ZDT NIGHTSHIFT COURT WARZ, AI FAILS, DOA KID FILMER [ZeroDarkTony] / October 24, 2026 / YouTube / hVevwhZkcmo
Anthony R. D’Amato, Jr., also known as ZeroDarkTony, used an October 24, 2026 YouTube livestream to detail the status of his civil case against “the respondent,” Jarred Brooks, known online as Krackhead Kenny, in D’Amato v. Brooks (26STRO01932), and his plans against Brooks’s wife, who he names on stream. He addressed Brooks directly but did not say his name, remarking, “I don’t mention his name,” but he did mention his wife’s name many times. D’Amato described completing a civil filing, outlined a plan to have Brooks’s wife served at her workplace, and discussed a second attorney-fee hearing scheduled for October 29. He also stated on stream that he believes a viewer he identified as his adversary was watching the broadcast in real time, and said he intended to subpoena that viewer’s watch-time data as evidence. He named no court or case number for the new filing.
“I’m Going to Make Them Pay for Every Fucking Second of That”
Through the first half of the stream D’Amato moved between recounting past conduct by the opposing party and narrating the current state of his civil case. He described the October 29 hearing as “the part where they decide how much he has to pay,” claimed “the judge has already determined that the $23,000 was a reasonable amount,” and stated that Brooks had driven up that figure himself: “he’s the one who ran up the bill.” The court record does not show that finding, as explained under Exhibit D. No fees have been awarded, and according to Brooks’s latest filing, D’Amato’s lawyers have refused to show Brooks any bill at all. D’Amato said he was nearly finished drafting his own filing and needed only to attach exhibits and assign numbers before serving Brooks’s wife. He stated on stream that service would occur at her job, adding, “if you think that you’re going to fucking do that to me, and I’m not going to take every opportunity in civil court to get my lick back, well, you should have thought of that before.”
D’Amato then turned to Brooks’s wife’s potential financial exposure, asking his audience whether she might have a pension and speculating she could be on an educator’s retirement plan given what he described as work in the janitorial field. He stated that he holds a recorded clip in which Brooks says his wife pays the bills, and warned on stream that lying on a financial statement “is going to be a big problem for him.” He addressed his presumed live adversary directly several times, telling him to go to bed and reiterating, “I am not done with this son of a bitch by a damn sight.”
Later, D’Amato described his intent to have Brooks’s wife served at a school, stating, “you think [redacted]’s mad now… when she gets served at [her workplace], that’s going to be a problem.” He said paralegals were helping him assemble the filing and noted he would request a continuance if he felt in over his head so he could retain counsel.
Exhibit A
D’Amato opens the stream by acknowledging a viewer he believes should not be watching, asking, “You listening, stupid?” then telling his audience, “Sorry, excuse me, ladies and gentlemen… Someone’s watching me that shouldn’t be watching me,” and stating he plans to subpoena that person’s watch time “for the lawsuit.”
Timestamps: 00:08:47 – 00:10:46 | Watch with a free account
D’Amato identifies a specific viewer as someone who “shouldn’t be watching” and states he will seek that viewer’s platform watch-time data through subpoena as evidence in the lawsuit. The clip establishes that D’Amato is characterizing his opponent’s viewership of a public stream as potentially actionable conduct in ongoing litigation. He did not say what order, if any, bars that person from watching a public stream, and he showed none. Later in the stream he makes clear he means the respondent, Brooks.
Exhibit B
D’Amato describes finalizing the civil filing and states his intent to serve Brooks’s wife at her workplace, telling the stream, “we serve Brooks’s wife at her job, because if you think that you’re going to fucking do that to me, and I’m not going to take every opportunity in civil court to get my lick back, well, you should have thought of that before.” He also raises the possibility that she holds a pension and warns that false statements on a financial filing would create “a big problem.” He says “the judge has already determined that the $23,000 was a reasonable amount.”
Timestamps: 00:14:09 – 00:23:29 | Watch with a free account
D’Amato frames workplace service and financial discovery as civil remedies rather than extrajudicial action, stating explicitly, “in court, of course. It’s just the dumbest shit these people do… Can’t do anything illegal. So, you know, the civil route.” The clip documents D’Amato’s stated rationale for targeting Brooks’s wife’s finances and the specific workplace service plan, on stream, before a live audience. He says the Oct. 29 hearing is “the part where they decide how much he has to pay,” which is consistent with the amount still being open.
