Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
7:20-cv-09346 · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
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 Dr. Saladino alleges claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and (d) (false designation of origin and federal cybersquatting), New York General Business Law §§ 148 and 349, and defamation, against Frank Tufano and his company, Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC — as expressly recited in the court's November 4, 2021 order summarizing the case's procedural background.
The original complaint was filed November 7, 2020 and later amended; Tufano initially answered with a counterclaim before both defendants were found in default, and the docket reflects a protracted history of default, vacatur motions, and proceedings toward a default judgment/damages inquest. The publicly available docket does not reproduce the complaint's specific factual narrative beyond the causes of action identified by the court.
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: The action proceeded by default after the defendants failed to answer the amended complaint. In July 2022 the court denied a motion to vacate the entries of default, finding the defaults willful and no meritorious defense. A default judgment/injunction was entered Jan. 30, 2025; post-judgment motions and appeal-related activity continued through at least June 2026. Update 2026-08-15: Final Judgment entered May 21, 2026: $1 nominal damages, $52,500 punitive damages, $100,000 statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(d), $76,514 in attorney's fees, and $4,867.55 in costs; the clerk was directed to close the case. Tufano filed Notices of Appeal May 26 and May 28, 2026. His Emergency Motion to Dismiss the Judgment was denied May 27, 2026; his Emergency Motion to Stay the Judgment Pending Appeal was denied June 11, 2026 (citing Nken v. Holder) -- both orders read in full. The newest docket entry is a "USCA Order - Other" filed Aug. 13, 2026 ; the appeal remains pending at the Second Circuit. Update 2026-08-25: The Aug. 13, 2026 docket entry (ECF 139) was read in full. It is an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dated Aug. 12, 2026 (Bianco, Menashi and Kahn, Circuit Judges) denying Tufano's motion to stay the district court judgment, citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35 (2009), and stating that the appeals "will continue in the ordinary course." The order's caption establishes the appellate docket numbers as Second Circuit Nos. 26-302 (L) and 26-1487 (Con), consolidated, and names Attorney David D. Lin as a third-party defendant. A stay has now been denied twice on the same Nken ground: by the district court on June 11, 2026 and by the Second Circuit on Aug. 12, 2026. Update 2026-10-03: Two of the three appeals are resolved. A mandate entered on the district docket Sept. 25, 2026 (Doc. 140) was read in full: it carries a Second Circuit order of July 30, 2026 recording that the appellant’s Form D-P, due June 11, 2026, was never filed, that the case is "deemed in default of FRAP 12(b), and LR 12.3," and that the appeal "will be dismissed effective August 20, 2026" unless the form were filed. The document bears a mandate issued Sept. 24, 2026. That order disposes of No. 26-1487 alone; its caption names that number only, even though an earlier order had been captioned in both consolidated appeals, and no mandate or dismissal order for No. 26-302 appears anywhere on the district docket through Sept. 25, 2026. No. 26-302 is therefore still recorded as pending. Separately, the mandate docketed Jan. 22, 2026 (Doc. 120) is confirmed to have terminated No. 25-2065: the Second Circuit’s own docket records an order of Dec. 31, 2025 dismissing the appeals and a certified copy issued as the mandate on Jan. 21, 2026, one day before it reached the district docket.
Research status: Source-backed through the Aug. 13, 2026 docket entry (Second Circuit order read in full)
Research notes: Tufano was initially represented, counsel was relieved Feb. 23, 2021, and he was permitted to proceed pro se. The Jan. 29, 2026 Opinion & Order denied motions to vacate the inquest, file a third-party complaint, disqualify the judge/demand a trial, and stay proceedings; it struck the improperly filed third-party complaint. On June 11, 2026 an emergency stay pending appeal was denied. Update 2026-08-25: This action has produced three separate Second Circuit appeals, not one. An earlier appeal, No. 25-2065, drew an order dated Aug. 27, 2025 stating that the magistrate judge order appealed from "appears to be non-appealable" and directing Tufano either to set out the basis for appellate jurisdiction or to withdraw the appeal; the "USCA Mandate" docketed Jan. 22, 2026 most likely closed it, but that entry was not read and the attribution is an inference, not a finding. An intermediate order of Apr. 10, 2026 (Merriam, C.J.) referred the stay motion to a motions panel and denied an administrative stay. A "25-1954" docket number also appears for this caption. An earlier pass treated it as an error repeated by web summaries, because the order text gives 25-2065. That is corrected as of Oct. 3, 2026: the Second Circuit publishes a docket under No. 25-1954 with its own caption, opening date of Aug. 13, 2025, party block and entry numbering, including a docketing-fee payment carrying no cross-reference to any other appeal. The two appeals were carried and disposed of together, and the orders of Dec. 31, 2025 and the mandate of Jan. 21, 2026 are each stamped with both numbers. No. 25-1954 is now recorded as a separate appeal of this action. The free record does not print the district docket number it was taken from, so the link rests on the identical caption, on the consolidation with an appeal already established as this case’s, and on the mandate reaching this docket the day after issuance.
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.
The court denied the defendants' motion to vacate the entries of default, holding that the defaults were willful and that the defendants failed to present a meritorious defense.
July 12, 2022 ruling source — courtlistener.com ↗A later federal R&R recounts that Saladino obtained a default judgment on Jan. 30, 2025 enjoining Tufano from, among other things, making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole or improperly used Tufano's or another party's work.
January 30, 2025 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗The court denied Tufano's motions to vacate the inquest, file a third-party complaint, disqualify the court/demand a trial, and stay the proceedings, and struck the improperly filed third-party complaint. In denying a stay, it noted the defendants had willfully defaulted and caused significant delay.
January 29, 2026 ruling source — courtlistener.com ↗The court denied an emergency motion to stay judgment pending appeal, stating that the motion largely reasserted arguments previously raised and rejected and identified no new facts, evidence or controlling authority warranting a stay.
June 11, 2026 ruling source — courtlistener.com ↗Final judgment entered: $1 nominal damages, $52,500 punitive damages, $100,000 statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125(d), $76,514 in attorney's fees, and $4,867.55 in costs; clerk directed to close the case.
May 21, 2026 ruling source — courtlistener.com ↗Denied Tufano's emergency motion to stay the judgment pending appeal, citing Nken v. Holder; his emergency motion to dismiss the judgment had already been denied May 27, 2026.
June 11, 2026 ruling source — courtlistener.com ↗Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, entered on the consolidated appeals Nos. 26-302 (L) and 26-1487 (Con) and filed on the district docket Aug. 13, 2026 as ECF 139. The panel (Bianco, Menashi and Kahn, Circuit Judges) denied Tufano's motion to stay the district court judgment, citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434-35 (2009), and stated that the appeals "will continue in the ordinary course." The Judge field is left blank because this is a per curiam panel order and is not attributable to a single judge. This is the second denial of a stay on the same Nken ground, after the district court's denial of June 11, 2026.
August 12, 2026 ruling source — storage.courtlistener.com ↗United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 25-2065. The court recorded that Tufano had appealed from a magistrate judge order of 2025-08-21 and that the order 'appears to be non-appealable' under 28 U.S.C. 1291, 1292 and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), (c)(1), advising him that the order 'may be appropriate for the district judge to review upon Appellant's filing of objections'. It ordered him to file a letter by 2025-09-10 either setting out the claimed basis for appellate jurisdiction or withdrawing the appeal, failing which the appeal would be referred to a panel to determine the court's jurisdiction. Order read in full as filed on the district docket.
August 27, 2025 ruling source — storage.courtlistener.com ↗United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 26-302. On Tufano's pro se motion for a stay of the district court proceedings pending appeal, the court referred the motion to a motions panel and, 'To the extent Appellant requests an administrative stay pending decision by a panel', denied that request. Order read in full as filed on the district docket.
April 10, 2026 ruling source — storage.courtlistener.com ↗Entered per curiam. Recorded that the appellant’s Form D-P, due June 11, 2026, had not been filed, held the case in default of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12(b) and Local Rule 12.3, and provided that the appeal at No. 26-1487 would be dismissed effective Aug. 20, 2026 unless the form were filed. The order issued as a mandate on Sept. 24, 2026 and was entered on the district docket the following day. It is captioned in No. 26-1487 alone and so disposes of that appeal only, not of No. 26-302, with which it had been consolidated.
