New Court Filing in Duncan, Oklahoma Lawsuit may DISRUPT Chille DeCastro’s Plans

YouTube darling, entrepreneur and overall swell guy Jose “Chille” DeCastro returned to live streaming on Wednesday as his objection to a recent ruling in his lawsuit against Clark County, Nevada, was finally received by the court and the defendants in his lawsuit against Duncan, Oklahoma, responded to his lawsuit.

DeCastro’s live started with his declaration that he ended his inebriation fast for the celebration of April 20, or “420”, the yearly celebration of those who enjoy the cannabis culture. While he directly admitting to having an eight-ounce beer, he may have also participated in the holiday by consuming some of the substance.

He assured his fans that he was back on his fast on Wednesday, after fully recovering from his substance intake on Monday. He then, strangely, seemed overjoyed by the appearance of the auditor known as The First Amendment Protection Agency in his side chat, piling affection on the man and calling him the hottest auditor in the world today.

The diminutive YouTuber’s broadcast was largely uneventful, offering no updates to his now PDF based board game, which was supposed to be finished by the end of the week. He also offered no updates to his claims that he was negotiating with financiers this week for up to a million dollars in new investments into his YouVeGotBail.ai social media network.

DeCastro did announce that his new YouVeGotBail.AI auto plaque product would be going on sale at 25% off as he was in need of a quick $3,800.00 in order to fund the purchase of transcripts of his February trial where he lost to the Las Vegas Metro Police Department.

The YouTuber needs a copy of the transcript to move forward with his appeal of the decision and loudly bemoaned the fact that the transcripts were too expensive for him at this time. He has not opened a new GoFundMe or reopened his previous GoFundMe campaign to help with the expenses as of press time.

DeCastro’s objection to the ruling that delayed discovery in his lawsuit against nearly everyone involved in his conviction for and acquittal of charges of interfering with a traffic stop and obstruction of an officer was finally filed on Wednesday.

The YouTuber apparently has yet to fix his access to the national electronic filing service for federal lawsuits. He had complained about his lack of access in the past, indicating that he no longer had access to the e-mail account associated with his filing access. His attempts to demand customer service from various judges in his outstanding cases have been ignored by the Courts.

Wednesday’s filing, which he showed on a livestream and indicated that he was mailing on April 15, 2026, directly challenges Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler’s April 13, 2026, order to stay discovery while a motion to dismiss by defendants Clark County and Agnes Botelho is heard.

DeCastro wrote:

The Order does not merely stay discovery. It reaches and resolves core legal issues reserved for the District Judge, including whether Defendant Botelho is entitled to prosecutorial immunity and whether Plaintiff has stated a viable Monell claim. By concluding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim and predicting dismissal, the Court exceeded the limited scope of a Rule 72(a) nondispositive determination.

A magistrate judge’s authority over discovery disputes does not extend to adjudicating the merits of a plaintiffs claims. The preliminary peek procedure exists only to identify cases where no plausible claim can survive. It does not authorize the magistrate court to resolve the merits of the motion to dismiss. The Order’s legal conclusions that Botelho is entitled to immunity and that no viable Monell theory exists are the province of the District Judge and should not have been reached in the context of a non-dispositive stay motion. Because those conclusions drove the stay ruling, the Order must be set aside.

The Court’s analysis goes beyond identifying whether the claims are plainly deficient and instead resolves contested legal issues, which is outside the scope of a Rule 72(a) determination. The Order resolves competing interpretations of Plaintiffs allegations against him, rather than accepting them as true. In doing so, it draws inferences against Plaintiff rather than in his favor.

At the pleading stage, where all reasonable inferences must be drawn in Plaintiffs favor, resolving these issues without discovery is premature. This case remains at the pleading stage, where dismissal must be based on the absence of any plausible claim, not the perceived weakness of Plaintiffs theories.

