Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT828
Hitomi Mochizuki 10 YEARS OF VEGAN NONSENSE
Records a commercial approach that was refused, from his own mouth, between him and a named creator, plus his stated plan to launch a product whose name is a play on hers. No filing, no threat of one, no court, no lawyer, no demand. It matters to this archive only as chronology: the archive's Hitomi cluster now has a dated instance of an actual business relationship having been sought and declined, which is the kind of grievance origin that elsewhere in this dataset precedes a filing. Nothing here says one followed, and this file asserts none. Note the caption spelling varies within the single quote — to tomi's then hitomi — and both spellings are preserved. Possible case/dispute link: none identified. The surname in the video title greps to zero across all 23 CSVs in src/data/, as does the alternate spelling; the first name appears only inside two later video titles in youtube_lawsuit_videos.csv (YT368, YT390). She is therefore unresolved as a party — not untracked, unresolved — and no dispute link is recorded.
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.
and we will actually be launching vegan cookies to tomi's cookies to be specific hopefully within a few weeks when i have time to make it for you guys because it's not exactly a high priority product but hey it's a shame that hitomi did not want to go into business with me i guess this is my last plea
Records a commercial approach that was refused, from his own mouth, between him and a named creator, plus his stated plan to launch a product whose name is a play on hers. No filing, no threat of one, no court, no lawyer, no demand. It matters to this archive only as chronology: the archive's Hitomi cluster now has a dated instance of an actual business relationship having been sought and declined, which is the kind of grievance origin that elsewhere in this dataset precedes a filing. Nothing here says one followed, and this file asserts none. Note the caption spelling varies within the single quote — to tomi's then hitomi — and both spellings are preserved. Possible case/dispute link: none identified. The surname in the video title greps to zero across all 23 CSVs in src/data/, as does the alternate spelling; the first name appears only inside two later video titles in youtube_lawsuit_videos.csv (YT368, YT390). She is therefore unresolved as a party — not untracked, unresolved — and no dispute link is recorded.
i'm a little disappointed uh after the the andrew tate thing was posted they took away 600 subscribers imagine imagine if i was actually able to say what i want it to you know imagine if i actually said the full story go figure
A dated platform grievance against YouTube — a claimed removal of 600 subscribers following an upload about a third party — and a claim that he is constrained in what he can say. It is a grievance statement, not filing conduct: he describes no action taken, threatened or contemplated. Recorded because the dataset's platform-grievance chronology otherwise begins much later. Possible case/dispute link: none identified, and deliberately not linked to DSP007. Google, Google LLC and Alphabet Inc are tracked parties (D0122, D0123, D0016), but DSP007's two dockets (C018 filed 2025-07-25, C058 filed 2025-08-22) plead that Google suppressed his reviews of a surgeon. A 2022 complaint about YouTube subscriber counts is a different grievance against a related party — the contract's direction trap 4 — and writing a DSP007 link here would be exactly the error that trap describes. The number 600 is a figure spoken on camera and is not verified against anything.