Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT686
HOLIDAY SALES! Wagyu is back! Frankie's Free Range Meat Vlog
C090 (Frank Tufano v. Adam Starowicz, Westchester County Supreme Court, No. 50710/2022, filed 2022-12-20) pleads breach of an oral contract against a fellow member/manager of Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC, arising from the business relationship then also before an American Arbitration Association proceeding. Twenty-one days before that filing (2022-11-29 → 2022-12-20, computed in code), the businesses at the centre of it are being wound down in stock terms on camera: site-wide discounts across all five storefronts, water kefir cut to roughly half price, the organ-supplement line "already kind of been on liquidation", the enzyme blend on "a very very steep discount", Frankie's Naturals at half off, and the stated plan to "liquidate everything get everything out of here" and restart at "a lower volume of product". This describes no filing conduct whatsoever and names no person, no LLC, no co-member, no arbitration and no suit. It is recorded because it dates the commercial condition of the C090 entity to the −21-day point. Possible case/dispute link: C090 / DSP020, subject-matter only and tentative. The link rests on the businesses being the subject of both, not on anything said. ⚠ No party is named anywhere in the track, so direction trap 5 applies on the person side and no party link is licensed. ⚠ A seasonal-holiday-sale reading is also fully available on the face of the transcript — he frames the discounts as a Black Friday/holiday promotion running "through the entire holiday season" — and nothing here excludes it. Both readings are recorded; neither is asserted over the other.
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.
sale too guys I think we're going to put it at seven dollars a bottle for everything kind of just liquidate everything get everything out of here and then maybe we'll start off with a lower volume of product that's a little more suitable
C090 (Frank Tufano v. Adam Starowicz, Westchester County Supreme Court, No. 50710/2022, filed 2022-12-20) pleads breach of an oral contract against a fellow member/manager of Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC, arising from the business relationship then also before an American Arbitration Association proceeding. Twenty-one days before that filing (2022-11-29 → 2022-12-20, computed in code), the businesses at the centre of it are being wound down in stock terms on camera: site-wide discounts across all five storefronts, water kefir cut to roughly half price, the organ-supplement line "already kind of been on liquidation", the enzyme blend on "a very very steep discount", Frankie's Naturals at half off, and the stated plan to "liquidate everything get everything out of here" and restart at "a lower volume of product". This describes no filing conduct whatsoever and names no person, no LLC, no co-member, no arbitration and no suit. It is recorded because it dates the commercial condition of the C090 entity to the −21-day point. Possible case/dispute link: C090 / DSP020, subject-matter only and tentative. The link rests on the businesses being the subject of both, not on anything said. ⚠ No party is named anywhere in the track, so direction trap 5 applies on the person side and no party link is licensed. ⚠ A seasonal-holiday-sale reading is also fully available on the face of the transcript — he frames the discounts as a Black Friday/holiday promotion running "through the entire holiday season" — and nothing here excludes it. Both readings are recorded; neither is asserted over the other.
now we just kind of have a lot of masticum [= mastic gum] available the new shipment got held up by Customs for an inspection so I mean that's never good but no I don't know when I'm going to get it we were supposed to have it last week
Customs in src/data/aliases.csv resolves to D0313, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, a tracked defendant in C015 / C057 (DSP006, Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding et al). This quote is not that dispute and must not be scored as it. DSP006 concerns a roughly $20,000 consignment of Japanese Kobe wagyu beef ordered through SPQR Imports in 2025, on which All-Ways Forwarding allegedly never filed the required customs entry; this is a mastic gum shipment in 2022, ~966 days before C015's recorded 2025-07-22 filing (computed in code). Different goods, different year, different intermediary, and no defendant, forwarder or agency conduct is alleged — he says only that it is being inspected and he does not know when he will get it. What the quote does establish is that he was importing goods and absorbing customs-hold delays as a routine cost of the business by 2022-11-29, which is the same grievance shape that later becomes a tracked dispute. Possible case/dispute link: none identified. Direction traps 4 and 5 both apply — right party name, wrong grievance, and the grievance he does describe names no party at all. Recorded expressly so that a future Customs grep hitting this file is read as a name collision rather than as DSP006 evidence.
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.
50710/2022 — Frank Tufano v. Adam StarowiczTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 04:56 researched as bearing on this case: [4:55]–[5:08] — "liquidate everything get everything out of here", 21 days before the C090 filing.