July 30, 2026 ruling source — storage.courtlistener.com ↗Appeals taken from this docket record, with what the research does and does not establish about each.
Taking an appeal is a party’s filing, not a ruling — only an appellate court’s own disposition is a finding, and a disposition recorded here is a docket fact rather than reasoning unless the order itself was read. An appeal continues the action it arises from, so appeals are never counted as additional lawsuits: the case and originating-action counts published elsewhere on this site are unaffected by this section. Where a docket number or a current status is not recorded, that is a stated gap in the research, not a finding that none exists. See Methodology.
Recorded 2026-10-03, and it supersedes an earlier note on this case which treated this docket number as an error repeated by web summaries. The Second Circuit publishes a docket under this number with its own caption, Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, its own opening date of 2025-08-13, its own party block naming Paul Saladino MD as appellee and Frank Tufano as pro se appellant, and its own entry numbering — including a docketing-fee payment of 2025-11-10 recorded against district-court receipt no. 1050 and carrying no cross-reference to any other appeal. It was disposed of together with No. 25-2065: the orders of 2025-12-31 dismissing the appeals and denying the stay motion as moot, and the mandate of 2026-01-21, are each stamped with both numbers. What the free record does not print is an "appealed from" line giving the district docket number, so the link to this case rests on the identical caption, on the consolidation with an appeal already established as this case’s, and on the mandate reaching this case’s district docket on 2026-01-22. The earlier note was right that the order text gives No. 25-2065; what it did not have was the court’s own docket under the other number.
Record source — dockets.justia.com ↗Resolved 2026-10-03; this row previously recorded that the disposition was not established. The Second Circuit’s own docket carries an order of 2025-12-31 dismissing the appeals, a further order of the same date denying as moot the motion to stay the district-court proceedings, and a certified copy of the dismissal order issued as the mandate on 2026-01-21. Each of those entries is stamped with two docket numbers, 25-1954 and 25-2065, the two appeals having been carried together. Two independent sources agree: the mandate reached the district docket on 2026-01-22 as Doc. 120, one day after issuance, which is the entry an earlier pass could see but could not attribute to an appeal. The dismissal order’s own reasoning was read only as the docket records it, not from the document.
Record source — dockets.justia.com ↗Verified 2026-10-03 from the mandate entered on the district docket 2026-09-25 as Doc. 140, read in full. It carries an order of the Second Circuit dated 2026-07-30 recording that the appellant’s Form D-P, due 2026-06-11, had not been filed, that the case is "deemed in default of FRAP 12(b), and LR 12.3," and that the appeal "will be dismissed effective August 20, 2026" unless the form were filed. The document bears a mandate issued 2026-09-24. The order is captioned in this docket number alone, even though an order of 2026-08-12 had been captioned in both consolidated appeals; it is therefore evidence about this appeal only.
Record source — storage.courtlistener.com ↗Checked 2026-10-03 and deliberately left pending. The member appeal it was consolidated with, No. 26-1487, was dismissed effective 2026-08-20 and its mandate issued 2026-09-24, but that order is captioned in No. 26-1487 alone and no mandate, dismissal order or other disposition for this appeal appears anywhere on the district docket, whose free mirror is current through 2026-09-25. The dismissal of a consolidated member appeal is not evidence about the lead appeal, so nothing is inferred here.
Record source — storage.courtlistener.com ↗Sequence does not by itself prove motive or causation.
Paul Saladino filed the earlier S.D.N.Y. action against Tufano.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗The court granted defense counsel's motion to be relieved and permitted Tufano to proceed pro se, directing him to state by March 18 whether he would retain new counsel or proceed pro se.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗After no answer was filed to the amended complaint, a certificate of default was entered against Tufano.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The court denied the motion to vacate the entries of default, finding the defendants' default willful and that they failed to show a meritorious defense.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗S.D.N.Y. entered a default judgment enjoining Tufano from, among other things, making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole, or improperly used Tufano's work.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗The court denied motions to vacate the inquest, file a third-party complaint, disqualify the court/demand a trial, and stay proceedings, and struck the improperly filed third-party complaint.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The court denied an emergency stay pending appeal, stating that the motion largely reasserted arguments previously raised and rejected and presented no new facts, evidence or controlling authority justifying a stay.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗The Second Circuit held the appeal at No. 26-1487 in default of FRAP 12(b) and Local Rule 12.3 for failure to file the appellant’s Form D-P, due June 11, 2026, and provided that it would be dismissed effective Aug. 20, 2026 absent that filing. The mandate issued Sept. 24, 2026 and was entered below on Sept. 25.
Source — storage.courtlistener.com ↗The Second Circuit denied Tufano's motion to stay the district court judgment underlying the consolidated appeals Nos. 26-302 (L) and 26-1487 (Con), citing Nken v. Holder, and stated that the appeals will continue in the ordinary course.
Source — storage.courtlistener.com ↗A magistrate judge recommended dismissal of every claim with prejudice on grounds of judicial immunity, the absence of a private right of action under the criminal statute pled, and claim preclusion, and recommended that leave to amend be denied as futile. The recommendation was adopted in full on Sept. 1, 2026.
Source — govinfo.gov ↗Commentary from former counsel or other secondary sources is retained separately from court findings and primary-source records.
Davis summarizes the representation/default chronology in C100 and points readers to the Jan. 29, 2026 Opinion & Order. The underlying court record independently confirms counsel was relieved Feb. 23, 2021, no answer was filed, default followed, and the earlier motion to vacate default was denied after the court found willful default and no meritorious defense.
Evidentiary treatment: Blog commentary is secondary. Court findings about default, motions, and representation are recorded in COURT_FINDINGS only where supported by the court opinions/docket.
Secondary source — daviscantor.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.
These quotations can no longer be checked at their source. Every quotation on this site was transcribed from the speaker’s own YouTube channel. That channel was removed in October 2026; on 23 October 2026 all 980 catalogued video ids returned “not found”, and the channel address itself no longer resolves. YouTube’s own basis for removing it is not part of any record this project can verify, so none is asserted here. Nothing was withdrawn by this project.
What survives is the evidence, not the link. The verbatim caption transcript each quotation was read from was archived, dated, at the time the video was catalogued, and the timestamp on each card is the moment in that transcript where the words appear. The transcripts are held unaltered and are not republished. What a reader can no longer do is open the original and hear it, and nothing on this site can restore that. Seventy-four statements — those whose own words name a core filing-restriction factor — survive as clips in this project’s own compilation, and those cards link into it at the right moment. Nothing else is re-hosted. See Methodology.
I wouldn't say I've lost the plot you Bart Kay have been pretty vocal in supporting Paul Saladino aka rat boy who has clearly plagiarized my information to prop up his carnivore diet knowledge from the 27 year-old bartender
Paul Saladino is a tracked party — aliases.csv canonicalises four spellings of the name to D0241, who is the plaintiff in C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-09346, filed 2020-11-07) and a named defendant in nine actions Tufano later filed inside dispute DSP003. This statement is dated 279 days before C100 was filed (computed in code as a plain date difference: 2020-02-02 to 2020-11-07). It establishes that the antagonism with that party was already public and specific at this date — DSP003's own description in disputes.csv says the dispute begins with Saladino's S.D.N.Y. suit, and this predates that by the interval above. The quote describes no filing conduct of any kind: no suit, no threatened suit, no lawyer, no demand, no claim — only a plagiarism accusation whose stated remedy is this video. Hence Moderate rather than Strong, and No filing-conduct factor; Strong is unavailable because only the three core factors can support it and none is present. ⚠ Direction and grievance both checked per §9: C100 runs against him, not by him, and its pleaded grievance is a cybersquatting/trademark matter (final judgment includes statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)), which is not the plagiarism grievance voiced here. Same party, different direction, different grievance — so this is an antagonism-chronology fact and must not be written up as an antecedent of C100's claim. Possible case/dispute link: Party link to D0241 (Paul Saladino) is firm from the transcript alone, not from the title. Dispute DSP003 is the party's dispute group, and C100 is the action that party later brought. The link recorded here is to the party, tentatively to the dispute group; it is not a link to any pleaded claim.
