Frank Tufano lawsuits involving David D. Lin Esq
4 originating actions · 5 docket records
Cases involving David D. Lin Esq
David D. Lin Esq is named in 4 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (5 docket records) across 2 courts filed between July 29, 2025 and March 4, 2026. 4 of the docket records carry a recorded outcome.
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| March 4, 2026 | 3:26-cv-00542Tufano v. Nelson et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Report and recommendation adopted; motions to dismiss granted; case closed |
| February 6, 2026 | 2026-00637Tufano v. Nelson | Lackawanna County | Removed to federal court |
| October 17, 2025 | 4:25-cv-01960Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Dismissed |
| July 29, 2025 | 2025-05793Tufano v. Saladino | Lackawanna County | Pending; Motion for Default Judgment filed 2026-02-19, no order entered |
| July 29, 2025 | 3:25-cv-01400Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Dismissed |
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.
Report and recommendation (adopted in full)
Recommended that both motions to dismiss be granted and every claim dismissed with prejudice, on three grounds: the judicial defendants are protected by absolute judicial immunity; the criminal statute pled affords no private right of action; and the claims…
Lack of jurisdiction
Court adopted the R&R and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Dismissal with prejudice
Court adopted the R&R and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The short final order does not reproduce the complete reasoning from the R&R.
Repeated litigation / identical factual allegations (R&R)
R&R described C048, C055 and C059 as a trilogy raising essentially the same claims against the same defendants; it said C055 repeated the identical factual allegations from dismissed C048 and C059 again made identical factual allegations and the same claims.
Repeated previously rejected legal theory / amendment futile (R&R)
R&R noted that the private-right-of-action defect in Tufano's 18 U.S.C. §241 theory had already been explained in an earlier case and repeated in C048/C055; it also found that he had been advised of pleading deficiencies and chose not to amend, so further…
Court-stated litigation-volume observation (R&R footnote)
Footnote to the report and recommendation recording that "Plaintiff has filed at least twenty-two separate actions in this Court within the past two years, half of which are closed." This is a judicial statement about filing volume in the Middle District of…
What the filings allege
- 3:26-cv-00542Plaintiff Frank Tufano, pro se, brings claims for fraud/fraudulent concealment (42 Pa.
- 2026-00637Plaintiff Frank Tufano, pro se, filed this complaint in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas (later removed to federal court as 3:26-cv-00542, tracked separately as C064) bringing claims for fraud/fraudulent concealment (42 Pa.
- 4:25-cv-01960Proceeding pro se, Tufano filed this complaint on October 17, 2025 — the third of three near-identical suits over the same dispute — against Paul Saladino, M.D., Jeffrey Davis, Esq., White Plains Lodge #473, “the Illuminati,” and, new to this filing, U.S.
- 2025-05793Plaintiff alleges Dr.
- 3:25-cv-01400Proceeding pro se, Tufano filed a complaint on July 29, 2025 against Paul Saladino, M.D., attorney Jeffrey Davis, Esq., White Plains Lodge #473, and “the Illuminati,” asserting five causes of action: fraud, tortious interference, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy, and “conspiracy against rights” under 18 U.S.C.
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
6 researched statements are linked to cases naming David D. Lin Esq 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 David D. Lin Esq, 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¶
And that's actually what's happening with the um the Saladino case. I filed a new one and I actually named, you know, the lawyer that screwed me over. I named the secret societies and I named That's a that was filed. I could talk about…
An announcement of a completed filing on an already-litigated dispute, with its defendant composition described rather than listed. C055 and C019 were both filed 2025-07-29, two days before publication, and both name exactly what he describes — a lawyer (Jeffrey Davis Esq; David D. Lin Esq) and secret societies (The Illuminati; White Plains Lodge #473) alongside Paul Saladino MD.
Source removed. Quoted at 04:28 in the archived transcript. Play at 12:10 in this project’s compilation ↗
Repeated/escalatory filing¶
Uh I guess we'll find out what happens with the Saladin court case. Well, technically I already tried it once. I filed that case like five or six months ago and the judge dismissed it for failure to state a claim or something and then like…
This is the speaker's own first-person account of the sequence the tracker records as a repeat-filing pair. He names the dispute ("the Saladin[o] court case"), dates his first attempt ("five or six months ago"), states the ground of dismissal ("failure to state a claim"), states that the appeal was itself dismissed on a fee/notice failure, and says he refiled as a result. Every element is checkable against the docket data and every element matches: C048 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00262) was filed 2025-02-12 — 5.6 months before this video published — and dismissed 2025-06-11 after an R&R recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim with leave to amend that he did not use. C055 (3:25-cv-01400) was filed 2025-07-29, two days before publication, and carries previous_related_case_id: C048 and refiling_of_prior_case: Yes. The appellate leg he describes is not currently in the tracker's C048 row and is a research lead. The dismissal-to-refiling core factor is satisfied by the new action, not by the appeal: the appeal is the ordinary appellate remedy and is expressly excluded by the factor's definition. The Strong tier rests on the refiling.
Source removed. Quoted at 12:55 in the archived transcript. Play at 12:30 in this project’s compilation ↗
Filing announcement¶
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…
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.
Court-proceeding reaction¶
And I didn't know that these judges could deny your right to a jury trial. And every single lawsuit I filed, I've always requested a jury trial. It's your amendment right, but I guess Frank Tufano isn't entitled to one.
This restates, on camera, the same jury-trial theory that C030/C064's claims summary records as pleaded — that the defendants denied him due process and a jury trial. It is the speaker's characterisation of how courts have treated his filings, not a court's finding, and it gives no count of filings, so Self-reported filing volume does not apply despite the phrase "every single lawsuit I filed."
Source removed. Quoted at 00:13 in the archived transcript.
Legal-system allegation¶
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.
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
- Saladino-related litigationThe Paul Saladino dispute: ten docket records from 2020 to 2026, beginning with Saladino's S.D.N.Y. suit and including later actions Tufano filed himself.
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.