The fee hearing in D’Amato v. Brooks is Thursday. Here is what Brooks filed, what D’Amato said on stream, and what he said Monday.
Jarred Brooks, the man Anthony R. D’Amato, Jr., also known as ZeroDarkTony, wants to make pay $23,197.40 in attorney fees, has put D’Amato’s own livestream words about suing Brooks’s wife and teenage daughter in front of the Los Angeles judge who decides that request on Thursday. “I take that as a threat against my daughter,” Brooks wrote in a sworn declaration filed Oct. 23. That filing, in D’Amato v. Brooks (26STRO01932), come at the end of two weeks of filings in which Brooks, who represents himself, persuaded the judge to keep his finances away from D’Amato. He also asked her to deny the fee request outright.
On Monday afternoon, three days after Brooks served the papers on D’Amato’s lawyers, D’Amato told his YouTube audience he would not sue Brooks, his wife or his daughter, and that his talk of doing so was “trolling.” D’Amato filed the case in March, asking for a civil harassment restraining order against Brooks, known online as Krackhead Kenny. The court issued one; Brooks says it “restrains only me.” D’Amato then asked the court to order Brooks to pay his lawyers’ fees. Under the restraining-order statute, fees “may” be awarded, and whether to award any at all is up to the judge. On Oct. 1, Judge Holly L. Hancock-Goode put off ruling because she needed Brooks’s income and expense information first. The hearing resumes Thursday, Oct. 29, at 8:35 a.m. Everything below from the filings is Brooks’s account or argument. The judge has not ruled on any of it, and Hero Not Zero has not seen a response filed from D’Amato’s lawyers.
“I Take That as a Threat Against My Daughter”
Brooks’s supplemental declaration, filed Friday, Oct. 23, lays out 12 exhibits, all from after a court order on Oct. 16 described below. The first is a YouTube post D’Amato published and later deleted. “The first lawsuit will include Jared, his wife, his daughter (co- conspirators) and the other JB,” it says. D’Amato told viewers the next morning he had taken it down because he had “made my point.”
- Oct. 20: “And since your wife, my man, has been on your podcast or your stream or whatever you want to call it, and she pays the bills to enable you to act like an absolute fucking animal, that’s why she’s being added to the lawsuit. Should I go for the pension?”
- Oct. 20: “I’m going to serve your wife at work,” and, minutes later, “I’m thinking maybe I’ll start with you and [Brooks’s wife].” Then: “Your daughter was on live streams talking about me,” and “I don’t even know their name. And but I’m sure I can find out if I have to,” and “the daughter’s gonna be in on the lawsuit too.”
- Oct. 21, morning: “I’ll sue the wife. I will put that fucking daughter on that lawsuit. I’m not kidding. I’m not kidding. You wanna play little fucking games?”
- Oct. 22, night: “I’m going to subpoena the respondent’s financials because we’re going to have them in the other case, right? … So I will be able to use that information in the lawsuit against him.”
- Oct. 23, morning: “The wife and the daughter are 100% involved,” and “I wanna find out, but I don’t even know the daughter’s name,” and “Jared, his wife and his daughter are going to get sued.”
Brooks wrote that his wife and daughter “are not parties to this case,” that his daughter is a teenager, and that neither D’Amato’s petition nor his lawyers ever said either of them did anything to him. “Petitioner says he will sue my daughter, and that he wants to find out her name and could do so,” Brooks wrote. “I take that as a threat against my daughter. I am afraid for her and for my wife.” He set that beside D’Amato’s own sworn words. In his March petition, D’Amato wrote: “I am afraid for my safety and the safety of my mother and daughter.” D’Amato kept going after the papers were served. On Saturday night he told viewers, “I’m almost done the filing,” and said the next step was to “serve [Brooks’s wife] at her job.” Hero Not Zero does not name Brooks’s wife or daughter. D’Amato has named the wife on stream and said where she works.
“We Will Not Be Sharing That”
A supplemental opposition filed the same day asks the judge to deny the fees entirely. In a declaration attached to it, Brooks says that on Oct. 5 he asked D’Amato’s lawyers for the fee agreement, any engagement letter, and the invoices and billing records behind the request. Attorney Dawn Dunbar replied the same day, she says: “We will not be sharing that.” Brooks argues that the only evidence of the fees is Dunbar’s own declaration, signed seven weeks after the last work it bills, which calls its total “the minimum hourly estimate” and attaches no fee agreement, invoice or time record. He cites a California evidence rule that weaker evidence “should be viewed with distrust” when a party could have produced stronger evidence, and objects to any billing records D’Amato offers now, after refusing to share them in October.
“Shall Not Be Served on Petitioner”
The fight over Brooks’s finances started with the judge’s Oct. 1 order. She told Brooks to file and serve an income and expense declaration, form FL-150, by Oct. 24. That form lists a person’s employer and its address and phone number, recent pay stubs, and the name, age and income of everyone in the household. Serving it would have handed all of that to D’Amato. On Oct. 14, Brooks filed an ex parte application, a request a judge can decide quickly without a full hearing, asking to give the same information to the judge alone on a confidential fee-waiver form. In a declaration on notice, he said he had emailed D’Amato’s lawyers, Christopher E. Chaney and Dunbar, the morning before to say what he would ask for and whether they would oppose it, and had no answer by the time he filed. His supporting declaration lodged 11 recordings of D’Amato, going back to August 2025. According to the transcripts Brooks filed, D’Amato said:
- Aug. 22, 2025: “one of these fucking gang members comes up and fucking busts one in the back of his fucking head and puts him on the ground.”
