APEX Legends _ ZDT COFFEE CHAT FIRE UPDATE, ALTS, TCB 2026-05-20 08 _ 52 [ZeroDarkTony]
ZeroDarkTony used a May 20 livestream to announce sweeping legal action against Jared Brooks and the online community surrounding him, pledging subpoenas regardless of any court outcome, threatening to unmask anonymous critics, and soliciting donations for a ‘Freedom Fund.’ The pattern of sustained, public threats directed at anonymous speakers raises questions the law is only beginning to answer.
Shortly before 9 a.m. Pacific time this morning, a YouTube personality known as ZeroDarkTony opened a livestream saying that wildfires were burning nearby, and then spent the better part of an hour threatening to subpoena, sue, and criminally prosecute what he described as a network of online critics centered on a Louisiana man who goes online as “Krackhead Kenny.” It was not the first time. He promised it would not be the last.
The broadcast was the latest installment in an ongoing legal and online dispute between Anthony D’Amato Jr. (ZeroDarkTony) and Jared Brooks (Krackhead Kenny) of Louisiana. D’Amato has a restraining order proceeding against Brooks – Case No. 26STRO01932 – currently pending before a Los Angeles court. The immediate issue before that court is not whether Brooks harassed D’Amato, but something more foundational: whether California has jurisdiction over a Louisiana resident at all. Brooks has filed a special appearance specifically to contest that question. D’Amato’s stream today was, in significant part, a response to the prospect that the case might be dismissed on those grounds before reaching the merits.
His answer to that prospect: it doesn’t matter.
‘No Matter What Happens Tuesday, It’s a Lawsuit Coming’
The stream opened with D’Amato describing smoke near his home and mentioning a firefighter who, he said, came to his door that morning. That claim warrants scrutiny.
The fire affecting the region is the Sandy Fire, a wind-driven blaze that ignited Monday in the hills above Simi Valley, roughly 30 miles northwest of Los Angeles. As of Wednesday morning, more than 17,000 people were under evacuation orders and LA County had issued a smoke advisory. D’Amato’s exact location is unconfirmed, but the geography he describes, “the other side of the valley,” under an evacuation advisory rather than a mandatory order, is consistent with an area on the fire’s periphery.
The firefighter-at-the-door detail does not align with standard protocol for an advisory area. According to both the Los Angeles Fire Department’s own evacuation guidance and Ready LA County, in an intense wildfire first responders “may not have time to knock on every door” — a warning to residents not to wait for a personal visit before leaving. Door-to-door welfare checks, where they occur at all, are generally conducted by law enforcement in mandatory evacuation zones, not advisory areas, and are a supplemental measure rather than routine procedure. An evacuation advisory, the level D’Amato describes, does not trigger active outreach to individual residences. D’Amato has offered similar hard-to-verify scene-setting details in prior broadcasts. The claim cannot be independently confirmed.
D’Amato moved quickly past the fire update and into the matter he came to discuss.
Exhibit A
“Regardless of whatever happens on Tuesday with the action that I have against a psychopath stalker who calls kids’ schools, okay, regardless of what the outcome is of that, I’m going to file a lawsuit. And with that lawsuit, I’m going to add a lot of John Does to that lawsuit. So I’m fucking telling you.”
Timestamp: 00:02:53 – 00:10:39
He repeated the promise three times in immediate succession, then added: “You motherfuckers are going to end up in a courtroom. Right, Geek? You scumbag piece of shit. I’m telling you that there’s going to be like a dozen of them on there.” Later in the stream, the timeline became explicit:
Exhibit B – There will be another filing
“Whatever happens Tuesday, I would say that within the same… within 10 days of Tuesday, there will be another filing.”
Timestamp: 00:11:43 – 00:16:40
The framing is legally notable. A lawsuit whose filing is explicitly disconnected from any court outcome is not a legal remedy. It is a weapon. Whether D’Amato prevails on Tuesday, whether Brooks’s jurisdiction challenge succeeds or fails, whether the restraining order is granted or dismissed, he says none of it changes what comes next.