Source removed. Quoted at 06:08 in the archived transcript.
in november which is actually when i quit carnivore and pointed out the plagiarism on the jorgen experience of my research to very big things in my life i guess you could say
Dates to November 2020 his public accusation that his research was plagiarised on a named podcast. That accusation is the exact subject matter later restrained in C100: this dataset's court_findings record an injunction against "making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole or improperly used Tufano's or another party's work", and research_notes record the plagiarism allegation as the core of the dispute. C100 was filed 2020-11-07 — the same month he here says he made the accusation. 2020-11-07 → 2021-01-01 = 55 days (differenced in code). He describes publishing an accusation, not filing anything, so no filing-restriction factor applies. Possible case/dispute link: DSP003 / C100, tentative. He names neither the opposing party nor any proceeding in this video; the link is built from the grievance matching the pleaded subject matter and from the month matching the filing date. ⚠ Note this cuts against the "right grievance, wrong party" trap only because the grievance is unusually specific; a docket check is still required before promotion.
Source removed. Quoted at 06:51 in the archived transcript.
more dramatic stuff like the lawsuit cornevor drama vlog style videos such as farm searches days of eating the recipe videos all of the comedic stuff parodies making fun of vegans here and there that is what i skipped
In a video whose whole purpose is to enumerate his year, he names "the lawsuit" — definite article, singular — as one of the categories of 2020 content he deliberately left out of the recap, alongside "cornevor drama" [carnivore drama]. That is a self-report that litigation was a recurring video topic across 2020, made on 2021-01-01, and it places the litigation topic in the same breath as the carnivore-diet dispute. It describes no filing conduct of his own — indeed the only 2020 action in this dataset is one brought against him — so no filing-restriction factor fires. Possible case/dispute link: Adjacent to C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-09346, filed 2020-11-07, dispute DSP003), which is the only action in lawsuits.csv filed in 2020. ⚠ Direction trap checked and it bites the other way: C100 is a case in which he is the defendant — Saladino sued him. "the lawsuit" here is therefore most plausibly one he was defending, not one he filed. Tentative and unconfirmed; the transcript names no party, court or docket.
Source removed. Quoted at 07:41 in the archived transcript.
and of course getting sued by you know that rat scumbag that plagiarized my information is just you know adding more fuel to the fire
An explicit on-camera acknowledgement that a suit against him is live — position 2 on the oblique-reference spectrum, reached by epithet rather than by name. ⚠ Direction is the right way round and must stay that way: he says "getting sued by", so this is his opponent's action against him, not a filing by him. The matching tracked action is Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-09346 (C100, filed 2020-11-07, dispute DSP003), the only tracked action live in this window; computed in code: 2020-11-07 → 2021-02-10 = 95 days after filing. The epithet "rat boy" for the C100 plaintiff is recorded in this batch's addendum and appears in this video at 2:01; it greps to zero against aliases.csv and every other surface, which is why the identification is made from the description of the grievance ("plagiarized my information", "stealing my work and pretending to be me") and not from a name. Possible case/dispute link: C100 / DSP003 — strongly indicated by the grievance description and by being the only live tracked action, but no name, court or docket is spoken.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:48 in the archived transcript.
from my former business partner which i don't really want to speak about there's some pending legal actions going on there same with the rat scumbag that we all know i wonder how he's doing with his boyfriend in texas but without going into detail into that which i really don't hope i have to that legal stuff those lawsuits when these banks look up my company they see there's you know there's a lawsuit against me and that can affect my chance of getting the loan so if these
"from my former business partner... there's some pending legal actions going on there", and "those lawsuits when these banks look up my company they see... there's a lawsuit against me and that can affect my chance of getting the loan." ⚠⚠ Direction: the lawsuit he describes runs against him. The tentative links below are drawn from the transcript alone - he names no case, no court and no docket number anywhere in the video. Possible case/dispute link: C089, C100, DSP020, DSP003 (tentative, unconfirmed)
Source removed. Quoted at 05:32 in the archived transcript.
asking other content creators content readers and lawyers for help with my kickstarter being shut down only to be ignored and shunned then countersuing these degenerates only to be jerked around by lawyers and the legal system they own
He states a filing he has already made — "then countersuing these degenerates" — and in the same sentence alleges the forum is captured: "the legal system they own". Two things make this load-bearing and both need care. First, he frames his own suit as a counter, i.e. as an answer to being sued. That bears directly on the archive's open, unresolved direction conflict (elsewhere he has described a business partner as "suing me", while C089 records him as plaintiff). This file adds a third data point and deliberately does not adjudicate it: "countersuing" is his characterisation, spoken 200 days after C089 was filed, and the referent of "these degenerates" in this sentence is the Kickstarter/plagiarism group, not any named person. Second, the tier is capped at Moderate: Filing announced or confirmed is not one of the three core factors, and no tracked case is named in the transcript, so Strong is unavailable on both counts. Note also that seeking "help... from lawyers" and being "ignored and shunned" is a pro-se-access complaint, not a court finding of anything. Possible case/dispute link: tentative and unconfirmed — most plausibly C089 / DSP020 on date proximity, and possibly the counter-posture to C100 / DSP003, but neither case, court nor party is named. Not found under a Kickstarter grievance in aliases.csv, lawsuits.csv (case_title or defendants), disputes.csv, research_notes.csv or litigation_timeline.csv.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:48 in the archived transcript.
my lawyer basically dropped me last week on all the cases because we were arguing back and forth the guy was kind of you know jerking me around and and he didn't do some legal proceedings that i requested him to do you know i mean i had the hunch that he was like siding with the opposition they're all in the club they're connected together
The earliest on-camera statement of the attorney-collusion allegation that IpqDPRxwzc4 develops 44 days later, and the earliest reference in the archive to a tracked proceeding. The attorney is not named here, but the sibling video names him as Jeffrey Davis (A001 / D0137), a tracked attorney and a named defendant in C099 and C091. "They're all in the club" is the forum/actor-bias framing rather than a claim about any ruling. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed) via the attorney identified in the sibling video; "all the cases" also encompasses C100. No specific case_id asserted.
Source removed. Quoted at 09:18 in the archived transcript.
there's a few trial hearings i'm waiting for so it's going to be a few months before any of the cases progress and if you guys are unfamiliar with that we have rat boy suing me because he was a little upset his daddy couldn't help him with anything and then we have my scumbag business partner who wants to buy another 1 million dollar house in westchester
Dates his own account of the two live matters to 2022-02-22. ⚠ Both run against him or are defensive: "rat boy" is Paul Saladino, plaintiff in C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano), and the "business partner" is Adam Starowicz. Neither is his own new filing, so no filing-conduct factor applies — which is the point of recording it. Possible case/dispute link: C100 and DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed — identified by nickname and role, not by name or docket).
Source removed. Quoted at 09:39 in the archived transcript.
with all the lawsuits against me i don't think i can get a bank loan and my business isn't making money
He states a live consequence of being a litigation defendant — inability to raise bank credit — and uses the plural, "all the lawsuits against me". On the publish date only one tracked docket had him as a defendant: C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y., filed 2020-11-07, 500 days before publication, differencing 2020-11-07 and 2022-03-22 in code). C089, the other docket live in this window, has him and his LLC as plaintiffs, not defendants. Three further dockets (C086, C087, C088) closed in 2018–2019. So the plural is unexplained by the tracked record and is recorded here as a measured discrepancy, not resolved. It is coded Adverse outcome described because it reports a consequence of his docket position rather than any filing he made; it is not Self-reported filing volume, which covers suits he has filed. Possible case/dispute link: C100 is the only tracked docket against him that was live on the publish date, but he names neither it nor any other, and the plural does not fit it. Recorded as unresolved rather than linked.
