APEX Legends, ZDT COFFEE CHAT SUNDAY GRAVY, COUNTDOWN, GOALS 2026-05-31 11, 20, ZeroDarkTony / May 31, 2026 / YouTube / eC-_AfzoLR8
Anthony R. D’Amato, Jr., also known as ZeroDarkTony, devoted substantial portions of a May 31, 2026 YouTube livestream to discussing active civil proceedings, a temporary restraining order, and what he characterized as coordinated harassment against him. The stream included repeated references to his attorney, a process server, a scheduled June 18 court appearance, and the prospect of subpoenas.
“Some Animals Need to Be Trained”
D’Amato framed his litigation posture as defensive, telling viewers he had concluded that court action was necessary to protect himself. “Some animals need to be trained,” he said. “And sometimes they need to be trained because I can see now in order to protect myself, figuratively speaking, I need to put an electric fence around myself to protect myself. And the way to get that figurative electrical fence is the court.” He stated that lies, threats, and malice fell outside First Amendment protection and described unnamed parties as continuing to harass him, calling the conduct “a criminal conspiracy.”
Later in the stream, a series of incoming calls or join requests appeared on screen. D’Amato rejected them one by one, stating he believed the caller to be the TRO respondent or a third party acting on their behalf. He told his audience that whoever spoke first about the incident in other channels would be identified as the person behind it: “the first one to mention this incident right here, the first one to mention it, that’s the… one.” He stopped short of directing his audience to take any action, framing the statement as a detection signal rather than a call to contact the individual.
D’Amato also described the June 18 proceeding as centering on a motion related to service of process. He claimed the respondent had denied being served and characterized that denial as potential perjury, walking through a hypothetical on stream to explain his reasoning. He asked audience members to surface time-coded footage if they had captured the respondent reading the most recent service document on a separate broadcast.
Exhibit A
D’Amato describes his motivation for pursuing court action and characterizes the conduct against him as a criminal conspiracy, stating, “And they’re continuing to harass me. I mean, this is a criminal conspiracy.”
Timestamps: 00:12:36 – 00:14:47 | Watch with a free accountD’Amato characterizes the litigation as a protective measure and says the pending June 18 matter is separate from additional actions he intends to pursue. The “criminal conspiracy” claim is D’Amato’s own characterization, not a finding of any court reflected in the broadcast.
Exhibit B
Responding to repeated incoming calls during the stream, D’Amato states he is recording each one as potential evidence and will send the footage to his attorney, warning that digital records “could be subpoena, by the way, whoever that is doing that, that could be subpoena.”
Timestamps: 00:18:51 – 00:23:33 | Watch with a free accountD’Amato states he believes the caller to be either the TRO respondent or a third party, and frames the repeated call attempts as harassment. His statement that whoever mentions the incident first in other channels will be identified as the perpetrator is addressed to his live audience, though he issues no explicit instruction to locate or contact that person.
Exhibit C
D’Amato describes the June 18 motion as a dispute over whether the respondent was validly served, stating, “The attorney, the attorney set it up with a license process server. Who will be there to testify.” He then asks his audience to provide time-coded footage of the most recent service, noting, “This just last one that just happened.”
Timestamps: 00:31:43 – 00:35:25 | Watch with a free accountD’Amato frames the audience request as an effort to locate footage he may not already have in his own records. His account of the service dispute and the planned process server testimony is unverified on stream beyond his own statements.
Exhibit D
D’Amato walks through a hypothetical scenario to explain how denying service while on video could constitute perjury, concluding: “And then I went and filed that I was not served. Then I would be committing perjury.”
Timestamps: 00:37:29 – 00:39:27 | Watch with a free accountThe hypothetical is stated in first-person but D’Amato frames it explicitly as a general legal illustration, not a direct admission. The clip establishes that he discussed the perjury theory on stream before the June 18 hearing date.
Taken together, the four clips constitute an on-stream record of D’Amato’s stated legal posture ahead of the June 18 proceeding, including his characterization of the opposing party’s conduct, his attorney’s service strategy, and his intention to submit stream footage as evidence.
Sources
- Original YouTube Video
- Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
- Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
- Date: 2026-05-31
- Stream ID: YOUTUBE · eC-_AfzoLR8
React to this story