DeCastro’s lawsuit against everyone involved in charges he picked up in Duncan, Oklahoma also saw activity on Wednesday. Attorneys Robert S. Lafferrandre, Jessica James Curtis and C. Hendrickson of the Pierce Couch Hendrickson Baysinger & Green L.L.P. filed appearance on behalf of defendant Suzannahe Smith.

Jessica James Curtis, writing on behalf of Smith, also submitted a 25-page motion to dismiss her client from the case based on DeCastro’s failure to state a claim against her client.

Curtis wrote:

Mr. DeCastro cannot establish that Sergeant Smith violated his constitutional rights, much less that any alleged right was clearly established. The clearly established inquiry demands a high level of specificity. Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015). The dispositive question is ”whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established,” and that inquiry “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). While Mr. DeCastro cites various cases he contends establish the relevant rights (Doc. 16, ¶¶ 57, 66), those cases rest on propositions far too general to show that Sergeant Smith’s specific conduct violated any clearly established right.

As to the First Amendment, Mr. DeCastro relies primarily on Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022), for the proposition that he had a clearly established right to investigate police conduct and record police activity. As already discussed, Irizarry established that individuals have a right to film police officers performing their duties in public. Id. at 1292. That is, again, not what occurred here. Mr. DeCastro was in a parking lot, photographing and videoing unoccupied vehicles, placing recording devices on vehicle windows, and attempting to open the doors of officers’ vehicles. This conduct does not compare to that of individuals recording a traffic stop, as Irizarry addressed. The remaining authority Mr. DeCastro invokes, including Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019), and Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), stands for the general proposition that retaliatory prosecution is prohibited. That proposition is far too broad to put Sergeant Smith on notice that signing the probable cause affidavit under the specific circumstances presented here violated any clearly established right.

As to the Fourth Amendment, Mr. DeCastro again relies on general propositions, such as what probable cause requires, and that an affidavit cannot omit material facts (See Doc. 16, ¶ 64 (citing Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 111 (1975), and Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)). These broad statements of laws are insufficient. It was not clearly established that an officer would violate the Fourth Amendment by omitting from a probable cause affidavit facts she was unaware of, including a suspect’s self-proclaimed journalist status. Mr. DeCastro pleads no facts showing that Sergeant Smith knew of his self-proclaimed journalist status or intentionally did not include information in the affidavit. A reasonable officer in her position could have concluded that the conduct she observed and documented provided a sufficient basis for probable cause Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1787.

Special thanks to PDocs for providing all of the documents related to both cases on Wednesday. Direct copies of the documents have been provided for free on our Discord server and Merb’s Discord Server.

As usual, DeCastro’s activity sparked no new donations to his associated GoFundMe campaigns.

Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Hudon-Huneault’s Help us Fight this anti-free speech retaliation lawsuit won Tuesday with $25.00 in new value due to exchange rate changes between CAD and USD. The First Amendment Protection Agency’s ILLEGAL ARREST DEFENSE FUND!!! Placed second with $10.00 in new donations.

Wednesday saw our own Ongoing Expenses fund take in $300.00 to win the day, followed by the First Amendment Protection Agency, which took in $25.00. Hudon-Huneault’s campaign lost $4.00 in value due to exchange rate changes.

Thursday saw the First Amendment Protection Agency take the day with $21.00 in new donations, with Hudon-Huneault losing another $9.00 in value due to exchange rate changes.

It is our annual spring fundraising event, with major yearly expenditures due in the next few weeks leading to our two-year anniversary. If you’d like to contribute towards keeping the lights on, the cats fed and this publication sticking around for another year, we’re taking donations at gofund.me/833d72229 or paypal.me/ReallyCoolSite.

If you can’t afford to contribute financially, please like, share, subscribe and comment on our videos. Any activity, positive or negative, helps place us in YouTube’s almighty algorithm.

Thank you for taking part of your day to spend with us and we hope to continue serving you for the next year.