Source removed. Quoted at 11:36 in the archived transcript.
uh legal update all that stuff i don't know maybe i'll talk about it next week i'm just it's just too much bs going on
The single litigation-adjacent utterance in this slice, and it is a chronology datum rather than a conduct one. Published 2022-04-19, it establishes that a legal matter existed, that he considered it something his audience would already recognise from the bare words "legal update all that stuff", and that he had a settled habit of discussing it on the channel ("maybe i'll talk about it next week"). It describes no filing, announces none, threatens none, names no court, no judge, no lawyer and no party — hence No filing-conduct factor and not Strong. Its value is that the batch addendum records exactly two dockets live in this window, so a dated on-camera acknowledgement of live legal business is placeable even though it is unplaceable to a particular docket. Possible case/dispute link: tentative and unresolved between at least two candidates, deliberately not narrowed. Both dockets the batch addendum records as live on this date fit: C089 (DSP020), filed 2021-04-22 — 362 days before this video (2021-04-22 → 2022-04-19, differenced in code) and dismissed 2022-10-26, 190 days after it (2022-04-19 → 2022-10-26, differenced in code); and C100 (DSP003), filed 2020-11-07, 528 days before this video (2020-11-07 → 2022-04-19, differenced in code), in which the motion to vacate the entries of default was denied roughly three months later. ⚠ Direction trap 1 matters for the second candidate: C100 is his opponent's suit against him, not a filing by him, so even if that is what he meant this quote would be evidence of a case he is defending. Nothing in the transcript distinguishes them; no link should be written into the dataset from this video alone.
Source removed. Quoted at 11:19 in the archived transcript.
and then the business stuff too from you know my business partner stealing money having to get rid of him getting sued by rat boy in federal court now for slander just being harassed by these people for money
His own dated account of the two matters live around him in this window, and neither is a filing of his. "getting sued by rat boy in federal court" is the direction that matters: the batch addendum records C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y., filed 2020-11-07) as his opponent's suit against him, and this video is 552 days after that filing (2020-11-07 → 2022-05-13, computed in code) with the case still live — the motion to vacate the entries of default was denied that July. "my business partner stealing money" is the Starowicz/DSP020 thread, and there too the live docket, C089, is one his own company brought, filed 2021-04-22, 386 days before this video. So no filing-conduct factor applies, and that is precisely the point of recording it. ⚠ One characterisation to carry forward, checked against the pleaded record and sharpened, not contradicted. He calls C100 a suit "for slander". The court's own recital of that case's causes of action (recorded in the dataset's C100 claims summary from the November 4, 2021 order) lists Lanham Act §1125(a) and (d), New York GBL §§148 and 349, and defamation. So a defamation count does exist and his lay word for it is not wrong — but it is one of four heads of claim, and the three he omits are the trademark and cybersquatting claims the eventual judgment actually turned on. Do not let "for slander" stand alone as a description of C100. Possible case/dispute link: C100 and DSP003 for the first half, C089 / DSP020 for the second (both tentative, unconfirmed — identified by nickname and role, not by name or docket).
Source removed. Quoted at 02:51 in the archived transcript.
when like I don't really like for me $200 bro like I lose so much money on my business doesn't make any sense like how can you lose so much money on your business every week from people just filing chargebacks that you could eat a restaurants a few nights a week and not [ __ ] worry about it cuz like oh what's another $500 I lose
The Shopify-dispute chargeback grievance stated in his own words before the action that pleads it existed. C040 (Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators, M.D. Pa. 3:24-cv-00846) was filed 2024-05-22 — 10 days after this video published and, given the documented lag between this video's recording and its publication, at least 27 days after it was recorded. C040's recorded claims summary alleges that ~130 named individuals, "apparently Shopify merchants, employees, or customers," are liable to him for $1,000,000 "based on chargebacks connected to his 'Frankie's Free Range Meats' online meat-delivery business." The quote supplies the grievance, the mechanism and a running dollar figure, with no case, court, filing or lawyer mentioned anywhere in 48 minutes. Because the word "filing" appears in the quote, the classification needs saying plainly: the filing described is customers filing chargebacks with their banks, not anyone filing a lawsuit — he describes no filing of his own, no threatened filing and no prior action, so treating this as a filing announcement would be a straightforward misreading. "What's another $500 I lose" is also a fifth irreconcilable chargeback figure, joining the four already on record across three other videos ($650 / $700 / $2,000 / "3 or $4,000"); it is recorded alongside them and reconciled with none of them. Note also that the loss period here is "every week," which not every one of those four attaches to.
Source removed. Quoted at 43:52 in the archived transcript.
with this one the court judgment did not issue monetary damages yet so their lawyer is acting fraudulently trying to get money before the Crooked judge is even allowing it
One of the few statements in the archive that can be checked directly against a docket, and it holds up. The case tracker records that in C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-09346) a default judgment/injunction was entered 2025-01-30, but that the Final Judgment awarding money — $1 nominal, $52,500 punitive, $100,000 statutory under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), plus fees and costs — was not entered until 2026-05-21. On 2025-02-21 it was therefore accurate that a judgment existed and that no monetary damages had been awarded. The second half of the sentence is the bias allegation.
Why this classification: Describes the C100 judgment entered against him as not yet carrying monetary damages — accurate against that docket on 2025-02-21 — and in the same breath calls the judge "Crooked," so it records an adverse outcome plus a bias allegation rather than any new filing.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:19 in the archived transcript.
but the main issue I have here is that it's the wrong LLC these dummies going after me sued the wrong LLC however Shopify hasn't noticed that the LLC that they received a court order for Frankie's Freer range meet is is not the correct one my business is free range meet
The clearest statement of the entity distinction among the statements researched here, and both sides of it are tracked separately: the caption's "Frankie's Freer range meet" is Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC — the exact entity named as a co-defendant with him in C100 — while "free range meet" is Free Range Meat LLC, a different tracked entity. The caption spelling is preserved as heard; the resolution is recorded here, not silently corrected.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:42 in the archived transcript.
the person suing me sued the wrong LLC that's their mistake I was clever in having multiple llc's they chose the wrong one so legally they're supposed to start a new lawsuit against the correct business and go through the whole process again
An on-camera statement that he deliberately maintained multiple LLCs and that an opposing party's judgment attached to the wrong one. The entity distinction he asserts is independently visible in the dataset — the tracked party-name record carries both Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC and Free Range Meat LLC as separate entities, and a third, FRM LLC, appears as a defendant in C022 and C103. The filing conduct described here is the opposing party's, not his. The tier is Moderate, with no filing-conduct factor.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:05 in the archived transcript.
[reading the court's order] "first I'm going to read the order from the judge, which prevents me from explaining this entire backstory that defendants are enjoined from making public statements referencing that plainif copied, plagiarized, stole, or otherwise improperly used defendants, I'm the defendant, or any other third party's work, engages in dishonest practices in connection with his business, trade, or profession, abuses prescription, or illegal drugs, improperly or legally manipul ulates social media posts or engages in any inappropriate sexual content. Ordered a judge and decreed that defendants are directed to forth with remove and delete all of the defamatory videos on defendants's YouTube channel related to plaintiff as further set forth."
He reads the operative injunction aloud. The text tracks the recorded litigation timeline's entry for C100 (2025-01-30) — “S.D.N.Y. entered a default judgment enjoining Tufano from, among other things, making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole, or improperly used Tufano's work.” This is a court order and belongs in the court-findings evidence layer, not the public-statements layer; what the video contributes is only that he read it on camera and described its effect on him.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:29 in the archived transcript.
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).
Source removed. Quoted at 01:28 in the archived transcript.
So, this has been officially filed now that I I fired my second lawyer and am defending myself.
Dates a Second Circuit filing in C100 to on or before 2025-04-29 and states he is now proceeding pro se. The recorded litigation timeline has no C100 entry between 2025-01-30 and 2026-01-29 — this statement, and a second one later in the same video (at 17:11), both fall in that gap.
Source removed. Quoted at 03:39 in the archived transcript.
So, this guy was copying my YouTube videos word for word, stealing my business ideas. And as soon as I called him out for it and made a stink out of it, he used his millions of dollars from his daddy to sue me in the court system. And all the lawyers that I personally hired, worked in his interest because all these people are in the club, Illuminati, Freemason, or whatever you want to call it. And if you're not in the club, they will screw you over.
One of very few statements in this research where he speaks as a defendant rather than a plaintiff. Neither the title nor the transcript names anyone on the other side — the identification is drawn from the fact pattern alone and is stated as such. The case tracker records C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-09346, filed 2020-11-07, defendants Frank Tufano; Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC), and its research note states that "Tufano was initially represented, counsel was relieved Feb. 23, 2021, and he was permitted to proceed pro se" — which matches this quote's "all the lawyers that I personally hired" and the pro-se advice he gives earlier in the video. The Illuminati/Freemason framing here predates C038 (Tufano v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Lackawanna, filed 2026-03-23, naming Union Lodge No 291 and eight named Lackawanna judges) by 302 days. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor)
Source removed.
