that one of his existing lawsuits is against the crowdfunding platforms, and then says he could file a new one against them for discrimination arising from the 2025 takedown of his own campaign. Recorded as a statement of intent, not as evidence any such suit exists. The video cuts off mid-sentence here, so the quote must not be read as saying more than it does.
Why this classification: A prospective action against defendants he is already suing is real filing-pattern material, but the grievance he describes is a different wrong from the claims already pleaded against them, so repeat filing on the same dispute does not apply and, without a core factor, the tier is Moderate.
Watch at 00:51 — youtube.com ↗Some of you guys commented to make a GoFundMe, but I have in the past and they always take it down. Kickstarter, GoFundMe, Gibson Go, all these websites are for people in the club, members of the elite. These websites funnel money to those people and if you're not part of them, they will ban your campaign.
Names GoFundMe and, through a caption garble corrected in research, GiveSendGo, both tracked defendants, and alleges that crowdfunding platforms ban the campaigns of people outside a favoured group. It states the underlying grievance between a federal dismissal and a later action against the same lineup.
Why this classification: Moderate because two tracked defendants are named and the grievance matches what those cases plead, while no filing, court, case or lawyer is mentioned anywhere in the video and no filing conduct is described.
Watch / source — 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. Miller et al (3:24-cv-01117)". Research last verified September 23, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/3-24-cv-01117-tufano-v-miller-et-al/