Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT799
Frankie's Free Range Meat | Lunch | Venison
This is spectrum position 0.5 in the batch 55 addendum's scale — the subject matter of a live case he is prosecuting, narrated on camera as a staffing and business-recovery problem, with the case erased from it. C089 (FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZ, New York State Supreme Court) was filed on 2021-04-22; this video published 2021-04-27. Differenced in code: date(2021,4,27) - date(2021,4,22) = 5 days. He says "just got rid of" — present-tense recency consistent with an event days old — and attaches no case, no party, no court, no lawyer and no allusion to any proceeding; the consequence he draws is that he cannot hire. ⚠ Timing consistency is not a case link. ⚠ "got rid of my business partner" describes a separation, not a filing; no filing conduct of any kind is described, hence No filing-conduct factor. Possible case/dispute link: ⚠ Tentative and unconfirmed, written from the transcript alone. The transcript names nobody. "business partner" scores zero across aliases.csv, lawsuits.csv (case_title and defendants), research_notes.csv and litigation_timeline.csv, because those surfaces hold legal names. The identification rests on the role, the date and the dispute subject matter, all of which match the corpus's 2021 New York partner action and its dispute group. Treat as a candidate, not a finding.
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.
the only real update i can give you guys on the farm in slaughterhouse this week is that i'm waiting on some paperwork from my accountant mainly the tax return for last year some other stuff and then maybe i'll reach out to some banks i'll see how the loan prospects are looking hopefully i can let you guys know what's going on in in two to three weeks from now
A dated precursor to an already-archived statement. In CvD1iLaemn4 (2021-05-04) he says "that legal stuff those lawsuits when these banks look up my company they see you know there's a lawsuit against me and that can affect my chance of getting the loan" — litigation named as the obstacle to the slaughterhouse loan. Here, 7 days earlier (date(2021,5,4) - date(2021,4,27) = 7 days, differenced in code), the same loan is described in full and the obstacles he lists are accountant paperwork and a tax return. Litigation is absent. That makes the later statement a newly-introduced explanation rather than a standing one, and dates the introduction to a seven-day interval. Describes no filing conduct, hence No filing-conduct factor. Possible case/dispute link: none identified. No case, party or court is named; the link is to another archive file, not to a docket.
you know two guys coming earlier asking for a job and i felt bad because i'm like guys look i'm sorry you know i just got rid of my business partner things aren't going so well right now i'm basically you know running things down here myself to see how they go for a little bit
This is spectrum position 0.5 in the batch 55 addendum's scale — the subject matter of a live case he is prosecuting, narrated on camera as a staffing and business-recovery problem, with the case erased from it. C089 (FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZ, New York State Supreme Court) was filed on 2021-04-22; this video published 2021-04-27. Differenced in code: date(2021,4,27) - date(2021,4,22) = 5 days. He says "just got rid of" — present-tense recency consistent with an event days old — and attaches no case, no party, no court, no lawyer and no allusion to any proceeding; the consequence he draws is that he cannot hire. ⚠ Timing consistency is not a case link. ⚠ "got rid of my business partner" describes a separation, not a filing; no filing conduct of any kind is described, hence No filing-conduct factor. Possible case/dispute link: ⚠ Tentative and unconfirmed, written from the transcript alone. The transcript names nobody. "business partner" scores zero across aliases.csv, lawsuits.csv (case_title and defendants), research_notes.csv and litigation_timeline.csv, because those surfaces hold legal names. The identification rests on the role, the date and the dispute subject matter, all of which match the corpus's 2021 New York partner action and its dispute group. Treat as a candidate, not a finding.