I was literally bleeding out my eyes two weeks ago. I filed a court postponement because I'm not really able to read documents for more than a few minutes at a time. And this judge denied it, saying that I cannot represent myself, per se [caption garble — almost certainly "pro se"].
A first-person account of a motion he filed (a postponement/continuance on medical grounds) and of the court's ruling against him on it. The docket fact is the denial; the reason he attributes to the judge is unrecoverable from the caption. Tier: Moderate (Adverse outcome described)
Why this classification: Moderate because he gives a first-person account of a specific postponement motion he filed and of its denial, while naming no court, judge or case number on camera.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:03 in the archived transcript.
This first guy, Jeffrey Davis, works out of Westchester, really [ ] me over in the first part of the court case. And what they basically do is they take your money, they tell you everything's going good, and they don't even respond. They just let the other person win. And this other person, Fr Nerovv, who I thought was helping me a little bit,
Jeffrey Davis is a direct hit on the caption spelling — the tracked party-name record maps Jeffrey Davis Esq, Jeffrey Davis Esq., "Jeffrey Davis, Esq", Davis Jeffrey Esq, Esq Jeffrey Davis and Jeffrey K. Davis all to the same tracked party, and the attorney record lists him as an individual attorney. The only other on-camera mention of him among the researched statements comes from a video published 2025-10-18: "starting with Jeffrey Davis, a lawyer that screwed me over in court, committing legal malpractice, helping the opposing council instead of actually helping me." This clip is 146 days earlier and adds two things the later statement does not carry: (a) a geographic locator — "works out of Westchester" — which narrows a New York attorney search, and (b) the sequencing, "the first part of the court case" and "this first guy," which places Davis at the start of a representation and implies at least one successor. That successor's name is unresolved: the captioned "Fr Nerovv" matches nothing in the research, and no plausible correction of it reaches a tracked party. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor)
Source removed. Quoted at 00:23 in the archived transcript.
It doesn't matter because I'm declaring personal bankruptcy in a few weeks and the LLC for the business that he sued is the wrong LLC. So, technically, there's nothing at stake in this lawsuit. If they win and get a judgment, there's nothing they can collect on.
Announces a filing not yet made (a personal bankruptcy petition) and, in the same breath, states that the corporate defendant in the suit against him is the wrong entity and judgment-proof. This is the clearest identifying detail in the video: it describes an action brought against him and his LLC, not one he brought. Tier: Moderate (Threatened or prospective filing)
Why this classification: Moderate because he announces a bankruptcy petition still weeks away and describes the entity sued in an action brought against him, naming no court, case number or opposing filing.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:24 in the archived transcript.
But this plaintiff's lawyer, the guy that's suing me, tried to link income from outside businesses, saying it was my business.
A specific, verifiable procedural claim rather than a generalisation, and the only quote in the video that points at a particular stage of a docket. The case tracker records for C100 a default judgment and injunction, with final judgment entered on a damages award, and a 2026-01-29 Opinion and Order that denied motions to vacate the inquest — so a damages inquest occurred, and attributing income from affiliated businesses is exactly the kind of dispute an inquest produces. This video was published 2025-05-25, which places the complaint about the inquest's evidence well before the January 2026 order denying the motions to vacate it. The plaintiff's counsel is not named; the dataset's candidate is David D. Lin Esq with Lewis & Lin LLC, and that identification is not drawn from anything spoken here.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:46 in the archived transcript.
that carnivore MD influencer who's harassing me through the court system would be out of business. I mean, he's he's trying to steal money from blind and disabled people.
Identifies the opposing party by professional handle rather than name ("that carnivore MD influencer") and characterises the litigation against him as harassment. It describes the opponent's use of the courts, not filing conduct of his own. Recorded as what the speaker said, not as a finding. Tier: Moderate (No filing-conduct factor)
Source removed. Quoted at 02:04 in the archived transcript.
So, I'm not able to go into detail on what happened because my First Amendment freedom of speech is being violated. This judge has ordered that I am not able to speak what I believe to be facts and truth and my opinions in the public. I cannot speak about that.
This matches a recorded court finding. That finding records, for C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-09346), a ruling dated 2025-01-30, judge Nelson S. Román, type "Default judgment and injunction": an order "enjoining Tufano from, among other things, making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole or improperly used Tufano's or another party's work." The description here — a judge's order that he may not state publicly what he believes to be true — is that injunction, described from the receiving end 6½ months after it was entered. It is a report of a ruling against him, i.e. a docket fact, not filing conduct. Tier: Moderate (Adverse outcome described)
Source removed.
I had things and ideas and products and entire businesses stolen from me and copied by these people. And when I tried to expose them for it and tell other people what they were doing to me, they called that slander and defamation. And they took that to the court system. And these corrupt Freemason Illuminati secret society judges and lawyers and everyone are screwing me over because I am not in the club.
Two things at once. First, it describes how the case began — he publicised an accusation of idea-theft, the other side characterised that as "slander and defamation" and sued — which is the shape of C100, a defamation action brought against him. Second, it puts the Freemason/Illuminati theory onto the judiciary itself, six months before C059 added the judge who dismissed C048 as a defendant alongside Union Lodge #291, and six months before C030/C064 named Judge Nelson S. Román and Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy as defendants. Those later filings are not announced here and no adjacency is claimed. Tier: Moderate (Judicial or forum bias alleged)
Source removed. Quoted at 00:30 in the archived transcript.
This case has been going on for five years now and every single motion that I've filed has been denied by the judge. Every single party in this case, including my own lawyers, of which I've had to fire two, were working against me.
The single most identifying sentence in the video. “Five years” against a publication date of 2025-08-15 points to a case commenced around mid-to-late 2020; C100 was filed 2020-11-07 — 4 years 9 months, which “five years now” rounds to. It also supplies a motion-outcome summary (every motion denied) and a counsel history (two lawyers fired). The case tracker records for C100 that “Tufano was initially represented, counsel was relieved Feb. 23, 2021, and he was permitted to proceed pro se.” The dataset records one relief of counsel; “I've had to fire two” is unverified and is his own count. The tier is Moderate (Adverse outcome described; Judicial or forum bias alleged).
Source removed. Quoted at 01:13 in the archived transcript.
There are multiple grounds on which this lawsuit should have already been dismissed. The lawyer for the plaintiff committed perjury because he said that he served the default judgment against me, which is them trying to steal money from me… He also committed fraud when he used subpoenas to obtain documents from other companies and then link them to me.
The strongest passage among those researched from this video, because the second half is independently corroborated in the case tracker. The subpoena grievance — that opposing counsel used a court order to pull his business records from third parties — is the pleaded wrong of C047 (Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al, filed 2025-02-21), whose recorded refiling basis reads "targeting the Lewis & Lin court order used to obtain his business records", and of C095 (filed 2025-02-24), "the same single fraud claim against Shopify and Lewis & Lin LLC over the same misused court order." Lewis & Lin LLC and David D. Lin Esq are both tracked parties. The "default judgment" half matches C100's default judgment and injunction of 2025-01-30. So this passage joins the C100 default judgment to the Shopify-dispute subpoena litigation in the speaker's own words, on a dated record, six months after both. It describes no new filing — the C047/C095 actions were already on file — so no filing-conduct factor is coded. Tier: Moderate (Adverse outcome described)
Source removed. Quoted at 01:32 in the archived transcript.
This guy Paul Saladino hated me so much he kept serving my family court papers and kept pulling these LLC's and and sending all these legal documents to my parents' house, which should have been enough grounds for dismissal of the lawsuit, you know, harassing uh a party's family.
An allegation about the opposing party's litigation conduct — service of process directed at his parents' home — advanced as a ground for dismissal. It bears on the C100 chronology without describing any filing conduct of his own, which is why the factor is No filing-conduct factor and the tier is Moderate rather than Context: it is specific to one identified case, not general commentary.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:16 in the archived transcript.
if you want an idea of how evil this guy Saladino is, some of you might remember when I donated $33,000 after my surgery to blind people. I took out a line of credit. I gave away $1,000 to 33 different people. That was around two years ago. Now, at that time, he had his lawyer write this letter to the court. Be court decision still hasn't been made yet to this day. He wrote this letter to the court telling them to make a decision before I give away the money, before I donate money to blind people. So, me saying that Paul Saladino wanted to steal money from blind and disabled people, that is a factually correct statement. How how crazy can you be? And you can look this up on the court docket.
