Continuing an often-repeated pattern on Tuesday, jock sock inventor, failed power ranger and diminutive YouTuber Jose “Chille” DeCastro filed a motion to extend the time to serve the defendants in his on-going lawsuit against the town of Duncan, Oklahoma.
In September of last year, DeCastro filmed himself attempting to gain entry to three police vehicles in the parking lot of the Duncan police department. He would later go into the building and announce what he did was part of a first amendment audit.
DeCastro has insisted that as a first amendment auditor and a journalist, he had the power to attempt to gain access to the police vehicles as he was testing to see if he could access the vehicles since they had “unsecured” AR-15 style weapons located in their front seats.
In December of last year, warrants were issued against DeCastro for charges of molesting the police vehicles. The YouTuber filed suit twice in California, with a motion to stay the warrants and a separate civil action against Duncan for violating his civil rights.
The motion to stay was denied and DeCastro would later request that his civil lawsuit be transferred from California to Oklahoma. That request was granted and the lawsuit has sat without activity since the move in January.
In his filing, DeCastro explained that when the case was transferred to Oklahoma, no new summons were issued by the Oklahoma court. DeCastro needed these since the case was moved to Oklahoma before he could serve the defendants in the California version of the case.
DeCastro did not explain why he waited until the original 90-day deadline to serve the defendants to bring up the lack of summons in the lawsuit. However, he assured the court that he had been doing his due diligence in keeping up with the case and had contacted process servers in the state to help facilitate service.
In other DeCastro related news, on his Tuesday night live stream he announced his plans to sue the state of California over DUI checkpoints and the state’s ability to strip a driver of his or her driving privileges for refusing to take part in roadside sobriety tests.
The YouTuber said that he needed to get pulled over and go through an implied consent, he then will sue. He then floated the idea that he would go to a DUI checkpoint and refuse to take a roadside sobriety test and sue when the state takes his driving privileges away.
DeCastro called the state’s ability to require drivers to pre-agree to take sobriety tests as part of the licensing process “unconstitutional” and assured his fans that a lawsuit against the State of California would be pending.
He also addressed his YouVeGotBail.AI project, announcing that he went ahead and released his plaques early as they were intended to help generate revenue for the overall YouVeGotBail.AI project.
DeCastro insisted that besides offering the plaques for sale and the previously announced bail bondsman related services, the project was now a giant “media company” and “social media platform.”
He also asserted that he would be “going on the road” to promote the product and conduct nationwide audits of police. As part of the audits, he insisted that he would be interviewing police officers from some of the anti-police videos he has featured on his channel and would be personally confronting them for their past actions.
DeCastro shared no further details on his planned travel plans.
The YouTuber also shared that he had invested $8,000.00 in the printing of his YouVeGotBail.AI plaque product. Independent estimations indicate that DeCastro would make roughly $19,500.00 back if all the units sold individually at $39.00.
As of press time, the counter for the individual plaque sales page indicated that DeCastro has sold 5 of the 500 available plaques. The two-plaque package indicated that a single unit had been sold. Finally, the three-plaque package indicated that no units had been sold.
Special thanks to Discord user Tomatoes for providing highlights of and timestamps to DeCastro’s extended comments.
Related Links and PDFS
DeCastro v. City of Duncan CourtListener Page
PDF: Motion to Extend time to Effect Service
PDF: Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion
Video Sources
In other legal news chilli will try t o appeal the law of gravity. He is holding out for the appeals court to reverse the lower court and findd gravity is oppressive, always keeping him down.
Or as in any stupidity he is going to over turn sobriety checkpoints. Gee…
Now a legal scholar surely knows…
Michigan State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
No. 88-1897
Argued Feb. 27, 1990
Decided June 14, 1990
496 U.S. 444
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN
Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case poses the question whether a State’s use of highway sobriety checkpoints violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not, and therefore reverse the contrary holding of the Court of Appeals of Michigan.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/444/
Sobriety checkpoints, also called DUI checkpoints, are temporary roadblocks that law enforcement officers use to screen motorists for drunk driving-related offenses. Thirty-eight states in the country utilize sobriety checkpoints, while twelve states do not. Some states prohibit the use of sobriety checkpoints, including Texas. For states that permit the practice, the legal basis for a DUI checkpoint is typically grounded in the federal constitution in addition to the state constitution. Certain states, like Hawaii and North Carolina, have enacted statutes that explicitly provide for DUI checkpoints.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/drunk-driving-dui-dwi/handling-a-dui-stop/sobriety-checkpoints/
Jeepers, why its almost as if he does not know what he is talking about. Oh wait, he doesn’t does he…