ZDT COFFEE HOUR TABLES TURNING, CHAT MUTINY, HOSPITAL [ZeroDarkTony] / October 2, 2026 / YouTube / G73hHGk-58w
Stream also included a perjury accusation and statements about contempt enforcement and potential property liens.
Anthony R. D’Amato, Jr., also known as ZeroDarkTony, recapped a recent attorney-fee hearing and outlined anticipated next legal steps during an October 2, 2026 YouTube livestream. D’Amato claimed a judge found the opposing party’s attorney fees reasonable and that a court-ordered financial disclosure form would require the opposing party’s spouse to appear on the paperwork. He also solicited Cash App donations toward a legal fund intended to retain counsel for a planned civil suit against multiple unnamed individuals.
“I Know You’re Listening and You’re Next”
D’Amato described the fee hearing outcome as a two-phase process: the judge first ruled the fees reasonable, with a second hearing to follow on the opposing party’s ability to pay. He stated on stream that because the household has two bill-payers, the court-ordered financial disclosure form would require his opponent’s wife to be listed, adding: “The fact that the wife is now on the paperwork is why I put hospital in the title.” He then clarified that the hospital reference was not about himself, but about where, he speculated, the wife would “put him for finding out what has happened,” while acknowledging, “I don’t think he tells her everything, but that’s none of my business.” D’Amato also stated on stream that his attorney would raise a perjury allegation at the next hearing, claiming the opposing party had told the court he made no money from YouTube. Separately, addressing a broader group of unnamed individuals, D’Amato stated, “I know you’re listening and you’re next,” and described soliciting legal-fund donations to retain a “jurist” so that, in his words, “we issue the subpoenas in an actual lawsuit.”
Exhibit A
D’Amato explains the two-phase fee proceeding and describes the court-ordered financial disclosure requirement, stating that because two people pay the bills in the opposing party’s household, “she’s going on the paperwork,” and that this was the reason “hospital” appeared in the stream title.
Timestamps: 00:05:19 – 00:08:36 | Watch with a free accountD’Amato speculates that the spouse would send the opposing party “to the hospital” upon learning of the financial disclosure, while qualifying that he doesn’t believe the opposing party has told her everything. The clip establishes D’Amato’s characterization of the court-ordered disclosure as a significant escalation for the opposing household.
Exhibit B
D’Amato states that the opposing party “said he didn’t make any money from YouTube and that is patently false, which is perjury,” and adds: “I do believe that in the next hearing, my attorney will be pointing that out.”
Timestamps: 00:40:48 – 00:44:29 | Watch with a free accountD’Amato frames the perjury allegation as something he believes his attorney will raise, not something already adjudicated. The clip also contains a derogatory physical description of the opposing party by name that appears immediately before the legal assertion.
Exhibit C
D’Amato tells the stream, “I know you’re listening and you’re next,” and adds: “So you might want to get in that getting that on deck circle.”
Timestamps: 00:49:11 – 00:51:19 | Watch with a free accountThe remark is addressed to unnamed parties D’Amato claims are watching the stream. He frames it as a warning about forthcoming legal action rather than a direct threat of harm.
Exhibit D
D’Amato discusses contempt as a possible consequence of non-payment and states that if he proceeds to civil suit, “I can attach her to that lawsuit because she’s essentially an accomplice just from paying the bills,” adding: “I don’t want to do that. Please don’t make me do that.”
Timestamps: 00:56:28 – 01:00:20 | Watch with a free accountD’Amato explicitly frames naming the spouse as an option he prefers to avoid, contingent on the opposing party’s compliance. The clip also includes his description of the judge’s enforcement authority over police as context for the contempt discussion.
Exhibit E
D’Amato recaps the fee hearing outcome, stating: “The judge found the fees reasonable because of all the motions that he filed,” and acknowledges: “Nothing is ever definite in a courtroom.”
Timestamps: 01:02:59 – 01:04:52 | Watch with a free accountD’Amato’s own hedge that court outcomes are never certain is notable given the more confident framing elsewhere in the stream. The clip provides the primary factual basis for his claim that the fee ruling went in his favor.
Exhibit F
D’Amato solicits Cash App donations to a legal fund, telling viewers: “The sooner the better… we are going to make sure that several of the, you know, cognaticators will be held accountable,” and adds: “Once we present what we’re going to present, then there is a chain of these invisible cretins who will be” named in subpoenas.
Timestamps: 01:09:34 – 01:13:35 | Watch with a free accountThe solicitation is tied directly to the stated goal of funding subpoenas in a civil suit. D’Amato distinguishes the planned action from the existing restraining order, describing the civil suit as “night and day” in scope.
Exhibit G
D’Amato tells the unnamed targets that his attorneys will move to compel their physical appearance in court, stating: “You’re not going to do it on Zoom. No, you’re going to be compelled to come into the courtroom,” and describes their options as either paying subpoena fees or approaching his attorneys to, in his words, “turn yourself in for lack of a better word.”
Timestamps: 01:14:31 – 01:16:37 | Watch with a free accountD’Amato frames both paths as his attorneys’ domain, not his own direct action. The clip documents his on-stream description of what he claims will be the procedural mechanics of the planned civil suit.
Exhibit H
D’Amato describes the subpoena process, stating that John Doe subpoenas would obtain “every bit of metadata… from the inception of the account,” and tells viewers: “Every comment they’ve ever made in a chat, all of it. So, hey, keep running your mouse. It’s up to you.”
Timestamps: 01:18:29 – 01:20:31 | Watch with a free accountThe statement is addressed directly to a live audience that includes, by D’Amato’s own framing, the individuals he intends to subpoena. D’Amato qualifies that his attorney still needs to complete steps to ensure John Does are properly served.
Exhibit I
D’Amato wraps the stream’s legal discussion by repeating: “The fees by the judge were found reasonable,” and muses that the opposing party’s chat community might help cover the obligation, adding: “That’s the way it should be.”
Timestamps: 02:10:11 – 02:12:21 | Watch with a free accountThe clip closes the stream’s legal segment with D’Amato acknowledging he received a firsthand account from his attorney rather than attending the hearing himself. It establishes that his characterization of the ruling is secondhand, based on attorney reporting.
Across nine documented clips from a single October 2, 2026 stream, D’Amato outlined his stated legal position following a fee hearing, identified his opponent’s spouse as a potential future civil defendant, and publicly solicited funds for a planned lawsuit while addressing unnamed targets directly on camera.
Sources
- Original YouTube Video
- Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
- Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
- Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
- Date: 2026-10-02
- Stream ID: YOUTUBE · G73hHGk-58w
React to this story