Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT813
Pork Bacon BACK! Collagen Broth! FFRM Vlog
A dated, first-person account of the grievance underlying a docket that was live on the day this was published, given without any reference to the docket. The grievance shape matches closely: an insider taking money from the business over roughly two years, removed from it, with the business left damaged. The recorded case pleads breach of the operating agreement, breach of fiduciary duty brought derivatively for the LLC, and an accounting against the LLC's other managing member — the same story told as a cause of action. The timing also lines up: "almost a year and a half now since i got rid of him", measured back from the 2022-05-10 publish date, puts the removal around late 2020, and the action was filed 2021-04-22, roughly five months later. What makes it worth recording is the omission. He describes the loss, the duration, the removal and the damage, and does not say he sued anyone over it — while the suit had been on file for 383 days (2021-04-22 → 2022-05-10, differenced in code from those two dates) and had 169 days left to run before its 2022-10-26 dismissal (2022-05-10 → 2022-10-26, same method). That is a measured instance of litigation being live and unmentioned, which is why the factor is No filing-conduct factor: he reports no filing, announces none and threatens none. ⚠ Note also that "stealing money" is his characterisation of a civil grievance; no theft finding by any court is recorded, and the pleaded claims are contractual and fiduciary, not criminal. Possible case/dispute link: C089 — tentative and unconfirmed, and written on grievance shape and timing only. The transcript names no one. He says only "that dirt bag" and "him"; no name, no company, no role and no location is spoken, so this is not a name match and cannot be treated as one. The five required party-name greps over this record all returned zero (see the research notes archived for this video), which is consistent with the link being real but unnamed rather than with it being absent.
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.
i did check on the lead powder because i was hoping to have it by now but i paid them five months ago and they said they just shipped it now so i don't know if i got scammed or not i could be out ten thousand dollars
A datable commercial grievance of the size and kind that has elsewhere preceded filings — a five-figure prepayment, five months without delivery, and his own on-camera use of the word "scammed". Recorded so that the grievance exists in the archive with a date attached, not because any filing followed it. No filing is announced, threatened or reported, and no remedy of any kind is mentioned. Possible case/dispute link: none identified. The supplier is referred to only as "them" and "these suppliers"; no name, country or company type is spoken. Nothing matching a lead-powder, paint or radiation-shielding supplier was found in aliases.csv, in lawsuits.csv's defendants column or in its case_title column. Record as unresolved, not negative. ⚠ The "ten thousand dollars" figure is a single spoken number in a track with no corroboration and must not be promoted without an independent check.
the way i look at it is i had that dirt bag stealing money from me for two years he kind of ruined everything and now it's actually been i mean almost a year and a half now since i got rid of him but we'll see
A dated, first-person account of the grievance underlying a docket that was live on the day this was published, given without any reference to the docket. The grievance shape matches closely: an insider taking money from the business over roughly two years, removed from it, with the business left damaged. The recorded case pleads breach of the operating agreement, breach of fiduciary duty brought derivatively for the LLC, and an accounting against the LLC's other managing member — the same story told as a cause of action. The timing also lines up: "almost a year and a half now since i got rid of him", measured back from the 2022-05-10 publish date, puts the removal around late 2020, and the action was filed 2021-04-22, roughly five months later. What makes it worth recording is the omission. He describes the loss, the duration, the removal and the damage, and does not say he sued anyone over it — while the suit had been on file for 383 days (2021-04-22 → 2022-05-10, differenced in code from those two dates) and had 169 days left to run before its 2022-10-26 dismissal (2022-05-10 → 2022-10-26, same method). That is a measured instance of litigation being live and unmentioned, which is why the factor is No filing-conduct factor: he reports no filing, announces none and threatens none. ⚠ Note also that "stealing money" is his characterisation of a civil grievance; no theft finding by any court is recorded, and the pleaded claims are contractual and fiduciary, not criminal. Possible case/dispute link: C089 — tentative and unconfirmed, and written on grievance shape and timing only. The transcript names no one. He says only "that dirt bag" and "him"; no name, no company, no role and no location is spoken, so this is not a name match and cannot be treated as one. The five required party-name greps over this record all returned zero (see the research notes archived for this video), which is consistent with the link being real but unnamed rather than with it being absent.
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.
55177/2021 — FRANKIES FREE RANGE MEAT LLC et al v. ADAM STAROWICZTranscript reference · Medium · Timestamped statement at 07:12 researched as bearing on this case: [7:12]–[7:23] — He narrates the grievance behind a live lawsuit, in detail, without mentioning the lawsuit.