“I’m Not F***ing Playing Around”: ZeroDarkTony Outlines Multi-Lawsuit Filing Plan on Stream

“I’m going to sue their wife and their daughter”

The stream opens with “I am going to be suing Jared.” In context that is Jarred Brooks, known online as Krackhead Kenny, the respondent in D’Amato’s civil harassment case against him, D’Amato v. Brooks (26STRO01932). D’Amato described two primary targets he called “JB squared,” Brooks and a second “JB” he did not name in full, and said that for one of them he would also sue “their wife and their daughter.” He cited the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act and the Ralph Civil Rights Act as the statutory bases for at least one of the suits, claiming both protect him on the basis of protected class status. He said “that’s a $25,000 fine for each individual named in the suit,” that punitive and compensatory damages are tripled under the Bane Act, and that “this is at least a six-figure lawsuit.”He also mentioned that he plans to serve one defendant, Krackhead Kenny’s wife, whom he identified by name, at her workplace.

Those figures are his claims. He did not say which protected traits he says were targeted, or what violence or threat of violence he relies on beyond a forum post of his address, a post he says tagged the Hells Angels, and talk of drones outside his window. Hero Not Zero asked him in writing on Oct. 21st whether his “$25,000 per person mandated fine” refers to the Ralph Act, which covers violence or threats of violence based on traits like race or sexual orientation, and asked which statute entitles him to triple damages. On this stream he named the Ralph Act and the Bane Act but did not mention or answer those questions.

D’Amato stated he plans to subpoena the respondent’s chatters, communications, and financial records, arguing that evidence from the existing restraining order case can be carried into the civil suit. He described a hearing scheduled for October 29 on the remaining fees in the restraining order case, and said the respondent “has already had to fill out a financial disclosure.” The court record shows the fee request in that case, $23,197.40, has not been decided. On Oct. 1, 2026, Judge Holly L. Hancock-Goode did not rule; she ordered Brooks to file an income and expense form by Oct. 24 and continued the motion to Oct. 29.

The stream began late Thursday, Oct. 22, Pacific time, hours after the 5 p.m. deadline Hero Not Zero had set for answers to its 12 written questions about his announced John Doe lawsuit, and the night before his own Friday deadline for critics to “cooperate.” He did not mention the questions or answer any of them. Near the two-hour mark, he asked his moderator Wild Coconuts (“Coco”) to “drop the new email” in chat, pinned it, and said: “Now, understand, that’s not my email. It’s the closest you’re going to get to anything.” He did not say who controls that address or whether an attorney reads it. Hero Not Zero’s first question had asked whether he has an attorney, whether Wild Coconuts is authorized to speak for him, and where legal correspondence should go.

D’Amato walks through his damages arithmetic, describing tripled punitive and compensatory figures under the Bane Act and mentioning “the twenty three thousand for the legal fees” from the restraining order case. That $23,000 is a request, not an award; the judge has not ruled on it. He states he will subpoena communications and financial records and says he will “file criminal charges” over the forum post of his address, citing a post he says tagged the Hells Angels and “the drone thing.” Criminal charges are brought by prosecutors, not by the person who reports a crime. The clip establishes the scope of the planned litigation as D’Amato presented it on stream, including his stated intention to serve Brooks’s wife at her workplace.

D’Amato also says in this segment that the second “JB” said “I reported him multiple reports on every stream,” which D’Amato calls tortious interference, adding, “Whoops, he admitted it.” He says a second suit will involve Hochstetter and a third “some other AI dipshits,” and that he has a clip of Brooks admitting his wife pays the phone bill. He brushes off the idea that some claims are “past their expiration date.” Defamation claims in California must be filed within one year of publication. He did not say when the posts he relies on were made. The clip documents D’Amato’s account of the conduct he plans to plead and his theory connecting it to the Bane and Ralph Acts.

He did not say what “cooperate” means or what the “rules” are. Hero Not Zero’s Oct. 21 questions asked exactly that, including whether cooperating means being dropped from the suit in exchange for naming others. He did not answer. D’Amato also says a post of his “says included, but not limited to, which means there’s more that I’m not putting up on the 29th.” He states there is a hearing on the 29th “for the remainder of the owed fees,” and that because the respondent has had to fill out a financial disclosure, “we’ll know about that.” The clip shows D’Amato describing both the planned motion practice and the upcoming fee hearing as connected steps in the same litigation arc.

The court record says otherwise on both counts. No fees have been awarded in either case. In D’Amato v. Brooks, the judge did not rule on his $23,197.40 request on Oct. 1 and continued it to Oct. 29; D’Amato himself calls that hearing undecided earlier in this stream (“Whatever decision will be made will be whatever”). In the case involving Scott Hochstetter, known online as DOA, who streams on YouTube at @thelordofthegadflies, Hochstetter sought a restraining order against D’Amato and did not get one. D’Amato then moved for attorney fees and lost that motion; it is now on appeal, where a fee denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. He also says he hopes the respondent “does not perjure himself on the financial disclosure.” Perjury requires a willful false statement of material fact under oath, and it is a crime prosecutors charge.

Outside the clips, D’Amato repeats the claim in the stream’s title, saying Hochstetter “got a restraining order for filming little girls going into a port-a-potty” and later calling him “a kid filmer.” D’Amato has identified no court, case number, or date for any such order. 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. Hochstetter faces one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury and five counts of criminal threats, all dated Feb. 16, 2024; he has pleaded not guilty, and those are allegations, not convictions. On this stream D’Amato also predicts, “Whatever’s on video, he’s getting convicted of one way or the other.” That is his prediction. The case is set for a pretrial conference on Dec. 1, 2026.

Taken together, the four clips document D’Amato publicly describing active filing preparation, a multi-defendant lawsuit structure invoking the Bane and Ralph Acts, and an October 29 fee hearing in the already-concluded restraining order case, all as stated on stream on October 23, 2026.

Sources

• Original YouTube Video
• Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Date: 2026-10-23
• Stream ID: YOUTUBE · IINfjeLSL0c