Frank Tufano lawsuits involving Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
4 originating actions · 4 docket records
Cases involving Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is named in 4 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (4 docket records) across 2 courts filed between January 5, 2026 and August 6, 2026. 2 of the docket records carry a recorded outcome.
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| August 6, 2026 | 3:26-cv-02257Tufano v. Free and Accepted Masons of Union Lodge No. 291 et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Pending; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did not answer by its Oct. 9, 2026 deadline and moved to dismiss on that date instead. Defendant Tyler Technologies, Inc.’s motion of Sept. 8, 2026 is fully briefed — brief in support Sept. 22, an order setting an opposition deadline Sept. 24, opposition Sept. 30 and a supplement Oct. 6 — and undecided. Two motions to dismiss are pending. |
| July 29, 2026 | 3:26-cv-02137Tufano v. Carbondale Police Department et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Pending; five defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint between Sept. 18 and Sept. 25, 2026 and none of those motions has been decided. Opposition to the Wells Fargo motion was ordered by Oct. 5, 2026 and JPMorgan Chase was granted until Oct. 12, 2026 to answer. |
| March 23, 2026 | 2026-01907Tufano v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania | Lackawanna County | Dismissed with prejudice as to the Commonwealth of PA and the individually-named judicial defendants; appeal pending |
| January 5, 2026 | 2026-00063Tufano v. Fidelity Bank | Lackawanna County | Voluntarily discontinued with prejudice |
Judges who have ruled in these cases
Listing a judge records who decided a motion or entered an order in a case naming this party. It is not an evaluation of the judge.
Court & ruling records in these cases
Recorded only where tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation.
Sovereign & judicial immunity dismissal
Opinion and Order sustained preliminary objections and dismissed the case against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (absolute sovereign immunity) and against the eight individually-named Lackawanna County judicial defendants (judicial immunity, sovereign…
What the filings allege
- 3:26-cv-02257Plaintiff sued the Free and Accepted Masons of Union Lodge No.
- 3:26-cv-02137A racketeering action naming the Carbondale Police Department, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States of America and Shopify, later amended to add seven financial institutions.
- 2026-01907Plaintiff alleges that Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas judges have acted outside their judicial capacity and violated his civil rights by conspiring to deny his requests for default judgments and disregard dozens of his own properly-filed pro se motions while approving similar filings from opposing litigants.
- 2026-00063Plaintiff alleges he entered a contract with Fidelity Bank in December 2022 to purchase property at 25 Dundaff Street that required him to maintain an active flood-insurance policy costing approximately $14,000 per year; to avoid that cost he paid off the remaining mortgage balance in full (two $115,000 payments, $230,000 total) in February 2025.
These summarise the plaintiff's own allegations as pleaded. They are party filings, not court findings, and no court has adopted them by recording them here. Each links to the full summary on the case page.
Public statements by filing-restriction factor
22 researched statements are linked to cases naming Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and describe filing conduct of a kind the indicator data records, ordered with the factors closest to the filing-restriction criteria first. A factor records what the speaker said — not that a court found it, not an allegation by this project against Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and not that anyone has been determined a vexatious litigant. Each card links to the video it was transcribed from. Statements whose words describe no filing conduct are not ranked here; they are listed on each case page and on the video's own research page.
What these tiers are: “Strong”, “Moderate” and “Context” are this project’s research classification of how closely a public statement bears on the documented filing-restriction indicators. They are not judicial findings, not an adjudication of anything said in a video, and not a determination that Frank Tufano is a vexatious litigant — no court in this dataset has made that determination. Court findings, party statements and research classifications are kept in separate evidence layers throughout this site; see Methodology.
How a tier is assigned. Strong — the statement names a tracked case or dispute and describes filing conduct of the kind the indicators document: repeat filing on the same dispute, filing after an adverse decision, or filing framed as imposing cost on the opponent. Moderate — it bears on litigation conduct or chronology in a tracked dispute, but the case link is tentative or the statement describes something other than the speaker’s own filing behaviour. Context — general commentary with no specific tracked case identified.
What the factor labels are. Each statement is also labelled with the filing-restriction factor its own words describe, so the reason for a classification is visible rather than implied. Most factors correspond to a criterion recorded in the indicator data, and the three that do not are marked as such there — a filing that has only been threatened has no docket to record, and an allegation about a court is the speaker’s characterisation rather than a recorded criterion. Repeat filing on the same dispute, filing after an adverse decision and cost imposition as stated motive are the three that can qualify a statement as Strong; threatened or prospective filing, self-reported filing volume, filing announced or confirmed, adverse outcome described and judicial or forum bias alleged record related but weaker signals. A statement that describes no filing conduct carries no factor badge. A factor records what the speaker said — not that a court found it, and not that anyone has been determined a vexatious litigant.
