Frank Tufano lawsuits involving Lackawanna County
5 originating actions · 5 docket records
Cases involving Lackawanna County
Lackawanna County is named in 5 de-duplicated originating actions in this dataset (5 docket records) across 2 courts filed between July 25, 2025 and August 6, 2026. 4 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 has appeared and waived service, answer due Oct. 9, 2026, and defendant Tyler Technologies, Inc. moved to dismiss on Sept. 8, 2026, undecided |
| April 6, 2026 | 3:26-cv-00879Tufano v. Tyler Technologies, Inc. et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Order adopted R&R (2026-06-25, non-final); Tufano appealed the denial of emergency injunctive relief and a stay |
| 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 |
| July 25, 2025 | 2025-05633Tufano v. Lackawanna County | Lackawanna County | Motions for stay and recusal denied; procedural appeal pending; underlying Board of Assessment appeal not yet decided on the merits |
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.
Tax Injunction Act / comity dismissal recommended (R&R)
Report and recommendation (Doc. 6) describing the claim as alleging that Tyler Technologies, Inc., in collusion with Lackawanna County, improperly inflated the value of Tufano's properties so that the County could impose a higher tax. It concluded that "the…
R&R adopted; preliminary-injunction motion denied
Order (Doc. 13) adopting the April 9, 2026 report and recommendation. The court found Tufano's objections (Doc. 7) "to be unpersuasive and without merit," adopted the report, denied the pro se emergency motion for preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. 2), and…
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…
Motions for stay and recusal denied
Order dated 2026-04-02 (Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, No. 25-CV-5633), signed by James A. Gibbons, P.J., denies Tufano's motion for a stay of the real estate tax proceedings and his motion to recuse the trial judge. The order recounts that…
Appeal quashed sua sponte and dismissed (Pa. Superior Court)
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, No. 723 MDA 2026. The court quashed sua sponte the appeal from the 2026-04-02 order denying Tufano's 'Motion to Recuse and Stay Proceeding', holding that an order denying recusal of a trial judge is not appealable as final or…
What the filings allege
- 3:26-cv-02257Plaintiff sued the Free and Accepted Masons of Union Lodge No.
- 3:26-cv-00879Plaintiff Frank Tufano, pro se, alleges theft by deception (18 Pa.
- 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.
- 2025-05633Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brings a Board of Assessment appeal against Lackawanna County and Tyler Technologies, Inc.
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
32 researched statements are linked to cases naming Lackawanna County 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 Lackawanna County, 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.
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.
Repeated/escalatory filing¶
When I sued them in the state court, the judge wiped his tushy with it like my uh legal complaint was toilet paper and then I filed an appeal. They threw it out again. I went to the federal court, same thing. The federal court said, "Oh,…
A first-person account of a state suit, an appeal and then a federal suit on the same assessment grievance, ending with the federal court declining jurisdiction.
Watch at 00:56 — youtube.com ↗Prospective repeated filing / cost imposition¶
The first lawsuit I filed was thrown away by the judge. And now I'm going to have to file a second lawsuit. They're probably just going to do the same thing.
Announces a second action on the county assessment grievance immediately after saying the first was thrown out, and predicts the same result.
Watch at 00:14 — youtube.com ↗Prospective repeated filing / cost imposition¶
So these people, these elite that have been trying to steal my building for the last two years, now what? I'm just going to file another set of lawsuits for the judge to wipe his ass with again.
Announces another set of lawsuits on the county assessment grievance and in the same sentence predicts that the court will discard them.
Watch at 01:41 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:02 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
That lawsuit against the county that I mentioned earlier was just basically thrown out by the county judge. No surprise. So, we sent it to the appeals court. It's now in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. That appeal process has started.…
Describes in sequence an adverse ruling in the county case, an appeal now in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and separately a new federal action filed on the ground that the state court denied due process. His description of the state case as thrown out differs from the tracked docket record, which shows two interlocutory motions denied and that denial appealed, with the underlying assessment appeal not yet decided on the merits.
Watch at 01:32 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
but we're going to file a new lawsuit in the federal court. And we also appealed the state lawsuit because uh the county is just a bunch of crooks. And the next round of appeal hearings is for next year. So there is no way for me to…
He announces a new federal action on the same dispute immediately after an adverse ruling in the state case, and separately confirms an appeal, saying there is no way to resolve the tax situation without using the court system.
Watch at 01:32 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:54 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 02:48 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:36 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
And there's nothing I can do. What more can I do besides file the lawsuits? You know, no attorneys are going to help me.
