Self-proclaimed “Governor” of an unnamed state or state of mind Jose “Chille” DeCastro updated several of his on-going court cases on Monday following several new filings in cases that we follow.
First, a clarification in DeCastro vs. McKnight.
We previously had reported that it appeared that a new attorney was entering the case and we assumed that it was someone filing for DeCastro. This turned out not to be the case and we retract the statement.
Attorney Katherine F. Parks had appeared to be filing to appear in the case, but a new filing by the Lawrence Count defendants clarified appearance:
Now come the Defendants, John Chapman and the Lawrence County Commissioners, by counsel, notifying this Court that Attorney Katherine Parks, with Thorndal Armstrong, is disassociated regarding the representation of Defendants in the above-captioned matter. Attorney Parks served as local counsel in this matter when it was originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Pursuant to United States District Court for the District of Nevada Local Civil Rule LR IA 11-2, out-of-state attorneys are required to associate with resident local counsel when appearing pro hac vice. Attorney Park’s association with the case terminated once the case was transferred to this Court.
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully requests that Attorney Parks be removed from this Court’s electronic filing service (CM/ECF) list, and that all future notices, pleadings, orders, and correspondence be served upon remaining counsel.
In DeCastro’s on-going litigation against the city of Duncan, Oklahoma. DeCastro was suing the town in federal court after being charged with three counts of molesting police vehicles after a September 2025 incident.
Earlier in the month, the collective defendants – without accepting service – filed to dismiss the case due to lack of timely service.
DeCastro responded:
Plaintiff does not ask the Court to overlook the defects in service, and he does not contend that the returned Order explains every one of them. He acknowledges those defects and asks for a short, fixed period to cure them. Plaintiff submits that the returned Order establishes good cause. Independently, even if the Court finds no good cause, it has discretion to extend the time for service, and each relevant consideration supports doing so here. Together with this Response, Plaintiff is filing a Motion for Extension of Time to Effect Service. Together with this Response, Plaintiff is also submitting a Request for Issuance of Summons for every Defendant named in the First Amended Complaint.
Later adding:
The Moving Defendants have not identified any concrete prejudice to theirability to defend this case. Plaintiff acknowledges that approximately four months have passed since the June 15, 2026 deadline. But no scheduling order has been entered, no discovery has occurred, and no trial date is set. Defendant Smith’s motion to dismiss on the same First Amended Complaint remains pending. The case remains in the preliminary stage the Court recognized in April. (Doc. 19 at 1.) Plaintiff also notes that the same attorneys have participated in this case on behalf of Defendant Smith since April 22, 2026. (Docs. 21 through 24, 28.) Plaintiff does not offer this as proof of service on the Moving Defendants or as consent to jurisdiction. He offers it only to show that the Moving Defendants’ current counsel has participated, while representing Defendant Smith, in litigation involving the same First Amended Complaint, so the case would not begin anew for that counsel if the extension is granted.
Continuing:
Plaintiff acted promptly once he learned of the expired deadline. He is filing this Response and his Motion for Extension of Time. On October 16, 2026, the day he learned of the expired deadline, Plaintiff asked counsel for the Moving Defendants whether they would consent to an extension, whether counsel was authorized to accept service, and whether the individual Defendants would waive service under Rule 4(d). Counsel responded the same day that his clients object to any extension, that he is not authorized to accept service, and that they will not waive service. Plaintiff is therefore submitting a Request for Issuance of Summons for every Defendant named in the First Amended Complaint and has arranged for two adults in Oklahoma who are not parties to this action to personally deliver each summons and the First Amended Complaint once the summonses issue. (Ex. 1 1 7.)
Plaintiff will serve the City of Duncan through its chief executive officer. The Moving Defendants note that the City summons was directed to the City Attorney rather than the City’s chief executive officer. (Doc. 33 at 8-9.) Plaintiff accepts that correction. The City Manager acts as the chief executive officer of the City of Duncan. Plaintiff is requesting a summons directed to the City through its City Manager and will serve the summons and the First Amended Complaint as Rule 40)(2)(A) provides.