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.
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.
Quotations on this page are excerpts: a quotation ending in an ellipsis is shortened here for length. The full wording, and the reason recorded for its pattern-relevance tier, are on the video’s own research page — follow the ¶ permalink on any card.
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.
Repeated/escalatory filing¶
We've filed multiple lawsuits against Shopify. We've contacted the police department multiple times. The most recent lawsuit we just did, we're suing the police department. We're suing all the banks. Hopefully hopefully naming every single…
The speaker states in his own words that he has filed more than one action against Shopify on the same chargeback grievance, and then describes the most recent one by its party composition — the police department plus "all the banks." The dataset holds six Shopify actions (C013/C054, C047, C050, C072, C095) on the chargeback/reviews theory, and C083's amended complaint of 2026-08-24 names Carbondale Police Department, Shopify and seven banks. The identification is from the party composition described in the transcript, not from the title.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:15 in the archived transcript. Play at 22:54 in this project’s compilation ↗
Repeated/escalatory filing¶
Like, I already tried that. They just throw it out. I sued all the New York judges in the Saladino case for being corrupt. I sued all the Pennsylvania judges in Lacawana County that are messing with my taxes trying to steal my property for…
The creator's own account of having sued judges in two jurisdictions. The Pennsylvania half maps closely onto C038 (Tufano v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Lackawanna County 2026-01907), whose defendant list in the case tracker includes eight individually-named Lackawanna judges (Barrasse, Moyle, Gibbons, Jarbola, Nealon, Powell, Ruggiero, Dempsey). "Messing with my taxes trying to steal my property" matches the real-estate-tax/assessment subject matter of C017 (Tufano v. Lackawanna County, the Board of Assessment appeal) and C038's own docketed "Emergency Motion to Stay Real Estate Tax Proceedings." The New York half is not matched to any CASES row.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:02 in the archived transcript. Play at 19:24 in this project’s compilation ↗
Repeated/escalatory filing¶
we did file another lawsuit and what we changed this time was we added the police department to the lawsuit for failing to prosecute against these thieves. And we also added all the banks. So, maybe those factors will change things. You…
The densest filing-conduct statement in this video, and the actor throughout is himself ("we did file"), in the past tense. He states that a further action on the chargeback grievance has been filed; that "what we changed this time" was adding the police department "for failing to prosecute against these thieves"; that "all the banks" were also added; and that five card networks - Amex, Mastercard, Discover, Visa, Chase - are being sued, with "all the credit card companies have been sued." The phrase "what we changed this time" is the load-bearing one for the repeat-filing factor: it frames the action explicitly as a variant of a previous filing on the same grievance, which is stronger than the bare word "another." Held at Moderate, not Strong, because no case, court, docket or date is named and the four competing readings in the research notes archived for this video are unresolved - see "Why this is not Strong."
Source removed. Quoted at 05:51 in the archived transcript. Play at 22:31 in this project’s compilation ↗
Filing announcement / stated motive¶
and they just don't allow prosay [pro se] litigants to participate in the court system. So I either have to appeal or file a lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania and the county of Lacwan [Lackawanna] explaining hey I have followed the…
This is the strongest single find of the batch. the case tracker records C038 as Tufano v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Lackawanna 2026-01907), filed 2026-03-23 — five days after this video — with Lackawanna County and Union Lodge No. 291 among the defendants whose claims remain unresolved. Here he states, in advance and in his own words, that he is going to sue the state of Pennsylvania and the county of Lackawanna, and gives the reason: refusal to rule on his default motions. The dataset's C038 record describes the case through its dismissal (judicial immunity, the Freemasonry allegations, the appeal); it does not record this stated origin, which is procedural and mundane by comparison.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:54 in the archived transcript. Play at 16:29 in this project’s compilation ↗
Litigation motive / cost imposition¶
we might have to do is you know we might have to do personally serve every single one of these people in a separate lawsuit. Right now is easier for me to sue you know Shopify, the banks, the payment providers, every relevant party. It was…
The cost-imposing instrument named in the speaker's own words is service of a lawsuit and the resulting attorney fees — not publicity — which is the side of the 2026-09-03 line where Cost imposition as stated motive applies. He quantifies the effect ("over a million dollars in attorney fees") and sets it against his own effort ("a few hours of my time every day for a month"). The same quote names Shopify, the banks and the payment providers as the defendants of the action already on file, which is what supplies the case identification a Strong tier requires.
Source removed. Quoted at 13:56 in the archived transcript. Play at 23:14 in this project’s compilation ↗
Prospective repeated filing / cost imposition¶
I might just file a lawsuit against all the banks just to get them to pay their lawyers a retainer, because if I file a lawsuit — there's like a dozen banks, right? — if I spend just an hour or two to draft up a lawsuit against all 12…
Describes contemplated litigation against numerous banks, explicitly framed as a way to make them incur legal-retainer costs — potential litigation-motive/repeated-filing evidence.