Brooks, Jurisdiction, and the Legal Architecture
The Tuesday proceeding is D’Amato’s restraining order petition against Jared Brooks, who operates online as Krackhead Kenny. Brooks, a Louisiana resident, has challenged the California court’s authority through a special appearance: a procedural move that contests jurisdiction without submitting to it. If the court agrees that Brooks’s contacts with California are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, the case would be dismissed on those grounds, and D’Amato would need to pursue any claims in Louisiana or federal court.
D’Amato’s stream this morning was designed, at least in part, to preempt any sense of defeat that outcome might produce. By announcing a civil lawsuit as a certainty regardless of Tuesday’s result, he converts a potential jurisdictional loss into a narrative of unstoppable momentum. The civil lawsuit he is threatening would be a separate proceeding with its own venue and service requirements — details D’Amato did not engage.
“And the individual who I have this action against for this Tuesday court date… well, let’s just say there’s more than one person on that ticket that’s going to get sued.” Exhibit A | 00:03:47 – 00:04:02
The Subpoena as Threat: Targeting Brooks’s Chat
The bulk of D’Amato’s legal threats on Wednesday were directed not at Brooks himself but at the anonymous critics who participate in his chat and affiliated channels. This is where the stream’s legal posture becomes most complex and most consequential for anyone who has ever commented critically about D’Amato online.
D’Amato was specific about what platform subpoenas would expose: registration information, account history, alternate accounts, and chat logs spanning years. He framed this information becoming public record as a mechanism for exposing anonymous critics to their offline communities.
“Pretty much everybody who’s in that chat right now is going to get a subpoena. […] They think it’s cute and funny, but it ain’t going to be.” Exhibit A | 00:06:07 – 00:06:52
His own audience responded in support. When D’Amato asked viewers to put a “1” in the chat if they believed the opposing community had engaged in doxxing, the responses were near-simultaneous:
@ArtaxTheStupidHorse: 1
@RatherBeInMaui1: 1
@prenfen9226: 1
@IvorMektin1701: 1
@NYCcookie: 1
@SisterCaligra: 1
@Meenies52: 1
@WildDisassociationCoconuts: 1
@JudyGrasso-Ransdorp: 1
This participatory structure; a live audience ratifying unadjudicated claims of injury in real time, across multiple broadcasts is a recurring feature of D’Amato’s channel. The performance of grievance and the escalation of legal threats are co-produced with the audience, not just broadcast to it.
@JudyGrasso-Ransdorp, a Dutch national who has stated she is pursuing legal claims through a US-based attorney against Krackhead Kenny, who she called “Swampie,” contributed her own commentary: “SWAMPIE THINKS I’M JOKING WITH A LAWYER, BUT HE WILL BE SURPRISED. HE NEEDS A LOT OF MONEY, CAUSE THEY AIN’T CHEAP.” D’Amato endorsed the position while disavowing coordination: “Whatever Judy is talking about, I have nothing to do with. […] But can she do what she… Yep, she sure can.”
Exhibit C – It’s Not My Words. It’s Yours.
Perhaps the most pointed moment in the stream came when D’Amato addressed what he characterized as his probable cause for pursuing anonymous critics:
“It’s not my words that give me probable cause to do this. It’s yours. So just understand that it’s your words that are going to come back to haunt you.”
Timestamp: 00:17:49 – 00:22:35
This statement was not addressed to his own live chat. Based on context, it was addressed to his critics broadly: the anonymous commentators, researchers, and journalists who have documented his conduct, including contributors to this publication. The logic is stated plainly: participation in public commentary about D’Amato is itself the probable cause. Words, typed in chats or written in articles, are what will be used to unmask his critics.
Delivered once, that might be a statement about evidentiary basis. Delivered repeatedly across a series of public broadcasts to audiences that include the people being warned, it functions as sustained pressure designed to deter criticism through fear of exposure.
The Law on Harassment-by-Legal-Process
California’s anti-SLAPP statute, CCP § 425.16, exists because lawsuits have historically been used not to obtain legal remedies but to burden and silence critics of public figures. A defendant who successfully invokes anti-SLAPP is entitled to attorney’s fees, and the bar for that award is intentionally accessible. The statute is a recognition, built into California law, that the filing of litigation can itself be the harm.
