ZeroDarkTony Says Judge Found His Fees Reasonable; Minute Order Shows No Ruling

According to the court’s minute order, the judge had not ruled.

Judge Holly L. Hancock-Goode heard argument on D’Amato’s motion for attorney fees in D’Amato v. Brooks (26STRO01932) and found the court “needs more information regarding income and expense to make an appropriate ruling.” She continued the motion to October 29 and ordered Brooks to file and serve an FL-150 Income and Expense Declaration by October 24.

Scott Hochstetter, known online as DOA, attended the hearing in person. On his own stream that afternoon, he said the court “basically said that all the fees looked reasonable for the lawyer” and that “the judge thinks that it was a reasonable amount,” which he put at $22,000. He also said the court is “basically going to wait for the financial record of [Brooks] to make the decision.” Hochstetter is no ally of D’Amato, who is separately pursuing him for fees, and his account matches the minute order on the outcome: no decision yet.

D’Amato did not attend. His attorney, Dawn Dunbar, appeared for him. Brooks appeared remotely through LA Court Connect.

Over more than two and a half hours, D’Amato turned a remark from the bench into a finding the record does not contain, accused Brooks of perjury, walked his audience through court forms Brooks was never ordered to file, and raised money for a new lawsuit he says will unmask anonymous critics he calls “invisible AI idiots.” HNZ, which publishes AI-narrated videos, is among the critics he means.

Exhibit A

D’Amato opens with his account of the hearing, then answers critics who said the judge had not ruled:

“Today was phase one of a normal fee hearing process, where the judge today determined the reasonableness of the fees.” … “What he said in court today was that he does not make any money at all off of YouTube, which is not correct. That’s called perjury. That is contempt.” … “So for anybody to say that she didn’t rule on anything today is patently false.”

Timestamps: 00:03:17 – 00:14:12 | Watch with a free account

The minute order contains no “phase one,” no reasonableness finding and no dollar amount. It records that the court heard argument, needed income and expense information to rule, and continued the motion.

Part of D’Amato’s account holds. Hochstetter, who was in the courtroom, said “the judge thinks that it was a reasonable amount.” The rest does not. D’Amato told his audience the amount was already “the debt” and the court was “just establishing how he pays it.” The order ties the decision itself to Brooks’s income and expenses, and Hochstetter described the same thing.

D’Amato’s own account wavers inside the same clip. At 5:54 he says the judge “didn’t have to rule on anything today.” At 7:18 the figure is conditional: “if she approved all of the legal fees, which is over $20,000.” Later he says “who knows what the final tally is going to be.”

He was not in the courtroom. About two hours later he sourced the YouTube claim to “I think from what my attorney said in court today.”

Perjury under Penal Code section 118 requires a willful false statement of a material fact under oath. The minute order records argument, not sworn testimony. Perjury is also a crime prosecutors charge, not a form of contempt.

His evidence misses the claim he quotes. He cites streams in which Brooks thanked viewers for PayPal and Cash App payments, which are not YouTube income. In this clip he asks his audience for “some of those clips for the next time,” and later says he sent his attorney a screenshot.

The sworn statement is still ahead. The FL-150 Brooks must file by October 24 is signed under penalty of perjury.

The clip runs past the hearing recap into an unrelated aside about polar bears, aimed at a woman D’Amato calls “Marge,” whom HNZ has not identified.

Exhibit B

D’Amato lays out the cost of a new lawsuit and what he says it will do:

“The first payment is fifty-five hundred. The full payment is going to be ten for the retainer. So fifty-five hundred to get it written up and served.” … “What they’ll do is they go to the court and they file to get the John Doe’s identities.” … “Some of these invisible AI idiots are other individuals, right? And we haven’t identified them yet, but I will tell you right now, once the Scooby Doo mask comes off, we’re going to know exactly who they are. And it’s going to be dealt with accordingly.”

Timestamps: 00:18:02 – 00:24:41 | Watch with a free account

HNZ publishes AI-narrated videos and is among the critics D’Amato means. 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 new firm is unnamed. D’Amato says he will pass its name privately to a supporter he calls “Coco” because he wants to “keep that quiet,” so neither the firm nor any retainer can be verified.

California does not hand over anonymous speakers’ identities on request. Under Krinsky v. Doe 6 (2008), a plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing of an actionable claim. His “civil conspiracy” theory faces its own hurdle: conspiracy is not a standalone tort in California and requires an underlying wrong (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 1994).

The clip closes on a hate crime claim. “Yes, I’m a private investigator that’s connected to the church” is sarcasm; his next sentence calls “that whole narrative of me being involved with the church” a hate crime. California’s hate crime law does not reach speech alone unless the speech threatens violence against a specific person or group (Penal Code section 422.6(c)).

Exhibit C

D’Amato accuses two critics of a “felony conspiracy” over flyers, then describes an attorney being followed home:

“Just between Scott and Chee, all right, just between the two of them. With the flyers and whoever made them, right, that would be three, maybe four people. That is a conspiracy. It’s also a felony conspiracy because to suggest that I’m a Scientologist or to target me as a PDF, right? Because first of all, I’m not gay.” … “Somebody followed my attorney home from their office. They stalked them at their office. They stalked my attorney at his office. And then they followed him to his home.”

