State complaint filed
The July 2026 federal order states Tufano filed the All-Ways action in Lackawanna County on June 22, 2025.
All-Ways / wagyu shipment
Three docket records from the failed 2025 wagyu shipment, filed 2025-2026 in Lackawanna County and in federal courts in Pennsylvania and New York.
Cases in this group
Dated chronology
Removal to federal court
Worldwide Flight Services removed the state action to federal court.
Final dismissal / litigation-history observation
The court dismissed the All-Ways action, mostly without prejudice but with CBP claims dismissed with prejudice.
Public statement after ruling
Seven days after the final order, Tufano publicly shared the YouTube Short titled 'Evil Judge Protects Weber SOLOMON of All Ways Forwarding'.
Appeal docketed
An appeal from the dismissal of the All-Ways action was docketed at the Third Circuit as No. 26-2838, Frank Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding.
New action filed in a third forum
A new action naming All-Ways Forwarding was filed in the Eastern District of New York as 1:26-cv-05474, 50 days after the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissed the same dispute and while the appeal from that dismissal was pending.
Public statements by filing-restriction factor
27 researched statements connected to this dispute group 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, and not that anyone has been determined a vexatious litigant. 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¶
And then what? I'll file the lawsuit in I'll file the lawsuit in New York tomorrow before you even dismiss it. Like, what kind of BS is that? Like, just jerking me around trying to waste my time. don't want to pay me. If they want me to…
In response to the venue reasoning he has just described, he says he will file the same case in New York before the dismissal is even entered, then in New Jersey, then in every state he can drive to. The surrounding chapter identifies the dispute in detail.
Watch at 27:20 — youtube.com ↗Dispute background statement¶
I guess I'll just file another lawsuit that'll probably — the judge will use as toilet paper to wipe his ass like he's done with all 20 of my other lawsuits. They don't care. No one wants to help me.
Self-reported count ("20 of my other lawsuits") as of this video's July 2025 publish date — potentially useful as a chronology cross-check point for the overall litigation count, though it's an approximate, informal self-count, not a verified figure.
Watch at 03:44 — youtube.com ↗Litigation motive / cost imposition¶
And I can't wait to see how much of a retainer they have to write to their attorney.
An early, brief statement of the litigation-cost-imposition theme that the same video develops at length later (around the 8:18 mark).
Watch at 00:10 — youtube.com ↗Prospective repeated filing / cost imposition¶
All I know is the second I file that lawsuit on Monday, they're going to be out way more [ __ ] money than I lost because the second I file that lawsuit, there is at least four entities that are going to have to pay a lawyer a $10,000…
Directly frames filing suit as a way to impose legal costs on multiple entities as leverage toward settlement — potential litigation-motive evidence.
Watch at 08:18 — youtube.com ↗Prospective repeated filing / cost imposition¶
But at least if I file the lawsuit, they're going to have to pay — if I file the lawsuit, technically my money is already avenged because each of those organizations are going to have to pay a lawyer like a $10,000 retainer minimum. So…
Explicitly frames filing suit as a way to impose legal costs on multiple entities, described as making him "even" regardless of the suit's actual merits.
Watch at 10:24 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement / stated motive¶
they jerk me around for a few months and then just dismiss the case, which they can't do because I demanded a jury trial. So, they are denying me due process and my amendment rights. And now I have to file an appeal, but no one cares.
A dated, specific legal objection — that dismissal was impermissible because a jury trial had been demanded — plus a stated intent to appeal. the case tracker records C057 dismissed 2026-07-13, exactly one week before this video. This is the reaction-to-adverse-ruling category, and the appeal is a checkable follow-on. It also matches the jury-trial allegation already captured in the video “Evil Judge Protects Weber SOLOMON of All Ways Forwarding” from the same date.
Watch at 00:43 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
We had the forwarding company mess up our Wagu shipment. And to sum things up, I just keep having money stolen from me and no one's helping me. Whether it's the criminal or civil system, no one's helping me get my money back. So, I'm…
A prospective-filing statement naming the future defendant, in the future tense, days before the tracker's filing date for the case. "Always forwarding" resolves to All-Ways Forwarding, defendant in C015 (Lackawanna 2025-05469, filed 2025-07-22) and C057 (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-01558, filed 2025-08-21 on removal), the wagyu-shipment dispute. The statement is made on Sunday 2025-07-20 and the video published Monday 2025-07-21 — under the tracker's own filing date, two days before the complaint. Note the direction of the later event: C015 was filed by Tufano; the 2025-08-21 event is a removal by the defendant, not a filing. Nothing here refers to the removal. It is also a deflated threat — "Probably not going to do anything either" — and the remedy he actually endorses is Google reviews and public shaming, not the suit.