He ultimately concluded:
The Order that set the June 15, 2026 deadline was returned to the Clerk, and Plaintiff did not receive it. Plaintiff acknowledges the defects in service and is curing them. Whether on a finding of good cause or in the Court’s discretion, Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to deny the Moving Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) and to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Effect Service.
DeCastro then filed a motion to extend time for service:
Reasons. The April 15, 2026 Order was mailed to Plaintiff’s address of record on April 16, 2026, and the mailing was returned to the Clerk on April 17, 2026. (Doc. 20; Doc. 20-1.) Plaintiff did not receive the Order and did not know of the June 15, 2026 deadline until October 16, 2026. (Ex. 1, Declaration of Jose Maria Decastro, ,i,i 3-4.) Plaintiff also acknowledges that he did not request summonses for Defendants Newman, Fitzhugh, and Attaway, and that the City summons was directed to the City Attorney rather than the City’s chief executive officer. The Declaration is attached to this Motion as Exhibit 1, and the grounds are set out more fully in Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Doc. 33, filed together with this Motion.
Summonses. Together with this Motion, Plaintiff is submitting a Request for Issuance of Summons for every Defendant named in the First Amended Complaint, including a replacement summons directed to the City of Duncan through its City Manager as its chief executive officer.
Service history by Defendant. The Defendants’ circumstances differ. No summons has previously been requested or issued for Defendants Newman, Fitzhugh, Attaway, or Hammond. Summonses were issued for the City of Duncan (directed to the City Attorney) and Defendant Smith (Doc. 14) and for Mr. Jacobsma (Doc. 18), but no proof of service has been filed for any of them. Defendant Smith has appeared through counsel and moved to dismiss, contesting the sufficiency of service on her (Doc. 24); that motion remains pending. Plaintiff seeks the same extension as to each Defendant so that service can be completed, or confirmed, on all of them. No Defendant has been dismissed.
Position of opposing counsel. On October 16, 2026, Plaintiff emailed Jeffrey C. Hendrickson, copying Robert S. Lafferrandre and Jessica James Curtis, to request the Moving Defendants’ position on this Motion. Mr. Hendrickson replied the same day, stating that his clients object to any extension of time to serve them. He further stated that he is not authorized to accept service for them, that they will not waive service, and that his office does not consent to electronic service.
DeCastro is Requesting:
Plaintiff requests an order (1) granting this Motion; (2) extending the deadline for Plaintiff to complete service of a summons and the First Amended Complaint (Doc. 16) on each Defendant named in it to 45 days after entry of the Court’s order; (3) directing that proof of each service be filed as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(1) and LCvR4.2, within 14 days after that service is made; and ( 4) directing the Clerk to issue summonses for each Defendant as requested in Plaintiff’s Request for Issuance of Summons.
Again, The “Governor’s” new filings brought no new donations to his last remaining GoFundMe campaign.
Sunday saw a larger than normal activity in the crowd sourcing race as Aidan “Turtleboy” Kearney won the day with $18,142.00 in new donations to his GiveSendGo campaign.
Roy “Pigs Under Pressure” Tripoloni placed second with $330.00 towards his campaign for James “James Freeman” Springer.
Angel “Kansas City Accountability” Moses placed third with $25.00 in new donations and John “First Amendment Protection Agency” Medaglia placed fourth with $20.00 in new donations towards his ILLEGAL ARREST DEFENSE FUND!!!
Monday saw Kearney take the win with another $1,790.00 in new donations to his GiveSendGo campaign. SeanPaul “Long Island Audit” Reyes placed second with $30.00 in new donations to his Detained for MY Rights – Continuing the Fight for OUR Rights campaign.
For Tuesday, Tripoloni won the day with $50.00 in new donations to his campaign for James “James Freeman” Springer. Kearney placed second with $49.00 in new donations.
No other campaigns that we follow saw new donations for the three-day period.
There were no new donations recorded for Wednesday.
This is an on-going news story.
