“Every Word Is Going to Be Used Against Him”: ZeroDarkTony Marks Pending Court Date for “Krackhead Kenny” (And Gets Most of the Law Wrong Along the Way)

ZDT COFFEE CHAT SOCAL STORM, FUYOOOOO, KOURT KOUNTDOWN [ZeroDarkTony] / September 3, 2026 / YouTube / 7AXhJln2ILQ

During a YouTube livestream on September 3, 2026, Anthony R. D’Amato, Jr., better known as ZeroDarkTony, revealed that someone—confirmed to be “Krackhead Kenny”—is set to appear in a Pennsylvania court the following Tuesday on charges related to harassment.Court records identify the defendant in the matching Cambria County case as Jarred Brooks. D’Amato stated the case could be charged as a felony, carrying up to seven years, or as a misdemeanor. He also claimed that statements the defendant made after being served with legal process would be submitted as evidence against him.

“All the Stuff That He Said Between the Time He Found Out and Now Is Going to Be Used Against Him”

D’Amato framed the approaching court date as a consequence for what he described on stream as a sustained campaign: “individuals who have spent so much time and effort targeting me, harassing me, my family, my privacy.” He referred to the defendant as one of several “crash test dummies” and directed mockery at him directly, saying, “How’s it feel, stupid? It’s not so funny now, is it?”

D’Amato walked his audience through his understanding of Pennsylvania harassment charge classifications. He stated: “if they determine that it’s a felony, it’s seven years… it could start for him as a misdemeanor… you could look up Pennsylvania harassment charges and penalties.” He closed the segment by asking chatters whether they knew if the charge had been designated a felony or misdemeanor, inviting audience input on the case status.

Claim by Claim: What the Docket Actually Says

HNZ pulled the docket for this case in Cambria County, listing defendant Jarred Brooks on two counts under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709. 

Here’s how it lines up against what D’Amato said during the stream.

“It looks like we are now locked into a court countdown for a certain individual.”

This one checks out. The docket lists a preliminary hearing scheduled for 09/08/2026, a Tuesday, before Magisterial District Judge Michael Zungali. Credit where due.

“Didn’t you guys say he had a public defender?”

Also correct, mostly. The docket lists Joseph Jude Sutton, Esq. of the Cambria County Public Defender Office as active counsel for Brooks. Amusingly, the same docket also has a checkbox reading “Public Defender Requested by the Defendant? No,” sitting a few lines above the name of the public defender actively representing him. That’s a wrinkle in the court’s own paperwork it appears.

“How do you defend a paranoid schizophrenic stalker? I don’t know how you do that, but they got their work cut out for them.”

Nothing in the docket supports a mental health diagnosis for Brooks, and nothing in it describes the conduct as stalking. Pennsylvania actually has a separate stalking statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709.1, distinct from the harassment statute Brooks is charged under. The charges here are harassment, not stalking, and there’s no diagnostic information of any kind in the public record. This is D’Amato’s characterization, not anything documented, and it should be treated as such.

“We looked at some of those different degrees of this crime, and if they determine that it’s a felony, it’s seven years… if they determine it’s a felony, then there’s like a class three misdemeanor, I think, I’m not exactly sure.”

This is where the analysis really comes apart. Both counts against Brooks are graded on the docket as misdemeanor of the third degree, full stop, not a designation still being “determined.” Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(c), an offense charged under subsections (a)(4) or (a)(7), which is what Brooks faces, is a third-degree misdemeanor by statute. There is no felony version of these specific charges sitting around waiting to be decided. The one grading enhancement written into the statute applies to a different set of subsections, (a)(1) through (3), and only when the defendant has a prior protection-order violation against the same victim. It doesn’t reach felony territory even then. A third-degree misdemeanor in Pennsylvania tops out at one year and a $2,500 fine, not seven years.

To his credit, D’Amato did land on “class three misdemeanor” as one of the possibilities he floated, which happens to be the actual grading on the actual docket. He just presented it as a coin flip against a felony charge that isn’t legally available here, which is a bit like correctly guessing the answer when the answer key is right in front of you, while also insisting it might be a different answer entirely.

“Pennsylvania harassment charges and penalties… you could look that up.”

Fair advice. HNZ did. See above.

“With all the stuff that he said between the time he found out and now, all the stuff that he said on it is going to be used against him. Every word. Every word.”

This is the one claim in the segment that holds up as a general legal principle. Statements made by a defendant after being served, including public statements, can be introduced as evidence in a criminal proceeding, subject to the normal rules of admissibility. Whether any specific statements from Brooks get introduced at trial isn’t something the docket addresses, but the underlying principle that post-service statements aren’t protected from later use is basically sound.

“Do you guys know if it’s a misdemeanor or a felony? Do you know what happened there?”

D’Amato closes the segment asking his own audience to resolve a question he’d already answered with specific numbers earlier in the same clip. The docket answers it directly: misdemeanor of the third degree, both counts, no felony grading exists under these charges.

What Actually Happens at a Preliminary Hearing

Since D’Amato’s segment treats the upcoming Tuesday date as a foregone step toward conviction, it’s worth laying out what a Pennsylvania preliminary hearing actually is, and what it isn’t.

Under Pa.R.Crim.P. 542, the magisterial district judge’s only job at this stage is to decide whether the Commonwealth has established a prima facie case, meaning enough evidence to create a reasonable inference that a crime was committed and that this defendant committed it. That is a considerably lower bar than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard required for an actual conviction at trial. The burden never shifts to the defendant to prove anything at this stage; the Commonwealth has to clear the bar, not Brooks.

Notably, the rules of evidence are relaxed here. Hearsay is admissible and can be used to establish elements of the offense, and witnesses don’t have to personally appear to testify to facts a hearsay account already covers. That’s a real prosecutorial advantage at this stage, and it’s part of why prima facie is a low threshold to clear compared to trial.

So could the judge dismiss it? Yes, and under Rule 543(E), dismissal isn’t just a possibility but a requirement if the Commonwealth fails to establish a prima facie case. If that happens, the judge must dismiss the complaint and discharge the defendant on that charge, unless something else, like an unrelated detainer, is holding him. If the Commonwealth does meet the bar, the case is held for court and moves to the Court of Common Pleas, where it starts over at the higher trial standard. Nothing about a scheduled preliminary hearing guarantees the case survives it, and nothing about surviving it resembles a conviction.

Bottom Line

Of the specific, checkable claims D’Amato made in this segment, the court date and the public defender’s existence are accurate, and the general point about post-service statements being usable as evidence is a fair statement of law. The felony exposure, the seven-year number, the “paranoid schizophrenic” characterization, and the translator speculation are not supported by the record. As of this writing, Brooks has not entered a plea, the case remains at the preliminary hearing stage, and that hearing could end in the charges being held for court or dismissed outright. No conviction has occurred.  Either outcome is a live possibility on Tuesday. We have seen nothing of the evidence for the charges. 

More to come on this case. 

Sources

• Original YouTube Video
• Full SRT Transcript
• Full Text Transcript
• Full Chat Transcript
• Date: 2026-09-03
• Stream ID: YOUTUBE · 7AXhJln2ILQ

Watch the video