Source-linked public-record research into lawsuits, outcomes, related proceedings, court rulings, public statements and litigation chronology.
Public statement source · YT893
They STEAL from me, DESTROY my business, then try to SILENCE me!
A dated, on-camera count of his own representation problems, published three days after the NYSCEF docket in C089 (Frankies Free Range Meat LLC et al v. Adam Starowicz, N.Y. Sup. Ct. Westchester, Index 55177/2021) recorded a consent-to-change-attorney filing letting the plaintiffs proceed pro se. Computed as a plain date difference: consent-to-change-attorney 2022-09-23, video published 2022-09-26 = 3 days. ⚠ The count contradicts itself inside this same video — "three lawyers" here, "two lawyers" at [2:36]. Both figures are recorded; neither is reconciled here, and neither should be promoted without a docket check. Possible case/dispute link: C089 / DSP020 — tentative, on the date adjacency and the named party elsewhere in the same video, not on anything the speaker says about a docket.
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 am I supposed to do I hire three lawyers they all work against me these people steal my ideas my money infiltrate my business destroy my personal life to the point where my own family turns against me
A dated, on-camera count of his own representation problems, published three days after the NYSCEF docket in C089 (Frankies Free Range Meat LLC et al v. Adam Starowicz, N.Y. Sup. Ct. Westchester, Index 55177/2021) recorded a consent-to-change-attorney filing letting the plaintiffs proceed pro se. Computed as a plain date difference: consent-to-change-attorney 2022-09-23, video published 2022-09-26 = 3 days. ⚠ The count contradicts itself inside this same video — "three lawyers" here, "two lawyers" at [2:36]. Both figures are recorded; neither is reconciled here, and neither should be promoted without a docket check. Possible case/dispute link: C089 / DSP020 — tentative, on the date adjacency and the named party elsewhere in the same video, not on anything the speaker says about a docket.
and I'm sure most of you know the details about how my business partner stole money from me but YouTube was kind enough to take down the video of him in lieu of a privacy complaint
States the underlying grievance that C089's verified complaint pleads — that his co-member of Frankie's Free-Range Meat, LLC took money out of the business — and records a platform takedown of an earlier video about the same person. No filing, court or docket is mentioned. Possible case/dispute link: C089 / DSP020 — the grievance matches what research_notes.csv records C089 as pleading (embezzlement by the 49% member). Tentative: the speaker names no case.
you know Mr starowitz I would say I don't enjoy having to deal with this but one of my viewers was kind enough to make a website in your memory on adamsterowids.com they have the privilege of seeing your Instagram your LinkedIn profile a brief summary of what you did and those two videos you want to take and down oh so badly
The opposing party in a then-live New York action is addressed by name on camera, and the channel publicises a website a viewer built at his name which aggregates his social-media profiles. This is the grievance and the party, not a filing — no court, docket or suit is mentioned. ⚠ Surfaced for later review as ambient harassment amplified by the channel: the action is attributed to a viewer, the channel names the resulting domain to an audience. Possible case/dispute link: C089 / DSP020 — the party is aliases.csv D0003, tracked in C089, C090, C091 and C099. The link here is to the party, not to a case: no case is named.
what's strange is I looked at his LinkedIn profile a few weeks ago it said he was currently employed with the little B Table after I posted that video on him he changed it to not currently employed and that means one of two things he was fired from the job after someone saw the video and contacted them or he removed it as his current employer so that no one would do that either way I have a feeling Mr stalowitz isn't going to have a job after this if he did have one
The channel's own account of a viewer contacting a named opposing party's employer after one of its videos, and of the consequence it believes followed. It bears on the litigation only as conduct toward a party; it describes no filing. Possible case/dispute link: C089 / DSP020 — party link only, as above.
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 00:54 researched as bearing on this case: [0:54]–[1:19] — Names the opposing party and a viewer-built website at his name.