“You’re Going to Pay for It Out of Your Wallet”: ZeroDarkTony Threatens Subpoenas Over HNZ Email Contact, Tells Reporter to Drink Bleach

And he announced a new email address that he said someone else would run and he would never read, adding that anyone who wanted an email there read and answered could send $1,000 to his Cash App or Venmo. During the segment, @annatheinnotz4901 sent five gifted memberships while D’Amato was mid-rant, and he paused to acknowledge them:

D’Amato thanked the viewer and went straight back to the rant. He told Zoey to “go drink some bleach.”

Exhibit A

D’Amato tells Zoey that the email only made him want to subpoena her account “even more”: “I’m going to subpoena your account and I’m going to sue you.” He also says, “OK, go somewhere and die.”

Timestamps: 00:10:20 – 00:19:36 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato states his email was improperly used after being disclosed in copyright strike filings, and characterizes the contact as stalking (“What a bunch of fucking stalking fucking losers”). He frames the threatened subpoenas and lawsuit as his intended legal remedy, not as contingent on any further act by the recipient. 

The “go somewhere and die” line is addressed to the same individual. The copyright strikes he mentions were the ones he filed against HNZ’s YouTube channel; the email went to the address he used to file them. He named no court or case number for the suit or the subpoenas. 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 email was sent at 8:46 p.m. that Wednesday, Oct. 21, from Hero Not Zero, and the questions were also posted publicly. They concerned the John Doe lawsuit he had announced that week in a YouTube post that asked critics to “cooperate” by close of business Friday. HNZ asked for answers by 5 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 22, a day ahead of his own deadline, and said answers given on stream would count and would be quoted accurately. 

The 12 questions: 

1. Are you represented by an attorney in this matter? Your post directs people to “one of my moderators” but names no one. Is the moderator known as Wild Coconuts authorized to speak or negotiate for you? Where should legal correspondence go?

2. Has the complaint been filed? If so, in which court, under what case number, and with what causes of action?

3. You describe a “mandated fine” of $25,000 per person. In California, that civil penalty comes from the Ralph Act (Civil Code §§ 51.7, 52(b)), which covers violence or threats of violence based on characteristics like race or sexual orientation. Is that the statute you mean? If so, what violence or threat do you allege?

4. What statute entitles you to triple your compensatory damages?

5. You cite “over 100 screenshots,” but the one you published is roughly two years old. California’s deadline for defamation claims, if that is what you are after, is one year from publication. Do you have evidence from the past year, and will you publish it?

6. What does “cooperate” mean? Are you offering to drop anyone from the suit in exchange for identifying others?

7. In the same thread, you say you will bring the case to LAPD detectives “for criminal filing.” Is not pursuing criminal charges part of what you are offering in exchange for cooperation?

8. You cite California’s general felony-conspiracy penalty. Which felony do you allege was the object of the conspiracy?

9. You have publicly named at least three different people as the person behind HeroLightCody, and one as the person behind SisterBrightZoey. Do you stand by those identifications? How did you confirm identities this time?

10. Who controls the legal fund linked in your post, how much has it raised, and how have earlier “legal fund” donations been spent? Do you keep an accounting of the fund?

11. You owe $7,757.91 in restitution in People v. Damato (24CJCM07073-01), along with fines and court fees. You also owe more than $30,000 in attorney fees to one of your victims, and court costs from your unsuccessful appeal. Are your court-ordered payments current, and will legal-fund donations go toward any of these obligations?

12. The two-year-old HeroLightCody post you shared calls you a child predator. The public record now includes your statements about a minor in 2024 and 2025, the restraining order that followed, the child cruelty and stalking charges filed against you in People v. Damato, the evidence presented in that case, and your plea to two counts of violating that minor’s restraining order. Do you dispute any of these facts?

