Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT514
BUTCHER TABAN BOTCHED ALL FOUR PROCEDURES
the "all four botched" allegation, four months earlier than the archive's previous earliest. the itemised per-procedure allegation, and it does not match the pleaded four.
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.
If you guys have not seen my videos on botchedbyt.com, you need to watch them. There's a reason I'm exposing this guy because he botched all four procedures he did on me. Not one of them was done correctly.
The general form of the four-procedure allegation, published 2025-04-29. This research's previous earliest framing of it as a process allegation is a video from 2025-09-07, and the two existing statement-record rows on it come from videos published 2026-08-03 and 2026-08-09 — fifteen months later. So this predates those recorded statements by well over a year and the process-framing video by four months and nine days. It also carries the domain, which the captions render botchedbyt.com; the correct form is botchedbytaban.com. Party statement, no source offered.
And he should have his medical license taken away for performing an orbital decompression on me. That's how horrific this botch was. He put the implants in wrong. He did the lower eyelid retraction wrong, the canthoplasty wrong, and he did my upper eyelids uneven, too. The right one is much higher than the left. out of all four procedures, he didn't get one right.
The load-bearing quote in this slice. It answers the process-vs-outcome question the way neither existing row does — it is both, plus a third thing: - Process: "He put the implants in wrong", "he did the lower eyelid retraction wrong, the canthoplasty wrong" — allegations about how the operating was performed. - Outcome: "he did my upper eyelids uneven", "the right one is much higher than the left" — the observable result. - Indication: "he should have his medical license taken away for performing an orbital decompression on me" — not that it was done badly but that it should not have been done at all. That third category is the one the promoted rows do not carry, and it aligns with the theory he reads from his own complaint in aWuq0jViHQQ (2025-02-08): "no other surgeons in the world are performing this orbital decompression procedure for cosmetic purposes."
Instead, he's still living in his $10 million mansion, rooting people's faces.
A $10 million valuation of the defendant's residence, offered as the contrast to the accountability he says never comes. The archive already carries several unreconciled figure spreads (wagyu/customs $20,000–$30,000; lost-relationship valuations $800,000–$3 million); this adds a defendant-wealth figure to that set, and like the others it is logged, not reconciled — no source is offered for it. "rooting" at 1:24 is a caption garble for what is audibly "ruining". Party statement, no source offered.
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.
3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et alTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 00:02 researched as bearing on this case: the "all four botched" allegation, four months earlier than the archive's previous earliest.
25SMCV00041 — Frank Tufano v. Mehryar Ray Taban, MD et al.Transcript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 00:02 researched as bearing on this case: the "all four botched" allegation, four months earlier than the archive's previous earliest.