Fans of Jose “Chille” DeCastro were treated to a rare look into his latest project Saturday afternoon, a “simulation” of a traffic stop featuring a shell of a car, a strobe light flashing in blue and red colors and a paid actor portraying how DeCastro feels a police officer would act during a traffic stop.
DeCastro live streamed from his car Saturday afternoon to provide a hype video for the “simulation” announcement video. During that stream, DeCastro explained that “simulation” is one of his new projects where he puts groups of people through a simulated traffic stop while training them how to use his 5A Cop Card and Trifold products.
A group of seven people were apparently hired to run through the “simulation” at his studio in downtown Los Angelas. They were provided with training on how to use his products and then put through a “simulation” where they sat in a shell of a car while an actor portraying a police officer screamed abuse at them.
In the hype videos that premiered immediately after the “simulation” announcement livestream, DeCastro showcased the group training session with participants answering questions based on the use of his products.
Individuals then went through a 20-minute personal “simulation” of a traffic stop, with the actor screaming at them and pulling a gun on participants based on their reactions to the “simulation.” Afterwards, they apparently experienced kudos and feedback on how they could have handled the situation better based on DeCastro’s teachings.
DeCastro most recently attempted to use the Los Angeles protests against ICE activity in America to recruit people to attend “simulation” sessions at this studio. He would later bemoan the fact that those who he had invited to come to film failed to show up at planned events despite showing great interest in the opportunity.
In more DeCastro news, there have been major updates to three of his on-going lawsuits.
On June 4, 2025, Judge Andrew P. Gordon issued a notice that DeCastro and the attorney for the Lase Vegas Metropolitan Police Department needed to draft a joint pre-trial order to be filed by June 20,2025, in DeCastro’s long-running lawsuit against the LVMPD.
According to separate filings by the parties, the attorney for the LVMPD sent over their portion of the joint order on June 16, 2025, after not hearing from DeCastro. As he did not complete his portion of the order by the deadline, they submitted their own version of the order.
DeCastro’s lawyer, Michael Mee, would later submit his own version of the order before the deadline. In his version of events, he claimed he only received the LVMPD documents on the 20th and was unable to work with the defendants on a joint order as the attorney for the defense had to leave his office by noon that day.
Both filings essentially lay out the background of the case, the remaining parties and contested and uncontested facts. DeCastro’s reply is notable as it includes his conviction and acquittal of the charges involved from court activity surrounding the case at the heart of the civil lawsuit, where the LVMPD’s document does not.
The parties have requested a trial date to be set between January 2026 and February 2026.
In DeCastro’s attempt to refile a dismissed lawsuit against the city of Ironton, Ohio, in a Nevada based federal suit, the diminutive YouTuber finally submitted a sur-reply to allow him to respond to a motion to dismiss by the Ironton based defendants.
The Ironton defendants had previously filed their motion to dismiss, DeCastro replied to the motion and the defendants replied to his reply. From there, DeCastro needed to ask for permission to reply to the defendants. He did not seek permission before filing a reply. Judge Daniel J. Albregts then struck his reply on May 22, 2025, due to the violation of Local Rule 7-2(b).
DeCastro’s motion for leave to file the sur-reply essentially asks the court to reinstate his previously stricken sur-reply as he feels that it fulfills his need “to address new arguments raised by Defendants in their Reply that were not previously briefed, including Defendants’ assertion of res judicata based on a prior case that was dismissed without reaching the merits, and new jurisdictional arguments not raised in their initial motion. These new matters could not have been anticipated or addressed in Plaintiffs initial response.”
Lastly, in his on-going case against Clark County Nevada, DeCastro filed a statement of interested parties and a request for access to electronic service of documents.
Thank you to PDocs for providing various documents in relation to this article.
