20260316-APEX Legends _ ZDT COFFEE CHAT DENIAL DUMBOS, 1A, SUBPOENAS [ZeroDarkTony]
“Strap the F* In” – ZeroDarkTony Vows Legal Action, Solicits Support
On March 16, 2026, Anthony R. D’Amato Jr., who streams as “ZeroDarkTony,” used a livestream to escalate ongoing legal threats against anonymous online critics, vowing to pursue subpoenas, lawsuits, and restraining orders to identify them. He seemed to be responding to a Hero Not Zero podcast entitled “Context and Character,” which aired an episode on March 15th regarding the state of previously quashed subpoenas and court sanctions.
During the broadcast, D’Amato repeatedly referenced an active subpoena dispute, referring to Willens v. D’Amato without naming it directly. He insisted that individuals resisting subpoenas had “done something wrong” and warned that he would continue pursuing their identities through alternative legal channels if necessary.
The broadcast functions less as a general discussion of harassment and more as a response to ongoing legal resistance.
D’Amato also solicited financial support during the stream, stating that legal efforts required funding and acknowledging at least $220 in contributions through Cash App and a $20 super chat. He directed viewers to additional payment platforms, including PayPal, Venmo, and channel memberships.
He described more than a year of alleged harassment, including accusations made against him online, and tied those claims to his stated intent to identify and take legal action against anonymous individuals.
““There Are Consequences… We’re Going to Find Them”
D’Amato laid out a consistent position: he will continue attempting to identify anonymous critics through legal means, even if current efforts fail.
He framed resistance to subpoenas not as a legal right, but as evidence of guilt. He also asserted that constitutional protections do not apply in the way courts have repeatedly held they do.
Most notably, he described plans to pursue alternative legal mechanisms—including new lawsuits and restraining orders—to obtain the same identifying information if subpoenas are denied.
Those statements go directly to issues courts consider when evaluating sanctions: intent, persistence, and whether a party plans to circumvent prior rulings.
Exhibits
Exhibit A – Refusal to Accept Limits on Subpoenas
“If I don’t get those subpoenas in this matter… I’m going to get them in another one… If I have to do a John Doe lawsuit, it doesn’t matter.”
This clip documents the streamer forcefully stating, “Nobody’s going to harass me any fucking more.” The statement punctuates a lengthy segment where the streamer details ongoing litigation and a determination to hold anonymous online critics legally accountable.
Timestamp: 00:07:25 – 00:11:45
Here, the streamer recites a list of allegedly unlawful behaviors by critics—claiming that, after a certain point, the First Amendment “no longer” protects them. The clip’s language escalates from civil litigation to promises of criminal prosecution and asserts an unwavering intent to pursue both.
D’Amato states plainly that failure in the current matter will not end his efforts. Instead, he will pursue the same objective—identifying anonymous individuals—through a different case. This reflects an intent to continue the same conduct through alternative filings.
This tone sets up the stream’s broader environment of legal threat and sustained personal grievance. It’s worth noting the direct appeal to the audience for validation and sympathy around these legal claims.
Exhibit B – Explicit Workaround Strategy
“If I don’t get them in the [current] matter… then I will get them somewhere else.”
In this segment, the streamer asserts, “But I do know that it is perfectly legal for me to find out who online harassers are,” signaling an intent to pursue the unmasking of anonymous online commenters via the subpoena process.
Timestamp: 00:12:33 – 00:14:18
This video makes clear the streamer’s intent to use legal mechanisms to identify previously anonymous critics, framing the act as both a legal right and a necessity. The language—“they’re not going to be anonymous for very long”—has the character of a challenge or warning. The persistent claim that the streamer is within legal rights may reflect an effort to preempt criticism or questions about abuse of process. While the streamer accuses critics of years-long harassment, these allegations remain unproven outside the stream.
This statement also reinforces a workaround approach: if one legal path fails, another will be used to reach the same result. Courts often consider this type of persistence when evaluating whether conduct is likely to continue.
Exhibit C – Criminal Framing
“This is going to be a different kind of subpoena… one that makes sure that you show up in court… yes, it can be done.”
The moment captured here includes the bold assertion, “It’s a conspiracy, which is a felony,” as the streamer outlines planned civil and criminal actions against groups allegedly coordinating online harassment.
Timestamp: 00:31:21 – 00:37:03
In this segment, D’Amato asserts that certain categories of speech eliminate First Amendment protections entirely.
That is not consistent with established law. Courts have repeatedly held that speech—including anonymous speech—remains protected unless it meets specific legal thresholds such as defamation, true threats, or other narrowly defined exceptions determined through proper legal process, none of which he presents evidence for in this stream.
By asserting that individuals “lose” First Amendment rights based solely on the content of speech, D’Amato presents a simplified and incorrect view of how constitutional protections apply.
This matters in context because it underpins his broader justification for using subpoenas and other legal mechanisms to identify anonymous speakers. The statement reflects a misunderstanding of the legal standards governing when anonymity can be pierced and when speech becomes actionable.
