Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT693
The BEST Vitamin and Mineral Supplements are here!
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 same business relationship then before an American Arbitration Association proceeding. This video went up 2 days after that filing (2022-12-20 → 2022-12-22, computed in code) and is a statement about the financial condition of exactly that business — the meat company is not self-sustaining and is being carried by the four sibling storefronts. It describes no filing conduct and names no person, no LLC co-member, no arbitration and no suit. Recorded because it dates the commercial state of the entity at the centre of C090 to the closest post-filing point in this slice, not because it references the case: it does not. Possible case/dispute link: C090 / DSP020, subject-matter only and tentative. The link rests on the entity (Frankie's Free Range Meat) being the subject of both, not on anything said. ⚠ No party is named. Direction trap 5 applies to the person side — the co-member is never mentioned, so no party link is licensed.
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.
so organ supplements as well as Frankie syringe Foods [= Frankie's Free Range Foods] Wi-Fi shielding Frankie's Naturals has really helped me kept the meat business going so not only are you guys supporting me this is really going towards you know eventually getting the processing plants the dairy all these other creative and unique products to help you guys improve your health
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 same business relationship then before an American Arbitration Association proceeding. This video went up 2 days after that filing (2022-12-20 → 2022-12-22, computed in code) and is a statement about the financial condition of exactly that business — the meat company is not self-sustaining and is being carried by the four sibling storefronts. It describes no filing conduct and names no person, no LLC co-member, no arbitration and no suit. Recorded because it dates the commercial state of the entity at the centre of C090 to the closest post-filing point in this slice, not because it references the case: it does not. Possible case/dispute link: C090 / DSP020, subject-matter only and tentative. The link rests on the entity (Frankie's Free Range Meat) being the subject of both, not on anything said. ⚠ No party is named. Direction trap 5 applies to the person side — the co-member is never mentioned, so no party link is licensed.
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 07:02 researched as bearing on this case: [7:02]–[7:23] — The meat business is being kept alive by the other four storefronts, 2 days after the C090 filing.