Timestamps: 00:25:55 – 00:31:12 | Watch with a free account

Scott is Scott Hochstetter, known online as DOA. D’Amato offered no evidence on stream tying him or Chee to any flyers.

A criminal conspiracy under Penal Code section 182 requires an agreement to commit a crime. Labeling someone a Scientologist or a pedophile may support a defamation claim if false, but it is not a crime absent a threat, and the number of people repeating it does not turn speech into a felony.

“PDF” is D’Amato’s on-stream shorthand for pedophile. He answers that label by saying he is not gay, treating the two accusations as one.

D’Amato refers to the attorney in that story as “him.” His counsel of record in the Brooks case is Dawn Dunbar. He showed no documentation of the incident on stream.

Exhibit D

D’Amato says the labels have put his life at risk, then asks for help:

“Did you ever hear the Alaskan Avenger? The Alaskan Avenger is a guy up in Alaska who looked up a bunch of, you know, convicted PDFs and he went to their house and he attacked them all with a hammer. All right. So that’s what I have to look forward to, unless someone just wants to put a pew pew up and drop a pill in the back of my dome.” … “And if I have to write up a lawsuit with my fucking teeth, I will get to the bottom of this. So I would appreciate some help.”

Timestamps: 00:31:55 – 00:33:55 | Watch with a free account

The “Alaskan Avenger” refers to a real 2016 case in which a man attacked people listed on Anchorage’s sex offender registry. D’Amato invokes it as a danger he says he faces, not as a model for anyone.

The passage moves from fear to a request. The lawsuit he would write “with my teeth” is the one he is raising money for, and the danger story ends on “I would appreciate some help.”

Exhibit E

D’Amato alleges critics made sexual AI images of him and his mother, then turns to donations:

“Making sexualized images of my mother through AI, which is illegal. It’s a felony. They did it to me. That’s illegal. That’s a felony.” … “So, you know, I got Cash App, Venmo, PayPal, you know, once we get to that amount, I get the receipt, I’ll post the receipt, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.”

Timestamps: 00:34:50 – 00:36:55 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato mentioned no police report or court filing about the images. California allows a civil suit over sexually explicit AI depictions (Civil Code section 1708.86), and distributing them to cause distress can be a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 647(j)(4), as amended in 2024. The state-law “felony” claim does not hold.

The allegation leads straight to the payment list. Later in the stream he reported $275 in Cash App donations to the legal fund and put the total at “almost a thousand bucks,” against a $5,500 first payment.

Earlier, he thanked “86” among the contributors to his legal fund. HNZ’s review of D’Amato’s income found that 86, using several different handles, likely made up about 84 percent of the legal fund contributions mentioned publicly and in on-platform chat revenue, totaling over $30,000 in income.

Exhibit F

D’Amato adds a second fee request to the total:

“What DOA fails to mention, like I said, I don’t know what’s going to happen with this, but the appeal for the fees with him is still going.” … “If the full amount is adjudicated with the respondent, and then you add the funds for that bunch of legal fees, we are now at $41,000. That’s $41,000 between the two of them.”

Timestamps: 00:55:14 – 00:57:30 | Watch with a free account

Neither request has produced an award. D’Amato sought fees from Scott Hochstetter and lost in the trial court; that ruling is on appeal. The Brooks motion is continued to October 29 with no ruling.

Appellate courts review fee decisions for abuse of discretion, a deferential standard. The $41,000 is the sum of two requests, one of them already denied.

Exhibit G

D’Amato tells his audience what he expects Brooks’s financial disclosure to require of his household:

“I think they’re going to want some kind of spousal accountability on these records. You know what I mean? I think there is a section about the spouse on there too. Boy, is she going to be fucking pissed.” … “He’s going to have to disclose that. Oh boy.” … “They have to put down all their expenses, all their bills, cell phone, you know, utilities, you know, what they pay for their living spaces, right? Who brings in what, what’s spent where.”

Timestamps: 01:58:07 – 02:00:40 | Watch with a free account

The form the judge ordered is the FL-150 Income and Expense Declaration, and it does not fit this case. D’Amato’s petition is a civil harassment case. Fees in those cases come from Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6(s), which says the prevailing party “may” be awarded attorney’s fees. Nothing in that statute calls for a look at the losing side’s finances.

The FL-150 is a family-law form. It exists for cases where the Family Code makes ability to pay a precondition, including need-based fees in divorces and fee awards in domestic violence restraining order cases (Family Code sections 270, 2030 and 6344).

The minute order does not say why the judge wants one. The case sits in a Family Division department, where the FL-150 is the standard financial disclosure. Whatever the reason, the order makes Brooks’s finances part of the decision itself, not a payment plan worked out after it.

