Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT229
Crowd Funding is ONLY FOR THE “ELITE”
Records the speaker stating that one of his lawsuits is against the crowdfunding platforms and that he could file a new one against them for discrimination, alongside dated accounts of a 2019 campaign shutdown and a 2025 takedown of a campaign raising money for his eyes.
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 should never donate to any crowdfunding website because they are all owned by secret societies, Freemason, Illuminati, people that are not members of the elite will not be allowed to collect money on these websites.
General commentary that crowdfunding sites are owned by secret societies and closed to anyone outside an elite. Worth being able to date because the same framing later appears as pleaded matter in tracked filings naming a Masonic lodge.
Why this classification: No case, court or party is named and no filing conduct is described, so the value is purely in dating a recurring theme, which is Context.
Here was my campaign back in 2019. We tried to raise money for Frankie Strange. We got like $30,000. Then they shut it down and gave people the money back. We had to like open up a Shopify store and and take pre-orders because they shut us down.
A dated account of a 2019 crowdfunding shutdown with an amount attached, and of moving to a Shopify store and pre-orders as the workaround. Shopify later becomes its own tracked dispute, so this records the start of that business relationship.
Why this classification: It is background chronology predating any tracked filing but anchored to the crowdfunding dispute group and to a platform that later becomes a defendant, which places it at Moderate rather than Context; no filing conduct appears in it.
And this year when I tried to raise money on Give and Go for my eyes being botched, they took the campaign down. Yet you have people like Amos Miller that steal $300,000 from people fraudulently.
Dates a 2025 takedown of his own fundraising campaign, the predicate for the prospective suit he floats seconds later, and attaches a specific dollar figure to the Amos Miller campaigns. The tracked complaint is recorded as citing campaign totals, but whether that figure is the pleaded one is unverified, and no judicial finding supports the fraud allegation he makes.
Why this classification: It supplies the factual predicate for the filing threatened moments later and names a tracked defendant, which is why it is Moderate, but the statement itself describes no filing, threat or court outcome.
Moderate pattern relevanceThreatened or prospective filingFiling announced or confirmed00:51
I mean, I think one of my lawsuits is actually against them, too. I could I could probably file a new one against them now for discrimination,
Two pieces of filing conduct in one sentence: he confirms that one of his existing lawsuits is against the crowdfunding platforms, and then says he could file a new one against them for discrimination arising from the 2025 takedown of his own campaign. Recorded as a statement of intent, not as evidence any such suit exists. The video cuts off mid-sentence here, so the quote must not be read as saying more than it does.
Why this classification: A prospective action against defendants he is already suing is real filing-pattern material, but the grievance he describes is a different wrong from the claims already pleaded against them, so repeat filing on the same dispute does not apply and, without a core factor, the tier is 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.
2024-06106 — Tufano v. MillerTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 00:51 researched as bearing on this case: confirms an existing suit against the crowdfunding platforms, which are named defendants in this action and it was pending on the publication date; no case number, court or platform legal name is spoken.
3:24-cv-01117 — Tufano v. Miller et alTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 00:51 researched as bearing on this case: the same confirmation of a suit against the crowdfunding platforms, which are also defendants in this earlier federal action, dismissed with prejudice before publication; no case number or court is spoken.