DISMISSED (Any Reason)

Full List by Date Descending

City of Las Vegas v. DeCastro

Nevada

Multiple parties have requested the arresting officer's body worn camera (BWC) video. Now that the case has been dismissed, we are attempting to obtain a copy.

On February 15, 2024, Jose Maria DeCastro was arrested for Obstructing/False Info To P. O. We are currently gathering more information and will update this page as the details and documents become available.

An arraignment was held on March 18, 2024. At that time, Jose DeCastro plead 'not-guilty' and the next step in the process was scheduled. Initally, a pre-trial hearing/conference was schedule for May 1st, 2024, but that was continued multiple times and was scheduled for August 13, 2024, at 1:30 PM Pacific Time.

On August 8, 2024, the case docket shows the case being dismissed and the August 13th pre-trial vacatated. Since the status also shows the case as closed, it appears the prosecutor has dismissed the case.

Wallace v. Las Vegas Metro PD et al (DeCastro Practing Law w/o License)

Federal
November 7, 2023
On October 24th, Plaintiff notified the court they were requesting a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the case against the named defendants, but did not mention LVMPD. Two days later the Court published an order directing Plaintiff to clarify, by November 3rd, if the dismissal was to include LVMPD. When the Plantiff did not respond, the Court Dismissed without Prejudice the case againt ALL Defendants.

While not a case where Mr. DeCastro is listed as a Plaintiff or a Defendant, on July 17, 2023, attorneys for Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department filed a MOTION TO PRECLUDE JOSE DECASTRO FROM PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AS AN IMPROPERLY FILED PLEADING. It appears the attorney noted sections in this case that are word-for-word copies of statements in the complaint filed in DeCastro v. Las Vegas Metro PD, along with YouTube videos of Mr. DeCastro, offering to help people file complaints, providing instruction on how to write complaints, and performing activities that, in Nevada, can only be done by a qualified attorney.

On October 25, 2023, the Court Denied the Motion [10] and [11], mentioned above, for the reasons stated in [49]. However, the Court cautioned Wallace that he "may not reply on a non-lawyer to ghostwrite his filings" and if later the Court determineds that any non-lawyer did, the Court would strike those documents and "the person engaged in the unauthorized practice of law may face criminal penalties."

City of Oregon v. DeCastro

Ohio

On November 23rd, 2022, a complaint was lodged against Jose DeCastro. This resulted in charges of Telecommunications Harassment being filed against Mr. Decastro by the City of Oregon Police Department. He was to be held on a of $2500 if he returned and arrested.

According to the article by Jim Finch from Really Cool News over atReallyCoolSite.org:

The charges stem from a November 2022 incident where Kate Peter and DeCastro were in the side chat for a fundraiser in order to raise bail money for YouTuber Broken System Broken Trust.

Peter offered enough money on behalf of the Masshole Troll Mafia to meet the goal for the bail in exchange for a mod timing out DeCastro. Great Lakes Audits complied with the request, triggering DeCastro.

DeCastro allegedly confronted Great Lakes Audit via direct messages and continued to make threats after Great Lakes Audits asked for no more communication between the two.

Great Lakes Audit went to the police and made a police report, resulting in the warrant that was issued but never carried out since 2022. The charges were listed as “Telecommunications Harassment Knowingly Make Call to Harass or Abuse” and bond was set at $2,500.00.

The warrant has been alive but inactive since then, as DeCastro had not returned to Ohio and Oregon, Ohio, police were not going to extradite the YouTuber.

In September of 2023 Great Lakes Audit made a deal with DeCastro to drop the charges against him in exchange for DeCastro doing a fundraiser for Great Lakes Audit’s on-going legal expenses.

The planned fundraiser never materialized and while Great Lakes Audit claimed that he was going to have the charges against DeCastro lifted, he either never did or he did, and the warrant was never lifted.

It was officially lifted on June 11, 2024, when it was ordered withdrawn, and the case was dismissed without cost. No reason was given for the dismissal of the case.

Due to the unique nature of this case, we are not including it in our DeCastro Scorecard totals.

DeCastro v. Omo (Team Skeptic)

California

On 10/07/2022 DECASTRO, JOSE MARIA filed a Family - Harassment lawsuit against OMO, DAVID SCOTT, JR. (a/k/a Team Skeptic). This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GERBER, HILLARY. The Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to serve the Defendant after being unable to do so withing the original timeframe. On November 18th, when the extension ended, the case was dismissed as the Defendant still had not been served. The Plaintiff said on a YouTube video after the denial that he intends to refile. To this date, he has not.

