State action filed
Frankie's Free Range Meat LLC and others filed a New York Supreme Court action against Adam Starowicz.
Starowicz / arbitration / Davis litigation
Six docket records from the Frankie's Free Range Meat arbitration dispute, naming Adam Starowicz, the American Arbitration Association and Jeffrey Davis.
Cases in this group
- 55177/2021 — FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZ
- 50710/2022 — Frank Tufano v. Adam Starowicz
- 7:23-cv-00244 — Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al
- 50058/2023 — Frank Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al
- 2025-01240 — Tufano v. Davis
- 57677/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Jeffrey Davis Esq.
Dated chronology
Arbitration preliminary hearing
An arbitrator's ruling reproduced by Davis states that a preliminary arbitration hearing occurred on Oct. 25, 2021 and that Tufano was represented by counsel who confirmed the jurisdiction and appropriateness of the proceeding.
Request to pause/stay arbitration addressed
The arbitrator language reproduced by Davis says that by email on or about Apr. 5, 2022 a prior request to pause or stay the arbitration was ruled on, with the arbitrator relying on the operating agreement's mandatory arbitration clause.
State action dismissed
C089 was dismissed without prejudice after the court found no affidavit of service or other filing moving the action toward judgment; a request to restore/stay arbitration was denied as moot.
New state complaint filed
Tufano filed C090 against Adam Starowicz in Westchester Supreme Court.
Motion to dismiss state case
Davis reports that Starowicz filed a motion to dismiss C090 on Jan. 9, 2023, arguing that the dispute belonged in the pending arbitration.
Federal complaint filed
Two days after the reported motion to dismiss C090, Tufano filed C099 in S.D.N.Y. against the American Arbitration Association, Jeffrey K. Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson.
Show-cause order
The federal court ordered Tufano to show cause why C099 should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Federal case dismissed
After receiving Tufano's show-cause response, the court dismissed C099 without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
New state complaint filed
The next day, Tufano filed C091 in Westchester Supreme Court against the same four defendants named in C099: AAA, Jeffrey Davis, Adam Starowicz and Sarah Thompson.
State cases discontinued with prejudice
Stipulations filed March 9, 2023 discontinued Tufano's claims in C090 and C091 with prejudice.
Complaint filed
Tufano filed C004 in Lackawanna County against Jeffrey Davis, Esq. Only 3 docket entries (the Verified Complaint and a companion Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment, both filed the same day, plus an Affidavit of Service two months later) have been recorded, with no further activity through 8/18/2026; no disposition has been entered.
Later Davis lawsuit filed
Tufano later filed C094 against Jeffrey Davis in Westchester Supreme Court.
Later Davis case dismissed
The court dismissed C094, finding no cognizable claim within its subject-matter jurisdiction and explaining that a state court could not review or vacate federal court orders; the decision expressly identified C091 as related.
Public statements by filing-restriction factor
9 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.
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.
Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
[creator reading an email he attributes to Jeffrey Davis] "...so someone can explain to you while [why] you will very likely not prevail here and for that matter why a state court cannot vacate a federal court decision that is well…
Buried in the mockery is a specific procedural argument — that the suit asks a state court to vacate a federal court decision — which matches the actual disposition of C094 (Frank Tufano v. Jeffrey Davis Esq., NY Supreme, dismissed 2025-05-15, which the case tracker records as finding no subject-matter jurisdiction). An adversary's out-of-court prediction that the case would fail on jurisdiction, followed by dismissal on jurisdiction. Recorded as a temporal/substantive correspondence, not an endorsement.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:52 in the archived transcript. Play at 15:49 in this project’s compilation ↗
Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
my argument to my lawyer was the llc is fraudulent and that we have to file a motion in supreme court to invalidate and void the llc so i can leave the arbitration
A specific prospective filing, named by forum (New York Supreme Court) and relief (invalidating the operating agreement), stated 301 days before C090 and 344 days before C091 were filed in that court. Recorded as a described intention, not a filing: the complaint he says he wanted is attributed to his instructions to counsel, not to anything on a docket. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed).
Source removed. Quoted at 04:54 in the archived transcript.