A specific, checkable allegation about a document said to be on the C100 docket — a letter from plaintiff's counsel urging a decision before funds were dissipated — dated by him to "around two years ago", i.e. roughly 2023. He explicitly invites verification ("you can look this up on the court docket"). Nothing in the recorded litigation timeline notes such a letter, so this is a checkable lead, not a finding, and the research takes no position on his characterisation of the letter's purpose. He describes no filing conduct of his own.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:04 in the archived transcript.
I can't really explain things in as much detail as I'd like to, but I will read the judgment and then my appeal to this judgment, which I filed last week. And I believe I already made a similar video to this. So, I'll just um I'll just add the stuff that is new.
Confirms a filing he has made and dates it to the week before publication — i.e. roughly 2025-08-25 to 2025-08-31. Read with 12:36 below it is the single most datable filing statement in my slice, and it lands within five days of a Second Circuit order the tracker records but does not have a timeline row for. See the research notes archived for this video. "I believe I already made a similar video to this" — an earlier, unidentified video on the same subject exists. Flagged for later review as an archive lead.
Source removed. Quoted at 02:31 in the archived transcript.
The default judgment was never served on me. It was served on my parents' house … basically all all the legal paperwork going to my parents house, them getting involved in the lawsuits, um they they became very distressed and on psychiatric medication. I got kicked out of my childhood home I had been living in for since I my whole life. … I I haven't been in contact with my family for a few years now. all because of of how these people treated myself and my family … they're they're both still currently under psychiatric treatment and taking all these drugs they never had to take before.
The stated human consequence of the service defect he alleges, and — at 10:57–11:23 — the factual basis for his "torsious [tortious] interference" claim. It is the passage the video's title is built on. No filing conduct of his own is described. §5 was considered and no redaction applied; see the research notes archived for this video for the reasoning. His parents are not named, no address, contact detail or identifier is given, and the disclosure is his own, on camera, about the harm he attributes to the litigation.
Source removed. Quoted at 04:30 in the archived transcript.
The way that Paul Saladino uh destroyed my family life and got me kicked out of my childhood home was that he kept serving documents on my family and to to my family's house. So, I was staying with my parents initially and uh they they just kept subpoenaing my mother.
This is the allegation that the video “THIS LAWYER RUINED MY FAMILY” (2026-02-09) records as its core claim — subpoenas served on his parents, said to have caused his removal from the childhood home and years of estrangement. This video states it 101 days earlier, and attributes it
Why this classification: Describes repeated service and subpoenas directed at his parents' household; the opposing party's litigation conduct.
Source removed.
They kept trying to involve my family in the court matters and it caused so much stress on my family that both my mother and father had to be put on psychiatric medications. Uh my parents treated me so horrifically because of the stress that you know I I haven't spoken to them in years now.
The claimed damages of the tortious-interference theory, stated in his own words.
Why this classification: Describes the effect of the proceedings on his parents and the resulting estrangement.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:17 in the archived transcript.
He served the default judgment on my family then filed a fraudulent affidavit of service which the judge is using to to try to steal money from me when I still haven't been served the judgment.
The archive already holds this allegation in the video “Will this CORRUPT JUDGE Help Paul Saladino GET AWAY WITH IT!?”, the video “Evil Judge Protects Weber SOLOMON of All Ways Forwarding”, the video “This Lawyer should be DISBARRED” and the video “Corrupt Judge issued an ILLEGAL ORDER”. This is the fifth instance and the most specific about the document involved — it is the default judgment that he says was served on his family under a false affidavit, and he asserts he still has not been served it personally. Logged as single-source repetition, not corroboration — all five are the same person saying the same thing. It also sits against a contrary court finding already in this research: per the video “Corrupt Judge issued an ILLEGAL ORDER”, the court found the defaults willful with no meritorious defence.
Why this classification: Alleges a fraudulent affidavit of service is being relied on by the judge, and that he was never served the judgment.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:32 in the archived transcript.
I just want to make it very clear that, you know, Paul Saladino does not copy me. He does not plagiarize me. You know, Judge Nelson Stefan Roman said that I can't claim that Paul Saladino copies or plagiarizes me. I can't speak about Paul Saladino in any negative way regarding his business.
The speaker names a judge and describes the scope of an injunction entered against him, matching the terms of a recorded court finding in the Saladino action. Note that the video as a whole is sarcastic.
Why this classification: It describes an outcome that went against the speaker rather than any filing he made, which is a docket fact and not conduct, so it cannot reach Strong even though the case identification is firm.
Source removed.
And there's about five motions filed by myself that have not been ruled on. And there's also an active case in the court of appeals. And there's two motions to stay. There's one motion to stay the case in the district court and there's a motion to stay the case in the appeals court. And the fact that she's writing this report and recommendation to issue a judgment against me is it's just proof that they're a bunch of corrupt shills that don't follow court procedure.
Names the magistrate judge (Judith C. McCarthy) and describes the procedural posture (pending motions, an active Second Circuit appeal, two stay motions) at the time the Report & Recommendation issued — a concrete, checkable docket detail.
Why this classification: Counts five of his own unruled motions and two motions to stay across the district and appellate courts, and characterises the resulting report and recommendation as proof of corruption.
Source removed. Quoted at 04:46 in the archived transcript.
number one is misrepresenting what I said to make a defamation claim... he took my jokes and statements out of context from YouTube, added words to them... He lied about how my domain was obtained and how it was used to make it eligible for a cyber piracy claim... Number three, he lied to add my business to the lawsuit. It has no subject matter jurisdiction... Number four, and probably the most significant one, is he committed perjury when filing fraudulent affidavas [affidavits] of service for both the complaint, the lawsuit, and the default judgment... Number five, he committed fraud and improperly used subpoenas to obtain financial documents from entities not named in the lawsuit.
The most structured statement of his objections to C100 anywhere in this research — five numbered items, each a distinct and docket-checkable assertion about a real federal case. the case tracker records C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y.
Why this classification: Enumerates five alleged defects in the opposing party's case, from misquotation to improper subpoenas. Allegations about another party's conduct.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:31 in the archived transcript.
Number four, and probably the most significant one, is he committed perjury when filing fraudulent affidavas [affidavits] of service for both the complaint, the lawsuit, and the default judgment. He said that I was served the court documents when they were delivered to my parents house.
This allegation now appears in four archived videos — “Will this CORRUPT JUDGE Help Paul Saladino GET AWAY WITH IT!?” (2025-11-02), this one (2025-11-03), “Corrupt Judge issued an ILLEGAL ORDER” (2025-11-04) and “Evil Judge Protects Weber SOLOMON of All Ways Forwarding” (2026-07-20). This is the most specific version: service was allegedly effected by delivery to his parents' house, and the defect is said to cover both the complaint and the default judgment. Repetition across four videos is single-source repetition, not corroboration — the same person saying the same thing four times — and it is logged that way, consistent with the note already in the video “Corrupt Judge issued an ILLEGAL ORDER”.
Why this classification: Singles out the affidavits of service as the most significant alleged defect, on the basis that delivery was to his parents' address.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:39 in the archived transcript.
But the judge is bending over backwards for him and allowing this because they're all Freemason butt buddies and they're trying to screw me over to teach me a lesson that you can't defend yourself when Freemasons try to steal from you.
A dated datapoint on the secret-society thread, and an important one for its target: this is the theory aimed at a federal judge, four and a half months before C038 pleaded essentially the same theory against eight Lackawanna judges (filed 2026-03-23). The archive can now date the judges-are-Freemasons framing to 2025-11-03 in public statements, well before it entered a pleading.
Why this classification: Attributes the court's rulings to a shared fraternal affiliation between the judge and the opposing party.
Source removed. Quoted at 02:03 in the archived transcript.
I was ordered by this judge that I cannot speak certain things about Paul Saladino, that he plagiarized, copied or stole from me, that he engaged in dishonest practices.
Identifies the previously unidentified order behind this statement: the injunctive relief entered in C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y.).
Why this classification: States the terms of the speech restriction ordered against him in the Saladino matter.
Source removed.
