Transfer / federal action opened
The Taban malpractice action was transferred from M.D. Pa. and opened in the Central District of California as 2:25-cv-00147.
Taban / eye-surgery-related litigation
Frank Tufano's lawsuits over eye surgery by Mehryar Ray Taban, MD: seven docket records filed 2025-2026 in California, Pennsylvania and federal courts.
Cases in this group
- 3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al
- 25SMCV00041 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.
- 25SMCV05503 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.
- 2026-01161 — Tufano v. The State of California
- 3:26-cv-00447 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
- 3:26-cv-00840 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
- 3:26-cv-01016 — Tufano v. Eriksson et al
Dated chronology
California state complaint filed
Tufano filed California Superior Court case 25SMCV00041 concerning the Taban medical/surgery dispute.
AAO demurrer sustained without leave
The American Academy of Ophthalmology obtained a demurrer ruling without leave to amend in 25SMCV00041.
ASOPRS service quashed / MBC demurrer sustained
The state court granted ASOPRS's motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction and sustained the Medical Board's demurrer without leave to amend.
Sanction imposed (complaint dismissed on order to show cause)
At the combined case management conference and order to show cause re sanctions, with no appearance by or for Plaintiff, the court found no cause had been shown and imposed sanctions by dismissing the first amended complaint without prejudice. The same order advanced and vacated all five discovery motions set for Oct. 16, 2025.
Second California state complaint filed
A second California Superior Court Taban case, 25SMCV05503, was filed.
Partial dismissal of Taban defendants
The court adopted the report and recommendation and dismissed only the Taban defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, leaving the action pending against TikTok and remanding the matter to the chief magistrate judge.
Federal complaint filed
Tufano filed C063 in M.D. Pa. against the State of California, Taban and related defendants.
Concurrent state complaint filed
A Lackawanna County complaint underlying C035/C066 was dated the same day as C063.
Removal to federal court
The Lackawanna action was removed to M.D. Pa. as C066.
Parallel show-cause orders
Both C063 and C066 dockets reflect April 8 show-cause orders concerning improper venue and possible transfer/dismissal.
Venue show-cause orders in Pennsylvania
The M.D. Pa. court issued show-cause orders addressing improper venue in the parallel Taban-related federal matters.
Plaintiff acknowledges duplicate matters
Tufano filed a request asking whether the removed action would return to state court because there were 'two identical Federal matters' causing confusion.
Pretrial conference / remote appearance / trial vacated
At the July 6 pretrial conference, Plaintiff appeared remotely after the Court granted his request, but the order states he refused to turn on his camera. The Court learned he was proceeding without expert witnesses and vacated the July 14 jury trial.
ASOPRS service quashed in second California case
The court granted ASOPRS's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction in C102.
Embedded vexatious request not adjudicated
ASOPRS argued within its motion-to-quash proceeding that Tufano had become a vexatious litigant; the court stated the request was beyond the scope of that motion and would require a separate motion.
Public statement about trial attendance
A public post/video stated that Taban's lawyer was arguing Tufano was medically fit for trial and framed the issue as forcing a sick patient to attend trial.
Plaintiff health filing
Tufano filed a statement of his current physical health in the C.D. California action.
Final dismissal
C071 (Tufano v. Eriksson et al., naming Anthony Eriksson, Mehryar Ray Taban MD, and Mehryar Taban MD Inc.) was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction after the district court adopted a Report & Recommendation and denied Tufano's TRO motion.
Medical Board dismissal motion filed
The Medical Board of California filed a motion to dismiss C063 for failure to state a claim, together with a request for judicial notice.
Appeal docketed
Tufano's appeal of the C071 dismissal was docketed at the Third Circuit as No. 26-2996; appellees (Anthony Eriksson, Mehryar Ray Taban MD, Mehryar Taban MD Inc.) entered an appearance through counsel Kimberly D. Borland, and the district court record was transmitted via CM/ECF, both the same day.
Sua sponte summary judgment / conditional dismissal
The court excluded Plaintiff's expert testimony, denied the continuance and disqualification motions, granted Defendant's expert-testimony motions in limine, and entered sua sponte summary judgment for Defendant.
Post-order motion practice
Three days after the Aug. 7, 2026 order granting summary judgment, a filing docketed as "Continue AND Disqualify Judge AND In Limine - Preclude AND In Limine - Preclude" was entered (ECF 152). Further entries followed on Aug. 14, Aug. 17 and Aug. 24, 2026.
Statement of disqualification stricken
An order striking Tufano's statement of disqualification and verified answer was signed and filed in 25SMCV05503, the day before his motion for reconsideration was denied.
Reconsideration denied
The Los Angeles Superior Court denied Tufano's motion for reconsideration of the July 14, 2026 dismissal, holding that the motion did not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. The order also records that an order striking Tufano's statement of disqualification had been signed and filed the previous day.
Order setting opposition deadline
Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo ordered Tufano to file a brief opposing the Medical Board of California’s motion to dismiss by Sept. 3, 2026, failing which the motion could be deemed unopposed and the action dismissed under Rule 41.
Opposition brief filed
Tufano filed his brief in opposition to the Medical Board of California’s motion to dismiss, ten days before the deadline. Briefing is complete and no ruling has issued.
Appeal filed
A notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit was docketed in the C.D. California action as entry 156, followed by entry 157 (Aug. 27, "Vacate") and entry 158 (Aug. 28, "USCA Notification of Case Number"). This is a third Ninth Circuit appeal in this action, after Nos. 25-4324 and 25-7397.
Public statements by filing-restriction factor
99 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¶
The judges are just paid off in dismissing my lawsuits, but that doesn't matter because I'm just going to keep filing appeals and keep refiling the lawsuits.
A public statement that adverse rulings will not end the filings, coupled with an allegation of judicial corruption as the explanation for them. Directly on point to the "repeated/escalatory filing" statement type this dataset already tracks — and materially stronger than the existing title-only rows, because it states the intent in terms ("keep refiling") rather than reporting an outcome. Note this is a party's public statement, not a court finding or a research classification.
Watch at 00:07 — youtube.com ↗Prospective repeated filing / cost imposition¶
Otherwise, we'll just file another lawsuit stating the simple facts of the conspiracy just to continue to expose how crooked this system is. And as I've stated before, I never expected to win these lawsuits.
States in one sentence that a further filing will follow, that its purpose is to continue to expose the system rather than to obtain relief, and that he never expected to win these actions.
Watch at 00:45 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
The court denies the motion for order to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant. So Dr. Taban and his equally as crooked lawyers tried to prevent me from filing future lawsuits in the court. The problem is my claims are not meritless and…
A direct, specific public claim that a court denied a motion filed by the opposing side seeking to have the creator formally declared a vexatious litigant. This is directly on-point for the site's own vexatious-litigant research category (under this research's evidence-layer separation, this is the party's own public statement about a court ruling — not itself a verified court finding — and should be checked against the actual docket before being treated as confirmed).
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
Let it be on record that this is the third time I am submitting my subpoena request to the central district of California in my case against Dr. Tobant [auto-caption; "Taban"].
Identifies the case specifically — the Taban matter in the Central District of California, which matches C046 (filed M.D. Pa. as 3:25-cv-00011 and since transferred; the case tracker records its status as "Closed / conditional 60-day cure window in C.D. California"). It also dates a third attempt at the same discovery request, which is a checkable docket fact.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
I have zero faith in the court system which is why I've always been trying to make this as public as possible and we did file multiple lawsuits against this doctor which the judges seem to be throwing out and we also had a lawsuit against…
The speaker states that multiple lawsuits were filed against the same doctor over the same grievance, that a separate suit against Google was thrown out, and that an appeal from that decision was also rejected.
Watch at 01:48 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
So, it took like an hour to see the judge, but uh this Tabon State Court case is kind of being a pain because the judge is obviously working in favor of the doctor and I have a case active in federal court that actually takes…
The strongest of the statements researched from this video, and its only Strong-tier candidate. Both Strong conditions are met on the transcript alone. 1. It names a tracked dispute. “Tabon” is one of the documented caption misspellings of Taban and corrects at a single letter. “This Tabon State Court case” is C101 Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al. (Superior Court of California, LA County, 25SMCV00041, filed 2025-01-06, then live); “a case active in federal court … against him” is C046 Tufano v. Taban et al, opened in the Central District of California on 2025-01-03 and then live. Both belong to the Taban eye-surgery dispute group. 2. It describes core filing conduct. He states, as a present fact about his own litigation, that he is maintaining two concurrent actions on the same grievance against the same defendant in two forums, and reasons about which to prosecute first. That is Repeat filing on the same dispute in the speaker's own words — the exact conduct the dataset's recorded chronology for this dispute describes as the California/Taban concurrent duplicate sequence. A more conservative reading would hold that describing an existing posture is Filing announced or confirmed (not a core factor) and classify this as Moderate, on the ground that he narrates duplication rather than announcing a new filing; the Strong classification rests on the sentence treating the two cases as alternative routes to the same relief against the same person, which is the substance the core factor is meant to capture. The prospective motion to stay is a separate, non-core element and is deliberately not stacked into the factor list. A tier and a factor are research classifications of what the speaker said — not a judicial finding, and not a vexatious-litigant determination.
