Three hundred and forty-six archived videos added to the statement record (September 28, 2026)

The newest-to-oldest sweep of the tracked YouTube channel, run across batches 39 to 66, took the research archive from 1,152 files to 2,218 and none of that material had reached the dataset. This pass promoted every newly archived video carrying at least one researched quote: 346 video records (YT635-YT980), 647 statements (VS1732-VS2378) and 173 case links. Site totals go from 634 to 980 videos catalogued and from 1,722 to 2,369 researched statements. The videos were published between September 3, 2018 and September 22, 2026, with the bulk of them from 2021, 2022 and 2023 - this sweep reached back into material much older than any previous pass.

Not one of the 698 quotations in this material is classified Strong, and not one carries a core filing-restriction factor. The tier split is 406 Moderate and 241 Context, and 604 of the 647 statements carry no filing-conduct factor at all; the rest describe a threatened or prospective filing (22), allege judicial or forum bias (17), confirm a filing (5) or report an adverse outcome (3). That is a finding about the period rather than about the coding: across roughly eight years of earlier video, the grievances that later become pleaded claims are narrated repeatedly and the filings themselves are almost never mentioned. The statement supercut, which selects on the three core factors, is unchanged at 74 clips. 117 statements name a case, 33 reach only a dispute group, and 497 name neither and are recorded as context.

1,238 archived videos carry no researched quote and were deliberately given no dataset row. That is the standing policy for this archive: a video examined and found to contain nothing about the litigation is worth keeping in the research archive, because it stops a later sweep re-examining it, and worth nothing in the dataset. The archive being larger than the dataset is by design and is not a backlog.

Tiers and factors were taken as the archive states them rather than re-derived. Six quotations were excluded on review, all for the same reason in two shapes. Four are documents read aloud on camera rather than the speaker's own words - a federal meat-inspection agency's letter, opposing counsel's cease-and-desist letter reciting a judge's oral direction at third hand, the caption of a New York inspection warrant, and a passage opening with a viewer's question that names a person who is not a party. Two span a speaker change: in one the second half is the speaker's business partner introducing himself, and in the other the captions mark no speaker change at all and attribution between the two men could not be resolved. Excluding a statement re-opens that video's four-statement cap, and three further quotations were promoted in their place.

Ten case-level links named in the archive were not written, because in each the research itself declines the link in the same paragraph that names the identifier - recording it as an adjacency to verify rather than an identification. A bare first name, a defendant named in connection with the wrong grievance, and a federal agency that is a party to later actions on an unrelated complaint all fall on that side of the line. In three of the ten the dispute-level link was withheld as well. A further 45 quotations were not promoted because each video is capped at four statements.

One presentation change came with this pass, applied to the whole statement record rather than only to the new rows. The research prose that appears on each statement card is written in the archive first, and it carried markers that belong in a working file rather than on a published page: emphasis and code formatting that the site does not render and so printed literally, a decorative star used as the researcher's own ranking mark, and cross-references to a Research Notes heading that exists in the archive file and on no page here. The formatting markers are gone, the stars are gone, and the 114 cross-references now name the video's research archive instead of a section the reader cannot reach. Wording is otherwise unchanged, and no quotation was touched - quoted text stays exactly as the captions render it, including their errors. The caution marker is kept: it flags a specific reservation the research attaches to a claim, which is doing work a reader needs.

Related cases

• 2024-06106 — Tufano v. Miller
• 2024-06107 — Tufano v. Crispino
• 2025-01448 — Tufano v. PPL Electric Utilities
• 2025-03175 — Tufano v. PPL
• 2025-03928 — Tufano v. Better Business Bureau
• 2025-03929 — Tufano v. Fidelity Bank
• 2025-03931 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
• 2025-04276 — Tufano v. Shopify
• 2025-05632 — Tufano v. Alibaba
• 2025-05634 — Tufano v. Google
• 2026-00063 — Tufano v. Fidelity Bank
• 2026-00262 — Tufano v. Google
• 2026-01161 — Tufano v. The State of California
• 2026-01525 — Tufano v. Better Life
• 2026-01907 — Tufano v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
• 3:23-cv-02106 — Tufano v. Levy et al
• 3:24-cv-00846 — Tufano v. Frankies Free Range Meat Conspirators
• 3:24-cv-01117 — Tufano v. Miller et al
• 3:24-cv-01115 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet, LLC
• 3:24-cv-01116 — Tufano v. TikTok Inc.
• 3:24-cv-01114 — Tufano v. Reddit, Inc.
• 3:24-cv-01252 — Tufano v. Filatova
• 3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al
• 3:25-cv-00262 — Tufano v. Saladino et al
• 3:25-cv-00975 — Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al
• 3:25-cv-00976 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
• 3:25-cv-01165 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
• 3:25-cv-01227 — Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al
• 3:25-cv-01400 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
• 3:25-cv-01495 — Tufano v. Reddit, Inc.
• 3:25-cv-01574 — Tufano v. Google LLC et al
• 4:25-cv-01960 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
• 3:26-cv-00397 — Tufano v. Burgess
• 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-00939 — Tufano v. Better Life Foods Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-01019 — Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-02135 — Tufano v. Crispino et al
• 3:26-cv-02134 — Tufano v. Miller et al
• 3:26-cv-02137 — Tufano v. Carbondale Police Department et al
• 3:26-cv-02238 — Tufano v. Meagher Insurance Agency et al
• 55177/2021 — FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZ
• 50710/2022 — Frank Tufano v. Adam Starowicz
• 50058/2023 — Frank Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al
• 620245/2024 — Frank Tufano v. Jake Levy et al
• 805063/2025E — Frank Tufano v. Fernando Gil et al
• 7:23-cv-00244 — Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al
• 7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano
• 25SMCV00041 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.
• 25SMCV05503 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.
• 2025-07728 — Fidelity Bank v. FRM LLC

Note

Every statement added here is a public statement by a party, quoted from a video's automatic caption track - not a court finding, and not a determination by anyone that the speaker is a vexatious litigant. The Strong/Moderate/Context tier and the filing-restriction factor on each statement are research classifications recording what the speaker said, and nothing more. Start and end times come from the video's own caption cues and are accurate to about one cue; each statement names the verification method used for it. Where a quotation names a person who is not a party to any tracked proceeding, the record is that the channel published it, and the site takes no position on whether what was said is true.