Watch at 00:28 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
So, you would assume this company is either highly incompetent and completely unable to do their job, or they did it intentionally and attempted to fraudulently extort me for airport storage fees, which is what I think really happened. And…
An allegation of intentional conduct amounting to attempted extortion, stated with its own hedge ("which is what I think really happened"), followed by a statement that he is looking to the courts. Whether this is a prospective-filing statement or a comment on a pending case depends on an unresolved date discrepancy that this dataset already flags — see the Research Notes. Both readings are set out there; neither is adopted here. The factor assigned reflects the words as spoken ("I hope the court system helps me" announces no filing as made) and would need revisiting if the filing date resolves to 22 June. This file takes no position on whether the extortion allegation is true. Tier: Moderate (Threatened or prospective filing)
Watch at 00:32 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
A simple product purchase has turned into a multi-million dollar lawsuit because of the greed of these forwarding companies.
He characterises the wagyu dispute as “a multi-million dollar lawsuit.” Whether this announces a filed action or anticipates one turns entirely on an unresolved date conflict in the dataset. Under the case tracker's 2025-07-22 filing date for C015, this video predates the filing by three days and the factor is Threatened or prospective filing. Under the 2025-06-22 date carried by a federal order in the recorded litigation timeline, it postdates it by 27 days and the correct factor would be Filing announced or confirmed. Threatened or prospective filing is recorded, with the alternative named, because the rest of this video is in the future tense ([00:54] “Now I have to go after...”) and because a companion video four days earlier says outright that he has yet to file.
Watch at 00:11 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
But now it's over. Now I have to go after a bunch of crooked companies that are, you know, owned by the same people that own the crooked court system.
Two factors in one sentence. "Now I have to go after a bunch of crooked companies" states an intention to proceed against multiple parties — future tense, and the plural matches the five-defendant set he recites at [01:37]. In the same breath he alleges the defendants and the courts share ownership ("owned by the same people that own the crooked court system"), which is Judicial or forum bias alleged. Neither factor is core, so the tier is Moderate however the date question resolves.
Watch at 00:54 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
The forwarding company always forwarding, US Customs and Border Protection, EVA Airways, uh, Worldwide Flight Services, the company that handles the storage for EVA Airways. Not one defendant party wanted to help me.
The strongest single finding among the statements researched from this video. He names, in one breath, four entities that map exactly onto tracked defendants — All-Ways Forwarding, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Eva Airways and Worldwide Flight Services — and calls them "defendant party." That set is C057's defendant list verbatim (C057 also names Weber Solomon, whom he does not mention). C015's recorded defendants list holds only three of them (All Ways Forwarding; Solomon Weber; U.S. Customs & Border Protection) — a gap in the tracked data worth noting. The word "defendant" pulls toward an existing action while "Not one ... wanted to help me" and the surrounding future tense pull the other way; the factor recorded reflects the reading the other statements researched from this period support.
Watch at 01:37 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement / stated motive¶
So, I just at this point I just want this product in hand, proof of condition, proof of the events that occurred, and then we'll take appropriate legal action and try to get some compensation for
An explicit, dated statement of intent to litigate the wagyu shipment, published 2025-07-18 — four days before the case tracker records C015 as filed (2025-07-22). It also names the evidentiary steps he wanted first ("product in hand, proof of condition, proof of the events"), which is unusually specific about pre-filing sequencing.
Watch at 01:38 — youtube.com ↗Dispute background statement¶
I'll file the lawsuits myself and see what happens. If not, I'll make a video about these [ __ ] every [ __ ] week until the day I die.
Public statement of intent to file suit personally and to keep making videos about the dispute indefinitely if not — relevant to litigation-chronology and pattern-of-public-commentary tracking.
Watch at 05:42 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement / stated motive¶
then this forwarding company banged us for another $7,000 for custom storage, which I'm definitely suing them for, but I don't think a lawsuit's going to do anything.
Direct, contemporaneous statement of intent to sue the freight-forwarding company over this shipment, alongside a candid admission of doubt that litigation will accomplish anything.