Watch at 02:48 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
There's the main lawsuit against him — there's one in state court, one in federal court. The one in federal court actually got dismissed, I had to appeal it because I was incapacitated... The second lawsuit I filed against him was, uh,…
Describes three distinct proceedings tied to the Taban dispute (an original state/federal medical-malpractice action, a TikTok-related suit, and a review-platform-related suit) — useful structural information for cross-referencing against the tracked case list.
Watch at 10:55 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
This is the This is Dr. Tobant getting my Tik Tok taken down. This is uh Shopify getting transferred to federal court. This is the guy that sold me all the broken restaurant equipment. There's like three different Tabon cases.
He states, in his own words and in the present tense, that he is running three concurrent actions against the same defendant on the same grievance. That is the repeat-filing core factor stated by the speaker rather than inferred by a researcher, and the defendant is a tracked party (Dr. Taban, in the Taban eye-surgery dispute group). The count checks out against the tracked record: as of 2025-08-06, C046 (M.D. Pa., filed 2025-01-02), C101 (LA Superior, filed 2025-01-06) and C053 (M.D. Pa., filed 2025-06-27 — the TikTok removal, in which Taban and Mehryar Taban MD Inc are named defendants) were all live. He also names the TikTok takedown and the Shopify removal in the same breath, tying two more tracked matters to the same account. One classification caveat, stated for transparency: the tier rests on a caption correction. The auto-captions render the name as “Tobant” and “Tabon”, spellings that match no tracked party; only the correction to Taban identifies the defendant, and a reader who declines to rest a tier on a corrected proper noun would read this as Moderate. The Strong classification stands because the same video’s captions render “Dr. Taban” correctly at 17:22 and the video’s own description spells “Dr. Taban” correctly four times, so the party’s identity is not in genuine doubt.
Watch at 20:21 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
How about you issue a restraining order against Dr. Taban to anyone that walks in his office so he doesn't disfigure their face and make them half blind like he did to me. I mean, that's that's my idea. But the reason I think he did this…
He states an exact filing date for a proceeding he commenced — June 6, 2025 — against a tracked defendant on a dispute already in litigation. As of that date, C046 (M.D. Pa., filed 2025-01-02) and C101 (LA Superior, filed 2025-01-06) were both live against Taban and his practice. A separate restraining-order petition against the same party over the same underlying grievance is Repeat filing on the same dispute — the core factor — stated by the speaker in his own words, with a date, about a tracked dispute.
Watch at 00:32 — youtube.com ↗Repeated/escalatory filing¶
police vehicle. And I identified the documentation as a restraining order filed by Dr. to bond against me, which is ironic because I just filed a restraining order against him last week for getting my Tik Tok taken down.
In one sentence he describes two court proceedings that the case tracker does not hold, and states the grievance behind his own: "for getting my Tik Tok taken down" — which is the same grievance already pleaded in C014, filed in Lackawanna County on 2025-06-06, thirteen days before this published, and removed to federal court as C053. C014's recorded claims summary states the pleaded theory: "Dr. Taban retained Lavely & Singer to get his TikTok account banned so he could no longer discuss the surgery with followers." He is therefore describing bringing a second, separate proceeding on a grievance he had put before a court under a fortnight earlier. Tier: Strong (Repeat filing on the same dispute; Filing announced or confirmed). Why Strong, stated so the call is auditable: the rubric needs a tracked case or dispute and a core factor. Both parties named — Taban (tracked both individually and through his practice entities) and TikTok — are co-defendants in C053 and identify the Taban eye-surgery and TikTok dispute groups unambiguously. The core factor is Repeat filing on the same dispute: a new proceeding on a grievance already litigated, not an appeal within C014. What does not follow: the restraining-order petitions themselves have no tracked docket. A search across the case tracker, the claims summaries and the recorded litigation timeline returns only restraining orders and TROs Tufano himself sought inside other actions; nothing records a standalone restraining-order proceeding in either direction. Neither proceeding may be entered as a fact without a docket.
Watch at 00:15 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
So, this is a third party complaint and a temporary restraining order. What this is going to do, it's going to add those lawyers as defendants to the current to bond case because this is torchious interference.
Describes a second, distinct filing — a third-party complaint plus TRO request adding the law firm to the existing Taban case rather than starting a new one. This
Watch at 01:38 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement / stated motive¶
uh you know real self Google all of these plastic surgery review platforms are conspiring to protect his reputation which is a whole another lawsuit I have to file
The longest-lead pre-filing announcement located anywhere in this research, and among the most specific. Published 2025-03-19, it names RealSelf and Google — both tracked parties in this research — and states outright that suing them is "a whole another lawsuit I have to file." C018 (Tufano v. Google, Lackawanna 2025-05634) was filed 2025-07-25, 128 days later, and both RealSelf and the Taban defendants appear in it, per the case records for C018 and C058. Recorded as a temporal fact: the stated intent precedes the filing by four months and names the parties; no stronger characterisation than that is made here.
Watch at 00:16 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
all we can do now is file a conspiracy case against the entire California State Bar Association and the California Legal System because no attorney in the entire state of California will represent me.
Announces a contemplated conspiracy action against the state bar association and legal system, on the stated ground that no attorney in the state will represent him. It was published four days after the order in the tracked medical action.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
You can't in America either, dude. They own the court system. I have to sue the state of California because a corrupt judge dismissed my lawsuit in the California state court. I didn't even get it to trial. They just throw the case out.
He states that a corrupt judge dismissed his lawsuit in the California state court before it reached trial, and that he therefore has to sue the State of California. He gives no docket number, so which tracked action he means is not established. The hypothetical objection voiced immediately before these words is one he is rebutting, not his own position, and a clip started at the deep link will include it.
Watch at 00:06 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
So, I mean, I've said I will do this for 30 years. And I guess I'm going to have to start taking this even more seriously
An explicit, self-quoted commitment to a 30-year horizon, immediately followed by an intention to escalate rather than wind down. "I've said" frames it as a restatement of a position taken earlier, which suggests earlier instances exist in this research or in un-transcribed material.
Watch at 00:21 — 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¶
So technically under the current circumstances, I am being denied due process and the court cannot allow me a fair trial. So I mean we're just going to appeal the current case and see if we could take it as high as possible to the Supreme…
States an intention to appeal the current case as far as possible, framed as a response to being denied due process.
Watch at 00:30 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
but he's been so aggressive and evil and used these NDAs to silence people. All the previous patients are scared to death of him and and we would really have to come together and file a suit against this guy and say, "Hey, we believe he…
Contemplates a new multi-patient action against the surgeon, distinct from the actions already on file, and expressly calls it more of a pipe dream. The hedge is part of the statement and must not be clipped away.
Watch at 02:36 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
So basically, I now have to file another lawsuit against Dr. Don and this employee for conspiring together to commit time fraud, which is uh is it's actually a criminal action.
Announces a lawsuit he has not yet filed against the surgeon and the contractor he hired, on a theory he describes as conspiracy to commit time fraud. A tracked case against those parties was filed four days after this video was published; the contractor is never named on camera.
Watch at 01:16 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement / stated motive¶
I don't know whether the judge just chose to ignore my filings, whether he did not legitimately see the filings, but I'm going to submit a notice of appeal.
A public allegation of judicial disregard of filings, stated as uncertainty rather than as established fact (“I don't know whether”), paired with an announced appeal. The same “judge is ignoring my filings” theory appears in the videos “California Judge IGNORES HALD BLIND PRO SE LITIGANT” and “California Judge ABUSES BLIND PATIENT to Defend Doctor” about the same California proceeding — cross-video repetition of an allegation, not corroboration of it.
Watch at 00:33 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
So now I'm adding Dr. to Bond's lawyer as part of the case as a third party for torsious interference for ruining my life because now I can no longer get uh medical treatment from the most qualified doctor in the United [States]
A first-person statement of intended litigation conduct that names the intended target, the surgeon's lawyer, the vehicle, joinder as a third party to an existing case, and the cause of action, tortious interference. That is unusually specific for this channel.
Watch at 00:40 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement / stated motive¶
So I guess the next step for me is I'm going to file — what's it called — a motion to disqualify the judge, explain the situation to the court, and try to get the whole case restarted.
A specific, checkable stated intent (a disqualification motion) — useful for a future docket-verification pass to confirm whether such a motion was actually filed in the relevant case.
Watch at 03:19 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
In order to file a lawsuit against Dr. Tibbon, I would like to have at least 20 of his patients, probably five at a minimum.
