The attorney for YouTube Alien enthusiast Michael “Blue Bacon” Pierattini filed his response on Tuesday to Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s objections to his previous motion for summary judgement in the ongoing lawsuit of DeCastro vs. Kate Peter, Team Skeptic, Daniel Clement and Pierattini.
In the three filings on Tuesday, Pierattini’s attorney, R. Paul Katrinak, reminds DeCastro that the burden of proof is on DeCastro to prove his allegations that Pierattini defamed him in a YouTube video aired on Pierattini’s YouTube channel, not on Pierattini to prove himself innocent of the charges.
To do so, DeCastro must prove that Pierattini made statements that he knew were false and that he acted with malice. DeCastro is currently objecting to the fact that Pierattini brought up his criminal history, which DeCastro claims does not exist and previously using the “nope” defense as his reasoning that Pierattini’s statements were untrue.
As the authoritarian figure in his world, DeCastro has maintained his right to declare certain accusations as untrue based on his unquestioned devotion to his truth. The “nope” defense is essentially characterized as DeCastro saying “nope” to wave off any accusation against him as he is the single arbiter of truth in his world.
DeCastro’s previous objections, despite a clear criminal history of charges against him, used the “nope” defense to declare all the criminal charges listed against him as untruths as he claimed they did not happen.
Pierattini’s attorney pointing out that despite DeCastro’s claims, he bizarrely admitted at least one of the criminal activities happened (using a fake ID) later in the same motion. He also acknowledged the multiple restraining orders taken against him, though again, he used the “nope” defense to declare each case was without merit.
Also of note was DeCastro’s strange side steps into comments Pierattini made in jest during the submitted video.
Katrinak writing, “Plaintiff goes a bit off topic in his brief on the criminal records, addressing Pierattini’s statements that Plaintiff’s brain had been turned to glue, or that Plaintiff was a scammer or crook. As explained in the Reply, no one actually believes that an examination of Plaintiff’s brain would reveal Elmer’s glue. Thus, the statement is non-actionable hyperbole. We also addressed the opinion that someone is a crook or a scammer in that brief, so we will not belabor the point here. These are simply hyperbole or protected opinion as noted in the cases we cited. Even improperly taking a shot at these statements again, Plaintiff does not cite to any case which could have interpreted those statements as fact, as opposed to non-actionable opinion or hyperbole.”
DeCastro was set to sit for a deposition in the lawsuit on Wednesday, it is unclear if he did so as of press time. The hearing on the motion for summary judgment is scheduled for August 30, 2024.
