Diminutive YouTuber and inventor of the Jock Sock Jose “Chille” DeCastro received multiple bad news alerts on Monday as his pending appeal of his lawsuit loss to Michael “Blue Bacon” Pierattini saw a major setback and a hearing has been ordered in his lawsuit against Clark County, Nevada.
Starting with the Pierattini case. Last year DeCastro agreed to dismiss YouTuber Team Skeptic and Discord user Daniel Clement from a long-running lawsuit without prejudice. At the same time, the Judge in the case dismissed defendant Pierattini from the lawsuit with prejudice and ordered DeCastro to pay financial sanctions.
In his original statement for the appeal, DeCastro stated he was seeking:
- Reverse the trial court’s vacatur of Appellant’s voluntary dismissal of Defendants Pierattini, Clement, and Omo filed April 15, 2025.
- Reverse all terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions totaling $15,255 imposed against Appellant during his 117-day wrongful incarceration.
- Restore Appellant’s case against Defendant Katherine Peter and remand for proceedings on the merits as to Katherine Peter only.
- Award such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
He filed the notice of appeal on November 13, 2025, and for some reason, it sat with the Court Clerk until last week when the clerk filed the notice with California 2nd Circuit Appeals Court.
That notice was placed in default by the Court on Friday due to DeCastro’s failure to designate what documents and oral proceedings were to be included in the record that will be sent to the Court of Appeal pursuant to California Revised Code rule 8.121.
It was also rejected due to DeCastro’s failure to pay a $100.00 deposit with the superior court clerk as required under Government Code section 68926.1.
The YouTuber now has 15 days from March 27 to update his filing and pay the $100.00 deposit.
In the Clark County lawsuit, DeCastro is suing nearly everyone involved in his 2024 conviction of charges of obstruction of an officer and interference in a crime scene and his later acquittal of those charges.
On Monday, defendants Clark County and Assistant District Attorney Anges Botelho responded to DeCastro’s recent response to their motion to stay discovery while the Court considered their motion to dismiss.
In their new filing, attorney Olivia C. Denue, writing on behalf of Botelho and Clark County, questioned if Discovery is even possible at this point due to DeCastro failing to make any claims against either defendant that would require Discovery.
Denue wrote:
“There is no discovery needed for this court to rule on the pure legal question of whether Botelho’s actions are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. See Tradebay, LLC v. Ebay, Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 602 (2011) (internal citations omitted) (collecting cases and noting that discovery should be stayed while a dispositive motion is pending when “the issues before the Court are purely questions of law that are potentially dispositive.”). Whether Botelho’s actions constitute immune advocacy is purely a question of law. Even taking Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007), that Botelho argued for different sentencing and used perjured testimony, Botelho would nonetheless be entitled to immunity. See Peace v. Baker, 697 F. Supp. 1145, 1147 (D. Nev. 1988) (advocating in connection with sentencing fits squarely within a traditional function of an advocate); Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 637 (9th Cir. 2005) (prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from claims that they used perjured testimony at trial).”
And:
“Similarly, Plaintiff does not argue that there is a factual dispute against Clark County. Instead, Plaintiff makes the legal argument that Clark County is a “person” subject to the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Once more, this is a pure legal question that would be dispositive as to this case for which no discovery is needed. See Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. 597 at 602. Whether Clark County is a person for § 1983 requires no discovery; this presents a pure question of law.
Moreover, the fact that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) and the state courts are distinct legal entities is a legally established principle beyond debate. See NRS 280.280(3); Nev. Const. art. 3 § 1. This is not a factual issue subject to argument. Even so, if anything, this presents a question of law as to whether Clark County is the same entity as LVMPD or state courts. This inquiry is purely a legal one.”
Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler, after hearing from both DeCastro and Botelho and Clark County, ordered a hearing to address this matter following Monday’s filing. DeCastro, who is representing himself, will now have an opportunity to present his argument on April 16, 2026.
DeCastro was also active on YouTube on Monday, holding a nearly two-hour livestream that featured a lengthy video review of a recent video by Zachary “Liberty Troll” Kueker that resulted in trespassing charges against Kueker.
The failed Power Ranger promoted Kueker’s Stand with Liberty Against Unjust Charges crowd sourcing campaign, which took in $145.00 in new donations to win the crowd sourcing title for Tuesday.
SeanPaul “Long Island Audit” Reyes came in second and third, with $50.00 in new donations to his Detained for MY Rights – Continuing the Fight for OUR Rights fund and $25.00 in new donations towards his Help Me Fight These Unlawful Charges & Injustice fund.
Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Hudon-Huneault took fourth place as his Help us Fight this anti-free speech retaliation lawsuit lost another $23.00 of value due to conversion rate changes between CAD and USD.
No other campaigns that we follow saw donations for Tuesday.
Finally, despite DeCastro’s statement that his “Fifth Amendment Auto Plaque” has been selling well during the livestream, sales figures remain unchanged on his website.
There are 494 single units out of 500 units, 498 double unit packages out of 500 units and 496 triple unit packages out of 500 units available for sale on the site.
This is a breaking news story.
Related Links and PDFS
DeCastro v. Clark County CourtListener Page
03/30/2026 28
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 3/30/2026. Hearing on 24 Motion to Stay Case or Discovery set for 4/16/2026 at 02:00 PM in LV Courtroom 3B before Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler. To appear remotely, parties are kindly directed to contact courtroom administrator Elvia Garcia at elvia_garcia@nvd.uscourts.gov no later than noon on the day prior to the hearing and no sooner than one week prior to the hearing.(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF – KNH) (Entered: 03/30/2026)
PDF: 29 – Defendants Agnes Botelho and Clark County’s Reply in Support of Motion to Stay Discovery
Locally Stored PDFs
Crowd Sourcing Results
Video Sources
Share this:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
- Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky