“If He Thinks He’s Gonna Try and Do This to Me”: ZeroDarkTony Describes Counterclaim and Predicts Prison Violence Against DOA

Exhibit A

D’Amato states he will file a counterclaim if sued, saying, “If he thinks he’s gonna try and do this to me when he terrorized me for all that time, if he thinks that I’m not gonna hit back as hard as I fucking can with this counterclaim, you got another thing coming, sweet cheeks,” and closes with, “I am going to wipe the floor with you in that courtroom.” He also describes his expectation of obtaining phone communications retrieved by LAPD through discovery, though the clip does not establish that any such materials have been formally sought or produced.

Timestamps: 00:08:58 – 00:14:35 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato states his counterclaim theory while also framing a discovery strategy tied to LAPD materials. He characterizes Hochstetter’s alleged conduct as defamation and describes his own anticipated courtroom performance in combative terms. The clip establishes D’Amato’s stated intent to pursue litigation rather than merely threaten it.

Two legal claims in this clip need correcting. Under California law, a hate crime is a criminal act committed because of a victim’s actual or perceived characteristics, such as religion (Penal Code section 422.55). Mistakenly calling someone a Scientologist is not, by itself, a crime. Evidence police collect in a pending criminal case also does not automatically go to a civil litigant. Agencies can assert the official information privilege (Evidence Code section 1040), and courts weigh privacy interests before ordering production. California’s hate crime law also does not reach speech alone unless the speech threatens violence against a specific person or group (Penal Code section 422.6(c)).

Exhibit B

D’Amato explicitly predicts Hochstetter will be assaulted in jail. He then voices Hochstetter’s reaction himself, “Oh, he said I’m going to get beat up in jail,” answers “Yep,” and repeats it: “Let me say it again. How’s that defamation? That you’re a bitch and you’re going to get your ass kicked in jail?” He then asks the live audience to register agreement in chat, saying, “Put a one in the chat if you think that Scott’s going to get his ass kicked, really badly, regularly, if he goes to jail.”

Timestamps: 00:15:17 – 00:17:12 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato states the prediction, then invites his audience to affirm it by sending a chat message, directing them toward a named individual as the subject. The clip shows D’Amato soliciting audience agreement on an explicit prediction of violence against Hochstetter while also preemptively characterizing that prediction as not constituting defamation. The archived chat log shows a viewer answering the call: “1 all day everyday.”

D’Amato tells Hochstetter he is “going to go to prison.” Hochstetter has not been convicted of anything. In People v. Hochstetter (25CJCF01106-01), he faces one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and five counts of criminal threats, all dated Feb. 16, 2024. He has pleaded not guilty, and the charges are allegations. Five counts of vandalism of religious property as a hate crime were dismissed at his preliminary hearing on Aug. 8, 2025. His next court date is a pretrial conference on Dec. 1, 2026.

Exhibit C

D’Amato describes in detail the prison social hierarchy and predicts that what he describes as Hochstetter’s restraining order history involving children will lead other incarcerated individuals to physically harm him, stating, “They are going to fuck him up. And that’s the fact.” He also states, “I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen,” before walking through his account of how outside contacts allegedly relay inmate records to people inside California prisons.

Timestamps: 00:21:06 – 00:26:35 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato frames his prediction as a description of standing prison rules rather than a personal directive, saying, “Those are jailhouse rules. Those are not my rules.” The clip is the longest of the prison-violence segments and provides the most detailed account of how D’Amato believes harm would be carried out against Hochstetter.

The restraining order at the center of this prediction is D’Amato’s unverified allegation. Here and in Exhibit A, he says Hochstetter filmed children going into a porta potty and “got a restraining order for it.” He named no court, case number or date. On his Oct. 11 stream he conceded he had seen only “a piece of a clip that didn’t have any audio on it,” and on Oct. 4 he said, “I don’t really know.” HNZ has found no such order. His “that’s the fact” is a prediction, not a finding.

