“We’re Gonna Find Out Who You Are Real Quick”: ZeroDarkTony Did Not Quite Reply to Requests for Comment

He went on to characterize the behavior of his unnamed opponents as stalking and harassment. On the question of escalation, he was direct: “If they won’t stop, then I’m not going to stop.” The email was Hero Not Zero’s: 12 questions about the John Doe lawsuit he had announced, sent the night before to the address he had used for copyright strikes against HNZ’s channel (“they took the information from a copyright strike and decided to contact me personally,” he says here), with answers requested by 5 p.m. that day. He said he still had not opened it (“whatever that email says, which I’m not opening”) and answered none of the questions.

HNZ posted the same questions publicly here. 

The original post and the author’s comments before deleted are here: 

Exhibit A

D’Amato tells the audience that an unsolicited email demonstrates unlawful contact and announces he is sending it to his attorney, stating, “So, you ain’t making trouble for me.”

Timestamps: 00:13:10 – 00:15:05 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato asserts that receiving the email after previously instructing no contact amounts to a third-party violation, which he plans to raise at an upcoming hearing. He describes forwarding the email to his attorney as a tangible litigation step rather than a general caution. He cited no specific court order the email breached and did not clarify which hearing he referred to. The next date in his restraining order case against Brooks, D’Amato v. Brooks (26STRO01932), is Oct. 29, when the judge will consider his request for $23,197.40 in attorney fees. Later during the stream, he stated that the way to reach him was to “contact my attorney or send a message to the channel mods, who will forward it to the attorney.” His YouTube post announcing the John Doe suit mentioned no attorney or moderator.

HNZ knows of no moderators (plural), only one known as “Coco” or “Wild Coconuts.” Saying “reach out to Wild Coconuts” offers little clarity and is ridiculous.

Exhibit B

D’Amato says, “And the respondent’s wife is gonna be pretty upset when they get served,” and conditions his own actions on whether the other side stops: “Because I’m not going to stop. If they won’t stop, then I’m not going to stop.”

Timestamps: 00:23:07 – 00:26:30 | Watch with a free account

In D’Amato’s restraining order case, the respondent is Brooks. D’Amato does not say who would be served, with what, or in which case. On an October 21 stream he said he would serve Brooks’s wife at her job. D’Amato also states he is “almost done” with an initial filing and declaration that he claims will compel subpoenas of opponents’ accounts based on what he describes as a long-term course of conduct. He named no court and gave no filing date. A prior subpoena effort by D’Amato targeting HNZ contributor Hero Light Cody and others was quashed, and the court imposed sanctions on the attorney who pursued it, Steven L. Tamer. The same clip includes his claim that “there’s no evidence from any of these dumbasses that could say that I’ve done anything wrong to any of them,” which he offered as context for why he views the legal posture as justified. His own court record includes People v. Damato (24CJCM07073-01), in which he pleaded on Dec. 23, 2025, to two counts of violating a minor’s restraining order. The clip closes with his complaint that “they took the information from a copyright strike and decided to contact me personally,” which describes how HNZ’s email reached him.

Exhibit C

Addressing anonymous critics who operate YouTube channels, D’Amato states: “when you dum-dums started your channels and attached your bank information to it and your identifications and got verified, we’re gonna find out who you are real quick, and then it’s gonna be a whole bunch of legal problems for you and it’s gonna come right back at you.”

Timestamps: 00:30:20 – 00:33:33 | Watch with a free account

D’Amato frames the identity-exposure statement as a consequence of the legal subpoena process he described earlier in the stream, not as a personal effort to obtain the information outside of court. The clip establishes that D’Amato made these statements publicly to a live audience while describing litigation he says is near the filing stage. California courts do not hand over anonymous speakers’ identities on request. Under Krinsky v. Doe 6 (2008), a plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing of an actionable claim. Earlier in the same clip he says of the email, “You should be scared to have to go to court,” and that “the lawyer just laughed” at it. He did not name the lawyer. Taken together, the three clips document D’Amato stating on a public stream that he is forwarding Hero Not Zero’s email to counsel, preparing initial court filings he says will compel subpoenas, and that Brooks’s wife will be upset “when they get served,” with an upcoming hearing as the stated near-term milestone. He showed no filing on stream.

Hero Not Zero has had no reply from D’Amato’s counsel or his moderator, Wild Coconuts.

Sources

• Original YouTube Video
• Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Date: 2026-10-22
• Stream ID: YOUTUBE · pZkOjCSHV0I