Exhibit E – Framing Legal Objections as Guilt
This clip contains the statement, “And when we get to these anonymous individuals and eventually get them in a court, that’s going to be part of my declaration, Nikky, that they have been trying to get me to unalive myself for almost two years.”
Timestamp: 00:52:22 – 00:55:24
In this segment, Anthony R. D’Amato Jr., who streams as ZeroDarkTony, says he plans to include in a court declaration allegations that anonymous online critics have tried to drive him to harm himself for nearly two years. He offers no evidence for that claim during the broadcast, but he makes clear that he intends to present it in court if he succeeds in identifying the people he is targeting.
The clip also shows D’Amato framing his own conduct as “defense” while acknowledging accusations that he has caused real-world consequences for others, including getting people fired from their jobs.
“They say that I have gone into real life by getting people terminated from their employment. I didn’t throw the first one. It’s all defense.”
That matters because he is not just describing emotional harm. He is laying out how he intends to use those allegations in future legal filings.
The live chat during this portion of the stream largely reinforced D’Amato’s account rather than challenging it, with viewers echoing his harassment claims and encouraging further action.
That makes this exhibit important for two reasons. First, it shows D’Amato’s intent to turn these accusations into formal court allegations once he identifies anonymous critics. Second, it shows how he justifies escalation: he describes his actions as defensive while presenting severe, unverified claims as a basis for more legal action.
Exhibit F – D’Amato Says He Will Reuse Statements From a Dismissed Declaration
In this brief clip, the streamer declares, “And Dumbalaya can come in and explain it to the judge,” referencing Krackhead Kenny.
Timestamp: 01:12:12 – 01:13:58
In this segment ZeroDarkTony refers to a previously dismissed declaration and says he intends to reuse those statements—and add more—in a future court filing.
He refers to Krackhead Kenny who he says can “explain it to the judge,” signaling an expectation that the dispute will return to court.
The statement matters because it shows D’Amato does not treat the dismissal of a prior declaration as the end of the issue. Instead, he presents it as a temporary setback and indicates he plans to reintroduce similar claims in a new filing.
This reinforces a broader pattern in the broadcast: when one legal effort fails or is dismissed, he signals that he will pursue the same claims again through a different procedural path.
Exhibit D – Misstatement of Constitutional Protections
“This has nothing to do with First Amendment… you lose your First Amendment right the second you call someone a PDF…”
The assertion, “They’ve had lawsuits brought against them,” is also made as the streamer comments on perceived consequences for online harassers, positioning legal action as both effective and justified.
Timestamp: 00:39:19 – 00:41:05
D’Amato asserts that certain speech eliminates First Amendment protections entirely. Courts have consistently held that anonymous speech retains protection absent specific legal findings. This statement reflects a misunderstanding of those standards.
This exhibit sees the streamer drawing on precedent and the actions of investigators to warn that organized online harassment groups face real-world consequences. There is a rhetorical blurring between the claim that others have been successfully sued and the intention to replicate those outcomes. Strong language and anger are used when addressing critics or describing their actions, reinforcing the atmosphere of dispute and confrontation. No documentary evidence of these past lawsuits or outcomes is supplied within the clip itself.
Exhibit G – D’Amato Draws Line Between Insults and “Actionable” Conduct
“If people want to call me fat ass… that’s not what I’m talking about… I’m not talking about somebody making fun of you because you’re on the internet.”
Here, D’Amato also states, “If it’s in a certain tone, like, for example, I make fun of people, but I don’t call them a PDF and try and find their address,” as an attempt to draw a distinction between criticism and harassment. However, prior statements and court exhibits show that he has attempted to identify individuals and their locations repeatedly, including referencing home and work locations, even contacting or threatening to contact third parties (such as family members, chiropractic boards, licensing agencies, places of employment, child protective services, etc)
Timestamp: 01:29:11 – 01:31:28
In this stream, Anthony R. D’Amato Jr. (who streams as ZeroDarkTony) attempts to distinguish between online criticism and conduct involving identifying or locating individuals.
However, his own prior statements—submitted in an objection to the subpoena filed by HeroLightCody as Exhibit A—directly contradict that claim.
For example:
- “Once we get all of their internet shit, we’re going to have their ID, address, and locations.”
- “We already started the process to subpoena Cody’s accounts for his identification and his locations.”
- “When I find you, I’m going to ruin you and everything about you.”
- “If any of these goons have any jobs… it’s going to be gone after I’m done.”
D’Amato’s statements explicitly tie the use of subpoenas to obtaining identifying information and retaliating against individuals once identified.
This is directly relevant to sanctions because it demonstrates that the subpoenas at issue were not narrowly tailored to legitimate claims, but instead part of a broader effort to identify, expose, and target individuals.
Sources
- Original YouTube Video
- Full SRT Transcript
- Full Text Transcript
- Full Chat Transcript
- Date: 2026-03-16
- Stream ID: YOUTUBE · m0z-k0N4agI