“Jarred, His Wife and His Daughter Are Going to Get Sued”: ZeroDarkTony Announces Multi-Defendant Civil Action

He named no court, case number, or filing date for any new suit. D’Amato also said on stream that an unidentified person posted his home address publicly and continued what he described as “threats of intimidation.” He said he had the evidence and planned to take legal action, but declined to give a timeline. The stream aired Friday, Oct. 23, the day he had set as his own deadline for critics to “cooperate” with his announced John Doe lawsuit. He did not say whether anyone had. He also did not mention, or answer, any of the 12 questions Zoey Brightside of Hero Not Zero emailed him (and posted here) on Oct. 21 about that lawsuit, including whether it has been filed and who his attorney is.

“I’m Not Gonna Say When I’m Filing It, But It Will Be”

D’Amato described his overall posture as deliberately measured. He acknowledged that his on-stream behavior can read as dramatic and attributed that partly to what he called a “troll factor,” saying he wanted the subjects of his planned actions to know what was coming. He stated he had previously published evidence publicly, then removed it, saying, “I made my point.” He claimed Brooks is already subject to a restraining order and warned the situation would escalate because, in his words, “he’s still not listening.” 

On the financial side, D’Amato claimed Brooks “is in absolute financial peril because he’s going to owe up to $23,000,” and blamed Brooks’s own legal team. No fees have been awarded. D’Amato asked for $23,197.40 in fees in that case. On Oct. 1, 2026, Judge Holly L. Hancock-Goode did not rule; she ordered Brooks to file an income and expense form by Oct. 24 and continued the motion to Oct. 29. D’Amato also said he intends to serve a different, unnamed person, someone he says claims to be in Tennessee, at an email address that person left visible in a publicly posted screenshot. He said the post amounted to an invitation to serve papers there.

Exhibit A

D’Amato tells his audience he had shared evidence in a prior post, then removed it, stating: “with just a few of the things that I showed everybody and I took the post down because I don’t need to leave them up made my point… the individual who decided to post my address online and continue with this threats of intimidation, I’ve got them. I’ve got them 100%.” Just before, he says: “I’m not gonna say when I’m gonna do it, I’m not gonna say when I’m filing it, but it will be.”

Timestamps: 00:25:11 – 00:29:05 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato presents the posting of his address as a grievance and as the basis for legal action. He does not name the individual in this clip, and he showed no evidence on stream during this broadcast. He named no court and no case number.

He claimed he took his post down because he “made his point,” but maybe he removed it because it revealed more about his intent and was embarrassing, especially after using the term “cork ordered” to predict the respondent in his restraining order case would have to pay him. He also said Brooks was ordered to complete a financial declaration, omitting that the judge had granted Brooks an emergency motion to prevent any of his financial information from being entered into the court record or given to D’Amato or his lawyers.

This is not the first time D’Amato has been caught using one case to try and get information he could use in a separate case against non-parties.  Previously, he used subpoenas to try and unmask people who were not parties to the case. His attorney was sanctioned.

Exhibit B

Here D’Amato turns to Scott Hochstetter, known online as DOA, and the criminal case against him. He says Hochstetter “knows he could go to jail,” then: “if he goes in there and tries to fight this case, he is 100% going to prison. And I think the judge will give him a little extra just to teach him a lesson.” He speculates the judge will neither maximize nor minimize the sentence.

Timestamps: 00:31:34 – 00:33:28 | Watch with a free account

These are D’Amato’s predictions, not facts. Hochstetter has pleaded not guilty to one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and five counts of criminal threats, all dated Feb. 16, 2024. Those are allegations, not convictions, and no one has been sentenced. The next date in that case is a pretrial conference on Dec. 1, 2026.

Exhibit C

D’Amato addresses an unnamed person who, he says, claims to be in Tennessee and left a screenshot of an email publicly posted while calling him a “C-H-O-M-O.” He says: “That’s where I’m gonna serve you because you put a post that basically invited me to serve you there and the judge is gonna go, okay.” He then turns back to Brooks, saying the respondent “is going to owe up to $23,000.”

Timestamps: 00:40:14 – 00:42:07 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato’s service theory, that a publicly posted email address invites legal service there, is his claim; a court would decide whether it is valid. The email screenshot he describes was posted by that unnamed person; it is not Hero Not Zero’s Oct. 21 email. The $23,000 is not a judgment. It is his pending fee request against Brooks, $23,197.40, which the judge had not ruled on as of Oct. 1 and continued to Oct. 29.

Exhibit D

D’Amato states his intent plainly: “Jarred, his wife and his daughter are going to get sued.” He admits, “I don’t even know the daughter’s name.” He then says: “as witnesses, I am going to subpoena Jen de Leon, Sunshine, Gang Gang. I’m going to subpoena their accounts too.” He also references the restraining order he says he got against Brooks, saying “he’s still not listening, so that’s why it’s going to get worse.” He qualifies his civil filing plans by saying, “If I don’t have real evidence about something, I’m not gonna bother filing it. It’s just a waste of the court’s time.”

Timestamps: 00:44:10 – 00:48:45 | Watch with a free account

This clip is the most explicit statement of scope in the broadcast: D’Amato names the defendants, names the intended witnesses, and links the planned filings to his restraining order case. He does not provide case numbers, jurisdictions, or filing dates. 

A subpoena needs a pending case, and he named none. The October 23, 2026 broadcast constitutes D’Amato’s on-record public announcement of intended civil litigation against named individuals and a stated intent to subpoena additional named parties as witnesses, with D’Amato himself citing an existing restraining order as part of the documented legal backdrop.

Sources

• Original YouTube Video
• Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Date: 2026-10-23
• Stream ID: YOUTUBE · zshiRIPbe7Y