- Aug. 24, 2025: “I got Cracky fired,” and “You’re number four of the people who I’ve gotten fired for fucking with me. [Brooks’s wife]’s going to be number five.”
- Sept. 11, 2025: “Oh, I already called the bitch’s job. But what I’m also going to do is I’m going to make sure a copy of the restraining order goes to her union president, to the union president, to the HR department where she works.”
- June 23, 2026: “I’m going to garnish his fucking wages. And then when I go for the lawsuit, you know, I’m basically suing every adult in that house.”
- Oct. 1, 2026, the day of the first fee hearing: “So he better tell the truth because we’re going to double check.”
Brooks, who used to deliver for DoorDash, also filed messages D’Amato’s account posted in his own chat in August 2025 (“he works for door dash?” “not for long” “bye bye job”). Brooks says his DoorDash account was later deactivated without a reason. And he attached a Slidell, Louisiana, police report on a call D’Amato made about him the same day as the gang-member remark. Officers wrote that D’Amato “constantly calls the police on Jarred Brooks with accusations,” that they found Brooks on his phone and “not smoking,” and that the call was unfounded. “I am afraid for my safety and for my family’s safety,” Brooks wrote. “I do not want to give him further information for him to use to dox and threaten me.”
On Oct. 16, the judge granted the application. Her order says Brooks’s form is for “the Court’s review only,” is to be kept confidential, “shall not be served on Petitioner,” and stays out of the public file. D’Amato kept talking about the form anyway. On Oct. 20 he said, “If he fills out one little frickin’ semicolon wrong on that financial evaluation, we’re gonna catch it.” Just after midnight on Oct. 23 he said his attorney would go over “that thing with a fine-toothed comb.” Under the order, neither he nor his lawyers will see it.
“Maybe I Was Trolling”
D’Amato’s Monday stream ran 19 minutes, recorded while he drove through West Los Angeles. He did not ask for money, and the chat was quiet. About seven minutes in, he turned to Brooks.
Videos
Exhibit A
On Monday afternoon, three days after Brooks served his filings, D’Amato tells viewers: “And by the way, I’m not gonna sue the respondent. He’s already got enough.” Then: “Can you imagine suing him and his wife and his daughter? That would be crazy. That would just be nuts. Why would I do that? I’m not doing that. So yeah, maybe I was trolling, but I wasn’t trolling the respondent.” He answers his own question about a finished filing, “Then I got it all written up. No, I do not,” and ends: “Stop believing everything I say all the time.”
Timestamps: 00:07:20 – 00:10:12 | Open clip in new tab
“The respondent” is Brooks. D’Amato says he wants “this next hearing,” Thursday’s, “to all be over,” and that suing would mean he “would just have to engage again for a long period of time.” He does not mention Brooks’s filings, the judge’s Oct. 16 order, or why he is changing course now. Two days earlier, on Saturday night, he had said the opposite.
Exhibit B
D’Amato explains the reversal as a joke at others’ expense: “Sometimes you have to manufacture the situation in a good troll to get some jokes out of it.” He says he is “letting everybody in on the troll,” that he “was attaching another one of the trolls to that,” and that he will not say his legal strategy “out loud.” Then: “I’m not a merciless asshole unlike some of these other people. … Because I absolutely could. And I would win.” He closes by saying civil action “is not a threat”: “You’re not gonna tie him to a chair and do weird stuff. You’re just gonna, you know, file some papers. Everybody relax.”
Timestamps: 00:10:20 – 00:15:08 | Open clip in new tab
He did not say who the “others” were or what the joke was, and there is no filing: he named no court or case number on any of the streams quoted in this article. Whether his week of statements about Brooks’s wife and daughter bears on the fee request is for the judge, who has them in front of her. This is the second time in a week D’Amato has relabeled a public legal threat as a troll. On Oct. 22, after Hero Not Zero emailed him 12 questions about the John Doe lawsuit he announced against his critics in which he invited people to contact his moderators, while naming none of them, he called the “cooperation” offer in that announcement “a complete freaking troll.” He has answered none of the questions.
Exhibit C
D’Amato ends the topic with a hedge: “And if and when I do anything, it will be done on my terms, my time.” A minute later he adds, “Wish all the best for everybody. Because maybe if some good things happen in their life, they leave me alone.”
Timestamps: 00:16:30 – 00:17:42 | Open clip in new tab
“If and when” leaves the door open. The stream does not settle whether a suit against Brooks’s family is off for good, only that D’Amato now says it is.
What Happens Thursday
Judge Hancock-Goode takes up the fee request again at 8:35 a.m. Thursday, Oct. 29, in Department 65 of the Metropolitan Courthouse. She will have Brooks’s confidential financial form, his supplemental opposition and declarations, and the 12 new exhibits, including the statements D’Amato now says were a troll. She can award the full $23,197.40, a smaller amount, or nothing.
Sources
- D’Amato v. Brooks (26STRO01932), Los Angeles Superior Court: Brooks’s ex parte application, supporting declaration and declaration regarding notice (filed Oct. 14, 2026); the court’s order granting the application (filed Oct. 16, 2026); and Brooks’s supplemental opposition with his declaration on the Oct. 5 records request, supplemental declaration with exhibits EX12 to EX23, notice of lodging, and declaration regarding submission of the FW-001 (Oct. 23, 2026). Brooks’s address, phone number and family members’ names in those filings are not reproduced here.
- D’Amato’s Oct. 26, 2026 YouTube stream
- Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
- Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
- Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
- Date: 2026-10-26
- Stream ID: YOUTUBE · n5j31p3t46U
React to this story