Source removed. Quoted at 02:48 in the archived transcript. Play at 2:21 in this project’s compilation ↗
Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
really going after plastic surgeons as a whole and the the legal industry and all these judges
States an intended widening of scope beyond the original defendant to entire professional classes — surgeons, lawyers, judges. The tracked docket already shows this shape (C063/C066 Tufano v. The State of California et al, and C038 against eight Lackawanna judges), so this is a stated intent that the filing record independently corroborates.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:36 in the archived transcript.
Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
So, we did file a lawsuit against the local police department that is refusing to prosecute this. And I actually think I'm going to amend that lawsuit to add the FBI, all the different banks, and basically as many defendants as possible…
States an intention to amend a pending action to add further defendants, described as adding as many as possible.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:31 in the archived transcript.
Filing announcement¶
And what really got me was I came here to file two new appeals after sorting that out. And they wouldn't take the money for the new appeal without also receiving a check to the superior court, but they took payment on the phone for their…
He states on camera that he came to the courthouse to file two new appeals, and exactly two Notices of Appeal, taken in the two cases linked here, were docketed five days after publication. He names no case or docket number, so the match rests on the count and the interval.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:24 in the archived transcript.
Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
I did some googling and it seems pretty clear that the actions of Fidelity Bank have shifted this from a civil to a criminal matter, because they have shown intent to steal and personal gain. However, I have a feeling when I go to the…
A stated intent to escalate an existing civil dispute into a criminal complaint against the same defendant, self-sourced to his own online research ("I did some googling") rather than counsel — relevant to the chronology of the Fidelity Bank matters and to the pattern of escalation this dataset tracks. Notably, this is a contemplated step, not evidence any charges were sought or filed.
Source removed.
Filing announcement / stated motive¶
And when I filed the lawsuit in the court, the judges threw it out. They don't care. When I had the local police department and sent them documents, they didn't care. You know, no one's going to prosecute Shopify.
The most consequential Shopify statement located in this effort. On 2026-06-08 he states two grievances in one breath: the courts dismissed his Shopify case, and the local police department would not act on documents he submitted about Shopify. On 2026-07-29 — 51 days later — C083 (Tufano v. Carbondale Police Department et al, M.D. Pa.
Source removed. Quoted at 02:26 in the archived transcript.
Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
I just spoke to a judge today. I submitted this document explaining, hey, there's five default motions in these cases. It's been months. Why haven't you ruled on them?
A specific, dated, docket-checkable claim — five pending motions for default judgment across Lackawanna cases, unruled on for "months" as of 2026-03-18, plus an in-person exchange with a judge the same day. This is exactly the kind of assertion a research-pa-court-records pass against the LPA Prothonotary portal could confirm or refute directly.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:33 in the archived transcript.
Claim / pleading description¶
So I ended up filing a lawsuit in May of last year and that's been going through the courts. But the bank being the crooks they are had their lawyer file other lawsuits against my other LLC's for the same issue. But since it's the same…
Three docket facts stated from memory - a suit he filed in May 2025, a responsive action against his LLC, and a judgment entered against him - each of which corresponds to a tracked record.
Source removed. Quoted at 02:46 in the archived transcript.
Court-treatment allegation¶
All because Fidelity Bank chose to ignore my civil complaint and file their own with attempt to like go around the complaint and steal my property.
A specific, checkable procedural allegation — that the bank filed its own action rather than responding to his complaint — which a docket review of the Lackawanna Fidelity Bank matters could confirm or refute.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:38 in the archived transcript.
Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
And they just jerk you around, say, "Oh, the judges are immune. You can't sue judges.
Independently consistent with C038's recorded disposition — Senior Judge Arthur L. Zulick's 7/16/2026 Opinion and Order dismissed the Commonwealth on absolute sovereign immunity and the eight judicial defendants on judicial immunity, sovereign immunity, and collateral estoppel. This is the creator's characterization of that ruling, four days after it issued; it is a party statement about a court finding, not the finding.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:17 in the archived transcript.
Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
They're ignoring that and just throwing the cases out. And and again, what can I do besides make it as public as possible and ask you guys to share my
States that public dissemination is the remaining course of action after adverse rulings — relevant to the general adverse-ruling → public-statement pattern the this dataset layer tracks. Sentence is cut off by the video's end.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:47 in the archived transcript.