A judge cannot silence you based on a default. They have to find you guilty of the defamation or whatever crime occurred first.
States the creator's own legal argument against the injunction — that a default judgment establishes liability, not the adjudication he says a speech restriction would require. Framed at [0:39] as reading from a document ("It even says it here"), though the document is never identified and no source is cited on screen. This is a party's legal argument, not a court finding.
Why this classification: Disputes the basis of the speech restriction, arguing a default cannot support one absent a finding on the merits.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:15 in the archived transcript.
And to top it all off, I wasn't even properly served the default judgment in the first place. Paul Saladino's lawyer committed perjury in submitting a fraudulent affidavit of service to my parents' address saying that I would serve the lawsuit and I would serve the default judgment.
The third occurrence of this same allegation found in this research — it also appears in the video "Will this CORRUPT JUDGE Help Paul Saladino GET AWAY WITH IT!?" (published 2025-11-02) and in passing in the video "Evil Judge Protects Weber SOLOMON of All Ways Forwarding" (published 2026-07-20). Same allegation, same target (Saladino's counsel), across three videos spanning nine months. That is repetition by a single source, not independent corroboration — it should not be read as strengthening the allegation, only as documenting that it is a persistent and consistent element of his public account. C100's record notes he "was initially represented, counsel was relieved Feb. 23, 2021," and that the court in July 2022 denied a motion to vacate the entries of default, finding the defaults willful and no meritorious defense — a court finding that sits directly against this service account.
Why this classification: Repeats that the default judgment was never properly served and alleges perjury in the affidavit.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:08 in the archived transcript.
but I could still go and say or do whatever I want because I have not been found guilty of the defamation.
A stated position that the speech restriction does not bind him. Restated more directly at [2:42]: "This is freaking toilet paper. I should I I can technically say whatever or do whatever I want because this order is invalid." Relevant to the compliance/contempt dimension of C100's post-judgment history, and a checkable claim against the docket.
Why this classification: His reading of what the default leaves him free to say, absent a merits finding on defamation. A reaction to an order, not filing conduct.
Source removed. Quoted at 02:01 in the archived transcript.
All this stuff happening to Whistland Diesel, I've had the same thing, but worse. They just issued the gag order outright, which is a violation of my freedom of speech. It's actually against the law. You cannot receive a gag order unless you are found guilty in court.
A first-person account of a speech-restricting order entered against him, which he frames as unlawful because he was not found guilty in court. The legal characterisation is his own, not a court's.
Why this classification: It reports an order that went against him and nothing more; no filing of his own is announced, threatened or counted, so it sits at Moderate on the adverse outcome he describes rather than on any filing conduct.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:03 in the archived transcript.
After the default was filed, the judge just issued a gag order and said, "I can no longer like say that this guy steals my research." Basically, everything that I was saying, which I thought was completely truthful and honest and just defending myself and my own work, the judge, this crooked judge, just does whatever he wants.
The densest statement in the video: it ties the order to a default and states its operative content, that he may no longer say a particular person steals his research, which is the substance of the injunction recorded on the tracked docket. He also calls the judge crooked, which is his allegation and not a finding.
Why this classification: It describes an adverse order in specific terms and adds an allegation that the judge acts arbitrarily, but the case is never named and no new or repeat filing is described, which holds it at Moderate.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:25 in the archived transcript.
But who's going to police these judges? The higher court. I have filed multiple appeals and there's really something to say about how power-hungry and demonic some of these people are.
A self-report that he has filed multiple appeals from the order just described, framed as an appeal to a higher court to police judges. The tracked record shows an appeal pending in that action, though the transcript identifies no case.
Why this classification: It confirms filings he has made, but they are direct appeals within the same proceeding rather than a new or repeat action, so the core filing-after-an-adverse-decision factor is deliberately not engaged and the tier stays Moderate.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:46 in the archived transcript.
Some of you may know Paul Saladino as a nutrition influencer, but this man is pure evil and has destroyed my life over these past six years. He got my business in New York shut down. He got me kicked out of my lifelong childhood home. I live with my parents since I was almost 30. He literally got me kicked out of my house. And he continues to target and harass me through this corrupt court system for these past five years.
A dated damages and causation narrative naming a tracked party, in which the litigation is framed as something being done to him through what he calls a corrupt court system. The passage says six years and then five years; both are preserved as spoken.
Why this classification: It names a party to tracked litigation and alleges the forum is corrupt, which is the bias category, but it describes consequences he attributes to the other side rather than any filing of his own, so no core factor is available. The case link rests on this being the one tracked action in which that party is the plaintiff, and on the business and housing consequences he describes, not on any case number spoken on camera.
Source removed.
Paul Saladino has spent over six figures harassing me in court and trying to ruin my life.
Names a tracked opposing party, puts a six-figure estimate on that party's spend litigating against him, and characterises the spend as harassment. The figure is his own and unsourced, and it predates by three months the fee award later entered on that docket; the two should not be conflated.
Why this classification: It reports the burden of proceedings against him involving a named tracked party, which is Moderate; the costs described are the opponent's, so cost imposition as a stated motive does not apply and no filing of his own is announced.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:05 in the archived transcript.
So I took out a line of credit to donate money to blind and disabled people. And less than a week later, his lawyer wrote a letter to the court explaining, "Oh, Frank has enough money to donate to blind and disabled people, so it should actually go to Paul. It's Paul's money." which is absolute insanity considering the case hasn't even been decided yet.
Describes conduct by the opposing side in a tracked case, a letter to the court about his assets after he took out a line of credit to donate, and dates his own understanding of the case posture by saying it has not been decided.
Why this classification: The conduct described is the other side's filing, not his, so no filing-conduct factor attaches and the classification cannot exceed Moderate. The words inside the quotation marks are his own mocking paraphrase of the letter and not its text, and must not be attributed to any attorney; the letter itself is not in evidence. The case link is supported by the posture he describes matching that action's record at the publication date.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:33 in the archived transcript.
I can't even tell you the truth because all that money he spent was to ensure that a judge silenced me. A judge has issued an illegal gag order violating my freedom of speech. So, I can't even tell you what this man did to me and how he ruined my life.
Describes a court order restraining his speech, calls it illegal, and attributes it to the opposing party's money. An injunctive order was on the tracked docket well before this video. The claim that a judge was bought is his characterisation and not a finding; the same docket records that the defaults were found willful when a motion to vacate was denied.
Why this classification: It combines an adverse order with an allegation that the forum was captured, which is Moderate, but none of the three core filing-conduct factors is present since he announces no new or repeat filing, and the order itself is never identified by court or docket.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:34 in the archived transcript.
So, this is the lawyer that screwed me over in my case against Paul Saladino.
Establishes the relationship that connects two tracked disputes. The dispute-group record describes the Starowicz / arbitration / Davis grouping as arbitration-centred. This states plainly that Davis represented him in the Saladino matter, which is what a recorded secondary source independently reports from the other side. The link between the two disputes runs through shared counsel.
Why this classification: Identifies his former counsel in the Saladino matter, who is himself a defendant in a tracked case.
Source removed.
He didn't file the correct motions. He didn't do what he should have at certain points and ultimately led to me getting a default in the case. And he's refusing to admit his malpractice or wrongdoing.
The plaintiff's own account of why C100 went to default — attorney malpractice. This sits in direct tension with the court record: the video “Corrupt Judge issued an ILLEGAL ORDER” records C100's finding that the defaults were willful and that no meritorious defense was shown, and the case tracker records final judgment entered with a damages award. Two accounts of the same default, one a public statement and one a court finding, and this project's evidence-layer rule keeps them in separate categories. Recorded, not adjudicated.
Why this classification: Attributes the default entered against him to his former counsel's failure to file the correct motions, and says he will not admit it.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:13 in the archived transcript.
Who is this guy? Is he a CIA agent? How connected do you have to be to get a judge to issue a court order against someone without even holding them to trial? I called out this guy and a judge shut me up just like that.
He describes a court order restraining his speech, entered without a trial, and attributes it to how connected the opposing party is rather than to the merits. The direction of the litigation matters here: the tracked action in which he is the defendant and an injunction was entered on default is C100, not any of the actions he himself filed naming the same party.
Why this classification: Moderate because it reports a ruling against him and alleges forum influence, neither of which is a core filing-conduct factor, and because no case, court or docket number is named on camera.
