Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT869
Bart Kay is NOT a Carnivore
Paul Saladino is a tracked party — aliases.csv canonicalises four spellings of the name to D0241, who is the plaintiff in C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-09346, filed 2020-11-07) and a named defendant in nine actions Tufano later filed inside dispute DSP003. This statement is dated 279 days before C100 was filed (computed in code as a plain date difference: 2020-02-02 to 2020-11-07). It establishes that the antagonism with that party was already public and specific at this date — DSP003's own description in disputes.csv says the dispute begins with Saladino's S.D.N.Y. suit, and this predates that by the interval above. The quote describes no filing conduct of any kind: no suit, no threatened suit, no lawyer, no demand, no claim — only a plagiarism accusation whose stated remedy is this video. Hence Moderate rather than Strong, and No filing-conduct factor; Strong is unavailable because only the three core factors can support it and none is present. ⚠ Direction and grievance both checked per §9: C100 runs against him, not by him, and its pleaded grievance is a cybersquatting/trademark matter (final judgment includes statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)), which is not the plagiarism grievance voiced here. Same party, different direction, different grievance — so this is an antagonism-chronology fact and must not be written up as an antecedent of C100's claim. Possible case/dispute link: Party link to D0241 (Paul Saladino) is firm from the transcript alone, not from the title. Dispute DSP003 is the party's dispute group, and C100 is the action that party later brought. The link recorded here is to the party, tentatively to the dispute group; it is not a link to any pleaded claim.
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 wouldn't say I've lost the plot you Bart Kay have been pretty vocal in supporting Paul Saladino aka rat boy who has clearly plagiarized my information to prop up his carnivore diet knowledge from the 27 year-old bartender
Paul Saladino is a tracked party — aliases.csv canonicalises four spellings of the name to D0241, who is the plaintiff in C100 (Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano, S.D.N.Y. 7:20-cv-09346, filed 2020-11-07) and a named defendant in nine actions Tufano later filed inside dispute DSP003. This statement is dated 279 days before C100 was filed (computed in code as a plain date difference: 2020-02-02 to 2020-11-07). It establishes that the antagonism with that party was already public and specific at this date — DSP003's own description in disputes.csv says the dispute begins with Saladino's S.D.N.Y. suit, and this predates that by the interval above. The quote describes no filing conduct of any kind: no suit, no threatened suit, no lawyer, no demand, no claim — only a plagiarism accusation whose stated remedy is this video. Hence Moderate rather than Strong, and No filing-conduct factor; Strong is unavailable because only the three core factors can support it and none is present. ⚠ Direction and grievance both checked per §9: C100 runs against him, not by him, and its pleaded grievance is a cybersquatting/trademark matter (final judgment includes statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)), which is not the plagiarism grievance voiced here. Same party, different direction, different grievance — so this is an antagonism-chronology fact and must not be written up as an antecedent of C100's claim. Possible case/dispute link: Party link to D0241 (Paul Saladino) is firm from the transcript alone, not from the title. Dispute DSP003 is the party's dispute group, and C100 is the action that party later brought. The link recorded here is to the party, tentatively to the dispute group; it is not a link to any pleaded claim.
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 06:08 researched as bearing on this case: [6:08]–[6:25] — Names Paul Saladino in full, with the "rat boy" epithet and the plagiarism accusation.