Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT747
LEGAL UPDATE American Arbitration Association COLLUSION AGAINST ME
The collusion allegation stated in full, naming his own former attorney Jeffrey Davis (A001 / D0137) and Adam Starowicz — and recorded 279 days before he sued both of them in C099. Cannot be Strong: the rubric reserves that for the three core filing-conduct factors, and this alleges bias among the actors rather than describing his own filing conduct. ⚠ The allegation carries an explicit religious identification of the attorney, preserved verbatim because it characterises the nature of the claim being made. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed). Jeffrey Davis and Adam Starowicz are both named defendants in C099 and C091; no specific case_id is asserted from this video alone.
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.
Moderate pattern relevanceJudicial or forum bias alleged04:21
my former lawyer jeffrey davis who was jewish was to my understanding in collusion with my business partner adam starwitz probably paul saldino i don't know what type of connections they have you know what the deal is but i'm assuming they were all working together against me and my lawyer basically got me an arbitration without my consent
The collusion allegation stated in full, naming his own former attorney Jeffrey Davis (A001 / D0137) and Adam Starowicz — and recorded 279 days before he sued both of them in C099. Cannot be Strong: the rubric reserves that for the three core filing-conduct factors, and this alleges bias among the actors rather than describing his own filing conduct. ⚠ The allegation carries an explicit religious identification of the attorney, preserved verbatim because it characterises the nature of the claim being made. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed). Jeffrey Davis and Adam Starowicz are both named defendants in C099 and C091; no specific case_id is asserted from this video alone.
Moderate pattern relevanceThreatened or prospective filing04:54
my argument to my lawyer was the llc is fraudulent and that we have to file a motion in supreme court to invalidate and void the llc so i can leave the arbitration
A specific prospective filing, named by forum (New York Supreme Court) and relief (invalidating the operating agreement), stated 301 days before C090 and 344 days before C091 were filed in that court. Recorded as a described intention, not a filing: the complaint he says he wanted is attributed to his instructions to counsel, not to anything on a docket. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed).
Moderate pattern relevanceJudicial or forum bias alleged06:28
listen you [ __ ] can collude with each other all you want i don't know what sort of group you're in i don't know what sort of club you in if you want to work together i'm going to ignore you
His own account of accusing the forum itself of collusion, in a call to its case manager. The [ __ ] bleeps are preserved as captioned. The "club" framing recurs across this batch (compare tasS38BpOPw at 9:33, "they're all in the club") and is the consistent shape of the bias allegation. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed) — the American Arbitration Association is D0019, a named defendant in C099 and C091.
yeah i'm gonna put all the names of the people involved in this case so maybe you guys can give them a call and talk some sentence to them
Out-of-court pressure directed at the participants in a live proceeding — he then names the arbitrator, the case manager and opposing counsel. ⚠ Factored No filing-conduct factor deliberately: the mechanism is publicity and viewer contact, not filing, so the cost-imposition factor does not apply however much disruption is intended. The quote is cut before the names for the reason given in the research notes archived for this video. Possible case/dispute link: DSP020 (tentative, unconfirmed).
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.
50058/2023 — Frank Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et alTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 04:21 researched as bearing on this case: [4:21]–[4:43] — Alleges his own former attorney colluded with the opposing party and put him into arbitration without consent.
7:23-cv-00244 — Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et alTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 04:21 researched as bearing on this case: [4:21]–[4:43] — Alleges his own former attorney colluded with the opposing party and put him into arbitration without consent.