“You’re Going to Get Your Ass Kicked in Jail”: ZeroDarkTony Threatens Litigation Target On Stream

Exhibit A

Timestamps: 00:11:34 – 00:17:36 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato reads directly from court filings and pins the opinion link in chat, making the material available to his live audience. He characterizes the allegations as familially relevant to Dodge, adding, “So it runs in the family.” His stated qualifications about the civil-only nature of the case and uncertain disposition are audible in the same segment.

Critically, because the case was evaluated at the CPLR 3211 preliminary motion stage, the court was legally required to assume the plaintiff’s allegations were true strictly for procedural evaluation, meaning these recitations do not constitute proven judicial findings of fact. As documented in the final appellate decision, Schmitt v. Artforum Intl. Mag., Inc., 178 A.D.3d 578, 115 N.Y.S.3d 291 (1st Dept. 2019), all individual claims against Knight Landesman were simply dismissed by the court, principally due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, meaning nothing was ever legally proven against Landesman in court, and the lawsuit never proceeded to a trial or a discovery phase regarding his conduct. While the corporate publisher eventually settled the remaining retaliation claims in 2021, the individual case against Knight Landesman concluded with a total dismissal rather than any finding of civil liability.

Exhibit B

Addressing Scott by first name, D’Amato says: “You’re going to get your ass kicked in jail, Scott. How’s that? Is that clear enough? That’s my opinion. My opinion is you’re going to get your ass beat when you go to jail because you’re a bitch and they’re going to smell it from a mile away.” He then adds, in the same segment, “I don’t know what’s going on with any of this court shit… All I can say is, is if I am brought into it, there will be a counter complaint that will have discovery attached.” D’Amato frames both the physical-harm statements as his stated opinion and the counter-complaint as contingent on being “brought into” the litigation.

Timestamps: 00:21:19 – 00:24:47 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato’s own framing labels the jail-harm statements as opinion and ties the counter-complaint threat to a conditional trigger. Both the explicit physical-harm language directed at Scott and the litigation intent are on the record in the same continuous segment.

Exhibit C

D’Amato returns to the counter-complaint threat, telling Scott: “You are opening the door to discovery that will clean the fucking house.” He adds, “It’s not just you that’s going to be on that counter complaint,” and states he would file it himself “if I have to do it myself and write with my teeth in crayon.” In the same segment, he says of a third party named Dan, “Dan would beat his ass.”

Timestamps: 00:27:17 – 00:30:40 | Watch with a free account

The clip repeats and expands the discovery-threat language from Exhibit B, adding that unnamed additional parties will appear on the counter-complaint. The reference to Dan physically beating Scott is made as a third-party characterization.

Exhibit D

D’Amato names Chee, Scott, Ashley, and a fourth individual he describes as “the chocolate ET” (referring to Film The Police LA) as people captured on video posting flyers of him, then states: “That, ladies and gentlemen, is the definition of a civil conspiracy. And I can prove it.” He tells Scott the litigation would be “the biggest mistake you ever made.”

Timestamps: 00:34:27 – 00:36:21 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato claims video evidence of four individuals posting flyers and characterizes that conduct as a provable civil conspiracy. The legal conclusion is his own on-stream assertion, not a court finding.

Exhibit E

D’Amato argues that targeting him based on a perceived Scientology connection, combined with his stated disability status, constitutes hate crimes, saying: “When two or more people come together, it’s called a conspiracy. But what’s it called when they target somebody because of their perceived… whether I’m a Scientologist or not is not true. I was targeted, so not only am I disabled, officially.” He closes the segment: “When you publicly attack me and put me in a false light… you want to open Pandora’s box together with me? Let’s do it. Say when.”

Timestamps: 00:40:05 – 00:42:29 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato asserts hate-crime and false-light claims against the named individuals as his own legal characterizations on stream, not established findings. The segment adds disability status as a claimed protected-class basis for the harassment allegation.

Exhibit F

D’Amato describes what he characterizes as over two years of sustained targeting, saying: “I have is actually of course a course of conduct that has not ended. And it’s been going on for over two years from this fucking piece of shit who has targeted me month after month, year after year. And he won’t fucking leave me alone because it’s mentioning my name and talking about… he gets a bunch of super chats.”

Timestamps: 00:44:51 – 00:46:49 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato frames the ongoing dispute as a monetized pattern of targeting by the other party, arguing that mentioning his name drives super chat revenue. The two-year timeline and “course of conduct” framing are his own characterizations, offered as context for the legal threats made elsewhere in the stream.

Exhibit G

D’Amato turns to viewers in Scott’s chat, saying: “You think that some of you big mouths in his chat won’t be subpoenaed too? Oh, yes, you will. Because the only reason Scott knows about discovery and all the is because of listening to me.”

Timestamps: 01:06:28 – 01:08:49 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato extends the subpoena threat beyond Scott to unnamed audience members in a rival stream’s chat. The statement is addressed to that external audience directly, not framed as hypothetical.

Exhibit H

D’Amato closes the Artforum segment by acknowledging limits on his characterization of the case, saying: “Now, could it also have been an isolated incident that somebody made a mistake, lack of judgment, blah, blah, blah, got a little weird? Perhaps. Still no excuse for it. But apparently it got all worked out. And no criminal charges. By the way, I want to reiterate that this is all civil.”

Timestamps: 01:14:31 – 01:16:40 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato explicitly states the Artforum case produced no criminal charges and may have been an isolated incident, qualifications he volunteers without prompting. He also confirms the court opinion link is pinned in his chat. The eight clips together document D’Amato reading civil court records about a named target’s family member to a live audience, issuing physical-harm statements toward a second named individual while labeling them opinion, and asserting counter-complaint and subpoena threats that he explicitly extended to third-party viewers, all during a single October 12, 2026 YouTube broadcast.

Sources

• Original YouTube Video
• Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Date: 2026-10-12
• Stream ID: YOUTUBE · fxBKUotdR9o