As the historic political winds of change swept through America Tuesday night one thing was missing from all political coverage: the launch of Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s Reconstitution party, which he had previously promised to launch on November 2, 2026.
DeCastro had stated:
As you guys know, the governor’s handbook’s coming out, the new channel Reconstitution is coming out. So just a little bit more just a tiny bit more. I’m really gonna start November 2nd.
I’m gonna release the first video November 2nd so you can look forward to that and the new channel coming out then and we’ll be on all networks TikTok. I’m going back on TikTok So I I’ve had five million subscribers deleted from TikTok. So I’m not in a hurry to to rebuild TikTok, but I’m going to.
But as November 2 became November 3 and November 3 became November 4, no such launch seemed to happen. There were no official announcements by DeCastro on his main social media accounts, and he spent November 3 tweeting about the election.
He posted in response to President Donald Trump:
My Red Friends- Wanna know why you lost? Here ya go. This is why there was a Blue Wave. Dump works for Israel. Can you see it yet? I’ll wait. On Nov 3rd, Dumpster supports the Jewish Community. Just crazy. It’s crazy our country is occupied; starts with Dumpster Fire PDF File.
And:
There was a blue wave because of what you tweeted. It wasn’t because Trump hid the Epstein files, Supported Genocide, started a war with Iran for Israel, didn’t give a shit about gas/grocery Prices. It’s YOUR TWEETS why there was a Blue Wave. HIDE THE PDF FILES! Vote for that!
Backing up a few days, November first brought more non-Reconstitution related news from DeCastro as he released a statement withdrawing his “open source” policy in regard to his YouTube material, stating that while he will respect “fair use,” he no longer grants permission for others to freely use his videos.
The failed Power Ranger released his announcement Sunday afternoon, apparently filmed while he was driving, where he stated:
My videos are not open source. I retract retroactively that any of my videos are open source. Fair use will apply. However, you can’t just openly use all of my videos. If I’ve said it previously, I retract what I said previously. Thank you.
DeCastro had previously declared that his video content was “open source” in July of 2026.
The move by the diminutive YouTuber is facing new criticism from a YouTube channel run by someone only known as DJDrkLntrn, who has openly used clips from DeCastro’s livestreams as part of his criticism of the inventor of the Jock Sock.
DeCastro also promised lawsuits against “trolls” last week, promising:
So for the disgusting, nasty trolls who do misinformation about me, be very fucking careful Because I’m about to sue a few of you. Yeah, yeah. Oh yeah.
I’m about to sue a few people. Yeah. The misinformation about me, I’ve just had enough about it.
You know what I mean? And and with Claude, I can I can do so many cool things as far as suing people. So I’m gonna sue a bunch of people here pretty quick I don’t have a choice.
You can’t allow people to create to defame you. Not not at the level that’s happening.
DeCastro has not had a constant critic or thorn in his side providing unique criticism through the use of his work since the Welsh News Network stopped production in disgrace in 2024.
In the past year DJDrkLntrn has debated DeCastro on his own program during a call-in show and has successfully debated SeanPaul “Long Island Audit” Reyes around the time that he launched his widely popular late night “Losers’ Club” broadcast.
DeCastro has yet to file any new lawsuits.
The defendants in DeCastro’s lawsuit against the city of Duncan, Oklahoma, responded in opposition to his request for an extension of time to serve the defendants in which they accused DeCastro of using mistruths in his request for that extension:
Plaintiff’s first request for an extension was granted for good cause on the basis that he was an out-of-state litigant, represented himself pro se, and was the subject of pending criminal proceedings. Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s request and the Court’s finding of good cause was reasonable. However, Plaintiff has allowed the deadline to complete service under Rule 4(m) lapse a second time without any viable excuse, and the justifications he plead in support of his first extension request cannot serve as the basis for a second good-cause extension.
The crux of Plaintiff’s argument for good cause in this instance is that he was not aware of the new deadline until Defendants filed the present motion. [See Pl.’s Resp., ECF 34, at 1; see also Declaration of Jose Maria DeCastro, ECF 35, ¶¶ 3-5, at 1]. He claims this was because he did not receive the Order in the mail and submits a sworn statement under oath that is true. At least as to whether Plaintiff knew about the June 15 deadline, his representations to the Court appear to be completely false. In his response to Defendant Smith’s Motion to Dismiss, filed May 4, 2026, Plaintiff point-blank acknowledged the Court’s Order giving him until June 15, 2026, to effectuate service in his Response to Defendant Suzannah Smith’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff made this statement a full fortytwo days before the deadline was set to elapse. To wit:
“Defendant’s service argument warrants brief response. The Court has already granted Plaintiff an extension until June 15, 2026, to effectuate service. (Doc. 19). Sergeant Smith has actual notice of this action and the operative First Amended Complaint, having received a copy via certified mail on or about March 30, 2026. (Doc. 24 at 15). Any defect in the form of service is curable within the time the Court has already allowed. Plaintiff will request issuance of a new summons directed to Sergeant Smith and effect proper service well before the June 15 deadline. Dismissal on this ground would be inconsistent with Rule 4(m) and the extension already granted by Doc. 19.” [See ECF 25, at 19 (emphasis added)]. Accordingly, Plaintiff cannot suddenly claim excusable neglect due to the Court’s failure to provide him with notice of the Order by mail.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s assertion that he lacked notice of the Order and the new deadline is demonstrably false. It is irrefutable that Plaintiff knew of the Order at least 42 days before the deadline expired, regardless of whether he received a copy of the Order by mail. He cannot now assert a lack of notice of the Order because his own briefing explicitly contradicts this assertion. Furthermore, Plaintiff also had constructive notice of the Order regardless of whether he received a copy in the mail. After filing his unopposed extension request, Plaintiff should have known that the Court would eventually issue a ruling on the matter. Plaintiff cannot be excused for his failure to do his due diligence and keep abreast of developments in the Court’s docket. The Tenth Circuit has clearly held that ignorance of the rules is not sufficient grounds for a good-cause extension. Plaintiff, despite being a pro se litigant, is still required to abide by the procedural requirements of Rule 4(m) that govern the other parties. Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). He has already invoked his pro se status once to obtain an extension. He should not be allowed to rely on it again considering he has now failed to comply with the same procedural rule twice, especially considering his willingness to mislead the Court.
In any event, as of now, Plaintiff has had a full six months to file proof of completed service with the Court. He has failed to comply by presenting proof of service or evidence of good faith effort at compliance. He has not provided proof that service for a single Defendant. He has never attempted to serve Newman, Fitzhugh, or Attaway, and he has never provided proof of service for the summons issued to the City and Smith. While good cause may have existed for granting the first extension, there is certainly none to be found here. Plaintiff fully understood the consequences of non-compliance with Rule 4(m) and failed to act despite in spite of the good-cause extension granted by the Court. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for a good-cause extension should be denied.
DeCastro has yet to respond to the accusations by the defendants.
Finally, DeCastro’s final GoFundMe campaign has yet to see new donations for the month.
Dave “Dr. Dave” Coulter’s Stand with Dr. Dave in His Legal Fight campaign won Tuesday with $588.00 in new donations.
Our own Ongoing Expenses campaign placed second with $100.00 in new donations.
Coulter took Wednesday as well with $514.00 in new donations.
Lane Myers placed second with $230.00 in new donations.
No other campaigns that we follow saw new donations for either day.
We will provide updates when and if DeCastro officially launches his new Reconstitution political party and social media accounts.
This is a breaking news story.
