Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT299
GoFundMe BANS ME!!!
Records the speaker's account that fundraising pages he starts are taken down within hours, recalls the earlier loss of his TikTok account, and states that his business is being shadowbanned and censored; no case, court or docket is named.
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.
We try to, they take it down after a few hours. All of these websites are owned by the same people who want me out of business. And the only people that are allowed to use these donation websites are in the club. So, anytime you see someone successfully using a donation website, you should think twice.
A dated statement of the fundraising-takedown grievance that later becomes a pleaded claim, made roughly four months before GoFundMe Inc. was named as a defendant. The viewer comment he reads aloud immediately before this passage is not part of the quote.
Why this classification: It states the grievance before any filing on it, which fixes the chronology, but it describes no filing conduct at all and names no case, court or docket.
the day I made this website was a few months ago when we were having trouble and then my Tik Tok account suddenly disappeared. So hopefully I don't get deja vu a second or third time
A retrospective reference to the disappearance of his TikTok account, which is the account-removal event underlying the tracked TikTok litigation. It gives no date beyond a few months ago and names no case.
Why this classification: It recalls the underlying account removal rather than any filing, and the only dating is relative, so the link to the TikTok matters is thematic.
You know they want to destroy my business and they will shadowban and censor any attempts of me trying to get help which is why I've been unable to do so.
States the recurring business-destruction and shadowban framing that appears across many videos and underlies the damages theory in several tracked platform cases. Recorded as a statement of his position, not as evidence of the fact.
Why this classification: No defendant, case or filing is named in this passage; it records a general claim of censorship and business harm.
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.
3:26-cv-02134 — Tufano v. Miller et alTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 00:00 researched as bearing on this case: states the fundraising-takedown grievance roughly four months before GoFundMe Inc. was named as a defendant in this action; the link is by defendant identity and subject matter, not by anything the video says.