“I said, email my lawyer or get in touch with one of my mods,” he told HNZ. The post the questions were about named no lawyer and no moderator and gave no contact information. He named no lawyer on this stream either; he said only that critics “already know who the lawyer is.” 

On his stream the night before, he had told viewers the legal fund was “not at the retain an attorney level” yet, and he said prior if he had an attorney, he would not announce it. He answered none of the 12 questions, on this stream or on the two streams HNZ reviewed from the next day. He said instead that he would get a new email address.

Exhibit B

D’Amato tells the email’s sender, Zoey, “Your best bet is to not be in my sight,” and confirms she is already on his list: “But you’re on the list.” Just before that he says, “I’m going to make you get it. And I’m going to do it with paperwork, stupid.”

Timestamps: 00:21:43 – 00:23:44 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato frames the “best bet” line and the list reference in the context of his stated legal strategy, describing “paperwork” as the mechanism. He also states, “See, you motherfuckers are the same thing as a grapist, okay? … no means no,” analogizing unwanted contact to sexual assault. 

The clip establishes his stated intent to pursue litigation while also capturing the escalating register of the language he used to describe the targets. In the same clip he says, “I will not communicate with any of you ever other than right like this,” meaning on stream. HNZ’s email said answers given on stream would count. He gave none.

Exhibit C

D’Amato sets a price for reading email at a new address he says he will never see: anyone who wants something “read and responded to” there “could use my cash app or Venmo to send $1,000.” He then states: “Well, it’s further third-party harassment. So that’s what I’m going to report it as to the judge.”

Timestamps: 01:28:45 – 01:30:53 | Watch with a free account

The $1,000 price is his own proposal. The payment would go to his own Cash App or Venmo, the same apps he has used to collect for his “legal fund,” which has no public accounting. The “third-party harassment” line follows directly, with the explanation “because that one has been in that one’s chat.” 

He does not say who he means or which judge. He also states the new email address “may become discussion somewhere else in a chat somewhere,” without directing his audience to take any specific action. He read the new address out on stream a few minutes later.

In short, he considers emailing him harassment unless you pay him.

Exhibit D

D’Amato withdraws a previously offered cooperation proposal on stream, saying, “The answer is no. We’re just going to go to court. We’ll let the court handle it.” This was the proposal HNZ replied to.  

He then characterizes continued activity from one individual as “more third party harassment” and states, “the consequences for this kind of behavior when you present it in a certain way to a judge is not going to be favorable for you.”

Timestamps: 01:32:48 – 01:35:08 | Watch with a free account

The “cooperation thing” is the offer in his John Doe announcement, which gave critics until close of business Friday to “cooperate.” HNZ’s sixth and seventh questions asked what that offer meant. He did not say. He withdrew it instead (“Off the table”), a day before his own deadline. 

The next afternoon he went further, telling viewers the offer was “retracted completely” and that he “didn’t even mean it” when he made it: “it was a complete freaking troll.” He also references pulling screenshots and videos of one individual from “the respondent’s chat,” describing this as preparation for court presentation. 

In D’Amato’s own restraining order case, the respondent is Jarred Brooks, known online as Krackhead Kenny. D’Amato did not say which judge or hearing he meant. The next date in D’Amato v. Brooks (26STRO01932) is Oct. 29, when the judge is set to take up his request for $23,197.40 in attorney fees. 

For the John Doe suit itself, he named no court and no case number. Taken together, the four clips document roughly 85 minutes of the October 21 broadcast in which D’Amato said he is suing the people who sent the email, said the sender’s account is on a declaration, withdrew his own cooperation offer and set a $1,000 price on having email read, while answering none of the questions he was sent. 

Later in the stream, outside these clips, he repeated the claim in the stream’s title: “DOA got a restraining order filming minor girls,” meaning Scott Hochstetter, known online as DOA, who streams on YouTube at @thelordofthegadflies. D’Amato has identified no court, case number or date for any such order, and HNZ has found none.

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 · ZzWM1uYkfls