Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT669
RAW GLANDS ARE HERE! Dairy soon!? Frankie's Free Range Meat Vlog
Establishes that as of 2022-09-13 the threat of being removed from the premises was live enough to open a routine business vlog. ⚠ Note the actor named here is "the city of New York", not the landlord — which is a different attribution from the one he gives two months earlier in ghaAc6_NGh4 (2022-07-14), where the eviction is a Bronx Civil Court petition brought by Simone Development Company. Both attributions are his; this file reconciles neither and takes no position on which is right. Possible case/dispute link: none identified. No New York City eviction or housing matter appears in lawsuits.csv.
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.
What's up? How are you guys this week? Another Monday down at Frankie's Free Range Meat. Another Monday of me not being kicked out on the street by the city of New York. So, I guess that's good news
Establishes that as of 2022-09-13 the threat of being removed from the premises was live enough to open a routine business vlog. ⚠ Note the actor named here is "the city of New York", not the landlord — which is a different attribution from the one he gives two months earlier in ghaAc6_NGh4 (2022-07-14), where the eviction is a Bronx Civil Court petition brought by Simone Development Company. Both attributions are his; this file reconciles neither and takes no position on which is right. Possible case/dispute link: none identified. No New York City eviction or housing matter appears in lawsuits.csv.
Yeah, so we went to the housing court this morning. I finally found a lawyer that was willing to represent me in this case. So, it looks like that's going to be delayed at least a few months more we have in the space uh without having to worry about getting completely kicked out.
A dated, same-day report of a housing-court appearance ("this morning" — so 2022-09-13, with no publish lag on this fact) and of retaining counsel. Two things make it load-bearing. First, "I finally found a lawyer that was willing to represent me in this case" — the adverb and the phrasing record difficulty obtaining representation, which is the counterpoint to the pro se pattern that dominates this dataset from 2024 onward. Second, it is the outcome side of the proceeding he describes in ghaAc6_NGh4: there he is the respondent to an eviction petition heard within a week of filing; here, two months on, the matter is delayed by "at least a few months". No filing conduct of his own is described — he is the responding party throughout — so no filing-restriction factor fires. Possible case/dispute link: none identified as a tracked row. Adjacent to youtube_lawsuit_videos row YT053 (XYE8qZLgK3I, 2022-06-01), recorded there as an "Older landlord dispute not currently represented in CASES", and to ghaAc6_NGh4 (2022-07-14) in this batch. 2022-07-14 → 2022-09-13 = 61 days (differenced in code). A lead for a docket check, not an identification.
you know, I was supposed to be in this space for about 2 and 1/2 more years, and then we were going to find a a meat packing plant, a slaughterhouse. I'm concerned that, you know, I got to relocate my whole life 2 hours away in Jersey, try to get my employees to come with me,
Gives the term he believed he held — about 2½ more years as of 2022-09-13 — which is the factual premise underlying his characterisation of the eviction as wrongful, and the concrete business consequence he attributes to it. It is his account of a lease term, not a document, and the figure is spoken on camera, so it is the least reliable class of content this archive carries. Possible case/dispute link: none identified.