“I’ll F*cking Call Your Bosses”: ZeroDarkTony Threatens Jobs, Then Wishes a Mass Shooter on His Targets

For more than three hours on May 7, 2025, Anthony R. D’Amato Jr., who broadcasts as ZeroDarkTony, worked through a version of the same argument. He named a critic, wished violence on her or him, and explained why the wish could not be prosecuted. He did this so many times, against so many people, that the argument became the subject of the stream. Late in the broadcast, reading from what he said were police reports concerning a fellow protester, D’Amato acknowledged that a court order restricts which names he is permitted to say publicly. He said he would “respect the court.” He then kept naming people for roughly two more hours.

“I Will Make Sure That None of You Have Fucking Employment That Have Harassed Me”

Background: The people D’Amato names throughout this stream, Mindy, Ever, Scott (who goes by the handle DOA), Chee, and several others, are part of a loose network of critics and protesters who have organized against the Church of Scientology’s Los Angeles properties, including its Celebrity Centre and its Hollywood Boulevard recruitment center. D’Amato refers to them collectively at points in the stream as a “gang.” Willens filed for a civil harassment restraining order against D’Amato on March 24, 2025, six weeks before this broadcast. That case was still pending when this stream aired; its allegations and eventual resolution are addressed briefly below.

The stream also includes D’Amato’s repeated claim that he had spoken with detectives that day and provided them video evidence. None of his claims about law enforcement contact, about causing an opposing party’s attorney to withdraw, or about what investigators have or have not received are independently confirmed here. They are reported as statements D’Amato made on air.

---

Framing a Restraining Order as a Cash Grab

D’Amato opened by addressing Mindy Willens’s pending restraining-order filing against him. Rather than treating it as a safety measure, he described it as an attempt to generate attention and money, and predicted he could use it to his own advantage in front of a judge.

Case context: Willens’s request, filed six weeks before this broadcast, did not describe a single incident. It alleged a sustained pattern of livestreamed threats, some sessions running for hours, and cited specific statements she attributed to D’Amato, including “I’m warning you, don’t push me because the next round is gonna be so fing nasty… you’re gonna wanna leave the earth girl,” “I dare you take me to court. I fucking dare you,” and “I will do such scathing roasts, you won’t be able to process it and neither will your mom” (Request for TRO, 7a(3)). The filing also described a pattern Willens said functioned as a coded threat: D’Amato saying “I will blank you,” using the literal word “blank” aloud while making a gesture, such as a hand shaped like a gun, that supplied the meaning the word itself withheld (7a(4)). and statements she said warned her against seeking court protection at all: “Mindy, I fing dare you to get a RO on me” and “People get murdered when you get restraining orders out on them. I mean that’s what happens” (7a(4), 11). Separately, the filing described D’Amato invoking Willens’s deceased sister in degrading, sexualized terms and publicly identifying her mother in connection with the mother’s illness. That is the same category of conduct D’Amato repeats in this broadcast; see Exhibits F and I below.

Since this stream aired: The case took a year and a day to resolve, and did not end with a judicial ruling. On March 25, 2026, the parties filed a stipulated agreement placing restrictions on D’Amato’s conduct. Willens, in turn, accepted restrictions on her own speech and conduct and gave up pursuing $2,000 in sanctions a judge had previously ordered against D’Amato’s attorney over a disputed subpoena. Nothing in the filing or in how the case resolved supports D’Amato’s characterization here of the restraining order as a bid for “clicks” and “money.”

 

---

A Restaurant Stakeout, a List of Employers to Call, and a Wish for Mass Death

D’Amato spent the next several minutes narrating, in real time, footage of Mindy Willens and Ever at a Hollywood restaurant, with Ever’s boyfriend, Eric Levai, also present. Patrick Perry was not with them; he was seen walking past on the street outside and spotted from the restaurant table. The segment moves from live surveillance to threats against employment to a specific wish that a mass shooter kill the people he was watching.

Since this stream aired: Patrick Perry was arrested for battery near this same Church of Scientology location in January 2024, months before this broadcast; the Los Angeles Police Department stated at the time that Perry had “no known association with the Church of Scientology.” In May 2026, a year after this stream, Perry was charged with murder as one of four defendants in the beating and stabbing death of Berry Le’Mar Henderson, 37, at the same Hollywood intersection. Prosecutors said Henderson was attacked by Perry’s dog, stabbed the dog in self-defense, and was then chased and beaten with a metal bat and a taser-mounted baton before Perry stabbed him with the knife he had dropped. Video from the 2024 arrest showed Perry holding a dog similar in appearance to the one involved in Henderson’s death. Perry has not been convicted; the murder case remains pending.

D’Amato also states: “We’re gonna find who the fucking is, okay. We’re gonna find this fucking cunt. And you better fucking hope that when we do find you, that you don’t have a job, because you will not have it by the time I’m done with you.” He frames these as legal actions, stating he will call employers’ legal departments.