D’Amato’s situation presents a harder question: he is not yet filing suit so much as broadcasting, repeatedly and to large audiences, that he will. California’s harassment statutes (Civil Code § 1708.7 and, for electronic communications, Penal Code § 653.2) require a pattern of conduct that serves no legitimate purpose and is intended to cause substantial emotional distress. Whether repeated on-air legal threats, delivered with specific subpoena mechanics, invoking law enforcement action, directed at an identified community of anonymous speakers, and sustained over time, meet that threshold has not been cleanly resolved in the streaming context.
But the architecture of D’Amato’s broadcasts are public, audience-amplified, specific in their targets, and recurring across months. This fits precisely what the doctrine of harassment-by-legal-process was designed to address. The chilling effect on anonymous critics may be functionally indistinguishable from the effect of a filed lawsuit, and in some respects broader: it reaches an entire class of speakers rather than a named defendant.
“You think you could hide behind a fucking account on a social media platform? Nope, because courts give away those subpoenas left and right. All you got to do is show cause. And I have more than enough cause.” Exhibit B | 00:01:36 – 00:02:04
Once unmasked, he continued, the information becomes public record: “Which means basically everybody in their communities are going to know who they are now.” Exhibit C | 00:00:29 – 00:00:38
Exhibit D – ‘Geek’
The stream’s most extended attack targeted a critic D’Amato calls “Geek,” not Brooks himself, but a participant in Brooks’s community. The allegations were serious: D’Amato claimed this individual had parked outside a children’s playground and streamed it, possessed children’s toys, and created “creepy paintings of serial killers and kids.” He claimed the person deleted their online presence when called out, then re-emerged “conveniently when I’m in the fucking hospital.”
He has previously attacked “Geek” who streamed as “Geekedelic” and became one of Tony’s many victims of his targeted online campaigns.
“This is not a threat. This is a fucking promise. […] We’re going to get every chat that you’ve ever said on your accounts.”
Timestamp: 00:32:44 – 00:35:05
D’Amato asked his audience to confirm they remembered the playground incident. None of the allegations have been tested in court. The individual has not been publicly identified by legal name. The claims rest entirely on D’Amato’s characterization, delivered to an audience primed to accept them.
@ArtaxTheStupidHorse: He poked the bear and it didn’t compute
@WildDisassociationCoconuts: Geek was dying for attention
@Pippie807: Geek is creepy
While ZeroDarkTony asserts this is a “promise” rather than a “threat,” the language and context suggest a strong retaliatory motivation. The audience’s contributions and reactions in chat amplify the motive: The Freedom Fund.
The Freedom Fund
Partway through the stream, D’Amato thanked supporters who had contributed to his “Freedom Fund” via Venmo and Cash App. Several audience members also sent virtual “jewels,” in-platform gifting, during the broadcast. The structure is notable: D’Amato is simultaneously raising money to pursue litigation and using the threat of that litigation to intimidate critics.
‘Maybe I’m Just Talking Shit’
Toward the end of the stream, D’Amato offered a notable hedge:
“Or maybe I’m just talking shit to fucking talk shit. We’ll see. Like I said, maybe I’m just talking shit. Maybe I just woke up this morning and I said, you know what? Today I choose fuck you.”
It is a useful qualifier. It does very little work against the preceding hour of detailed, specific, and multiply-affirmed legal threats. If the purpose is to prevent the broadcast from being characterized as a credible threat, it is difficult to reconcile with content that described subpoena mechanics in procedural detail, named specific targets by handle and initial, and promised additional filings within ten days of Tuesday — regardless of outcome.
D’Amato closed the stream by promising a return appearance at noon, wildfire permitting. “Stay frosty,” he said.
This article is based on the stream’s full broadcast, timestamped clip files, and live chat log from the May 20, 2026 broadcast (YouTube ID: 7RDPSXyUnEE). D’Amato’s claims regarding alleged harassment by critics have not been independently verified. No court has adjudicated the underlying allegations. Fire response protocol claims are sourced from the Los Angeles Fire Departmentand Ready LA County; Sandy Fire coverage from ABC7 Los Angeles. Legal commentary reflects general principles of California law as understood at the time of publication and does not constitute legal advice.
Sources
- Original YouTube Video
- Full SRT Transcript
- Full Text Transcript
- Full Chat Transcript
- Date: 2026-05-20
- Stream ID: YOUTUBE · 7RDPSXyUnEE