APEX Legends, ZDT COFFEE CHAT FACT CHECK, 400 POUNDS OF COPE, LOW IQ / ZeroDarkTony / June 2, 2026 / YouTube / jvt9FX3aynk
Anthony R. D’Amato, Jr., also known as ZeroDarkTony, used a June 2, 2026 YouTube livestream to address ongoing civil proceedings he described as targeting multiple online critics. He warned that critics who posted about the case would be reported to the court and that chat participants could face subpoenas requiring testimony under oath. D’Amato also solicited donations via CashApp and Venmo to cover legal fees. D’Amato framed the stream as a “fact check” of claims made by critics who he said were misrepresenting what occurred in court. He asserted that verbal statements by a judge carry the force of orders regardless of whether they are reduced to writing, and he stated his intent to report any conduct he viewed as violating those statements.
He had previously asserted that anyone talking about the case would be violating a judge’s order and be held in contempt of court.
“I Will Take Any Legal Means Necessary to Protect Myself and My Family”
D’Amato stated on stream that a person he referred to as “Sister Subpoena,” referring to “Sister Bright Zoey” of this publication, and any others participating in online discussion of his case would face legal consequences. He described critics as “terrorists” and compared them to cornered raccoons, while also stating his own purpose as defensive. He claimed that individuals in a respondent’s chat, whether the respondent or third parties, could be identified through post metadata, including precise location data, and that their accounts could be subpoenaed.
He seemed triggered by a YouTube post by Sister Bright Zoey, who wrote:
I’ve now reviewed the TRO and both minute orders filed May 26 in the matter of D’Amato v. Brooks. The first minute order is in the jurisdiction matter, the second in the restraining order hearing.
The court denied Brooks’ motion challenging jurisdiction and issued a temporary restraining order against Jared Brooks that expires June 18 pending further hearing.
There are no additional protected parties listed anywhere in the order, not even his mother or daughter that were in his application for a restraining order, and no language restricting all “third parties” or public discussion in chats generally.
The narrative floating around that “nobody can talk about Tony” or criticism itself is automatically harassment appears to be more exaggerated ZDT internet spin than what the actual court orders say.
Here’s the TRO with not really a whole lot filled out. More to come.
Exhibit A
D’Amato states his interpretation of judicial authority and his intent to report perceived violations: “When a judge says something in a courtroom, that’s an order… any violations of those what anybody else would construe as orders because the judge said it, is I’m going to report. And if you want to keep this game up, like that individual who posted that, Sister subpoena, we’ll see you in court.”
Timestamps: 00:01:21 – 00:03:18 | Open clip in new tab
D’Amato states that he views verbal judicial statements as orders binding on others and that posts he considers violations will be reported. He identifies a specific person by the nickname “sister subpoena” as a target of anticipated legal action.
Exhibit B
Addressing critics who he says are continuing to post about the case, D’Amato states: “It’s not going to be very funny when users are required to show up to a court and testify under oath.” He also says, “I will do anything I need to do and I will take any legal means necessary to protect myself and my family.”
Timestamps: 00:04:02 – 00:07:21 | Open clip in new tab
D’Amato frames the prospect of court testimony as a consequence critics have chosen for themselves and characterizes his own posture as protective rather than retaliatory. The clip establishes a stated intent to pursue any available legal avenue against people he identifies as harassers.
Exhibit C
D’Amato disputes a respondent’s claim of non-service and describes the evidentiary basis for the process server’s anticipated testimony: “We literally have the live stream where they recorded themselves being served. And on top of that, the process server is going to be testifying.” He also addresses a person named Mina directly: “And yeah, I guess that must have happened in court with you also, Mina.”
Timestamps: 00:15:11 – 00:17:08 | Open clip in new tab
D’Amato claims the respondent’s denial of service was recorded on a livestream and that the process server reviewed identifying materials before serving. He states the process server will testify, presenting this as dispositive of the service dispute.
Exhibit D
D’Amato states that account metadata, including location data from posts, can be obtained through subpoena: “I have every right to identify these people… the metadata is very specific. And these people want to, they love to pet the tiger’s tail of consequence. And then when the consequences even slightly look in their direction, they cry. It’s too late now to cry, sister subpoena.”
Timestamps: 00:22:00 – 00:24:21 | Open clip in new tab
D’Amato states he has the right to identify chat participants and describes the legal mechanism he says will be used to do so. He frames subpoenaing account metadata as a means of establishing the identities and physical locations of individuals he considers part of the dispute.
Exhibit E
D’Amato states that opponents are knowingly targeting him while he is receiving treatment: “You’re harassing someone who you know is in treatment. So you’re knowingly harassing someone who’s in treatment, which makes you fucking sick.” He also states, “Any court will see that.”
Timestamps: 00:33:31 – 00:35:25 | Open clip in new tab
D’Amato asserts that his opponents’ knowledge of his treatment status will be a factor in court. He frames the timing of online activity against him as evidence of aggravated conduct.
Exhibit F
D’Amato accuses the respondent of contacting a child’s school and publishing a minor’s schedule: “The respondent called the school called a kid school to harass a kid and posted a kids fucking football schedule online. Called other schools about this kid.” He also states on stream that the respondent “encouraged their audience to call the school.”
Timestamps: 00:36:09 – 00:38:16 | Open clip in new tab
These are D’Amato’s characterizations of the respondent’s conduct, not verified findings. The clip establishes that D’Amato made these allegations publicly on stream and stated they are part of the ongoing civil proceedings. The six clips collectively document D’Amato stating, on a public livestream, his intent to subpoena critics, identify chat participants through account metadata, and present allegations involving a minor’s school contacts as part of an active civil case.
Sources
- Original YouTube Video
- Full SRT Transcript
- Full Text Transcript
- Date: 2026-06-02
- Stream ID: YOUTUBE · jvt9FX3aynk