“I’ma Keep Them Coming”: ZeroDarkTony Vows to Continue Platform Strikes Against HeroNotZero

Exhibit A

Addressing the target of the platform strikes directly, D’Amato says: “How’d you like that second strike, dipshit? I’ma keep them coming. I’ma keep them coming. They’re not gonna stop.” He follows that immediately with: “I’ll see you in court.”

Timestamps: 00:09:09 – 00:11:06 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato states he has already filed a second platform strike and announces his intent to file additional ones. The clip establishes on the record that D’Amato characterized the strikes as a continuing, deliberate course of action and that he anticipated the matter proceeding to litigation.

While he did not mention the channel he is striking, we have confirmation that it is the @heronotzeronetwork channel on YouTube, which we have confirmed because we have received both strikes by email.  We have sent counter notifications in response to both strikes.

Exhibit B

Turning to the Pennsylvania proceedings, D’Amato says: “So it would seem to me that this date on the eighth, this court date in Pennsylvania on the eighth would be some kind of arraignment.” He then speculates about whether the defendant will represent himself or be assigned a public defender.

Timestamps: 01:04:57 – 01:06:51 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato characterizes the upcoming court date as “some kind of arraignment,” framing it as his own interpretation rather than confirmed fact. 

Exhibit C

D’Amato claims the “Pennsylvania defendant” continued entering online chats after the charge came down and says: “Shelby and her peeps, they got every bit of it, every bit of it, and they’re going to bring it into court and they’re probably handing it…” over to the Pennsylvania prosecutor.

Timestamps: 01:19:12 – 01:21:18 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato claims on stream that Shelby is collecting post-charge conduct as evidence and delivering it to a Pennsylvania prosecutor. He also addresses the defendant directly, saying “I know you’re listening,” and states that calling people vile names can become actionable when “there’s intent, there’s a pattern, there’s a malice to it.”

D’Amato’s “intent, pattern, malice” line is less legal doctrine and more paralegal cosplay. It waves in the direction of stalking and civil harassment law, both of which do require a pattern plus intent, then completely skips over the part where pure insults are usually just protected opinion no matter how patterned or malicious. 

Exhibit D

D’Amato outlines the range of legal outcomes he anticipates, saying: “You just can’t be menacing or threatening or try to intentionally cause someone distress or harm.” He then states a criminal protective order “is gonna happen,” describes a possible injunction to remove the defendant from the internet entirely, and tells his audience the charge could be “upgraded to a third degree felony… punishable by up to seven years in prison,” adding: “I’m not saying it’s likely, but seven years for his mouth.”

Timestamps: 01:22:05 – 01:25:38 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato’s take on Pennsylvania stalking law and sentencing is way off. The actual docket paints a different picture: Brooks was hit with two misdemeanor harassment charges, not a felony, and there’s no protective order or injunction on the record currently. That “seven years for his mouth” claim refers to a felony sentence for a charge that was never filed as one. The record shows no protective order, no PFA, and no felony charge of any kind. His on-stream claim about an upgrade to a third-degree felony carrying up to seven years doesn’t match reality. The docket lists third-degree misdemeanor harassment, a much lower charge with a far lighter maximum sentence.

Even if Brooks has a prior criminal history from other states, the realistic sentencing range if convicted remains nowhere near that hypothetical seven-year felony mark. In Pennsylvania, out-of-state convictions are factored into the Basic Sentencing Matrix, a standardized grid that judges use to cross-reference the severity of the current crime against a defendant’s past criminal record. This grid assigns an Offense Gravity Score (OGS) based on the new charge—which is set at the absolute lowest level of 1 for a third-degree misdemeanor and calculates a Prior Record Score (PRS) based on points accumulated from prior out-of-state offenses mapped to their Pennsylvania equivalents. 

While an extensive out-of-state record raises the PRS and disqualifies a defendant from first-time offender probation programs, the matrix standard recommendation for an OGS of 1 only increases to a realistic range of one to three months of minimum jail time, followed by court-ordered supervision and strict no-contact mandates. Because the charge fundamentally remains a third-degree misdemeanor, a judge legally cannot exceed the grid’s hard boundary: the absolute statutory maximum of one year in prison and a $2,500 fine. This information is just here to confirm that the seven-year claim is not just an exaggeration, but a structural legal impossibility. 

Exhibit E

D’Amato states his intention regarding anonymous critics in his own civil matter: “I’ll make sure that my lawyer files and, you know, make sure that they get subpoenaed to be in court.” He then tells his audience that when those individuals appear, “you guys are going to get to see who it actually is,” and adds: “It won’t be any of my doing.”

Timestamps: 02:18:47 – 02:20:41 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato states that his attorney will seek subpoenas compelling anonymous critics to appear in court, and that the resulting identification of those individuals “won’t be any of my doing,” framing the disclosure as a byproduct of litigation rather than a personal action. The clip establishes that D’Amato publicly announced this subpoena strategy to his live audience before any such proceeding has been confirmed.

Subpoenas compelling appearance are not self-executing, they require an attorney to file for them, a court to grant them, and D’Amato himself to direct the litigation that makes them possible at every step. Describing the eventual unmasking as something that simply happens to occur, rather than the direct result of a request he initiated, distances him from an outcome he is actively engineering. 

Courts weighing whether to unmask anonymous speakers typically require a showing that identification is necessary to the underlying claim, not simply a byproduct of wanting to know who is talking. Announcing to a live audience that the payoff is “you guys are going to get to see who it actually is,” before any proceeding exists to compel it, suggests the disclosure itself may be the goal rather than a side effect of an unrelated legal process.

Taken together, the five clips document D’Amato stating on stream: an intent to continue filing platform strikes, his misinterpretation of active Pennsylvania criminal proceedings against Krackhead Kenny, his claim that evidence is being passed to a prosecutor, and his stated plan to use civil subpoenas to identify anonymous critics.

Sources

• Original YouTube Video
• Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Date: 2026-09-01
• Stream ID: YOUTUBE · jdnMLpgJHYE

Watch the video