DeleteLawZ Associate Files Deposition in Oklahoma

As 2025 ended and 2026 began, fans of Jose “Chille” DeCastro were greeted with a new filing in his ever-convoluted non-defense defense of himself in his on-going drama out of Duncan, Oklahoma, apparently made things even worse for the YouTuber.

The filing by DeCastro associate Heather Chandler did not come from his on-going civil case against the city of Duncan, which he strangely filed in California instead of Oklahoma and recently had to ask for a move to the proper venue when the California court seemed less than pleased with his efforts.

Instead, Chandler’s efforts came in a court filing of an affidavit by Chandler that was placed in DeCastro’s file this week. In that document, Chandler essentially claimed that she didn’t see DeCastro attempt to gain access to police vehicles in a September incident at the Duncan police station.

She also asserted that the police investigation of DeCastro’s actions was part of a continued harassment campaign against her and shared a “gotcha” moment that she claimed should doom the probable cause statement filed in the case by Detective Suzannhe Smith.

Chandler, who voluntarily submitted her affidavit, stated:

Detective Smith’s affidavit contains a significant temporal inconsistency that calls into question the accuracy and reliability of her observations.

The affidavit states: “At approximately 1439 hours, I, Sgt. Suzannhe Smith was in the Duncan Police Department when Civilian Records Clerk Lori Adams paged me in the hallway, walking towards the south door to exit into the south parking lot. Adams mentioned that a male was walking around our vehicles. I followed Adams to the door and observed two females, one identified as Heather CHANDLER and the second unknown, in the south parking lot, looking into Adams’ vehicle.”

However, the affidavit then states: “At approximately 1431 hours, I observed a male later identified as Jose Maria DECASTRO, walking through the parking lot and carrying a long pole with a recording device attached to it.”

The second observation is described as occurring at 1431 hours (2:31 PM), which is eight minutes before the first observation allegedly occurred at 1439 hours (2:39 PM).

This temporal impossibility suggests that Detective Smith’s affidavit was not prepared with appropriate care and attention to detail, or that the described observations did not occur in the sequence claimed.

This inconsistency is material because it affects the reliability and credibility of all observations claimed in the affidavit.

Chandler goes on to state that the inclusion of her name in the report, to describe an incident she was present at, harmed her reputation in the community and may be used against her in her on-going criminal prosecution.

The fan of the diminutive YouTuber also included a claim that the filing of misdemeanor criminal charges against DeCastro was unfair as he had not intended to loiter in, injure or molest the police cars he allegedly tried to gain access to and that the punishment DeCastro faces is disproportionate for the crime.

Chandler’s statement comes as part of DeCastro’s ongoing effort to excuse himself for an event that he recently admitted guilt for.

On a recent live stream, DeCastro showed footage from the event in September, which was livestreamed in front of a large audience, and showed himself pulling on the door handles of three parked police vehicles when he observed what he claimed to be “unsecured” AR-15s in those vehicles.

DeCastro admitted his guilt on the recent livestream and would show footage of himself on the same stream informing police that he conducted an audit of their parking lot and had pulled on the car doors to check the “security” of the police vehicles.

The YouTuber has claimed that as a First Amendment auditor, once he declared his intentions to audit the police parking lot, he was immune from prosecution for checking the “security” of vehicles in the parking lot.

DeCastro, nor any other self-proclaimed First Amendment auditor, has immunity from prosecution for conducting investigations. His recent attempt to have his warrants from Oklahoma quashed by a California court were denied; he is currently also attempting to have the first amendment retaliation lawsuit filed with the motion to quash moved from California to Oklahoma.