Exhibit C
D’Amato describes planning to have Brooks’s wife served at a school, telling his audience, “you think [redacted]’s mad now… when she gets served at [her workplace], that’s going to be a problem,” and says paralegals are helping him prepare the filing, adding that he will ask for a continuance if he feels “in over my head” so he can hire counsel. He says Brooks “and his wife are absolutely a part of me having to go on the cruise 100 percent documented.”
Timestamps: 00:28:06 – 00:31:45 | Watch with a free account
D’Amato states the service location and the anticipated reaction on a public stream before the filing is complete, and characterizes the action as neither revenge nor harassment: “this is not revenge. This is none of that shit. This is because this is going to fucking stop.” The clip also contains D’Amato’s statement to his audience that anyone with a similar problem against this individual would only need to ask him, under oath, how many such situations he has been involved in. He says the filing is not finished, so no new suit against Brooks’s wife had been filed as of this stream.
Exhibit D
D’Amato reads aloud and explains the two-phase California attorney-fee framework to his audience, stating that “phase one is called entitlement,” decided before the court looks at a “single line of an attorney’s billing statement,” in which “the judge must first determine whether the requesting party has a valid legal right to receive fees under California law,” followed by a reasonableness phase governing the dollar amount.
Timestamps: 00:59:43 – 01:02:01 | Watch with a free account
D’Amato claimed on stream that the court has already completed the entitlement phase and that “she’s already determined that those fees were reasonable,” leaving only the October 29 hearing to finalize the amount owed. The court record says otherwise. At the Oct. 1 hearing, Judge Holly L. Hancock-Goode did not rule on his $23,197.40 request. She said she needed income and expense information, ordered Brooks to file it by Oct. 24, and continued the motion to Oct. 29. No fees have been awarded. At the end of this clip he adds that anyone “saying something else” is not a journalist and is a liar. The clip documents his on-stream account of the procedural posture of the fee dispute as he understands it.
No bills shown: D’Amato talked about billing statements and a “reasonable” fee, but no bill has been shown to Brooks. In a supplemental opposition filed Oct. 23, the day before this stream, Brooks says he asked D’Amato’s lawyers on Oct. 5 for the fee agreement, any engagement letter, and “the invoices and billing records” behind the $23,197.40 request. Attorney Dawn Dunbar replied the same day, according to the filing and the email attached to it: “We will not be sharing that.” Brooks’s filing says the only evidence of the fees is Dunbar’s own declaration, signed seven weeks after the last work it bills, which offers its total as “the minimum hourly estimate” and “attaches no fee agreement, invoice, or time record.” He asks the judge to deny the fees in full and objects to any billing records D’Amato’s side produces now, after refusing in October. Those are Brooks’s arguments, and the judge will take them up at the Oct. 29 hearing. Hero Not Zero has not seen a response from D’Amato’s lawyers.
Outside the clips, D’Amato repeated the claim in the stream’s title, saying “the little girls that DOA filmed going into a porta potty.” He means Scott Hochstetter, known online as DOA, who streams on YouTube at @thelordofthegadflies. D’Amato has identified no court, case number, or date for any order or finding about such filming. He has conceded on earlier streams that he saw only “a piece of a clip that didn’t have any audio on it,” and on Oct. 4 said “I don’t really know” whether it was true. Hero Not Zero has found no such order. Later he predicted that prosecutors would win against Hochstetter and mentioned “some hate crime enhancements.” The five hate-crime vandalism counts against Hochstetter were dismissed Aug. 8, 2025, at the preliminary hearing. The remaining counts, one of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and five of criminal threats, all dated Feb. 16, 2024, carry no hate-crime label. He has pleaded not guilty; those are allegations, not convictions. The next date is a pretrial conference on Dec. 1, 2026.
The stream aired late Saturday, Oct. 24, after both Hero Not Zero’s deadline for answers to its 12 written questions about his announced John Doe lawsuit and his own Friday deadline for critics to “cooperate.” He did not mention the questions, the email, or the cooperation deadline on this stream, and he answered none of the questions.
Taken together, the four clips establish a documented public record of D’Amato describing, on stream and before a live audience, the active status of civil filings, the planned method and location of service on Brooks’s wife, and the upcoming October 29 fee hearing, with a second proceeding on the calendar at the time of broadcast.
Sources
- D’Amato v. Brooks (26STRO01932), Los Angeles Superior Court: Respondent’s Supplemental Opposition to Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs, with Brooks’s declaration and Exhibit J (filed Oct. 23, 2026).
- Original YouTube Video
- Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
- Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
- Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
- Date: 2026-10-24
- Stream ID: YOUTUBE · hVevwhZkcmo
React to this story