The FL-150 is signed under penalty of perjury. It asks for income from every source, including self-employment, along with deductions, monthly expenses, debts, attorney fees paid, and the total value of cash, accounts, investments and property. One section lists everyone living in the home, their gross monthly income, and whether they help pay household expenses. That is as far as the “spousal accountability” goes.

It asks for no inventory of furniture, phones, pets or lamps. The forms D’Amato displayed earlier in the stream, a Declaration of Disclosure, a Schedule of Assets and Debts and a Property Declaration, are divorce disclosures. Brooks was not ordered to file any of them.

D’Amato also told his audience that Brooks’s finances would stay private and that “my attorney is not going to have any access” to them. The order requires Brooks to serve the FL-150, which puts it in Dunbar’s hands.

D’Amato is in an ability-to-pay process of his own. In his criminal case, People v. Damato (24CJCM07073-01), the court ordered restitution payments of $25 a month pending an ability-to-pay hearing and referred him to the financial evaluator’s office, after which, $75 a month was ordered. Earlier in this stream he guessed Brooks might pay “25 bucks, 50 bucks, 100 bucks.” At 1:54:11 he offered this advice: “One thing I would advise against is being dishonest with the court about your financial disclosures.”

Exhibit H

D’Amato tells his audience what he expects the judge to require, and what he did about Brooks’s statement:

“The judge is going to want a full record of his donation platforms, because I think from what my attorney said in court today, he said that he didn’t make any money from YouTube, which is false.” … “So I went and I took a screenshot and I sent it to my lawyer and I said, there you go.”

Timestamps: 02:08:03 – 02:10:15 | Watch with a free account

The “full record of his donation platforms” is D’Amato’s expectation, not the order’s. The FL-150 asks for monthly income from every source, including self-employment, not a platform-by-platform accounting. The order does let both sides exchange additional evidence by October 24, which is where a screenshot of Brooks’s donation thank-yous would come in.

According to Hochstetter, Dunbar argued in court that Brooks “has a job or that his streaming is a job.” The income question was raised in argument, and the sworn answer is the FL-150.

Earlier in the clip, D’Amato tells his audience “you guys will probably see things that I didn’t see.” The remark follows his posting of court forms and his uncertainty about how far back their earnings disclosure reaches. 

Exhibit I

D’Amato explains what happens if Brooks does not pay:

“And if you don’t pay, it’s contempt, right? If you don’t pay, it’s contempt of court, plain and simple.” … “And then there’s something called the earnings assignment order, which is like a wage garnishment motion.” … “And this is the court order that goes to someone’s employer, right?”

Timestamps: 02:11:03 – 02:14:19 | Watch with a free account

There is nothing yet to collect. If the court awards fees under section 527.6(s), the result is a civil money judgment, and none of the tools D’Amato named fits it well.

Contempt is generally unavailable to collect a civil money judgment. The Family Code’s contempt provision, section 290, reaches orders made under the Family Code, and this motion arises under the Code of Civil Procedure. The “earnings assignment order” is a Family Code tool too, used to collect support (Family Code section 5230). For other judgments, California garnishes wages through an earnings withholding order served by a levying officer (Code of Civil Procedure section 706.010 and following).

Brooks lives in Louisiana, where California’s collection tools do not reach. 

D’Amato described an order that “goes to someone’s employer,” but the income he accuses Brooks of hiding is streaming money, which a payroll garnishment would not reach. 

Exhibit J

D’Amato describes what his litigation is for:

“This is called forced de-escalation. And that’s what it is. Because if people don’t want to listen and de-escalate and have some sense, then there’s a legal way to force de-escalation. Because I will get de-escalation.” … “I mean, I guess I just joke differently, but I have joked about some of the same topics. I’m just a lot more tasteful about it.”

Timestamps: 02:24:53 – 02:28:49 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato frames lawsuits as a way to make critics stop talking about him. He said it after spending much of the previous half hour joking about items he expected Brooks to list on his disclosure, from furniture to a pet iguana.

The clip also includes accusations D’Amato makes against Brooks that we have been unable to verify appear anywhere in the court record. . 

California’s anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16) exists to separate litigation that vindicates a legal right from litigation aimed at chilling speech. Courts have applied it to civil harassment petitions.

Less than two minutes after the de-escalation remark, having called the conduct he attributes to Brooks “the definition of criminal harassment,” D’Amato offers a concession: “I have joked about some of the same topics. I’m just a lot more tasteful about it.”

Sources

D’Amato’s account of the October 1 hearing comes from his own stream; he did not attend. The court’s account comes from the October 1, 2026 minute order in D’Amato v. Brooks, Los Angeles Superior Court case 26STRO01932, Metro Family Department 65. The motion returns October 29, 2026, with Brooks’s FL-150 due October 24.

• Original YouTube Video
• Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Date: 2026-10-01
• Stream ID: YOUTUBE · Tgn2D0JFD28
• Minute Order, October 1, 2026 (26STRO01932)

• Scott Hochstetter (DOA) livestream, October 1, 2026 (YxGoa4Z3ZJ8)