Jose “Chille” DeCastro followed up on Sunday’s announcement that his board game was again delayed with a series of livestreams in which he attempted to learn the OBS broadcasting software and was later surprised by a response from the Ironton defendants in his refiled Nevada based lawsuit against the Ironton, Ohio, police force.
DeCastro provided no updates on the delay of his board game as he began the first of multiple livestreams on Monday in his attempt to learn the OBS software suite.
YouTuber DeCastro is apparently attempting to switch the format of his YouTube livestreams to incorporate YouTube’s vertical format. Using vertically formatted livestreams often results in a huge increase in viewership to the stream as vertical format livestreams have a higher priority in the algorithm than horizontal format livestreams.
Last year when DeCastro was incarcerated in Nevada’s Clark County Detention Center, attorney Michael Ehline pulled in thousands of viewers to DeCastro’s channel using the format. Ehline’s broadcasts on DeCastro’s channel remain the highest attended livestreams on his channel, often outdrawing DeCastro’s regular livestreams on a 10 to 1 basis.
On DeCastro’s Sunday night livestream, he attempted to use the Streamyard software to broadcast in a vertical format. He expressed his distaste for the layout provided by the software in the format then promised that he would be switching to OBS on Monday.
OBS is streaming software used as an alternative to the popular Streamyard software to broadcast livestreams to various social media platforms. Known for its complexity, DeCastro’s promise to fans that he would have the software up and running in a single session was mocked on Monday as the YouTuber was not known for his successful attempts to figure out complex programs.
His first livestream essentially confirmed this, as it featured a completely black screen with DeCastro, apparently unaware that he was streaming, playing an OBS instructional video and later calling a friend for help with the software while making various candid comments about people in his life.
DeCastro would attempt to stream multiple times Monday afternoon as he attempted to set up the software. Eventually giving up after successfully playing a series of YouTube shorts in widescreen format in a livestream. He then removed all of his attempts to broadcast with OBS from his YouTube channel.
While he did achieve a small bump in his viewership by using the vertical format on his Sunday livestream, Monday’s multiple streams were met with below-average attendance. It is unclear if DeCastro will pursue OBS and the vertical format on future broadcasts.
DeCastro also received strange news on Monday as the Ironton defendants in his Nevada based lawsuit against the Ironton, Ohio, police force ignored his recent filing for an extension to reply to their motion to dismiss and answered his previous response to the Lawrence County defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The confusion was entirely due to DeCastro’s apparent inability to manage his own case as a pro se defendant. As he’s suing two sets of defendants, each group is able to file their own motions. With both filing motions to dismiss, the Judge in the case ordered him to file separate responses to each motion, which a separate timeline for each.
DeCastro was granted an extension to reply to the Lawrence County defendants but failed to ask for an extension to file a reply to the Ironton defendants. His eventual attempt to correct this saw him admit that he didn’t know what was going on with the case and thought that the Judge’s extension covered both cases.
Instead of waiting for the Judge and DeCastro to figure out his self-created mess, the Ironton defendants filed their own response to DeCastro’s reply to the Lawrence County defendants.
In their response, the Ironton defendants take issue with DeCastro’s assertation that the charges against them are new and had not received a final judicial outcome. They noted that DeCastro’s new version of the charges appeared to be reworded versions of his previous charges.
Those original charges resulted in a motion for judgment in favor of the defendants in the original lawsuit. DeCastro even appealed that judgment, and it was upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The defendants also state that DeCastro still hasn’t made an adequate claim as to why Nevada is a proper jurisdiction for the refiled case. DeCastro’s statement that “Defendants knew or should have known that their actions would have effects reaching beyond Ohio,” did nothing to show that he had actual standing in the State to refile the lawsuit.
They also claim that DeCastro has not explained why, despite multiple extensions granted by the Court, DeCastro was unable to properly serve the defendants. DeCastro’s server essentially served a desk clerk and supervisor on duty, rather than the individual personal service required by Ohio law. With most of the defendants no longer working for the Ironton Police force, DeCastro was obligated to attempt personal service.
Finally, the defendants pushed for a dismissal of the case instead of a transfer to Ohio as DeCastro failed to establish why Nevada is a proper venue for the case and the lawsuit has already been litigated once before in Ohio.
The Ironton defendants are seeking the Court grant their motion to dismiss with prejudice.
The Lawrence County defendants have yet to reply to DeCastro’s reply as of press time.