A prospective, conditional, multi-claimant action against Dr. Taban (Mehryar Ray Taban MD and Mehryar Taban MD Inc, the eye-surgery dispute), announced with an explicit participation threshold — a preferred 20, a floor of five. Nothing of this shape exists anywhere in the case tracker: all three tracked Taban actions are single-plaintiff, captioned Tufano v. or Frank Tufano v., and none is pleaded as a class or collective action. Two of them (C046, M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00011, filed 2025-01-02; C101, LA Superior 25SMCV00041, filed 2025-01-06) were already pending when this published, and the third (C102, filed 2025-10-23, 137 days later) is likewise single-plaintiff. Tier: Moderate (Threatened or prospective filing). Why not Strong, stated so the call is auditable: the case link is firm — a tracked defendant is named on the transcript. But Threatened or prospective filing is not a core factor, and the Strong rubric requires one. The rubric makes this call, not judgement: announcing a suit not yet made cannot reach Strong however well the party is identified.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
minimum. And don't worry about anyone finding out, guys. This is 100% confidential and private. And even after I filed the lawsuit, no one is going to know who you are.
This is the sentence that makes the recruitment ambiguous, and it is the reason the ambiguity cannot be resolved from the transcript. "Even after I filed the lawsuit" — first person singular, his suit — with a promise that respondents will remain unidentified, points toward evidence-providers or witnesses. But "at least 20 of his patients" as a precondition to filing at all, plus "not seeking compensation" eight seconds later, points toward co-claimants. A named plaintiff in a filed action is a matter of public record; the assurance as given could not be kept for anyone joined as one. That tension is recorded as a finding, not resolved. Tier: Moderate (Threatened or prospective filing)
Watch at 00:07 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
And you guys can look up tortious interference. Basically, if a law firm or someone attempts to ruin someone's life and damage their business because of a lawsuit, they're going to lose the lawsuit really severely. So, as soon as I file…
An explicit prospective filing — "as soon as I file this in the courts" — naming the claim he intends to bring. The prediction that follows is that he will win, not that the court is biased, so no forum-bias factor is applied. See the date analysis in Research Notes: this publishes one day before a matching filing hits the Lackawanna docket, and that adjacency is recorded with both readings rather than asserted.
Watch at 00:37 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
Just when I thought Dr. Tibbon couldn't be a more disgusting, delusional, psychopathic doctor, he threatens me that I'm making defamatory and nonprotected statements.
A dated, first-person account of receiving a legal threat from the surgeon at the centre of the largest dispute group in the dataset. The legal-threat vocabulary ("defamatory and non-protected statements") is the language of a cease-and-desist / defamation demand, and the statement dates the threat to on or before the publish date. (Tier: Moderate — Threatened or prospective filing)
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
How disgusting of a human being do you have to be to then hire a law firm and pay someone to hide the truth about what you did to someone? It's completely disgusting. I hope they file a lawsuit.
He states that the surgeon has retained a law firm, and invites the threatened suit ("I hope they file a lawsuit"). The prospective filing described here belongs to the adversary, not to him — see Research Notes; this must not be read as self-reported filing conduct. (Tier: Moderate — Threatened or prospective filing)
Watch at 00:37 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
I haven't added this to the lawsuit but I'm going to have to because his neglect his misconduct his lack of post-operative care the lying the deceit has caused even more damage in not getting me the correct care uh to fix the eye…
The load-bearing quote in the video. He states on a dated public record that a specific set of allegations — post-operative neglect, misconduct, "the lying the deceit" — is not yet in the lawsuit and that he intends to put it there. That is a statement about a filing not yet made, made while at least two Taban actions were already pending. It is a prospective filing statement, not a core filing-conduct factor, so it cannot support Strong. Tier: Moderate (Threatened or prospective filing)
Watch at 01:28 — youtube.com ↗Claim / pleading description¶
now due to the Statute of Limitations on medical malpractice in California being one year I don't really have a choice but to file the lawsuit myself and represent myself Pro say
A directly stated reason for proceeding pro se — a time bar plus an inability to retain counsel, rather than a preference for self-representation. the case tracker records C046 with pro_se: Yes. This is the clearest first-person explanation of the pro se posture located anywhere in this research.
Watch at 01:41 — youtube.com ↗Legal escalation / contemplated proceeding¶
point and another reason is the medical malpractice uh limit is one year the the statutes so after one year in the state of California you can no longer sue for medical malpractice and we're coming up on that point haven't had much success…
An explicit, dated announcement of an intended pro-se filing on the Taban matter — 110 days before C046 and 114 days before C101, both of which he did file and both of which carry pro_se = Yes. It also (a) states the California one-year malpractice limitation and that it is "coming up", (b) uses the video as a recruitment channel for co-claimants ("20 or 30 people"), and (c) asserts four prior lawsuits against the doctor in Los Angeles County court — a checkable claim the tracker does not hold, since it records only Tufano's own actions. Not Strong: Threatened or prospective filing is not one of the three core factors.
Watch at 01:03 — youtube.com ↗Self-reported litigation count¶
I've had to file multiple appeals. It takes it like they take two weeks to correspond with the West Coast cord and by the time they mail it to me, my actions are already getting dismissed because it's taking too long.
A first-person statement of appellate filing volume and of the mechanism he attributes his dismissals to, cross-country mail delay to a West Coast court. It is not a claim of volume across forums and multiple appeals is undated and unquantified.
Watch at 00:47 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
So, uh I filed a notice of appeal against his decision. What's funny is I filed um I I always forget what it's called, but it's a motion you file to uh — it's called motion to disqualify where you try to dismiss the judge, but guess who…
Two filings are confirmed on camera inside thirty seconds: a notice of appeal from an adverse decision, and repeated motions to disqualify the judge. The count is cut off mid-sentence by the end of the caption track.
Watch at 02:27 — youtube.com ↗Self-reported litigation count¶
so I filed about a dozen lawsuits Al together and every single one of them was dismissed by a judge as I said before I could even serve the opposing Council papers
both halves are checkable. Volume: 21 docket records exist on or before 2025-01-08, of which 20 were filed by him — so "about a dozen" understates the tracker, unless he means only the 2023–2025 federal/state run (C039, C040, C041, C042, C043, C044, C045, C046, C001, C002, C092, C093, C101 = thirteen), for which it is close to exact. Outcomes: a documented cluster of dismissals precedes this video — C042 (2024-11-13), C040 (2024-12-09), C044 (2024-12-11), C041 (2024-12-16), C043 (2024-12-30), the last of those nine days before publication. But "every single one" is overbroad on the same date: C045, C046, C101, C001 and C002 were all live.
Watch at 02:02 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
So, Dr. Tobond makes me blind, disabled, and disfigured. And I call up every lawyer in California. Not one of them wants to help me. I filed the court case myself, and the judges just throw out the cases, all corrupt as you could ever…
Gives the origin of the speaker's pro se posture: no California lawyer would take the case, so he filed it himself. He then reports that the judges threw the cases out, in the plural, attributes that to judicial corruption, and gives it as his reason for taking the dispute public.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
So, every single time, like in December, right after I filed the case, I had strabismas [strabismus] surgery and the defendants filed opposition. I was unable to respond to it. The judge granted whatever. Then in May, I had to go to…
Three specific, docket-checkable instances of a claimed pattern — surgery rendering him unable to respond, an unopposed defense filing, and an adverse ruling. Each has a month attached (December, May, November 2025) and the second names the procedure and city. This is the most concrete account in this research of why filings went unanswered in the California state matters, and it is directly checkable against C101/C102's docket and against the batch-6 finding that C101 was dismissed for failure to file a case-management statement. It also bears on the recurring question of whether non-responses were inability or default.
Watch at 01:31 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
I filed for disability with New York State. It's been 2 years. I've had to sue the Social Security Administration. I have an active lawsuit against the doctor that botched me and they're just dragging it on and on.
Two separate filings confirmed in his own words, one of them against a defendant he names verbatim. The Social Security suit maps to the tracked New York action, which was filed 2025-07-02 and pending at publication; the doctor is never named, so the two California actions are a dataset-derived inference. The framing that he has had to sue, and the complaint that the doctor's case is being drawn out, are both worth preserving as spoken.
Watch at 00:30 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
in fact actually taking the offensive and doing completely crazy things, going after my business, trying to file a restraining order against me. That was the craziest one. I had to I had to sit in court in front of a California state judge…
Describes a California state-court restraining-order proceeding the speaker says the surgeon brought against him, and his appearance before a California state judge in it. No tracked case corresponds to that proceeding and no order is cited.
Watch at 01:07 — youtube.com ↗Court-treatment allegation¶
documents is that case management statement dated July 10th, but this was before I started e-iling.
Gives a specific date for the filing he says was ignored. Independently notable because another researched video, "California Judge ABUSES BLIND PATIENT to Defend Doctor" (published 2025-07-11), records a read-aloud motion to recuse citing a July 10, 2025 hearing before the same California judge — the same date, from a different video, in the same proceeding.
Watch at 00:16 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
Well, I already did. I submitted a notice of appeal. I showed, hey, this case management statement was submitted back in July. Why are you dismissing my case? It's it's just a completely ridiculous dismissal.