Exhibit D

D’Amato describes his planned counterclaim subpoena strategy, stating, “I’m going to subpoena his parents,” while also qualifying, “I certainly don’t want to bother those people, but if there’s a reason, then you know, that’ll be what it’s going to be.” He also states that all individuals he claims are connected to Hochstetter through alleged coordinated conduct are now susceptible to subpoena: “This fat fuck is opening the door for me to get to you. Because you’re connected to him.” Then, mimicking Hochstetter, he says, “I’m gonna sue ZDT because he said I’m gonna get beat up in jail. That’s defamation,” and answers in his own voice: “That’s not defamation. That’s a fact.”

Timestamps: 00:35:30 – 00:43:52 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato states he has received attorney consultations and frames his counterclaim as a vehicle to reach third parties he believes coordinated against him. He hedges the parental subpoena but frames it as conditional on finding justification, which he states he expects to find. He did not name the lawyers he consulted. He also repeats that calling him an agent of Scientology is “a hate crime.” As noted under Exhibit A, it is not.

D’Amato is partly right about procedure. In California, a defendant’s counterclaim is filed as a cross-complaint. It can name people who are not yet parties if the claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence (Code of Civil Procedure section 428.10).

His conspiracy theory is weaker than he suggests. California does not treat civil conspiracy as a standalone claim. It only extends liability for an underlying tort to people who agreed to it, so he would first have to prove the tort itself (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 1994). The “admission” he points to is his own account of Hochstetter blaming a woman for flyers. He showed no evidence on stream of an agreement or of an underlying wrong.

Subpoenas to nonparties such as Hochstetter’s parents are limited to information relevant to the case, and the people subpoenaed can move to quash them. A prior subpoena effort by D’Amato, aimed at HNZ contributor Hero Light Cody, was quashed, and the court imposed sanctions on the attorney who pursued it. His plan to reach anonymous critics, the “invisible fucks,” through the case faces another limit: California courts unmask anonymous speakers only after a prima facie showing of an actionable claim (Krinsky v. Doe 6, 2008).

Exhibit E

D’Amato addresses a pending appeal on attorney’s fees, stating, “I don’t know if we’re going to win or lose, but what I can say is that if we do win, then we’re going to go full force with collecting and having a judge make him fill out a financial statement, things like that.”

Timestamps: 00:51:24 – 00:53:19 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato acknowledges uncertainty about the appeal outcome while describing a collection enforcement plan contingent on winning. By his own account, the fee appeal had not been decided as of the October 13 broadcast. What he leaves out is how it got there. Hochstetter sought a restraining order against D’Amato and did not get one. D’Amato then asked the trial court to make Hochstetter pay his attorney’s fees, and the court denied that motion. The appeal challenges that denial. No fees have been awarded, and appeals courts review a fee denial for abuse of discretion, a deferential standard.

He opens the clip with a separate “fee hearing” he says is “coming up in a couple weeks,” without naming the case. In his civil harassment case against Jarred Brooks, known online as Krackhead Kenny (26STRO01932), Judge Holly L. Hancock-Goode did not rule on his $23,197.40 fee request on Oct. 1 and continued the motion to Oct. 29, about two weeks after this stream.

Exhibit F

D’Amato references the restraining order proceeding in which he was the respondent, recounting that his lawyer asked Hochstetter how many restraining orders had previously been taken out on him and that Hochstetter answered fifteen. D’Amato voices the answer himself: “And he went 15. 15.” He then begins to characterize what any attorney questioning Hochstetter on that point could accomplish, but the clip ends before the sentence is completed.

Timestamps: 01:06:31 – 01:09:28 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato presents the restraining order history as a credibility point he plans to exploit in any future proceeding. The figure of fifteen prior restraining orders is D’Amato’s attributed account of Hochstetter’s own answer on the stand and has not been independently verified. He showed no transcript or court record of the testimony on stream.