Legal context: Contacting a critic’s employer to pressure them over protected speech is not automatically illegal, but it can support harassment claims or, in some circumstances, tortious interference with an employment relationship if the contact involves false statements or wrongful means. This broadcast also postdates the January 1, 2025 effective date of California’s doxxing statute, Civil Code § 1708.89, which creates civil liability for publishing someone’s identifying information with intent to harass. Whether any specific statement here meets that statute’s elements is not something this article determines.

The same clip includes D’Amato stating he intended to obtain Ever’s private communications: “Ever, we’re gonna get your communications now.”

He isn’t describing a stranger, or a hypothetical, or someone he’ll never cross paths with. He is looking at two women eating dinner and narrating a gunman killing them by name while they sit there. Then, in the same breath, he tells one of them he’s coming for her private messages next. The wish and the target are never more than a sentence apart.

 

---

A Personal Attack and a Rape Allegation

D’Amato turned from the restaurant footage back to Mindy Willens, delivering an extended, profane personal attack before pivoting to an accusation against a third party, a woman named Lara.

Willens’s pending restraining-order request specifically cited D’Amato’s public references to her deceased sister as part of the pattern of conduct she asked the court to stop. That request had been filed six weeks before this broadcast aired.

Legal context: Attaching a specific accusation of a serious crime to a named person, sourced only to unnamed “reports,” is the kind of statement defamation law treats as a false statement of fact rather than protected opinion, if it is false and communicated as fact. Whether this particular statement meets that bar depends on facts not established by the stream itself.

Legal context: This is the clearest statement in the stream of D’Amato’s operating theory, and it is worth stating plainly what the law actually asks. Courts do not evaluate speech by its grammar; they ask whether a reasonable listener, given the full context, would understand it as a serious expression of intent to do harm, and, after Counterman, whether the speaker was at least reckless about that risk. Repetition, specificity of the harm described, and direct address to a named target all weigh toward a true threat, regardless of whether the sentence begins with “I wish.” “It’s a wish, not a threat” is not a legal rule. It is one fact among several that a court would weigh.

Legal context: D’Amato’s own framing here is narrower than it sounds, and it should not be taken at face value. The legal question is not whether he could physically obtain a missile. It is whether describing a weapon entering a named woman’s home, specifically, her living room, is the kind of statement designed to make her afraid, and whether a reasonable person in her position would experience it that way. A living room is small. A gun, a firebomb, a thrown object, all realistically available means, would accomplish the same violation he described. Courts have found threats credible without requiring proof the speaker could execute the specific mechanism named; the fear a targeted description of violence entering someone’s home creates does not depend on whether the object is a missile. Treating the word “missile” as a legal escape hatch mistakes the vehicle for the point.

Legal context: If D’Amato’s claim of causing the withdrawal is accurate, and if it involved more than making an attorney aware of a client’s public conduct, it could raise questions under California’s tort of intentional interference with contractual relations. If the claim is inaccurate, and D’Amato is instead taking credit for an outcome that happened for unrelated reasons, that is a different problem worth naming on its own: repeatedly and falsely claiming responsibility for harm to a named person is a pattern worth documenting regardless of whether any individual statement rises to a legal violation.

Exhibits P and Q sit outside the “not illegal” argument D’Amato built everywhere else in the stream. Here he is not defending a wish; he is simply making one. That the violence he imagines, a physical beating, a judge shooting a defendant in open court, is not wrapped in his legal theory does not make it incidental. It shows the fantasies are not confined to the targets he has built a defense around; they surface wherever his attention lands.

---

A Threat of Violence Toward Kenny

Legal context: Calling someone a rapist by name, with no attribution to any charge, conviction, or source, is a direct accusation of a specific crime, not commentary or hyperbole. That puts it in different territory than the “product of rape” line aimed at his parentage: one is an insult about his origins, the other is a factual claim about Kenny himself that is either true or false.

---

Framing Investigator Contact as Leverage

D’Amato’s claims of law enforcement contact recur roughly a dozen times across this broadcast, including in Exhibits I, W, Y and CC. None are independently confirmed here. Whether or not the underlying contact occurred, the repetition frames ordinary or hypothetical scrutiny of D’Amato as evidence against his critics, regardless of outcome.

---

The Names He isn’t Supposed to Say per the Criminal Protective Order 

Roughly two and a half hours into the broadcast, while Scott was reading incident documentation aloud, D’Amato interjected with a claim about his own court order: that he doesn’t need to worry about other people saying the names he’s personally barred from saying, namely his minor victim, also a Scientology protester, and his mother.

He’s wrong about that.

D’Amato’s acknowledgment of a court order restricting him from naming certain people is notable given the volume of names he uses throughout the stream. But his statement here reveals a specific theory: that the order only binds his own mouth, and that he’s free to host, direct, and monetize a broadcast where someone else says the names for him. The city attorney has since cited that pattern in motions seeking to revoke both his bond and, now, his probation (as of 08/30/2026).

