Uploaded May 2024 | Updated September 2026, 7 hours ago
Jose “Chille” DeCastro just filed his appellate brief on 5/6/24. It was timely under the 40 day “Fast-Track” appellate rules. I was unpersuaded by this brief. Procedurally (and I’m not a Nevada lawyer) the appellate rules limit briefs to 16 pages, not 31. It's possible they either violated the rule or have permission from a different rule I am not aware of. There are also requirements that must be addressed separately, such as grounds for jurisdiction, errors at the trial court that warrant scrutiny, etc. I didn’t see any of that specifically listed. There were typographical errors, and attempts to creatively abstract this case to the George Floyd murder and to racism. None of this was addressed at trial, and isn’t part of the record. Instead of a focused brief on the narrow issues of statutory interpretation, it was skimmed over. The manner in which the brief was written failed to grab my attention and persuade me. The brief took a very risky approach, and heavily criticized Judge Zimmerman, and threw Michael Mee “under the bus.” Take great caution in how you attack a judge, and if you take such a bold move, be sure you are right. Many justices/judges will view such an attempt as the last refuge of legally dead arguments. The brief also contained a robotic style of writing. I deleted clauses and revised sentences for clarity. This was my "Delete Clawz" satire. I didn’t see the how the brief could rely very heavily on First Circuit authority, when we are in the Ninth Circuit, and point to law review articles, which are pretty much ignored by California lawyers. Maybe this is a different in Nevada? None of this legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is expressed, implied and is flatly rejected. I am not licensed in Nevada, and am not offering any legal advice in that state. I am merely commenting on a public issue. This is for entertainment only. I reserve all rights, including California's anti-SLAPP laws. I am not suggesting or inferring that anyone committed malpractice or violated any standard of care. This video is just my personal reaction. There can be legitimate and strategic reasons persons or lawyers took the actions that they did, and not as a result of some error.
Jose “Chille” DeCastro just filed his appellate brief on 5/6/24. It was timely under the 40 day “Fast-Track” appellate rules. I was unpersuaded by this brief. Procedurally (and I’m not a Nevada lawyer) the appellate rules limit briefs to 16 pages, not 31. It's possible they either violated the rule or have permission from a different rule I am not aware of. There are also requirements that must be addressed separately, such as grounds for jurisdiction, errors at the trial court that warrant scrutiny, etc. I didn’t see any of that specifically listed. There were typographical errors, and attempts to creatively abstract this case to the George Floyd murder and to racism. None of this was addressed at trial, and isn’t part of the record. Instead of a focused brief on the narrow issues of statutory interpretation, it was skimmed over. The manner in which the brief was written failed to grab my attention and persuade me. The brief took a very risky approach, and heavily criticized Judge Zimmerman, and threw Michael Mee “under the bus.” Take great caution in how you attack a judge, and if you take such a bold move, be sure you are right. Many justices/judges will view such an attempt as the last refuge of legally dead arguments. The brief also contained a robotic style of writing. I deleted clauses and revised sentences for clarity. This was my "Delete Clawz" satire. I didn’t see the how the brief could rely very heavily on First Circuit authority, when we are in the Ninth Circuit, and point to law review articles, which are pretty much ignored by California lawyers. Maybe this is a different in Nevada? None of this legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is expressed, implied and is flatly rejected. I am not licensed in Nevada, and am not offering any legal advice in that state. I am merely commenting on a public issue. This is for entertainment only. I reserve all rights, including California's anti-SLAPP laws. I am not suggesting or inferring that anyone committed malpractice or violated any standard of care. This video is just my personal reaction. There can be legitimate and strategic reasons persons or lawyers took the actions that they did, and not as a result of some error.