Exhibit G

D’Amato states his intent to bring materials to LAPD, saying Hochstetter “is also putting himself in a position where there could be a lot more charges because of what I have to put together as soon as I do, I’m taking it right over the fucking LAPD.” About a minute later, in a mocking impression of Hochstetter, D’Amato recites his own plans back from Hochstetter’s point of view: “ZDT is gonna hand me my ass in that courtroom and drag in a lot of my friends and family as witnesses.”

Timestamps: 01:11:28 – 01:14:59 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato claimed that Hochstetter’s use of a prison slang term for a child sex offender put D’Amato himself in danger, saying formerly incarcerated people who see the word “want to schmurder me,” and tied that claim to what he plans to take to LAPD. He did not say what he would bring to LAPD or what charges he expects. The clip is notable for linking the LAPD referral to specific language Hochstetter used on his own stream, which D’Amato claims incited others against him. His comparison to Sean Combs is also inaccurate: Combs faced civil suits, but his conviction came from a federal criminal prosecution, in which a jury acquitted him of racketeering and sex trafficking in July 2025 and convicted him on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.

Exhibit H

D’Amato states he will contact attorneys handling other cases against Hochstetter to share information about Hochstetter’s financial disclosures, saying, “I’m going to make sure that I make some phone calls to some attorneys and let them know what you said about your financials so they can pull that.” He adds, “So you started it. I’m just going to finish it. And that is referring to any kind of court action.”

Timestamps: 01:17:02 – 01:19:02 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato frames the planned attorney outreach as responsive to Hochstetter’s conduct and explicitly limits it to matters of court action. The clip establishes a stated intent to coordinate with other attorneys against Hochstetter, though whether any such contacts have been made is not established in the source material. He did not name the attorneys or the cases.

Exhibit I

D’Amato describes his plan if he wins the appeal and Hochstetter does not pay, stating, “If I do win the appeal case and he doesn’t want to pay, then I’m going to put a lien on his piece of shit vehicle.” He continues with an extended description of selling the vehicle for a dollar and having it destroyed, concluding, “And then I’ll make a fucking coffee table out of it.”

Timestamps: 01:20:24 – 01:24:28 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato frames the lien scenario as contingent on winning the appeal and Hochstetter’s non-payment, making the enforcement plan conditional rather than imminent. The vehicle destruction description is illustrative and does not reflect an established legal mechanism, but it closes a sequence in which D’Amato repeatedly describes litigation as a tool to impose concrete material consequences on Hochstetter.

After the clip ends, D’Amato walked the scenario back, calling it “highly unlikely” and “a crazy, you know, joke,” and saying that “even as shitty as he is, I would not want him to not have a place to sleep,” indicating the vehicle is where Hochstetter lives. In the same stretch he added, “I do hope somebody else does it because then it’s not on me,” and later, “Hopefully Clearwater sees it as a viable prospect.”

The mechanics D’Amato describes do not match California law. A judgment creditor does not take and resell a debtor’s vehicle. The creditor obtains a writ of execution, and the levying officer, typically the sheriff, seizes the property and sells it at a public execution sale. The creditor can bid like anyone else but cannot set the price at a dollar. When a debtor owns only one vehicle, a set amount of the sale proceeds is automatically exempt and is built into the minimum bid. Because D’Amato indicated the vehicle is Hochstetter’s residence, it may also qualify as a dwelling under California’s homestead law. That would require a separate court order before any sale and would block a sale that fails to cover the homestead exemption plus existing liens. None of this applies unless D’Amato wins the pending fee appeal.

Taken together, the nine clips on record from the October 13, 2026, broadcast document D’Amato stating litigation intentions across multiple legal theories while simultaneously making repeated predictions of prison violence against Hochstetter to a live audience he invited to register agreement in chat. The attorney’s fees appeal referenced in Exhibits E and I was, as of the broadcast date, still pending a decision. It challenges a trial court ruling that denied him fees; no fees have been awarded.

Sources

• Original YouTube Video
• Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Date: 2026-10-13
• Stream ID: YOUTUBE · UoBh9hgydnk