Watch at 01:02 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
So, I mean, I don't know how this is going to be resolved. I mean, I'm gonna have to file a lawsuit regardless. And what if I'm ever going to be compensated for the future damage is is I don't think I don't know.
The load-bearing quote in this slice. An unambiguous future-tense statement that he has yet to file on the wagyu dispute — "I'm gonna have to file a lawsuit regardless" — published 2025-07-15. It is the reason Threatened or prospective filing is recorded here and in 6FhjrCx-818, and it is direct evidence bearing on the C015 filing-date conflict set out in ## Research Notes: a speaker who says he still has to file is difficult to reconcile with a suit already 23 days old. Threatened or prospective filing is not a core factor, so the tier is Moderate however the date resolves. Note that he does not name the court, the defendants or a date for the intended filing.
Watch at 01:10 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
but I have a lawsuit filed against Always Forwarding, all the companies involved, the guy Weber Solomon, the CEO of Always Forwarding. I even sued US Customs for negligence.
A first-person confirmation of a filed action naming the freight forwarder, its chief executive and a federal customs agency, all three of which appear together on the dockets recorded for the wagyu shipment dispute.
Watch at 00:07 — youtube.com ↗Claim / pleading description¶
unless this company is about to pay me over a million dollars, which I'm asking for in this court case, I will never be, um, what's it made full again or or whatever whatever it's called when you reimburse someone and make things right.
An on-camera statement of the relief sought, over a million dollars, in a case he describes in the present tense. The tracker records no damages figure for either docket, so this is a lead to check against the complaint rather than a corroborated fact.
Watch at 02:06 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
Now, anytime I hear the word Wagu, I just get pissed off because of of what happened when we tried to to import the product. I mean, the lawsuit is basically paused because of the government shutdown. Uh so, they said, "Oh, well, we're…
Confirms on camera that a lawsuit over the failed wagyu import was live and had been paused as of late October 2025, and attributes the pause to the federal government shutdown. That is a statement about the state of a docket made from outside the docket: the recorded litigation timeline for this matter holds the state filing, the 2025-08-21 removal and the 2026-07-13 final dismissal, but no stay or pause event at all — no shutdown-related entry appears anywhere in that timeline.
Watch at 13:04 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
I tried to order Wagu beef. US customs let it sit and rot for a month and I'm still out $20,000. That's a whole big lawsuit still going on. Uh but that's another story.
The speaker confirms that litigation over a customs-detained wagyu shipment was on foot at the time of publication and gives the loss he attributes to it. The stated 20,000 dollar figure is his own and is not sourced to any docket.
Watch at 00:53 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
And then before that, just the week before that, we lost the $20,000 plus worth of Wagu US Customs and that company always forwarding just let it rot. We filed a lawsuit.
A first-person confirmation of a filing, tied to a named counterparty and a described loss. "Always forwarding" is the captions' rendering of All-Ways Forwarding; the name as captioned matches no tracked party and only resolves once the word is split.
Watch at 01:35 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement / stated motive¶
So, I wrote up a lawsuit against US Customs, the freight forwarding company, as well as the USDA, although I'm not convinced the USDA has any involvement yet.
Names the specific intended defendants (US Customs, the freight forwarder, USDA) for a suit over this shipment.
Watch at 04:26 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
There is nothing. They're not supposed to deny it. There is nothing they can do to deny your right to a jury trial. Civil matter over $20, ridiculously low amount. But the point is, they have no justification to deny my jury trial.
A specific, checkable procedural allegation (a jury-trial demand denied) stated as grounds for appeal in the All-Ways matter — a concrete docket-verification lead.
Watch at 01:06 — youtube.com ↗Court-order reaction¶
The best thing this judge could come up with was, "Oh, the event occurred at a New York airport, so the case should be filed in New York.
A party's account of a magistrate's recommendation to dismiss on venue grounds, that the event occurred at a New York airport so the case should be filed in New York, given three weeks before the dismissal order was entered. It is his characterisation; the order itself is the authority for what the court held.