States that an appeal had already been filed at publication. C101's record documents multiple notices of appeal in this period (a Sept. 29, 2025 notice → appeal B350018, dismissed with remittitur Mar. 25, 2026; a July 29, 2025 notice → B348769). This video does not identify which one, and this research does not resolve it.
Watch at 00:41 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
Yeah, you can make up lies and dismiss my case and tell me the wrong hearing times and pretend that half of my documents weren't filed, saying I didn't submit a case management statement, yet I literally filed one in July. I mean, I filed…
He complains that the court dismissed his case for a missing case management statement he says he filed in July, and confirms he filed a notice of appeal from that dismissal. The recited ground matches a dismissal order recorded three days before publication.
Watch at 00:28 — youtube.com ↗Claim / pleading description¶
And then to use the word double vision as opposed to strabismas, literally that's one of the things I sued him for, fraudulent concealment.
He names a specific cause of action on camera, fraudulent concealment, as one of the things he sued the surgeon for, and gives the factual basis he attaches to it. The dataset does not currently record a fraudulent-concealment count for any of the eye-surgery cases.
Watch at 00:31 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
As soon as I serve them legal papers, they drop this doctor like a hot sack of [expletive omitted by the captions] Medical Board of California, American Academy of Opthalmology, American Board of Cosmetic Surgery, American Society of…
He confirms on camera that he served legal papers on four named credentialing and licensing bodies, all of them tracked defendants, and names the surgeon. The closing sentence is his rendering of their replies, framed as such, not his own position.
Watch at 00:06 — youtube.com ↗Claim / pleading description¶
So, none of that matters. And yeah, of course, they're not completely responsible for the guy's actions, but the reason we're in court is to determine what percent responsibility you have. and ruining my
States his own theory for suing the credentialing bodies rather than only the surgeon, namely apportionment of responsibility, and confirms that an action is live. The quote ends mid-sentence because the video does.
Watch at 00:45 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
So, we filed this motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. We filed another motion to get rid of this biased judge and I filed a whole bunch of other stuff asking for sanctions against them.
Three distinct filings claimed, all checkable. The disqualification motion matches what the research already holds from three days either side of this: a researched statement of 2025-07-10 — "I'm going to file… a motion to disqualify the judge" — and a published statement of 2025-07-11 — "Motion to recuse and demand for jury trial. In a hearing that occurred on July 10th, 2025, Judge Edward B. Morton Jr. has shown undeniable bias." So on 2025-07-10 it is stated as an intention and by 2025-07-13 as done: this video is the confirmation of a filing the dataset otherwise holds only as a stated intent. The first of the three claimed filings does not fit his posture. He is the plaintiff in every tracked matter in this dispute (C046, C101, C102), and a plaintiff does not move to dismiss his own case for insufficient service. Either he means a motion directed at the defendants' service of their papers on him, or the description is loose. Neither reading is adopted; the tension is recorded rather than resolved.
Watch at 00:28 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
And I I'm already filing appeals. Like, I know this is going to go to the court of appeals and who knows if they'll even allow it to go up to the Supreme Court, but like nothing's even happened already and they're already trying to screw…
An appellate-intent statement with an unusually close docket neighbour. The case tracker records for C046 that “Two Ninth Circuit appeals are on file in this action… No. 25-4324 (docketed July 14, 2025; opening brief filed Aug. 8, 2025).” This video was published 2025-07-13, the day before. A competing and equally available referent: another researched statement, from a video of 2025-07-11, records him saying “Judge Edward B. Morton Jr. has ignored Frank Tufano's notice of appeal filed on June 2nd, exhibit C” — so an appeal was, on his own account, already on file in the California state matter six weeks earlier, and “already filing appeals” may simply refer to that. Both readings are recorded; neither is adopted. Note also that a direct appeal within the same case is deliberately not Filing after an adverse decision under the published rubric — that factor means a new or repeat action, not the ordinary appellate remedy.
Watch at 00:42 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
Motion to recuse and demand for jury trial. In a hearing that occurred on July 10th, 2025, Judge Edward B. Morton Jr. has shown undeniable bias in favor of defendants, proving reason for immediate removal from the case so that Frank…
Names a specific presiding judge (Edward B. Morton Jr.) and a specific hearing date (July 10, 2025) in connection with a stated motion to recuse — a concrete, checkable docket lead for a future case-verification pass, distinct from this dataset's other California Taban-litigation entries.
Watch at 03:49 — youtube.com ↗Court-order reaction¶
Judge Edward B. Morton Jr. has ignored Frank Tufano's request for leave to amend filed on June 2nd, exhibit B. Judge Edward B. Morton Jr. has ignored Frank Tufano's notice of appeal filed on June 2nd, exhibit C. Judge Edward B. Morton Jr.…
Provides specific, checkable filing dates and exhibit labels (a request for leave to amend, a notice of appeal, a third-party complaint against a named individual) — a strong docket-verification lead for a future research pass.
Watch at 05:21 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
I filed a notice to the court that they ignored. I filed a request for leave to amend. I filed all of these things with the court that they are ignoring. ... "How come you're ignoring my physically disabled status? How come you ignored my…
Names specific procedural filings (a notice, a request for leave to amend, a third-party complaint) allegedly made in this case — a useful docket cross-reference point for a future pass verifying this case's actual filings.
Watch at 01:16 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
This doesn't this this is this is a retaliatory restraining order to my restraining order.
The tightest available statement of the sequence he asserts: his petition first, Taban's second, in retaliation. Seven seconds — a clean clip. He confirms his own filing ("my restraining order") in the same breath. This account conflicts with his own later retelling in 5q1o5_OuBQs [1:16] (published 2025-08-06), where he says "after I did it one day, the doctor filed a restraining order" — attributing Taban's petition to a day of leafleting rather than to his own petition. See ## Research Notes.
Watch at 09:38 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
earlier, I already filed a restraining order in my state court against Dr. Tobon last week.
The second, independent statement of the same fact in one video, and the only one that names a forum: "my state court." Read with the encounter at [1:03] — where he insists the documents served on him are "out of state documentation" that "doesn't pertain to Pennsylvania" — the video sets up a clean two-forum picture: his petition in Pennsylvania, the one served on him from somewhere else. That is the fact a docket search would start from. Tier: Moderate (Filing announced or confirmed)
Watch at 01:59 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
And then we had to file uh some stuff against the current Tibon lawsuits. And there was also uh two new lawsuits. We had to file a third party complaint against the lawyer that got my Tik Tok taken down. And then we had to file a uh a new…
TikTok here is the tracked dispute, not the everyday noun — he is describing litigation over the platform takedown, not casual platform use. "The lawyer that got my Tik Tok taken down" corresponds to Lavely & Singer PC (also rendered "Lively & Singer" in captions elsewhere), a named defendant in C014 (Lackawanna 2025-04277, filed 2025-06-06, six days before publication). "The bond" is a caption mangling of Taban, who appears in the defendant roster of C053, the federal continuation of C014. Moderate, not Strong: Filing announced or confirmed is not a core factor.
Watch at 03:08 — youtube.com ↗Filing announcement¶
despite still having to get medical care and undergo many surgeries, I have been forced to still have to um to still have to participate in the court proceedings. So hopefully the judges in the federal and superior California court uh did…
The strongest quote researched from this video. He identifies two concurrent forums by description — "the federal and superior California court" — and as of 2025-05-09 the dataset holds exactly two live actions in the eye-surgery dispute matching that description: C046 (filed M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00011 on 2025-01-02 and, per the recorded litigation timeline, transferred and opened in the Central District of California as 2:25-cv-00147 on 2025-01-03), and C101 (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, 25SMCV00041, filed 2025-01-06). "Federal … California" and "superior California court" map onto those two and onto nothing else in the dataset on that date. He also confirms a filing he has made — a "notice to delay the case," i.e. a continuance request grounded in medical incapacity — filed in one or both. This is the earliest continuance-on-health-grounds statement located in the archive; the dataset's other health-and-trial-fitness material in this action is from 2026-07-10 / 2026-07-15, fourteen months later. Party statement, no source offered; the filing is asserted, not evidenced.
Watch at 00:25 — youtube.com ↗Claim / pleading description¶
in addition to Dr tabon there's several other institutions medical board of California American Academy of Opthalmology American Board of cosmetic surgery American Society of optomic plastic and reconstructive surgery ... so uh the lawsuit…
Independently confirms the defendant list recorded in the case tracker for C046 (and identically for C101/C102): the Medical Board of California, American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Board of Cosmetic Surgery, and the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, alongside Dr. Taban. Also states the theory for joining them — regulatory/oversight failure rather than direct treatment.
Watch at 05:02 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
Uh, unfortunately, you know, this doctor is refusing to pay me or compensate me. The courts and the judges are just throwing out all my cases, and I'm stuck here broke, looking like my eyes are really messed up.
