Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT873
Con Edison CON MEN
Establishes the underlying commercial grievance and its scale, in his own words and with the utility named repeatedly in the transcript itself (not only in the title). No filing conduct is described in this span — the filing content is in the next quote. The figures are spoken on camera and are unverified; see the research notes archived for this video on the internal figure tension. Possible case/dispute link: none identified. The utility named here does not appear anywhere in the CSV data layer (see the research notes archived for this video for the surfaces searched); record as unresolved, not untracked.
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.
you know it's a little cold outside to be wearing a t-shirt but not as cold as these kinetic [unresolved] suckers i just had to pay seven thousand dollars for my con edison bill three months worth of electricity in my slumlord warehouse after these suckers threatened to turn my power off and that's not the first time i've paid 30 thousand dollars in electric bills in a year and a half in this god forsaken warehouse
Establishes the underlying commercial grievance and its scale, in his own words and with the utility named repeatedly in the transcript itself (not only in the title). No filing conduct is described in this span — the filing content is in the next quote. The figures are spoken on camera and are unverified; see the research notes archived for this video on the internal figure tension. Possible case/dispute link: none identified. The utility named here does not appear anywhere in the CSV data layer (see the research notes archived for this video for the surfaces searched); record as unresolved, not untracked.
Moderate pattern relevanceThreatened or prospective filing00:45
the retainer was thirty five hundred dollars to file a case against khan edison [= Con Edison] he took my payment refused to file the lawsuit and then dropped me as a client two weeks later
A lawsuit he retained counsel to bring and that was never filed. He states an amount, an instruction to file, a refusal, and the termination of the representation. This is the cleanest instance in this slice of the pattern the batch is watching for — a fully formed grievance with counsel engaged that produces no filing at all. The barrier he names is his own lawyer, not the court. He also states at [1:11] he had to pay "almost another ten thousand dollars" as a consequence. Possible case/dispute link: none identified — no court action against this utility appears in the data layer. ⚠ Do not attach this to the tracked Pennsylvania electric-utility dispute: that is a different supplier in a different state, first filed in 2025, and this is New York in 2022.
Moderate pattern relevanceFiling announced or confirmed03:06
after that i filed the complaint through the public service commission several times and all they did was have con edison handle it
He confirms filings he has actually made on this grievance — but they are administrative complaints to a state regulator, not court actions, and he says he made them repeatedly on the same dispute. Recorded here because it is a stated, repeated, completed filing step on a grievance that never reached a court; the factor is the closest available term and should not be read as a court filing. Immediately afterwards ([3:16]–[3:36]) he says the regulator responded by email that the utility "will take it from here". Possible case/dispute link: none identified; no regulatory proceeding of this kind appears in the data layer.
Moderate pattern relevanceThreatened or prospective filing03:36
same with lawyers none of them wanted to even consider filing a complaint against con edison court they said oh you get left [= laughed (probable)] out of court don't bother i don't care do it and they didn't do it
A second, broader statement that the intended court action did not happen — not one lawyer but every lawyer approached declined, and he says he instructed them to proceed anyway ("i don't care do it") and they did not. Directly bears on the chronology question of when and why grievances in this period did and did not become filings, and shows the stated obstacle in 2022 was access to counsel. Possible case/dispute link: none identified.