“I’ll Sue Your Whole Goddamn Family If I Have to”: ZeroDarkTony Announces Workplace Service and Expanded Lawsuit

Legal fund: About 38 minutes in, D’Amato thanked viewers “who gave you the cash app earlier” and said, “We’re not at the retain an attorney level on the fund yet, but we’ll get there because I’m going to start it.” He tied it to his fight with Jarred Brooks, adding that “the legal fees are a form of restitution.” The fees he means are the $23,197.40 he has asked the court to order Brooks to pay; the judge has not ruled. There is no public accounting of the fund.

“I’m going to serve your wife at work. How’s that, fuckface?”

D’Amato described the planned service as nine days away and framed it explicitly as retaliation for prior conduct: “you’re going to pay for what you did, Jarred.” He said the restraining order he has against Brooks “was a warm-up,” and claimed a judge had found his attorney’s bill reasonable; the court record shows no such ruling yet (see Exhibit E). Regarding Brooks’s daughter, whom he described as no longer a minor, D’Amato said on stream, “I don’t even know their name. And but I’m sure I can find out if I have to,” before adding, “the daughter’s gonna be in on the lawsuit too.” He separately told Darren, “you just bought yourself a ticket,” and stated he intends to subpoena Darren’s account. Addressing people in Brooks’s audience, D’Amato said he intends to subpoena PayPal donation records and emails, cautioning, “only the relevant ones, just so you know.”

D’Amato also says of Brooks’s wife, “She is going to be so… You should let her know now,” and adds, “You too, Darren.” The clip establishes that D’Amato was already publicly referencing a pending financial disclosure requirement before the more detailed service plan described in later clips. He identifies both Brooks’s wife and Darren as prospective targets in the same breath.

The financial statement he mentions is a real requirement. In D’Amato v. Brooks (26STRO01932), D’Amato’s restraining order case against Brooks, Judge Holly L. Hancock-Goode did not rule on his $23,197.40 attorney fee request on Oct. 1. She said she needed income and expense information, ordered Brooks to file an FL-150 by Oct. 24 and continued the motion to Oct. 29.

This is the first clip in which D’Amato names both Brooks’s wife and Brooks together as intended lawsuit additions, framing their connection to each other as the legal basis for including them. He does not describe specific claims against either in this clip, only the assertion that they are linked. He does not say which lawsuit he means, and he named no court or case number.

D’Amato ties the subpoena to Darren’s talk about him: “I’ve fucking had enough of your fucking mouth. D’Amato says right after the clip that Darren has been “on the same screen” as Brooks. The clip documents D’Amato expanding his stated litigation targets from Brooks and Brooks’s wife to include Darren by name.

The clip opens as he finishes a riff in which someone he calls “Squatty Potty” does “a frickin’ atomic knee drop” on Brooks (“Like a twig, bro. He is a twig.”). He then says of Brooks, “do I believe that he will carry out threats? Yes,” and that Brooks “would actually drive out here and try and look for me.” He did not say what threats he meant or show any.

Regarding Brooks’s daughter, D’Amato states, “I don’t even know their name. And but I’m sure I can find out if I have to,” then says, “the daughter’s gonna be in on the lawsuit too.” He frames all stated actions throughout this clip as civil litigation and explicitly says, “Civilly, in court, of course.” The clip is the longest in the set and contains D’Amato’s most detailed description of his intended legal strategy, including subpoenaing Brooks’s current account and “your old fucking Krackhead Kenny account too.” He also offers Brooks a choice: “You can cooperate or, because that’s going to be the easy way, or we could do it the hard way.”

The “29th” he gives for serving Brooks’s wife is the date of the continued hearing on his own fee motion in D’Amato v. Brooks, where he says “the bill is 23,000.” He named no court or case number for the lawsuit he says he will serve.

Midway through, without naming anyone in that passage, he says “he filmed those little girls going into that porta potty” and got “a restraining order for filming little girls.” Elsewhere in the stream he attaches that claim to Hochstetter by name (see Exhibit G).

D’Amato claims his attorney sent clips to Brooks as part of prior proceedings and states, “We showed you in court.” He expresses two contradictory assessments of judicial impartiality within the same passage, praising one judge for recognizing his fees while alleging bias in a separate matter. The clip documents D’Amato’s on-stream description of evidence already submitted in prior litigation.

The court’s record does not show the finding he describes. On Oct. 1 the judge in D’Amato v. Brooks did not rule on his fee request; she needed Brooks’s income and expense information first and continued the motion to Oct. 29.

The “18k” he says was not “a lie” is his fee claim against Scott Hochstetter, known online as DOA, who streams on YouTube at @thelordofthegadflies. Hochstetter sought a restraining order against D’Amato and did not get one. D’Amato then moved for attorney fees and lost that motion; it is on appeal, and no fees have been awarded. The judge he calls biased appears to be the one who denied it.

The clip opens with him saying, twice, “D.O.A. got an R.O. filming minor girls going into a port-a-potty.” See Exhibit G.

D’Amato frames the subpoena intent as targeting “third parties” who are “making it a lot worse” by participating in Brooks’s audience. He qualifies the email subpoena scope with “only the relevant ones,” which is his own stated limit on what he says he intends to pursue. The clip extends the circle of named litigation targets beyond Brooks, Brooks’s wife, Darren, and the daughter to include an unspecified number of audience members.

He named no case in which those subpoenas would issue. A prior subpoena effort by D’Amato targeting HNZ contributor Hero Light Cody was quashed, and the court imposed sanctions on the attorney who pursued it.

The denial is immediately followed by sustained personal insults directed at Hochstetter’s mother and by chants of “DOA films little girls in port-a-potties.” He tells his audience, “Clip it. Make an AI song about that.” D’Amato does not substantiate the filming allegation with evidence in this clip; he frames it as a known prior incident. Right after the clip he says the insults about Hochstetter’s mother are “just mom jokes.”

The restraining order claim is his unverified allegation. D’Amato has identified no court, case number or date for any such order. He has conceded he only saw “a piece of a clip that didn’t have any audio on it” (Oct. 11 stream), and on Oct. 4 he said “I don’t really know” whether it is true. HNZ has found no such order.

D’Amato states his strategy is to proceed without a retained attorney initially, “bring a lawyer in later, save some money.” Earlier in the stream he thanked viewers for Cash App gifts and said, “We’re not at the retain an attorney level on the fund yet.” The clip documents D’Amato describing, to a public audience, a litigation approach he says he intends to pursue against still-unidentified additional defendants.

The clip opens with him mocking Hochstetter’s own lawsuits (“lawsuit number fucking 18”) and disputing a claim he attributes to Hochstetter, that “hanging up those flyers” is “out of the statute of limitations”: “No, it’s not.” He did not say when the flyers went up. California’s deadline for a defamation claim is one year from publication.

A John Doe suit does not unmask anyone on request. Under Krinsky v. Doe 6 (2008), a plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing of an actionable claim before a court orders an anonymous speaker identified.

Across eight clips from the October 21, 2026 broadcast, D’Amato publicly named or described at least five prospective civil defendants, stated a specific service date, and outlined subpoena strategies targeting both named individuals and anonymous audience members. He named no court or case number for any new lawsuit.

Sources

• Original YouTube Video
• Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Date: 2026-10-21
• Stream ID: YOUTUBE · -jwwYtNiksw