A first-person report that the courts have dismissed his cases, spoken in the context of the eye-surgery grievance that DSP001 tracks. It reports outcomes, not filing conduct: the dataset's own DSP001 dispositions for the period are C101 (disposed at trial court; demurrers/motion to quash granted without leave to amend), C102 (dismissed without prejudice as an OSC sanction, reconsideration denied 2026-07-14), C071 (dismissed 2026-07-31), C046 (sua sponte summary judgment for defendant, 2026-08-07) and C058 (terminated in N.D. Cal. 2026-08-19). "All my cases" is his own characterisation and not a count taken from any docket. The sentence stops short of alleging that the courts are biased or corrupt, so it is coded as an outcome description rather than a bias allegation.
Watch at 00:42 — youtube.com ↗Court-order reaction¶
And that's the reason that I shouldn't need a professional expert witness because all of those doctors that actually did revision surgeries on me, they're testifying in the case. And just the fact that those medical doctors perform…
Argues that the surgeons who performed revision procedures removed the need for a separately retained expert. The tracked action was decided on the ground that expert disclosures were not timely served.
Watch at 00:14 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
They're removing all the negative that's that was another lawsuit that just got thrown out. That's if anything that's almost more ridiculous than this Tiban lawsuit getting dismissed because Google and Real Self are literally just deleting…
Reports two dismissals in one passage - the medical action and a review-platform action. The archive records that the dates do not line up cleanly, so the second case is not established.
Watch at 01:48 — youtube.com ↗Court-order reaction¶
As expected, the corrupt judge has ruled in favor of Tibon and has denied me a jury trial.
A first-person report of the adverse disposition and of the loss of a jury trial. The characterisation of the judge is the speaker's own and is not a finding.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Court-order reaction¶
And the biggest joke here is, oh, if you submit expert disclosures, we won't dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. There is no expert that will work with a prosay litigant. You need to be an attorney to even get an expert uh opinion.
Restates the court's conditional cure term almost verbatim - that the action will not be dismissed with prejudice if expert disclosures are served - and states why he considers that impossible as a self-represented litigant.
Watch at 00:41 — youtube.com ↗Dispute background statement¶
And what's he doing? Nothing. Maybe he lost some money and some patience because his reputation is now truthful. But he's still in practice. He hasn't been penalized. He hasn't been forced to pay me.
The speaker's own account of where the dispute stands: that the litigation has produced no penalty and no payment, and that the surgeon remains in practice.
Watch at 00:08 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
and the state is refusing to pay me disability. The corrupt court system has protected this doctor and I have not been reimbursed
In one sentence he reports that he has not been reimbursed after multiple proceedings and alleges that the court system has protected the doctor. The tracked record is consistent with the first half, but the characterisation of the courts is his own and is not a judicial finding. The reference to the state refusing disability concerns a benefit decision, not any tracked case.
Watch at 00:31 — youtube.com ↗Dispute background statement¶
Honestly, that's the worst part about this whole thing for me is, you know, I haven't been helped by the, you know, the people that are supposed to help me, you know, the disability and, uh, disability and doctors giving me pain…
The earliest statement in the archive of the position that the legal process has produced nothing for him, a theme repeated in later videos through to July 2026.
Watch at 1:09:06 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
Why is Dr. Tobon allowed to butcher me? How come he's not suffering any repercussions? Why am I stuck lying in bed 15, 16, 17 hours a day, disfigured and crosseyed with chronic migraines while he's still in his office doing the exact same…
States that the surgeon he has repeatedly sued is not suffering any repercussions, while describing the injury he attributes to him. A dated statement of how he assessed the results of that litigation to date. The surname is auto-captioned and resolves to a tracked defendant only on correction; no case, court, filing or order is named.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
Shortly after that, my face was butchered by Dr. Tiban. It's been almost 2 years now, and no one has suffered any consequences.
A dated assessment that, almost two years after the surgery, nothing had produced any consequence for the surgeon. The surname is an auto-caption garble resolved against the alias list, and no case or court is named.
Watch at 00:41 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
The judge dismissed my case for failing to submit a case management statement, but I mailed that to the court and all defendant parties in July. Well, basically August, but still several months ago.
States the specific procedural ground on which a case was dismissed. This is the detail that identifies the underlying proceeding — "case management statement" is California civil-procedure terminology (CM-110), and the case tracker records an Oct. 13, 2025 minute order in C101 (25SMCV00041, LA County Superior Court) indexed as an Order to Show Cause re sanctions for failure to submit a case-management statement, four days before this video's publish date.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
Hold on. Let me straighten out my eye that this doctor messed up so I can uh I can call out this judge for dismissing my [ __ ] How crazy is this [ __ ] situation? I'm sitting here half blind, eyes in different directions from what this…
Confirms that a case of his about the eye surgery had recently been dismissed and that the video is a response to that dismissal. It is the datable anchor for the rest of the video.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Court-treatment allegation¶
you know, he dismisses cases, refuses to look at documents that have been filed. Literally, he doesn't look at the docket to see — to see things that have been filed and confirmed. How crazy is that? This judge is just going to court…
The most concrete version of his complaint, that filings already on the docket were not considered before his case was dismissed. Recorded as a party allegation only.
Watch at 00:50 — youtube.com ↗Opposing-counsel allegation¶
After spending over $50,000 on orbital reconstruction surgery, Dr. Raymond Douglas no longer wanted to treat me as a patient. And the only reason I could think of why is that Dr. Tobond's bully lawyers [...] subpoenaed this doctor's office…
Describes a discovery step he attributes to the opposing side, a subpoena to a non-party physician's office for medical records, and the consequence he says followed, namely that the physician stopped treating him. It supplies the factual predicate for the tortious-interference intention stated later in the same video.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Dispute background statement¶
I've had victims of him reach out to me that were when they were like talking to him and threatening to get a lawyer, the doctor literally laughed at them because Dr. Taban has probably botched thousands of people and has not suffered any…
Reports that other patients contacted him saying they had threatened to get a lawyer and were laughed at, and that the surgeon has suffered no repercussions up until now. Those third-party threats are unnamed, undated and unverified.
Watch at 01:35 — youtube.com ↗Court-order reaction¶
All that was granted in the restraining order was that I cannot post personal information about Dr. Toban [= Taban]. So I'm free to say that Dr. Taban I I'm free to say I believe Dr. Toban [= Taban] is a horrible butcher that ruins…
Directly clarifies the actual scope of a restraining order obtained against the creator — restricted to personal/identifying information, not general commentary — a specific, checkable legal-status claim distinct from the video's own title framing.
Watch at 03:10 — youtube.com ↗Dispute background statement¶
"Technically, it's not an advertisement, right? Because it's about me being botched... I'm allowed to put the Bosch[/Taban] message on the card, but I can't put the meat card."
A direct, contemporaneous public statement describing the content and purpose of the flyers he is distributing about his own alleged "botched" surgery — corroborating that his public "medical malpractice awareness" campaign (the umbrella theme of this and the companion video “Medical Malpractice Awareness” from the same pass) is specifically about the eye-surgery injury tied to the Taban dispute, not a generic malpractice message.
Watch at 21:40 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
To sum up how the Tiban lawsuit is going, basically they took advantage of me being blind and disabled in bed for the first few months of this year because I was unable to receive any correspondence or communicate with the court and I…
A dated, first-person account of a claimed incapacity covering "the first few months of this year" — January to roughly April 2025 — and of the court rejecting his explanation. This is the same claimed incapacity that, more than a year later, the C.D. Cal. court in C046 found unsupported: the recorded court findings include Judge Stephen V. Wilson's 2026-08-07 order citing "insufficient medical support for claimed incapacity, public video activity inconsistent with that claimed incapacity." Recording the July 2025 version of the claim in his own words gives that later finding an earlier baseline to be read against. Tier: Moderate (Adverse outcome described).
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
And then Dr. Tibbon's restraining order is definitely truthful. I can understand how Dr. Tiban would be scared when I was at the DMV or talking about post office workers or walking my dog down the street and picking up his poo poo. I could…
This passage is sarcastic throughout and inverts on a flat read. What he is actually saying is that the restraining order's factual basis is not truthful and that the doctor's stated fear is not legitimate — he mocks it by listing innocuous activities (the DMV, walking his dog) as the conduct supposedly complained of. The research-relevant fact is that he acknowledges, on camera, that a restraining order exists against him in the Taban matter — an adverse ruling reported as a docket fact, which is what Adverse outcome described covers. It is not filing conduct, so the tier is Moderate. He gives no court, docket number, date or judge for the order.
Watch at 00:38 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
I've literally been like physically disabled and unable to really read anything for the beginning part of this year. And I had someone send a letter in to the California court explaining, hey, uh, you know, I'm I'm still having some vision…
A party's account of an unfavourable procedural ruling in a named forum. This is a party allegation, not a court finding, and no order to that effect appears in the recorded litigation timeline; whether such a letter was filed and how it was treated is a docket question.
