Uploaded May 2024 | Updated September 2026, 5 hours ago
I took a look at Jose "Chille" DeCastro's federal lawsuit against the Las Vegas Municipal Police (“LVMP”) and some of its officers (collectively, the “Defendants”). The second amended complaint (“SAC”) is under a dual attack through Rule 12(b)(6) motions (a failure to state a claim based on pleaded facts), and a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment (claiming there are no disputed facts and judgment as a matter of law should be entered in favor of the Defendants). The Defendants are seeking to have videos from Chille DeCastro’s Youtube account used against him, and to prove that his “facts” are false. For a 12(b)(6) motion, the facts are presumed true for the purposes of seeing if a cognizable claim could be stated. Facts pled in conclusory fashion do not count. Also, this is the third pleading attempt since the case was filed, and federal judges tire easily if you cannot get your claims together. They could dismiss a particular claim with prejudice, if, as a matter of law, there is no possibility you can bring it, such as when facing down a statute of limitations defense. Also, Michael Mee substituted in as counsel of record on January 4, 2024. If he was “ineffective” (as stated in the appellate brief), then why is he still counsel of record for the civil action involving the main parties? Mee prepared the opposition to the motion. The Defendants also want to update their motion to include the fact that DeCastro was convicted, and also want to you his narrated and other YouTube videos against him. I have mentioned that these videos can be used as evidence of party admissions, etc. The case has been stayed pending outcome of the criminal case. I think this motion has excellent grounds for being granted, and if not completely as to all claims, it may take out nearly all of them. The judge could give Chille a chance to plead again (at least as to some claims) assuming he can make some showing that the facts exist. Of huge disadvantage to DeCastro, is that in a typical rule 56 motion, there would be an ability to dispute facts, or show why the facts are irrelevant. Through this combined motion, it relies heavily on the pleadings themselves. None of this legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is expressed, implied and is flatly rejected. Whatever evidence he has, he will have to marshal it. 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.
I took a look at Jose "Chille" DeCastro's federal lawsuit against the Las Vegas Municipal Police (“LVMP”) and some of its officers (collectively, the “Defendants”). The second amended complaint (“SAC”) is under a dual attack through Rule 12(b)(6) motions (a failure to state a claim based on pleaded facts), and a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment (claiming there are no disputed facts and judgment as a matter of law should be entered in favor of the Defendants). The Defendants are seeking to have videos from Chille DeCastro’s Youtube account used against him, and to prove that his “facts” are false. For a 12(b)(6) motion, the facts are presumed true for the purposes of seeing if a cognizable claim could be stated. Facts pled in conclusory fashion do not count. Also, this is the third pleading attempt since the case was filed, and federal judges tire easily if you cannot get your claims together. They could dismiss a particular claim with prejudice, if, as a matter of law, there is no possibility you can bring it, such as when facing down a statute of limitations defense. Also, Michael Mee substituted in as counsel of record on January 4, 2024. If he was “ineffective” (as stated in the appellate brief), then why is he still counsel of record for the civil action involving the main parties? Mee prepared the opposition to the motion. The Defendants also want to update their motion to include the fact that DeCastro was convicted, and also want to you his narrated and other YouTube videos against him. I have mentioned that these videos can be used as evidence of party admissions, etc. The case has been stayed pending outcome of the criminal case. I think this motion has excellent grounds for being granted, and if not completely as to all claims, it may take out nearly all of them. The judge could give Chille a chance to plead again (at least as to some claims) assuming he can make some showing that the facts exist. Of huge disadvantage to DeCastro, is that in a typical rule 56 motion, there would be an ability to dispute facts, or show why the facts are irrelevant. Through this combined motion, it relies heavily on the pleadings themselves. None of this legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is expressed, implied and is flatly rejected. Whatever evidence he has, he will have to marshal it. 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.