Claim / pleading description¶
It took me less than five minutes on Excel to prove that Shopify has stolen at least several hundred,000 from me. But they're so wealthy and powerful, the police aren't going to help me. The courts just throw out my case. And they do this…
States the claim, the amount ("at least several hundred thousand" — the caption's "several hundred,000" is a rendering artifact), and his own legal characterisation ("payment processor fraud… some type of bank fraud"). Note the hedge "some type of" — he does not identify a statute. Relevant that C054's recorded disposition rejected an attempt to use 18 U.S.C. §241 on the ground that it creates no civil cause of action; this is a different criminal-law framing of the same instinct.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:02 in the archived transcript.
Conspiracy allegation / litigation framing¶
Our court system is a money funnel for the elite. It is a completely fabricated fake fraudulent mirage of nonsense used to protect these secret society members and help them profit off of anyone else.
Another dated point on the secret-society thread — here applied to the court system as a whole, in the context of a commercial shipping dispute, four months after C038 pleaded the theory against named judges and a named lodge. Adds to the pattern that the theory is applied across unrelated disputes rather than arising from any one.
Source removed.
Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
They're not acknowledging that the judicial representatives acted outside of their jurisdiction on behalf of these secret societies and had a personal religious secret societal belief that they acted upon outside of their judicial duties.
Articulates the legal theory behind the suit — that judicial immunity should not apply because the judges acted outside their judicial capacity on behalf of a secret/religious society. This corresponds directly to C038's naming of Union Lodge No. 291 (a Masonic lodge) as a co-defendant alongside the judges. It is the clearest first-person statement of that theory located in this research so far.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:35 in the archived transcript.
Conspiracy allegation / litigation framing¶
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.
Source removed. Quoted at 02:03 in the archived transcript.
Court-proceeding reaction¶
Is it because he's a secret society member? Is it because he's in the Illuminati? Is it because he's a Freemason? Most likely.
The most explicit secret-society statement located anywhere in this research, and the only one that uses the words "Illuminati" and "Freemason" outright. Published 2025-10-18 — five months before C038 was filed (2026-03-23) naming Union Lodge No. 291 alongside eight Lackawanna judges, and nine months before “I SUED THE JUDGES!!!” (2026-07-20) stated the theory as that suit's legal basis. It also fills the gap between “Tufano v. Taban et al 3:25-cv-00011”'s Feb-2025 "in the club" framing and the C038 filing. Note the structure: three rhetorical questions answered by "Most likely" — an admission that it is speculation, which a commenter picks up on directly. Caution for any promotion pass: this is an unevidenced accusation about a named private individual. It is captured because he is a named defendant in tracked litigation (C093, C036, C068),— but it is a public statement of suspicion, not a finding of anything, and must not be recorded as though it were.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:33 in the archived transcript.
Legal-system allegation¶
landlord is still trying to evict us in court and everyone including my own lawyer seems to be on the side of the jerk off secret society members and you know the continued censorship of my YouTube channel
Three separate things in one sentence, and only one of them is a filing-restriction factor. (1) An eviction proceeding against him is live on 2022-10-25 — direction trap 1 applies squarely: the landlord is the moving party, so this is not a filing by him and cannot support any filing factor. (2) He alleges that the participants in that proceeding, including his own retained lawyer, are aligned with "secret society members" against him. That is an allegation that the forum is not honestly disposed toward him, which is what Judicial or forum bias alleged covers; it is a research classification of what he said, never a finding about any court, lawyer or organisation. (3) The YouTube-censorship grievance is restated. The tier is Moderate rather than Strong because no factor here is a core factor, no case is named, and the eviction matter resolves to no row in any of the 23 CSVs. Possible case/dispute link: Not found in aliases.csv, lawsuits.csv (case_title or defendants), disputes.csv, research_notes.csv or litigation_timeline.csv — the strings landlord and evict return zero across all 23 CSVs, so the eviction proceeding is unresolved, not untracked. No landlord, court or docket is named on camera either. Separately, the "secret society" framing later becomes a pleaded theory in several tracked actions (C038, C048, C059, C035/C063/C066, and aliases.csv carries Beverly Hills Masonic Lodge D0043 and Free and Accepted Masons of Union Lodge No 291 D0108), but he names nobody here, so direction trap 5 applies and no party link is licensed.
Source removed. Quoted at 05:20 in the archived transcript.
Named alongside
Other tracked parties named in the same originating actions.
Related dispute groups
- Lackawanna County / Tyler TechnologiesThree docket records naming Lackawanna County and Tyler Technologies, filed 2025-2026, including a property-assessment appeal and a federal injunction bid.
- Fidelity Bank mortgage and flood-insurance disputeFour docket records over the Fidelity Bank commercial mortgage on 25-31 Dundaff Street, Carbondale, and the disputed 2025 payoff; all discontinued.
This index groups name variants conservatively using the workbook's alias mapping. A repeated defendant does not by itself show that claims were duplicative or meritless.