Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT724
Hitomi switches to Girls because of Vegan Diet
Two things, and the second is the load-bearing one. First, it is the channel owner directing his audience to contact a named third party — reported for later review as instructed rather than ambient, while noting it is the mildest instance in the recorded set: a polite request to be unblocked, with no commercial dispute, no abuse solicited and no identifier disclosed. Second, and this is what a later pass needs, it dates the Instagram block: on this record he was already blocked before this video was published and before any contact of his own — "I've never spoken to her but I was already blocked when I tried to find her profile to DM her." See the research notes archived for this video for why that sits awkwardly beside an existing video_statements row. Possible case/dispute link: none identified
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.
if you guys could help me out by kindly asking Hitomi to unblock me on Instagram you know I've never spoken to her but I was already blocked when I tried to find her profile to DM her
Two things, and the second is the load-bearing one. First, it is the channel owner directing his audience to contact a named third party — reported for later review as instructed rather than ambient, while noting it is the mildest instance in the recorded set: a polite request to be unblocked, with no commercial dispute, no abuse solicited and no identifier disclosed. Second, and this is what a later pass needs, it dates the Instagram block: on this record he was already blocked before this video was published and before any contact of his own — "I've never spoken to her but I was already blocked when I tried to find her profile to DM her." See the research notes archived for this video for why that sits awkwardly beside an existing video_statements row. Possible case/dispute link: none identified
yeah avoid people avoid social interaction and have the poison sent straight to your door by the corporate Crooks that have a monopoly on I mean Thrive has got to be killing it they definitely have the Monopoly and it's most likely all of these giant mega corpse [= corps] astroturfing into Thrive Market working together to push out all the small guys and make money
Recorded for the batch 58 grievance ledger. This is the one passage in the ten-video slice where he names a company, alleges concrete commercial wrongdoing against it — monopoly, astroturfing, coordinated effort to "push out all the small guys" — and identifies himself with the class being harmed, since he sells into the same market. It is still not a grievance in the ledger's sense: there is no transaction between him and the company, no loss he claims to have suffered, and — the point of recording it — no remedy of any kind is named. Not a complaint, not a regulator, not publicity beyond the video itself, and litigation never enters the frame. Coded as a Shape B candidate that fails on the transaction leg. ⚠ The company name is a proper noun in a punctuated caption track and is therefore unverified. Possible case/dispute link: none identified