Watch at 09:12 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
Yo, this gets crazier and crazier. I'm literally lying in bed at 200 p.m. on pain medication because my eyes hurt so much. And this police officer rings my doorbell to issue me a restraining order against me that Dr. Taban got. Dr. Tiban…
Reports a temporary restraining order issued against him and personally served, i.e. a ruling that went against him. This is a docket fact, not conduct — hence Adverse outcome described. It is not in the dataset: no restraining-order proceeding in either direction appears in the case tracker, and the recorded litigation timeline has no eye-surgery-dispute entry between 2025-05-07 and 2025-10-13. The captions render the name correctly as Dr. Taban here, then garble it as Tiban in the very next sentence.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
There was a hearing on May 7th, actually the date of my orbital reconstruction surgery where the court granted the opposition a motion when I was literally undergoing surgery at that time.
The only date-precise statement among this group of researched statements, and it lands exactly on the docket. The recorded court findings include two orders dated 2025-05-07 in C101 (Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al., 25SMCV00041, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County), both granting motions brought by the opposition and both before Judge Edward B. Moreton, Jr.: a minute order concerning ASOPRS, with a mirrored tentative ruling stating the court would grant ASOPRS's motion to quash service for lack of personal jurisdiction; and a minute order concerning the Medical Board, with a mirrored tentative ruling stating the court would sustain the Medical Board's demurrer without leave to amend.
Watch at 00:10 — youtube.com ↗Court-proceeding reaction¶
and the court has ignored all of my previous requests and filings to postpone the case and delay the case. The judge is literally ignoring my filings and pretending I don't exist and granting the opposition their motions.
Names a specific, checkable category of filing — requests to postpone or continue — made before 2025-06-10 in the case identified above. That is a concrete docket cross-reference point: C101's register of actions on the LA Superior CAP portal would show whether continuance requests were filed and how they were disposed of. Note that C101 was later dismissed as an OSC sanction for non-appearance (2025-10-13), which is the opposite failure mode from the one alleged here — a tension worth carrying into any claims pass.
Watch at 00:23 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
"One of the main arguments in favor of American plastic surgeons is that... you can actually get a lawyer and sue the doctor. Nope. You have zero legal recourse... the system set up to make you believe that you have a chance legally is…
A direct, general statement of Tufano's view that the U.S. legal system offers no real recourse against plastic surgeons — it bears directly on his stated motivation and framing for litigation against a surgeon, even though no specific doctor or case is named in the audio.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
because when these people don't like you, they accidentally make an awful lot of clerical errors, losing your documents, saying they didn't receive stuff, all to just get your case dismissed and not help you in any way.
The generalized allegation the title asserts, in his own words — that court clerks deliberately lose pro se filings. The video index describes this video as general commentary about court handling of pro se filings; the transcript shows the commentary is not general — it is grounded in one specific case, one court, and three specific attempts.
Watch at 00:38 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
you guys can really do and is helping me make this as public as possible because the doctor is obviously not going to pay me. He's never had to pay anyone throughout the hundreds of people he's botched. Minimum hundreds of people he's…
States a theory that the medical board, the lawyers and the courts are captured by secret societies, and that this is why he pursues publicity rather than remedies. It is a research classification of what the speaker said, not a finding about any court, board or lawyer.
Watch at 01:17 — youtube.com ↗Dispute background statement¶
He called his judge buddies and maybe even spoke to Dr. Tibbon about botching me.
The most direct statement anywhere in this research that the Saladino-related dispute and the Taban eye-surgery dispute are, in his telling, one coordinated scheme rather than two separate matters. The video index assigns this video to the eye-surgery dispute with the Saladino/Taban overlap as its primary topic — the transcript confirms that framing exactly.
Watch at 00:52 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
just know that if you do get botched, they have an entire game plan. They own the lawyers. They own the court system. So, if you're foolish enough to believe that a lawyer wants to help you, those lawyers are taught to pretend to help the…
A general allegation that the plastic surgery industry controls both the plaintiffs' bar and the court system. Not tied to a named case, but it is the same forum capture framing he applies to his own surgery litigation and it bears on why he litigates without counsel.
Watch at 01:06 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
But I don't trust the court system at all. All these court cases, all these judges, what there's no legitimacy to any of it. And I don't expect the court system to compensate me. All the doctors are crooked. All the law firms are crooked.…
A blanket statement that he does not trust the court system, that his court cases and the judges hearing them lack legitimacy, and that he does not expect the courts to compensate him. Recorded as a public statement about the forum; no court has found anything of the kind.
Watch at 02:03 — youtube.com ↗Court-treatment allegation¶
The only way you can legitimately participate against a doctor that botched you is to file prosay yourself in which then the court is probably just going to jerk you around and dismiss your case and make everything very difficult.
States why he litigates without a lawyer and, in the same sentence, predicts that the court will mistreat a pro se litigant and dismiss the case anyway. It is recorded as his own expectation about forum treatment, never as a judicial finding.
Watch at 00:34 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
And the federal case seems to be okay. Like, the judge isn't completely crooked. But since the start, this state court judge has been out to get me.
A rare non-adverse statement about a court, and useful for exactly that reason — it shows the criticism is forum-specific rather than uniform, and it dates a point (2025-12-21) at which he still regarded the federal Taban case (C046) as proceeding fairly. C046 was decided against him eight months later, and “Why you CANT WIN a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit!!!” (2026-07-06) shows the federal framing had turned by then. A useful anchor for any chronology of his stated attitude toward each forum.
Watch at 00:43 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
Beverly Hills. What is the significance of Beverly Hills in surgery? Think of the court system. There's a whole state court system with multiple Los Angeles branches. This whole system is set up, the judges are bought and paid for. The…
Though framed as commentary on an industry, it names Beverly Hills and the Los Angeles state court system — the forum of C101/C102 (Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al., Superior Court of California, LA County; both case numbers carry the SMCV Santa Monica prefix). Less case-specific than the other two videos, but not forum-neutral either.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Court-treatment allegation¶
So, I've been trying my best to represent myself in the state court against Dr. Toban, but this judge has been screwing me over since day one,
Confirms pro-se status in an identified forum, identifies the opposing party by surname and alleges the presiding judge has been against him since day one. The judge is never named and no court has made any finding on the allegation.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
which is why I hired two people to stand outside Dr. Tibbon's office and hand out flyers of my face for the rest of this doctor's life. Because I'm I'm ruling out the factors. They control the court system. They control everything. Okay,…
Confirms in his own words that he hired two people to hand out flyers outside the surgeon's office for the rest of that doctor's life, dating the campaign to on or before publication, and states that the court outcome does not matter to him because the doctors will lose tens of millions of dollars.
Watch at 00:07 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
I don't know how much this guy got paid by Tabon, but there's a lot of complaints online about this judge. You can just Google his name and read dozens and dozens of stories of this judge screwing people over.
Alleges that the deciding judge may have been paid by the surgeon and that the judge has a wider public record of complaints. It is wholly unevidenced, the speaker expressly says he does not know, and no source is offered; the record is that the channel published it.
Watch at 00:33 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
trying to expose this doctor for what he did to my face as he doesn't plan on compensating me and neither does the court system. He has paid off pretty much every online platform to scrub anything negative that has ever been said about him.
Two things at once. First, "neither does the court system" is an allegation that the forum will not deliver a remedy — general, naming no judge, ruling or docket, hence the judicial/forum-bias factor at Context-adjacent generality. Second, the platform-payoff allegation is about a tracked party, which is why it is transcribed rather than withheld. The tier lands at Moderate rather than Context because the sentence is tied to a specific, identified defendant rather than being free-floating commentary on courts. Tier: Moderate (Judicial or forum bias alleged)
Watch at 00:26 — youtube.com ↗Adverse-ruling reaction / judicial allegation¶
So the judge is basically ignoring all of my filings as a pro se representative, making up whatever BS excuse to dismiss them and just going with whatever the attorneys that [Taban] hired said. So they're basically just going to screw me…
Direct public allegation of judicial bias in a named California Superior Court case, tied to the Taban dispute by naming the opposing party's attorneys; this substantially upgrades the source strength for this video versus this dataset's existing title-only sourcing.
Watch at 00:42 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
Yeah. And I'm not too confident in the lawsuit and the legal system either because in my experience uh these judges just are just going to protect the doctor and I'm not going to get anything out of it.
A bias allegation attached to a specific, identifiable proceeding (the California malpractice action) rather than to courts in general.
Watch at 08:47 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
There have been a lot of shills commenting for me to stop posting. Let the courts handle this. Keep your stuff offline. You know what happens when the court handles it? They ignore my filings.