States a rationale for continuing to file - that no alternative remains and no attorney will act for him.
Watch at 01:39 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:24 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
But now I have to file a federal case, file all these appeals, maybe even have to pay a crooked lawyer to fix this, even though I don't want to because I have a feeling as soon as I give a lawyer any money, they're just going to completely…
States the multi-forum plan explicitly, a federal case plus all these appeals, and gives his stated reason for continuing to act without counsel.
Watch at 02:02 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
But now in my lawsuit, I have to file a stay on the property taxes next year because they evaluated my $300,000 building for guess how much? 1.6 million. They're going to try to charge me something crazy like 30 or 40,000 in taxes.
Announces a stay application he has not yet made within an existing lawsuit and states the assessment figures behind it. The tracked docket later records a stay motion denied on 2 April 2026 and an emergency motion to stay real estate tax proceedings filed on 6 April 2026.
Watch at 01:45 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
And they just they just screwed me over every step of the way. They lie about mailing stuff out. That's the main thing. They're lying about saying they mailed me the appeal. Like the appeal process is fraudulent. I I'm I'm I'm hoping the…
Alleges that the county's appeal process is fraudulent and announces an intention to appeal in the case and take it to a higher court. A notice of appeal was later docketed in the tracked case at the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Watch at 02:21 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
But what I shouldn't have done was I filed a lawsuit against the county beforehand for being discriminated against.
Confirms in his own words that he sued the county over the assessment dispute and dates that filing as preceding his appraisal request. It is one of the few statements on the channel in which he characterises one of his own filings as a tactical error.
Watch at 00:31 — youtube.com ↗Dispute background statement¶
But because I did sue the county, they had some like internal personal vendetta against me and purposefully did not notify me of the uh appraisal dispute hearing.
Restates the fact of the filing and attributes an adverse administrative outcome, missing the second-round appraisal hearing, to a personal vendetta by the county. The conduct alleged is the opposing party's, not the court's.
Watch at 01:09 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
And I'm explaining to the federal court, they're corrupt. Can you please help me? That's literally what my filing basically says. It says, "This state judge, this county judge is corrupt as hell. Can you please do something? Can you stay…
His account of what his federal filing asks for: that the state and county judges are corrupt and that the tax proceedings be stayed. It is his own paraphrase, hedged with the word basically, and must not be read as the wording of any court document.
Watch at 02:06 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
So, I submitted an appeal hearing and I also filed a lawsuit against the county at the same time. But because I filed a lawsuit against the county, they did some internal sketchy stuff and purposefully did not notify me of my hearing date
He confirms on camera that he sued Lackawanna County in parallel with the administrative assessment appeal, and frames the county's failure to notify him of a hearing date as retaliation for that filing. This is his own account of the origin of the tracked state case.
Watch at 00:16 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:33 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
I submitted an appeal. They never contacted me for the appeal. Possibly because I filed the lawsuit against the county and maybe they purposefully didn't put it in the mailbox.
A first-person confirmation of an existing lawsuit against the county, coupled with a suggestion that the county withheld his appeal notice because of that filing. The speaker himself hedges the retaliation claim with possibly and maybe.
Watch at 00:26 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 02:46 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:38 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
And then after filing two lawsuits against the county, the county judge wiped his with my lawsuit as if it was toilet paper and just threw it out. Now, this year, the appeal hearings were due August 1st, which was several days ago. I…
Confirms two prior county suits in his own count and dates the administrative appeal deadline he says he missed.
Watch at 00:15 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:17 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:47 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
And the court case in the local state court against the county, you can guess the judge is in bed with the county and completely dismissed my case and is not allowing me to represent myself despite being discriminated against twice by the…
A direct allegation that the trial judge is aligned with the county, together with his characterisation that the case was completely dismissed. The docket records the case as pending on the merits, with his motions for a stay and to recuse denied four days earlier, so the characterisation and the record disagree.
Watch at 00:51 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:35 — youtube.com ↗Court-treatment allegation¶
So, it's just a bunch of nonsense. It's just this local court jerking me around. I need to throw flyers all around the street about how all these people are crooked. And I mean, it doesn't matter at this point. It's ridiculous. They're…
He says he needs to hand out flyers about the local court and its staff, and in the same breath predicts the court will dismiss his case and take his properties. This is the first instance in the archive of the flyer tactic aimed at a court rather than at a medical defendant.
Watch at 02:27 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 02:03 — youtube.com ↗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.
Watch at 00:33 — youtube.com ↗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.