Source removed.
Silence my freedom of speech. No trial, no conviction, no nothing. Just Frank, you cannot talk about Paul Saladino. And that's that. I've never seen anything like that happen in my life. I've never seen a judge so blatantly disregard the rules of the court that in the six years of this case going on, not one ruling has been done in my favor.
A self-reported summary of the docket: six years of the case and, on his account, not one ruling in his favour, together with an allegation that the judge disregarded the rules of court. The middle sentence is his own characterisation of what the order does, not the order's text, and the six-year figure is approximate, the tracked action having been filed about five years and three months before publication.
Why this classification: Moderate because it reports adverse outcomes and alleges judicial bias without describing any filing of his own; its value is as a dated baseline of what he was publicly asserting about that docket.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:19 in the archived transcript.
And back in 2020, I thought that he was watching and learning a lot from my YouTube videos and then going and saying what he learned without crediting me. So, I posted some pretty factual proof of things being repeated from my YouTube channel, and he didn't like that.
The only account in any of this research of what started the Saladino dispute. The dataset's earliest record in the Saladino-related litigation is C100's filing date, 2020-11-07 — it holds nothing about the pre-litigation grievance. This gives the sequence from his side: an uncredited-content grievance in 2020, then he publishes "factual proof" of the copying, then "he didn't like that," then C100 is filed against him in November 2020. Note the direction of travel: in the Saladino dispute he is the defendant, and this describes conduct of his own that preceded the suit. Useful background on the claims in C100.
Why this classification: Background on the 2020 origin of the dispute — uncredited reuse of his video content and his response to it.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:34 in the archived transcript.
He called his judge buddies and maybe even spoke to Dr. Tibbon about botching me.
The most direct statement anywhere in this research that the Saladino-related dispute and the Taban eye-surgery dispute are, in his telling, one coordinated scheme rather than two separate matters. The video index assigns this video to the eye-surgery dispute with the Saladino/Taban overlap as its primary topic — the transcript confirms that framing exactly.
Why this classification: Alleges the opposing party contacted judges he knows, and possibly the surgeon, about the outcome of the procedure.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:52 in the archived transcript.
…you didn't know Paul Saladino's backstory, it's a pretty extensive history of ruining my life. Starting with getting my business shut down in New York. Then he got me kicked out of my own home, turning my family against me. And that's the reason to this day I haven't spoken to my family since he did that to me years ago.
A first-person account of the grievance underlying the dispute, attributing business closure, loss of home and family estrangement to the named party.
Why this classification: Describes the opposing party's alleged conduct and the resulting harm, not the speaker's own filing behaviour.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:11 in the archived transcript.
Which a judge said, by the way, I cannot say. I I can't claim that. Paul, you know, copied me or plagiarized me.
An on-camera acknowledgment of what the injunction in this action forbids him from saying. The dataset records a default judgment enjoining him from stating that the other party copied or plagiarised his work, and the quote tracks those terms.
Why this classification: Reports the terms of an order made against him. That is a docket fact, not conduct.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:47 in the archived transcript.
Basically, he was jealous of my intelligence and my YouTube channel and filed a lawsuit against me. And the guys really connected. I don't know how he got the judges to basically silence me.
Compresses into one sentence the origin story that the video “Did PAUL SALADINO TELL TABAN TO BOTCH ME?!” (2026-04-11) tells at length — the 2020 uncredited-content grievance. Here the causal claim is stronger and unhedged ("he got the judges"), where “Did PAUL SALADINO TELL TABAN TO BOTCH ME?!” hedged throughout ("maybe even"). Also note "I don't know how" — he disclaims knowledge of the mechanism while asserting the result.
Why this classification: Attributes the suit against him to jealousy and the resulting speech restriction to the opposing party's connections.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:04 in the archived transcript.
You know, I never had a fair trial. I never had anything in the court. The judge just said, "I cannot speak about Paul Saladino."
The clearest statement anywhere in this research of what the C100 injunction's scope is understood to be — and it appears in a 59-second video titled "Did Paul Saladino RUIN MY FAMILY?!", tagged SALADINO DOG PARK, naming him five times. the video “Corrupt Judge issued an ILLEGAL ORDER” already records that C100's default judgment carried a speech-restricting injunction (entered 2025-01-30; Final Judgment 2026-05-21). The tension between the stated restriction and the video's own existence is recorded here as a fact; whether any order was actually breached is a legal question this research does not answer — the injunction's real terms are in the court record, not in a paraphrase by the enjoined party.
Why this classification: Says he never had a fair trial and reduces the outcome to the judge barring him from speaking about the opposing party. No further filing is described, so not tiered Strong.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:16 in the archived transcript.
But in that lawsuit, he started serving my parents and adding my own family to the lawsuit as a way to harass me, claiming my family was part of my business and a whole bunch of nonsense.
This is the third telling of the service-on-family allegation in this research, and the only one that claims his family were added as parties. the case tracker records C100's defendants as "Frank Tufano; Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC" — his business, not his family. The narrative field's plural "the defendants" is accounted for by the LLC. So the recorded docket supports non-party subpoenas (which is also how the video “This Lawyer should be DISBARRED” describes it — "subpoenas to non-parties") but not the addition of family members as defendants. A discrepancy between his account and this dataset, recorded rather than resolved. The "claiming my family was part of my business" clause may be the origin of the conflation, since the business genuinely was a co-defendant.
Why this classification: Alleges the opposing party served and joined his family to harass him on a pretext about the business; another party's filing conduct.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:22 in the archived transcript.
Oh, that's the judge, Roman Stefan Nelson, that is the corrupt guy that helped Saladino in that case, who, you know, we can't speak about the rat Saladino because the judge ordered me to silence myself about what I believe is the truth about this scenario
Describes the order entered against him in the New York action, in which he was the defendant, and names the judge who entered it. The order he describes matches a recorded default judgment and injunction restraining certain public statements.
Why this classification: Reports a ruling against him and alleges the judge favoured the opposing party. The order he reports is corroborated by a recorded court finding, while the bias allegation is his own characterisation; neither element is one of the three core filing-conduct factors, so the statement cannot reach the top tier however well corroborated the underlying order is.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:20 in the archived transcript.
a judge ordered that I cannot say that Paul Saladino copied me which kind of explains the whole scenario and I don't want to go further into that
the court-findings record records for C100 that on 2025-01-30 Judge Nelson S. Román entered a default judgment enjoining Tufano from, among other things, making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole or improperly used Tufano's or another party's work. This quote is him describing that same restriction in his own words, on a public channel, nineteen months later — establishing awareness of the injunction from his own mouth rather than by inference from the docket. The trailing clause is its own object of
Why this classification: States the terms of the order barring him from saying the opposing party copied him.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:08 in the archived transcript.
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.
Source removed.
They let the opposing lawyer do whatever, serve my parents instead of me. I don't even get the the document, and they still win the lawsuit. Let the opposing lawyer forge fake documents and submit false reports, and they deny every single motion I file in the case.
Describes the service and default-judgment history of the action in which he was the defendant, and the denial of his post-judgment motions. The dataset records that C100 proceeded by default after the defendants failed to answer, that the court found the defaults willful, and that post-default motions were denied. The allegations of forgery and false reports are the speaker's own characterisation and are recorded as such, not as anything found.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:41 in the archived transcript.
So, I would like to say how much of a genius Paul Saladino is talking about EMF blocking stickers. Who would have thought? Who would have thought that Paul Saladino has such genius ideas that four years ago? I was talking about how these exact stickers are scams and that they don't work. [...] great minds really do think alike. That must be why, you know, we follow the same diet. We have all the same business ideas. You know, we sell all the same products. You know, it just so happens that, you know, Paul Saladino's brain just works on like a two or three year delay.
The entire passage is sarcasm: the praise is meant as its opposite, and it restates the same allegation the injunction addresses immediately after the injunction's terms are recited. No position is taken here on whether the video complies with or breaches that order.
Why this classification: Read straight the words invert, and once the irony is accounted for the passage records only what was published and when; it names no filing and adds nothing to the dispute beyond the order already described, so it stays at the general commentary level.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:16 in the archived transcript.
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. "Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano (7:20-cv-09346)". Research last verified October 11, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/cases/7-20-cv-09346-saladino-md-v-frank-tufano/