Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT761
2020 Year in Review | Jaw Surgery | Quit Carnivore Diet
In a video whose whole purpose is to enumerate his year, he names "the lawsuit" — definite article, singular — as one of the categories of 2020 content he deliberately left out of the recap, alongside "cornevor drama" [carnivore drama]. That is a self-report that litigation was a recurring video topic across 2020, made on 2021-01-01, and it places the litigation topic in the same breath as the carnivore-diet dispute. It describes no filing conduct of his own — indeed the only 2020 action in this dataset is one brought against him — so no filing-restriction factor fires. Possible case/dispute link: Adjacent to C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-09346, filed 2020-11-07, dispute DSP003), which is the only action in lawsuits.csv filed in 2020. ⚠ Direction trap checked and it bites the other way: C100 is a case in which he is the defendant — Saladino sued him. "the lawsuit" here is therefore most plausibly one he was defending, not one he filed. Tentative and unconfirmed; the transcript names no party, court or docket.
Evidentiary treatment: This is a public statement by a party, indexed separately from court findings, party filings and this project’s research classifications. Quotations below are transcribed from the video’s own YouTube auto-generated captions and timestamped from the caption cues covering the passage quoted; each links back to that exact moment so a reader can verify it. Auto-captions are machine-generated and mis-transcribe names and figures, so wording is preserved as transcribed rather than silently corrected. No transcript is reproduced here, and neither the video’s inclusion nor its relevance tier is a judicial finding.
Timestamped statements
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.
but the videos that should have gone viral were heavily heavily suppressed i mean i spent three thousand dollars of my own money paying people to hand out flyers in new york city you know definitely go back and watch those videos if you miss them but what i know for sure is those people that were out there were definitely paid because not one person like subscribed to my youtube channel despite handing out thousands literally thousands of flyers they just threw them on the ground
A dated (mid-2020) instance of him paying people to distribute flyers in New York City — the same publicity-through-paid-leafleting tactic that recurs later in this research. Two things fix the classification. It is cost borne by him, not imposed on an opponent, and it is publicity, not a filing: on the settled rule, neither of those can be Cost imposition as stated motive, and nothing else fires. It is recorded here because it is an early, self-reported instance of the tactic and because the amount is his own figure. Possible case/dispute link: none identified. The leafleting he describes here is about his suppressed political content, not about any party in this dataset.
in november which is actually when i quit carnivore and pointed out the plagiarism on the jorgen experience of my research to very big things in my life i guess you could say
Dates to November 2020 his public accusation that his research was plagiarised on a named podcast. That accusation is the exact subject matter later restrained in C100: this dataset's court_findings record an injunction against "making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole or improperly used Tufano's or another party's work", and research_notes record the plagiarism allegation as the core of the dispute. C100 was filed 2020-11-07 — the same month he here says he made the accusation. 2020-11-07 → 2021-01-01 = 55 days (differenced in code). He describes publishing an accusation, not filing anything, so no filing-restriction factor applies. Possible case/dispute link: DSP003 / C100, tentative. He names neither the opposing party nor any proceeding in this video; the link is built from the grievance matching the pleaded subject matter and from the month matching the filing date. ⚠ Note this cuts against the "right grievance, wrong party" trap only because the grievance is unusually specific; a docket check is still required before promotion.
more dramatic stuff like the lawsuit cornevor drama vlog style videos such as farm searches days of eating the recipe videos all of the comedic stuff parodies making fun of vegans here and there that is what i skipped
In a video whose whole purpose is to enumerate his year, he names "the lawsuit" — definite article, singular — as one of the categories of 2020 content he deliberately left out of the recap, alongside "cornevor drama" [carnivore drama]. That is a self-report that litigation was a recurring video topic across 2020, made on 2021-01-01, and it places the litigation topic in the same breath as the carnivore-diet dispute. It describes no filing conduct of his own — indeed the only 2020 action in this dataset is one brought against him — so no filing-restriction factor fires. Possible case/dispute link: Adjacent to C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-09346, filed 2020-11-07, dispute DSP003), which is the only action in lawsuits.csv filed in 2020. ⚠ Direction trap checked and it bites the other way: C100 is a case in which he is the defendant — Saladino sued him. "the lawsuit" here is therefore most plausibly one he was defending, not one he filed. Tentative and unconfirmed; the transcript names no party, court or docket.
A case link records a researched connection between the video and a docket record. It is not a finding that the video caused, or was caused by, any filing.
7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank TufanoTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 07:41 researched as bearing on this case: [7:41]–[8:01] — "the lawsuit" listed as one of 2020's recurring video topics.