Watch at 26:24 — youtube.com ↗Dispute background statement¶
It's been a very difficult year here at Frankie Strange Meat. I mean, obviously, despite my botched eye surgery and all the medical issues, we had the Chinese company scam us on the potato chip manufacturer come that still hasn't been…
A single dated statement enumerating grievances that correspond to several tracked dispute groups at once. Its value is chronological: it fixes 2025-11-30 as a date on which the speaker publicly characterised all of them as unresolved. The USDA is the only tracked party named outright.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
Japan is refusing to sell me Wagu for the entire rest of my business as long as I'm alive. So, you are talking millions and millions of dollars in damages. And as usual, the eliteowned court system is just jerking me around because all of…
Two things in one breath: a consequential-damages theory well beyond the stated direct loss, and an allegation that the court system is elite-owned and that the defendant businesses share ownership. Both are the speaker's own characterisations; no court has found anything of the kind.
Watch at 00:18 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
that greedy customs company just destroyed the business relationship entirely. and they censor and shadowban me and the courts don't care. It's just disgusting.
Bundles three claims in one sentence: that the freight company destroyed a business relationship, that he is censored and shadowbanned, and that the courts do not care. It is characteristic of how this dispute is stated across the archive.
Watch at 24:50 — youtube.com ↗Opposing-counsel allegation¶
Now, what happens if you actually learn the court system? If you figure out all these lawyers are messing with you and just stealing money from you and you learn the procedures and how to do everything and actually file a case, the judge…
The same argument as “Pro Se Litigants ARE NOT ALLOWED!!!” at 1:18 ("you can do the exact same thing that a lawyer does and the judge will not grant you the default"), applied to a different case and a different court four months later. A consistent, repeated theory of grievance rather than a one-off reaction — useful for a chronology of his stated positions.
Watch at 00:26 — youtube.com ↗Public video material in this dispute
Public statements are indexed separately from court findings and from this project's research classifications.
- Is our Court System FAKE?!
- Evil Judge Protects Weber SOLOMON of All Ways Forwarding
- Happy Rotten Wagyu 1 Year Anniversary
- FREEZER FAILURE AGAIN!? EGG CATASTROPHE! Sorbet Restocks, Peptides Available, Prime Rib is Back!
- All-Ways Forwarding Fermented Wagyu!!!
- Why I can NEVER SELL JAPANESE WAGYU
- Full Wagyu Dinner in Tokyo Japan!
- THANKSGIVING TURKEYS & PRIME RIB! Premium Cod Liver, Prepared Beef Tongues - FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG
- Trump wants BEEF FROM ARGENTINA!?
- Sourdough! Raw Cheese! Fresh Beef! Free Range Meat Vlog
- They STOLE MILLIONS then gave them Pizza 😂
- CRAZY Santa Cruz Meetup SHUT DOWN
- Wholesale Eggs available! Wild Boar Back! Fresh Sourdough! FREEZER FAILING AGAIN!?
- US Customs lets $20,000 of WAGYU BEEF ROT!!! Frank Tufano v. All Ways Forwarding
- $500 worth of Hot Dogs is MORE IMPORTANT THAN $22,000 of Wagyu Beef!?
- They stole MILLIONS FROM THEIR EMPLOYEES!?!?
- All-Ways Forwarding MAKES A LIVING BY EXTORTION
- All-Ways forwarding gets their Reviews cleaned up AFTER RUINING $20,000 OF MY MEAT
- Did they STEAL MY MEAT? Customs Company hired in APRIL!!!
- Natural Pool Sanitizer! Grass Fed Gelatin! LOST $20,000 WORTH OF WAGYU!? Free Range Meat Vlog
- We can leave Truthful Negative Reviews for my Wagyu Beef
- All-Ways Forwarding has RUINED MY PRODUCT SUPPLY
- GANGSTALKING REDDITORS are Happy I lost $20,000
- “They” will LIE to get me Banned!
- Typical Business Purchase turns into 7 FIGURE LAWSUIT because of GREEDY SCAMMING COMPANY
- Customs Brokerage DESTROYS $20,000 WORTH OF WAGYU TO EXTORT SMALL BUSINESS
- All-Ways forwarding DESTROYS $20,000 worth of Wagyu for a $7,000 SCAM!!!
- US CUSTOMS RUINS $30,000 OF JAPANESE WAGYU!?!? Destroying Small Business!
- US CUSTOMS SEIZED $27,000 WORTH OF WAGYU!!!
- Had US Customs PERMANENTLY DAMAGED MY BUSINESS!? Wagyu Disaster!
- Bargain Beef Box! Burgers AND Pizza!? Japanese Wagyu!? Twinx Bars!? FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG
Dispute groups are research/navigation categories. They are not judicial findings that every case contains legally identical claims.