Filing announcement¶
on top of that the landlord filed his own lawsuit in bronx housing court and the guy is so connected to this area that he got a court date in like a week which is crazy to me because i filed a case in supreme court they didn't respond to…
This is the most substantive thing in my slice. It does four things at once, and each is separately useful. (1) It confirms a filing he made — "i filed a case in supreme court" — which is Filing announced or confirmed. (2) It names the court: New York Supreme Court, which the archive did not previously have for this matter. (3) It names a second, entirely separate proceeding running against him: an eviction filed by the landlord's lawyers in Bronx Housing Court, with an appearance he puts at "next monday or something." ⚠ Bronx Housing Court appears nowhere else in this archive — a grep of every file under youtube-research/videos/ for "housing court" returns zero. (4) It alleges forum influence: "the guy is so connected to this area that he got a court date in like a week which is crazy to me" — an assertion that the opposing party's local connections produced favourable scheduling, which is Judicial or forum bias alleged in its ordinary form (a complaint about how the forum treated him, not about a named judge). ⚠ Moderate, not Strong, for two reasons that both have to hold: neither factor here is one of the three core factors, and no tracked case is named — the Supreme Court action is not in lawsuits.csv at all. Possible case/dispute link: the untracked landlord matter recorded on YT053; NOT any row in lawsuits.csv. The identification is unusually solid for an unnamed-party link, because the archive already holds the other half of it: XYE8qZLgK3I ("SUING MY LANDLORD!? Frankie's Free Range Meat Update", published 2022-06-01, dataset row YT053, tagged primary_topic: Landlord litigation with external_matter: Older landlord dispute not currently represented in CASES) carries VS019 — "the most recent one last week a landlord terminated my lease called up the fire department to try to get me a violation and i was very irritated the day after that i filed the lawsuit immediately had him serve the papers" — and VS022, the neighbour-smell/shared-HVAC grievance that this video restates almost word for word at [6:16]. This video is 34 days later (2022-06-01 → 2022-07-05, computed in code) and is the next instalment of the same matter. ⚠ It is not C089. I considered and rejected reading "i filed a case in supreme court" as C089 (Frankies Free Range Meat LLC et al v. Adam Starowicz, Westchester County Supreme, filed 2021-04-22 and still live on this date): the sentence attributes the Housing Court response to the same actor — "he had his lawyers file a case" — and that actor is expressly "the landlord," whereas Starowicz is the LLC's 49% member, not the landlord. VS019 independently dates a landlord suit he filed in late May 2022. Both readings were checked; only one survives.
Source removed. Quoted at 05:42 in the archived transcript.
Filing announcement¶
asking other content creators content readers and lawyers for help with my kickstarter being shut down only to be ignored and shunned then countersuing these degenerates only to be jerked around by lawyers and the legal system they own
He states a filing he has already made — "then countersuing these degenerates" — and in the same sentence alleges the forum is captured: "the legal system they own". Two things make this load-bearing and both need care. First, he frames his own suit as a counter, i.e. as an answer to being sued. That bears directly on the archive's open, unresolved direction conflict (elsewhere he has described a business partner as "suing me", while C089 records him as plaintiff). This file adds a third data point and deliberately does not adjudicate it: "countersuing" is his characterisation, spoken 200 days after C089 was filed, and the referent of "these degenerates" in this sentence is the Kickstarter/plagiarism group, not any named person. Second, the tier is capped at Moderate: Filing announced or confirmed is not one of the three core factors, and no tracked case is named in the transcript, so Strong is unavailable on both counts. Note also that seeking "help... from lawyers" and being "ignored and shunned" is a pro-se-access complaint, not a court finding of anything. Possible case/dispute link: tentative and unconfirmed — most plausibly C089 / DSP020 on date proximity, and possibly the counter-posture to C100 / DSP003, but neither case, court nor party is named. Not found under a Kickstarter grievance in aliases.csv, lawsuits.csv (case_title or defendants), disputes.csv, research_notes.csv or litigation_timeline.csv.
Source removed. Quoted at 01:48 in the archived transcript.
Court-proceeding reaction¶
He didn't file the correct motions. He didn't do what he should have at certain points and ultimately led to me getting a default in the case. And he's refusing to admit his malpractice or wrongdoing.