Frames the whole video as a justification for keeping the dispute public because the court process has failed him — the reasoning that runs through the Taban eye-surgery material, and that a later video (2025-07-10) states in its strongest form a month afterwards. The middle two sentences are his commenters' words, not his.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
I'm waiting to hear back from the court. I don't know what's going on. I mailed in my documents. I paid the filing fee and the judge is literally just ignoring this stuff. So, it's it's it's ridiculous. I I' I'd rather not deal with the…
The pivot stated in one breath — he describes mailing documents and paying a filing fee, says it produced nothing, and in the same sentence substitutes standing outside the defendant's office handing out flyers, "for the rest of my life." That is Cost imposition as stated motive: an indefinite pressure campaign offered as what he does instead of litigating. Per the batch contract's leafleting rule this tiers Moderate, not Strong — the factor fits, but the Strong rubric requires filing conduct and the cost mechanism here is the leafleting. The mechanism is written out so the call is auditable. "This doctor's office" is a public figure's professional premises and no address is given, so §5 does not apply.
Watch at 00:38 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
The court system is controlled. I mean, even the social media is controlled, but everything is controlled. So, the judge is just going to dismiss the case. They're never going to give me any money. They're never going to pay me because…
A textbook Judicial or forum bias alleged statement — the courts are "controlled", the defendants are "connected", and the dismissal is treated as a foregone conclusion. He says "the case", singular, and names no court, docket number or judge, so which action he means cannot be fixed from the transcript. Worth noting that his prediction is, on the docket, largely what happened across the Taban eye-surgery litigation: C063 was closed with the TRO denied and his objections overruled as "unavailing", and C046 and the California actions produced no recorded recovery.
Watch at 00:23 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
And going through court and posting online and all that stuff, they control those venues. They control the court system. They control the internet. They control social media. What they can't control is some angry lunatic handing out flyers…
The passage that explains the video's title, and the one with the most bearing on the research question. He casts litigation and online publication as venues his opponents control, and leafleting as the residual venue they do not — i.e. the forum-bias allegation is offered as the reason for choosing an extrajudicial pressure method over further filing. That is a different posture from the more usual "the courts are corrupt so I will file again" framing found elsewhere in the archive, and it is worth preserving as such. Tier: Moderate (Judicial or forum bias alleged; Cost imposition as stated motive)
Watch at 01:23 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
question so for me at this point you know considering all these lawyers and judges will collude against me to protect this doctor uh the least stressful thing for me to do is just make everyone aware of this guy help people from being in…
Among the most important statements in this research, and it points the opposite way from the pattern. On 2024-12-21 he states that the courts are closed to him and that publicity, not litigation, is his chosen course. Verified against the case tracker: C046, Tufano v. Taban et al (M.D. Pa. 3:25-cv-00011), was filed 2025-01-02, twelve days later, and C101, Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al. (L.A. Superior 25SMCV00041), on 2025-01-06, sixteen days later — both pro se, both in the eye-surgery dispute group, both naming this doctor. This is a temporal fact, not a causal claim, and it is a third evidence shape alongside the silent pre-filing statements and the announced-and-fulfilled filings recorded elsewhere in this research: disavowed, then filed. A later reader must not treat a disavowal as evidence that no filing followed.
Watch at 04:25 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
This judge is just a corrupt probably not a corrupt, just a lo. This judge is a loser that's taken orders from higher ups his whole life and doesn't care about right and wrong. Every single judge is in the same position. They're just…
Characterises the judge and the judiciary generally. The speaker begins to say corrupt, withdraws it mid-sentence and settles on another word; the passage is preserved as transcribed.
Watch at 01:02 — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
Can Dr. Tibbon go to jail for botching me on purpose? Short answer is yes. The more realistic answer is in my dreams because of how connected this guy is. I'm sure these crooks would come up with a way to put me behind bars before him.
Asserts that any proceeding against the surgeon is foreclosed by how connected he is, and that the system would sooner jail the speaker. The surname is spoken as an auto-caption garble; no judge, court or case is named.
Watch / source — youtube.com ↗Legal-system allegation¶
and the way the court system works and the way that these plastic surgeons have destroyed god knows how many patients lives without compensating them. He doesn't plan on reimbursing me at all.
The speaker groups "the way the court system works" together with surgeon conduct as a joint explanation for going uncompensated. That is an allegation about the forum, not about any particular judge, ruling or docket — no case, court or decision is named — so it sits at the general-commentary level rather than bearing on a specific proceeding. Tier: Context (Judicial or forum bias alleged)
Watch at 00:53 — youtube.com ↗Public video material in this dispute
Public statements are indexed separately from court findings and from this project's research classifications.
- STILL BOTCHED AS HELL 3 Years Later…
- Healthy Organic What I Eat in a Day of Eating
- How long will the Tufano v. Taban WAR LAST?!
- Botched from PATIENT TO LIABILITY
- Famous Surgeon? FAKE Reputation!
- Are Doctors TAUGHT TO BE EVIL?!
- When will Taban ADMIT DEFEAT?!
- Did Paul Saladino have TABAN BOTCH ME?!
- Fryer OVERFLOW EMERGENCY!!!
- Google Funnels Patients to BUTCHER PLASTIC SURGEONS
- Surgery in America IS NOT SAFER!!!
- Rawtard EATS MOLDY BERRIES to “Detox”
- Plastic Surgeons use NDA’s to SILENCE VICTIMS
- When will Dr Taban PAY ME $40 MILLION?!
- There are NO GOOD EYE SURGEONS
- Orbital Decompression is for THYROID DISEASE ONLY!!!
- Cops Murder Doctors Botch NO CONSEQUENCES
- Time to sue ALL CALIFORNIA LAWYERS??
- CORRUPT JUDGE PROTECTS TABAN
- Looksmax.org is LOW IQ HYPOCRITES
- Taban BOTCHED ME REALLY BAD!!!
- STILL BLIND AND DISFIGURED from Wye Plastic Surgery!!! Where is Dr Taban?!
- Limb Lengthening is NOT AN OPTION!!!
- I SUED THE JUDGES!!!
- COSMETIC Eye Surgery is 95% FAILURE
- Disabled after 8 Revision Surgeries FROM EYE PLASTIC SURGERY
- Migraine Drugs MAKE IT WORSE!!!
- Doctor Taban FORCING SICK PATIENT TO ATTEND TRIAL?!
- Why you CANT WIN a Medical Malpractice Lawsuit!!!
- Taban FAILED to Kick me out of Court!!!
- NO INSURANCE? THANKS TABAN!
- STILL BOTCHED 2 1/2 Years Post OP
- Limb Lengthening Cripple FOR WHAT?!
- Why Clavicular can’t eat Cheeseburgers?!
- Clavicular & Androgenic LOW IQ HARDMAX
- GANGSTALKERS False Reporting!!!
- Courts “Lose” Pro Se Filings
- Botched Update
- 95%+ of Plastic Surgeons are NOT GOOD
- Cautionary Review for Dr. Taban Beverly Hills Oculoplastic Surgeon
- RIPPED OFF $10,000 in PEPTIDES!!!
- Did Dr. Taban commit a CRIME?!
- Can Dr. Taban GO TO JAIL for Botching me on Purpose?!
- Want to look SURPRISED? Get a Blepharoplasty
- Dr. Taban an EVIL PSYCHOPATH?!
- Still DISABLED IN BED 18 Hours/Day
- In Business a Few More Weeks? FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG
- Short Men should GIVE UP?!
- WHAT I EAT IN A WEEK - Liver Detox Variety
- Dr. Taban STOLE MY EMPLOYEE?! 🤣
- I DONT WANT TO MAKE THESE VIDEOS
- Will your Doctor BOTCH YOU ON PURPOSE?!
- Did PAUL SALADINO TELL TABAN TO BOTCH ME?!
- The BUSINESS of BOTCHING
- Is Dr. Taban STILL BOTCHING?!
- Will American Plastic Surgery DIE OUT?!
- GOING OUT OF BUSINESS?!
- GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE!? Free Range Meat Vlog
- Goat now available! Lamb Cuts! Veal Stock! Organic Horseradish! Raw Honey! FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG
- ON PURPOSE?! Or just INCOMPETENT!!
- Did Dr. Taban BOTCH ME ON PURPOSE?!
- Chronic Pain HAS RUINED MY LIFE
- Beverly Hills Lawyers WILL PROTECT BUTCHERS
- STILL BOTCHED AND DISABLED by Dr. Taban after 2 Years
- Dr. Taban CONTINUES TO BOTCH PEOPLE
- Corrupt Court System is a PATHETIC JOKE
- 48+ Hour MIGRAINES
- SURGEY IN JAPAN! I had Orbital Reconstruction TWICE!
- Facial Implants are in the STONE AGE
- Sushi Omakase Tasting Menu FOR ONLY $40
- Doctors will ATTACK YOU if you are a VICTIM
- Comparing Ramen, Soba, & Udon in Japan!
- Local Amish Pork NOW AVAILABLE! Fresh Sourdough! FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG
- The EVIL STRATEGY of Plastic Surgeons
- Why all Eye Surgeries DONT WORK
- It is NOT SAFE to get ANY SURGERY
- \"Average\" Sushi in Japan!
