APEX Legends, ZDT NIGHTSHIFT WEIRD SCIENCE, BUFFALO, GRANDEUR 2026-06-23 23, 28, ZeroDarkTony / June 24, 2026 / YouTube / NaLqr9qwqoQ
D’Amato also floated a potential criminal-referral motion against the judge after the opposing party accused her of bias.
Anthony R. D’Amato, Jr., also known as ZeroDarkTony, spent a portion of a June 24, 2026 YouTube livestream recounting what he described as a recent restraining-order hearing against Jarred Brooks, the opposing party or respondent he referred to throughout. D’Amato claimed the opposing party’s own courtroom presentation worked against him, that a writ of mandate and a prior recusal attempt had both failed, and that he had already contacted the court reporter for transcripts. D’Amato’s account is one-sided and unverified. The opposing party, the judge’s conduct, and the hearing record itself are not independently confirmed by the broadcast.
“He Had No Defense. He Had No Explanation of Why He Said Those Things.”
D’Amato claimed the opposing party attempted to introduce detailed background information about D’Amato during the hearing and that this move backfired. According to his account, the judge responded to that detail by noting the opposing party seemed to know a great deal about him. D’Amato stated: “he was basically… telling the judge basically everything he knew about me and the judge was like wow you really do know an awful lot about him… it totally backfired, he walked himself right into it.”
He credited his lawyer with predicting this outcome in advance. D’Amato also described the opposing party as having “no defense” and “no explanation” for statements made before the hearing. He said his own side presented “videos and screenshots” rather than testimony, and that he contributed only briefly when his lawyer asked if anything else needed to be mentioned. He added that the opposing party “extended the TRO, ran up the legal bills and made a complete fool of himself.” None of these characterizations are drawn from a court record in the broadcast; they are D’Amato’s stated interpretation of the proceeding.
D’Amato then addressed a separate allegation the opposing party apparently raised in court, involving stickers placed in bathrooms across the country. D’Amato said: “He was talking about the stickers. He was saying that I put stickers of him across the country in bathrooms… I’m not sure exactly what I remember, but, you know, all his questions were objected to.” D’Amato did not address the substance of that allegation directly. Separately, D’Amato floated seeking a criminal referral after the opposing party accused her on stream of having “got paid off.” D’Amato said: “Maybe a motion with the judge for a criminal referral is in order.” He did not specify what conduct the referral would concern, and the statement appeared to be a real-time reaction rather than an announced legal step.
Exhibit A
D’Amato describes the opposing party demonstrating detailed knowledge of him in court, saying “the judge was like wow you really do know an awful lot about him,” and closes with the disclosure: “And I already emailed the court reporter.”
Timestamps: 00:20:35 – 00:25:36 | Open clip in new tab
The clip captures D’Amato’s core narrative about the hearing: that the opposing party’s own evidence presentation led the judge to view him as unusually knowledgeable about D’Amato. The court-reporter contact establishes that D’Amato was actively seeking an official transcript at the time of broadcast, which would either corroborate or contradict his account of the proceeding, and was apparently on order so that his audience could be entertained by the proceedings.
Exhibit B
D’Amato asserts that the hearing judge was impartial and procedurally fair, saying “the judge did everything by the book and even helped him,” before turning to the opposing party’s public accusation that the judge had been paid off. The public accusation is not verified, however court documents did not show that the respondent moved to have the judge replaced for being paid off, but instead for being biased against him for being out of state, and affecting his right to due process.
Timestamps: 00:35:17 – 00:37:13 | Open clip in new tab
The clip documents D’Amato floating a criminal-referral motion in response to the bribery accusation made publicly about the judge. He did not outline grounds, name a statute, or indicate his lawyer had advised this step; the statement reads as an in-stream reaction. The sticker allegation raised by the opposing party in court, which D’Amato does not deny substantively in this clip, is also on record here.
Exhibit C
D’Amato describes the evidentiary dynamic at the hearing, stating “the judge saw the lies and nobody lied about him,” attributing the restraining-order extension to the opposing party’s own conduct during the proceeding.
Timestamps: 00:57:19 – 00:59:22 | Open clip in new tab
D’Amato states that the TRO was extended and that the opposing party bore responsibility for that outcome. The claim that “nobody lied about him” is D’Amato’s characterization of his own side’s conduct, not a court finding reflected in any document shown during the broadcast. The three clips collectively document D’Amato’s public, on-stream account of an active restraining-order proceeding. The official transcript he said he was pursuing would provide a verifiable check against his version of events.
Sources
- Original YouTube Video
- Full SRT Transcript
- Full Text Transcript
- Date: 2026-06-24
- Stream ID: YOUTUBE · NaLqr9qwqoQ