The plaintiff's own account of why C100 went to default — attorney malpractice. This sits in direct tension with the court record: the video “Corrupt Judge issued an ILLEGAL ORDER” records C100's finding that the defaults were willful and that no meritorious defense was shown, and the case tracker records final judgment entered with a damages award. Two accounts of the same default, one a public statement and one a court finding, and this project's evidence-layer rule keeps them in separate categories. Recorded, not adjudicated.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:13 in the archived transcript.
Claim / pleading description¶
starting with Jeffrey Davis, a lawyer that screwed me over in court, committing legal malpractice, helping the opposing council instead of actually helping me and defending me.
Names Jeffrey Davis, a tracked defendant, and states the substance of the legal-malpractice claim pleaded against him, including the allegation that he assisted opposing counsel. The video names no case or court.
Source removed. Quoted at 00:14 in the archived transcript.
Legal-system allegation¶
my former lawyer jeffrey davis who was jewish was to my understanding in collusion with my business partner adam starwitz probably paul saldino i don't know what type of connections they have you know what the deal is but i'm assuming they…
The collusion allegation stated in full, naming his own former attorney Jeffrey Davis (A001 / D0137) and Adam Starowicz — and recorded 279 days before he sued both of them in C099. Cannot be Strong: the rubric reserves that for the three core filing-conduct factors, and this alleges bias among the actors rather than describing his own filing conduct. ⚠ The allegation carries an explicit religious identification of the attorney, preserved verbatim because it characterises the nature of the claim being made. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed). Jeffrey Davis and Adam Starowicz are both named defendants in C099 and C091; no specific case_id is asserted from this video alone.
Source removed. Quoted at 04:21 in the archived transcript.
Legal-system allegation¶
listen you [ __ ] can collude with each other all you want i don't know what sort of group you're in i don't know what sort of club you in if you want to work together i'm going to ignore you
His own account of accusing the forum itself of collusion, in a call to its case manager. The [ __ ] bleeps are preserved as captioned. The "club" framing recurs across this batch (compare tasS38BpOPw at 9:33, "they're all in the club") and is the consistent shape of the bias allegation. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed) — the American Arbitration Association is D0019, a named defendant in C099 and C091.
Source removed. Quoted at 06:28 in the archived transcript.
Legal-system allegation¶
my lawyer basically dropped me last week on all the cases because we were arguing back and forth the guy was kind of you know jerking me around and and he didn't do some legal proceedings that i requested him to do you know i mean i had…
The earliest on-camera statement of the attorney-collusion allegation that IpqDPRxwzc4 develops 44 days later, and the earliest reference in the archive to a tracked proceeding. The attorney is not named here, but the sibling video names him as Jeffrey Davis (A001 / D0137), a tracked attorney and a named defendant in C099 and C091. "They're all in the club" is the forum/actor-bias framing rather than a claim about any ruling. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed) via the attorney identified in the sibling video; "all the cases" also encompasses C100. No specific case_id asserted.
Source removed. Quoted at 09:18 in the archived transcript.
Public video material in this dispute
Public statements are indexed separately from court findings and from this project's research classifications.
- My Own Lawyer THREATENED ME!!!
- This Lawyer should be DISBARRED
- The BEST Vitamin and Mineral Supplements are here!
- HOLIDAY SALES! Wagyu is back! Frankie's Free Range Meat Vlog
- New York Apartment Tour $3,000/month
- They STEAL from me, DESTROY my business, then try to SILENCE me!
- LEGAL UPDATE American Arbitration Association COLLUSION AGAINST ME
- New Products! WiFi Testing! Legal Update! FFRM Vlog
- 1 Year after I QUIT BODYBUILDING! Physique and Life Update
- Amazon will be the END of SMALL BUSINESS!
- On my own at Frankie's Free Range Meat
- SNOWED IN NYC! Frankie's Free Range Meat NOT GOOD!
- Frankie's Free Range Meat BROKE!? Slaughterhouse, Farm, Dairy/Eggs
- Best Bar GIVEAWAY and PRIME RIB for the Holidays!
- Frankie's Free Range Meat UPDATE!
- Frankie's Free Range Meat Vlog #1
- Free Range is THE FUTURE
Dispute groups are research/navigation categories. They are not judicial findings that every case contains legally identical claims.