Legal context: Standard California criminal protective orders, including the Judicial Council’s own form language, bar the restrained person from contacting a protected person “directly or indirectly, by any means… or through a third party.” That third-party provision exists precisely to close the loophole D’Amato is describing here. Whether a court finds that hosting and monetizing a broadcast where someone else speaks the protected names counts as indirect contact is a fact-specific question, but the premise that only his own voice matters is not supported by how these orders are typically written.

D’Amato frames the verbal attack by first stating that this target is the only one “deserving” his attention because “he’s going to prison.” 

 

---

The Chee Sequence: Prediction, Claimed Cooperation With Investigators, and Threats of Prosecution

The stream’s final extended segment concerns a woman D’Amato calls Chee. Across seven consecutive exhibits, he predicts her arrest, plays a video of her calling him names, claims investigators already have that video because he gave it to them that day, and threatens both a restraining order and criminal hate-crime charges against her, in the same broadcast where he argues the restraining order Willens sought against him has no merit.

D’Amato predicted Chee’s arrest and said she would be called as a witness. The prediction is his own stated assessment, not attributed to any law enforcement source.

Legal context: California’s hate-crime statute, Penal Code § 422.6, requires interference with a person’s civil rights through force, threat of force, or damage to property, motivated by a protected characteristic. It is not a general enhancement for insulting or offensive speech. Calling someone a pedophile or a Scientologist on a flyer, however unfair or false, does not meet that definition. D’Amato’s legal characterization of the flyers here is at least as questionable as the conduct he is describing.

 

Exhibit AA: “We’ll see you in court, honey, okay, because we’re gonna identify, we already know who you are, but you will be identified in court.”

D’Amato told Chee he already knew her identity and that she would be named as a witness, disputing her characterization of him in the video he had been reviewing.

Timestamps: 03:24:39 – 03:25:51 | Watch with a free account

Exhibit BB: “You’re gonna get a restraining order, Chee, and I’m also gonna fucking press charges against you for hate crimes.” 

D’Amato counted the number of times Chee had used a particular term about him in the video, then stated he intended to pursue both a restraining order and criminal charges.

Timestamps: 03:27:50 – 03:28:36 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato’s stated intention to seek a restraining order against Chee comes in the same stream in which he opposes a restraining order sought against him by Mindy. The clip establishes both positions as active at the same time.

Exhibit CC: “So you’re fucked, bitch.”

D’Amato said he intended to subpoena Chee’s communications, and told her investigators already had the video under discussion because he had given it to them that day. This is the most specific claim of same-day law enforcement contact anywhere in the broadcast; it is not independently confirmed here.

Timestamps: 03:28:47 – 03:30:00 | Watch with a free account

Exhibit DD: “I’m going to use every legal means to fuck you, bitch, you understand me, and not in the good way.”

D’Amato closed the segment repeating language he had used earlier against Hochstetter and Willens, and again said investigators had received the video from him that same day.

Timestamps: 03:32:08 – 03:32:50 | Watch with a free account

The contradiction at the center of this sequence is structural, not incidental. D’Amato spent part of the broadcast arguing that Willens’s restraining-order petition against him was meritless and motivated by attention-seeking. In the same broadcast, he stated his own intention to seek a restraining order against Chee, based on a video of her calling him names, while also pursuing criminal hate-crime charges over flyers. The standard he applied to a petition filed against him is not the standard he applied to the one he said he intended to file himself.

---

Pattern

Over three hours, D’Amato named at least eight people. He wished death, gang rape, disembowelment and mass-shooting violence on several of them, then argued, in increasing detail, that none of it could be prosecuted because it was phrased as a wish rather than a threat. That argument has real legal grounding in true-threats doctrine, but it is not a blanket defense. Courts weigh specificity, repetition, and direct address to named targets, all present throughout this broadcast, alongside the wish-framing D’Amato relies on.

In the same three hours, he read a fellow protester’s police file aloud, acknowledged a court order restricting his own speech, and kept naming people for roughly two more hours. He predicted one critic’s arrest, claimed to have given investigators her video that day, and said he intended to pursue both a restraining order and hate-crime charges against her, the same day he dismissed a restraining order filed against him as meritless.

None of his predictions of arrest of his critics have come true. None of D’Amato’s claims about law enforcement contact, about causing an opposing party’s attorney to withdraw, or about what investigators have or have not received are independently confirmed in this article, but much of it could be false, intending to cause distress for his targets. 

Sources

• Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Date: 2025-05-07
• Stream ID: RUMBLE · v6t3lp9
• Case record: Willens v. D’Amato, civil harassment restraining order, filed March 24, 2025; resolved by stipulated agreement, March 25, 2026 Related coverage on Mindy Willens v. Zero Dark Tony