- CA State Law WRITTEN TO SCREW PATIENTS
- Doctors, Lawyers, Judges ARE ALL IN ON IT
- Japan Vlog #2
- Is your Doctors Reputation LEGIT!?
- 2ND SURGERY IN JAPAN!!!
- “Burger and Fries” Healthy Dinner
- Japan Vlog #1
- STILL CROSSEYED
- 7TH EYE SURGERY!?
- Dr. Taban has a 0.5% Success Rate
- This Doctor is a Manipulative PSYCHOPATH
- Why are Doctors ALLOWED TO BUTCHER US!?
- Dr. Taban’s ASYMMETRY IN FOUR PROCEDURES
- Industry Plant K Shami SHILLING FOR BUTCHER TABAN
- I did not sign any Waiver!!!
- Judge FRAUDULENTLY Dismissed my Case
- Was this Corrupt Freemason Judge PAID OFF BY DR. TABAN!?
- Did I get the WORST JUDGE IN CALIFORNIA!? Ruining Lives for DECADES
- Dr. Taban DOESNT UNDERSTAND HIS OWN SURGERIES
- Dr. Taban OBSTRUCTS MEDICAL TREATMENT after Botching Me!!!
- Money Hungry Evil Doctors OWN THE MEDIA
- Dr. Taban does Filler LIKE A PRE-SCHOOLER
- Is Dr. Taban the BIGGEST BUTCHER OF BEVERLY HILLS!?
- Dr. Tabans “Patients” ARE TERRIFIED OF HIM
- Dr. Tabans “Bread and Butter” FOUR PROCEDURE CASH GRAB
- Dr. Taban is a LYING SCAMMING HACK BUTCHER
- Doctors will PUT YOU IN PAIN and can’t treat it!
- If you get BOTCHED Forget About Lawyers!
- Dr. Taban LIED ABOUT SURGERY RISK
- Eye Plastic Surgery is a Lagging Field
- Taban will make you CROSSEYED then GASLIGHT YOU!!!
- NEVER GET ANY PLASTIC SURGERY! Doctors can’t fix mistakes!!!
- Medical Malpractice Awareness
- Free Range Meat Vlog - THE ONLY NON \"ELITE\" SMALL BUSINESS
- Most NDA’s from Plastic Surgeons are FRAUDULENT
- Court System Screws Over Woman WHOS SKIN MELTED OFF!!!
- Opioid Epidemic is FAKE! They want you SUFFERING
- Board Certified HOT SACK OF SH*T
- DISABLED from Chronic Migraines
- Dr. Taban made me look like a WAX FIGURE
- American Plastic Surgery is an EVIL SYSTEM
- Dr. Taban WINGED 4 PROCEDURES with no Scans or Measurements!
- He was the “Best” Eye Doctor!? ACCORDING TO WHO?
- NEVER GET PLASTIC SURGERY!!!
- Day in my Life after BEING BOTCHED
- Gangstalkers try to frame you as “Crazy” after ruining your life
- Doctor hires Agents to say “You look Good”
- STARTING FROM SCRATCH!? Orbital Reconstruction
- How did this “Doctor” RUIN MY FACE SO BADLY!?
- Why you should NEVER get Plastic Surgery
- Being Botched RUINED my “Love Life”
- EYE UPDATE - Still DISFIGURED and CROSSEYED
- I just want my EYES FIXED and FAIR Compensation
- Taban has PAID EVERYONE OFF
- Taban T-Shirts are HERE!!!
- Taban RUINS ANOTHER LIFE!?
- How did he BOTCH ME SO BAD!? Was it on purpose?
- Dr. Taban GETS RESTRAINING ORDER!? Not Quite...
- Medical Malpractice Awareness
- STILL CROSSEYED!? Can the Doctor Help me?
- STILL BOTCHED after Orbital Reconstruction
- NO LAW FIRM WILL HELP ME! Court System is ONLY for the \"Elite\
- New Frankie's Naturals Products
- Medical Malpractice Awareness
- CA Judge allows Doctors Lawyers to COMMIT PERJURY AGAINST BLIND PATIENT
- Dr. Taban gets me BANNED ON TIKTOK for showing my BOTCHED FACE
- California Judge ABUSES BLIND PATIENT to Defend Doctor
- TABANNED FROM TIKTOK! Bank Robbery!? New Gas Meter! New Refrigeration!
- California Judge IGNORES HALD BLIND PRO SE LITIGANT
- This Doctor is the OPPOSITE OF TABAN
- Dr. Taban is a LIAR that will SAY OR DO ANYTHING
- Banned on TikTok for talking about Dr. Taban
- EYE UPDATE 10 Surgeries and 20 Months after Taban Botch
- Pastured Goose! Bone Broth GUMMY BEARS!? Prepared Meals! Pot Pies! Free Range Meat Vlog!
- Doctor Files Restraining Order AGAINST HIS HALF BLIND PATIENT 😂😂😂
- Taban sends POLICE TO HARASS ME!?
- Time to GIVE UP ON THE COURT SYSTEM? Please help hand out Flyers!
- CA State Judge IGNORES MY FILINGS
- Seeking Taban’s Victims for CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
- Dr. Taban is THE BEST EYE DOCTOR!!!
- Taban got my Tiktok PERMANENTLY BANNED!?
- Taban RUINS MY LIFE then tries to WIPE ME OFF SOCIAL MEDIA
- Taban’s Lawyers ARE TRYING TO DESTROY MY LIFE AND BUSINESS
- Taban gets my TikTok taken down AFTER BOTCHING MY FACE
- Need Help to HAND OUT FLYERS!!!
- Taban Bots ATTACK!
- Is this EXTORTION!?
- POTATO CHIP CATASTROPHE Brought to you by Alibaba
- LA Restaurant Vlog - Back to Spago!?
- 🐸 ORBITAL RECONSTRUCTION ONE WEEK UPDATE - Medial Orbital Decompression Reversal
- Orbital Reconstruction 2 Days Post OP
- Surgery went very well
- Paid Shills brigading my posts to HIDE THE TRUTH
- Taban’s Lawyers HARASS ME while I’m still trying to fix my eyes
- Orbital Reconstructions after BOTCHED SURGERY
- Dr. Taban pays TikTok to CENSOR ME!?
- Dr. Taban uses his network of GANGSTALKERS TO HARASS ME
- NEVER GET PLASTIC SURGERY in this Corrupt System
- Fund Raiser for Botch Victims
- Best Doctor for FILLER
- Best Strabismus Surgeon
- Most Helpful Doctor
- BUTCHER TABAN BOTCHED ALL FOUR PROCEDURES
- BOTCHED
- Google Reviews for Doctors ARE FAKE
- Doctors control the Courts and Internet! HAND OUT FLIERS
- Please Share and Support
- Your Surgeon should have Before & After Photos
- Are Doctors TRAINED TO LIE!?
- Still BOTCHED after 10 Procedures!
- Eye Update from Beverly Hills Finest Surgeons
- So much for Spring Break, BOTCHED EYE NIGHTMARE CONTINUES
- Dr. Taban Threatens me for Slander AFTER BUTCHERING MY FACE
- $2000/month Health Insurance after Dr. Taban BOTCHED ME
- Bagels, Pizza and Burgers DAY OF EATING
- Dr. Taban’s Post OP MALPRACTICE
- Tufano v. Taban et al 3:25-cv-00011
- Vision Update 😵
- Google Protects BUTCHER TABAN
- FULL DAY OF EATING Liver Detox Diet
- Dr. Taban continues to PROMOTE HIS BUTCHERY
- Should have gone to Giant Implants 😂😂😂
- Bakery? Macadamia Butter! Digestive Enzymes! New Products & Restocks! FREE RANGE MEAT VLOG
- BOTCHED BY TABAN! And no one can fix it!?
- GANGSTALKED BY STATE POLICE
- 3rd Failed Corrective Surgery
- BOTCHED BY DR. TABAN! Surgery Nightmare!
- Eye Surgery Update...Not good
- Health and Nutrition Q&A July 2024
- EYEBALLS UPDATE! 3rd Eye Surgery!?!?
- A Not so Quick Day of Eating plus Tanning Session
- LA Restaurant Vlog #4 - Spago
- LA Restaurant Vlog #3 - Baltaire
- LA Restaurant Vlog #2 - Avra Beverly Hills
- LA Restaurant Vlog #1 - Violet L.A.
- What i currently Eat in a Day
- ANOTHER EYE SURGERY!? Plus Crazy Cab Story
- What a Grass Fed Peasant eats for LIVER DETOX
- DIET REVIEWS! Abbey Sharp! Big Babe! Gas Girlie! FREELEE!
- Low Carb Love CRAVES CARBS ALL DAY
- EYE SURGERY Full Week Vlog
- BACK TO WORK AFTER SURGERY - Free Range Meat Vlog
- $33,000 GIVEAWAY for Blind Americans
- IM SORRY it was a joke
Dispute groups are research/navigation categories. They are not judicial findings that every case contains legally identical claims.