Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT246
6 Years of GANGSTALKING by who?!
A self-described chronological account naming several parties to tracked disputes, including a former lawyer, a competing food producer, the eye surgeon and a freight forwarder, and attributing all of them to a single coordinated conspiracy; no case, court or filing is identified.
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.
I've been getting screwed over for many years now. And the only explanation for this is that these people are secretly working against me. Whether they're Freemasons, Illuminati, secret society yank stalkers. I'm going to try to do this in chronological order,
The speaker states that a single coordinated explanation ties together the separate grievances he is about to list, naming the Freemasons and the Illuminati as candidate actors. Both appear as named defendants in tracked pleadings, but this video names no lodge, court or case.
Why this classification: The single-conspiracy framing across otherwise separate matters bears on how his disputes are connected in his own account, but nothing is identified and no filing is announced, so it holds at Moderate.
starting with Jeffrey Davis, a lawyer that screwed me over in court, committing legal malpractice, helping the opposing council instead of actually helping me and defending me.
Names Jeffrey Davis, a tracked defendant, and states the substance of the legal-malpractice claim pleaded against him, including the allegation that he assisted opposing counsel. The video names no case or court.
Why this classification: It reports a result, being screwed over in court, rather than a filing decision, and the mapping to a particular case rests on the party and claim theory alone, which fits Moderate.
Up next is Jacob Levy, who stole my best bar idea, has made millions of dollars, and is still continuing to profit off of my original protein bar because I am censored, shadowbanned, they control all social media. Really despicable.
Identifies a tracked defendant by a variant of his given name, Jacob for the tracked Jake Levy, and states the underlying grievance behind the competing-food-product dispute, coupled with a shadowbanning claim.
Why this classification: A tracked party and the core grievance of a tracked dispute are identified, but the statement announces no filing and names no case, so it stays at Moderate.
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.
Why this classification: It reports the absence of any outcome to date rather than any step he took, and identifies no proceeding, which fits Moderate.
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.
2025-01240 — Tufano v. DavisTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 00:14 researched as bearing on this case: names Jeffrey Davis and states the legal-malpractice theory pleaded against him; the person is identified exactly, the case is not named.
2025-05469 — Tufano v. All Ways ForwardingTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 02:51 researched as bearing on this case: names All-Ways Forwarding, captioned always forwarding, and the product spoiled at the port of New York; no case number or court is named.
3:25-cv-01558 — Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding et alTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 02:51 researched as bearing on this case: the same All-Ways Forwarding shipment loss, which this federal action also concerns; no case number or court is named.
3:26-cv-01016 — Tufano v. Eriksson et alTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 02:01 researched as bearing on this case: places his own flyer distribution outside a doctor's office in the chronology roughly six months before this case, which concerns a flyer-distribution arrangement, was filed; neither the case nor the contractor is named.
620245/2024 — Frank Tufano v. Jake Levy et alTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 00:23 researched as bearing on this case: names Jacob Levy, a caption variant of the tracked Jake Levy, and states the protein-bar grievance this action concerns; no case number or court is named.
57677/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Jeffrey Davis Esq.Transcript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 00:14 researched as bearing on this case: the same Jeffrey Davis allegation, which this New York action also concerns; no case number or court is named.