11/18/2022 at 8:30 AM in Department 25, Gerber, Hillary, Presiding
Restraining Order Hearing - Dismissed - TRO-Lack of Prosecution

DeCastro v. Abrams, Peter, YouTube (Google) et al

Federal

COMPLAINT against Kate Peter, Joshua Abrams, filed by Jose Maria DeCastro. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet category form)(Castilla, Francis) (Entered: 09/02/2022)

On November 7th, counterclaims were filed by Josh Abrams and Kate Peter in response to 'DeCastro v. Abrams & Peter'. Mr. DeCastro claims he filed a Voluntary Motion to Dismiss the day prior, but the Court did not agree. According to the Court filings, Mr. DeCastro has since submitted at least 6 motions to have court show his filing as having taken place before the 7th in what may in an attempt to refile the case in California Federal Court. The Court DENIED all of the motions.

Originally, ThePublicDocuments posted the counterclaims as a separate case but later combined the two as all the docket postings were filed under the original case number.

On November 16, 2022, Mr. DeCastro replaced his original claim with Copyright Infringement and added 50 John Doe Defendants. On December 2nd, Mr. DeCastro amended his new claim, adding Google/YouTube and an additional 20 YouTube John Doe Defendants.

On July 11, 2023, Judge Burroughs issued a number of Orders. These ranged from DISMISSING the Motion for Contempt against Peters requested by DeCastro, DISMISSING DeCastro's unusual Motion for Disclosure by the Court, DISMISSING the Counterclaims by Peter and Abrams, and DISMISSING DeCastro's case.

Ohio Supreme Court - Unauthorized Practice of Law

Ohio
  • Case Number: C2-0693U
  • Source: Document Sender or Recipient
  • Source: Supreme Court of Ohio - Disciplinary Counsel

In August of 2022, a grievance was filed with the Disciplinary Counsel of the Ohio Supreme Court after Mr. DeCastro published a video on his 'Delete Lawz' YouTube channel where he was drafting what was reported to be a power of attorney and instructing another to sign it. While the Disciplinary Counsel agreed he likely engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, they believed they would not be able to obtain service on Mr. DeCastro and it would be "exceeding unlikely" he would respond or appear as evidenced by his evasion of the warrant for his arrest. They elected to not take further action.

They conclude the letter stating "Should we become aware of additional information regarding Mr. DeCastro's activities that might constitute the unauthorized practice of law or if Mr. Decastro returns to Ohio we will consider reopening our investigation."

DeCastro v. Wagner, et al

Federal

September 26, 2023
The Judge has made it clear that the case has been dismissed with prejudice and cannot be refiled [58].

October 5, 2023
Plantiff has appealed the decision in this case to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

June 25, 2024
6th Circuit Court of Appeals has DENIED DeCastro's appeal. Document 64 is a copy of the order.

COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND against Chance Blankenship, Chapman, City of Ironton, Jane Doe, Fouch, Lawrence County, Evan McKnight, Brad Spoljaric, Pam Wagner, filed by Jose Maria Decastro.

On December 6, 2022, Order and Judgement was issued dismissing the case, granting [EFC 23] which requested it be 'dismissed with prejudice" when Mr. DeCastro failed to reply again. On December 7, Mr. DeCastro filed a motion to have the dismissal reversed and sent his reply. On December 13th the Court allowed for additional filings and vacated the order that would have dismissed the case with prejudice.

On August 3, 2023, the Judge DISMISSED Mr. DeCastro's complaint after GRANTING the County Defendant's motion to DISMISS and GRANTING the City Defendant's motion for judgement on the pleadings.

Shortly afterwards, Jose DeCastro filed motions to reconsider, for leave to file a 2nd amended complaint, and other actions in an attempt to revive the case. On September 26, 2023, the Court dismissed his motions.

DeCastro v. Ironton Police Department, WOWK TV et al

Ohio

Jose Maria DeCastro filed a civil action against the Ironton Police Department, WOWK TV, Andi Bernhardt, Bailey Brautigan, and Bob Schaper. Numerous motions to dismiss were submitted and service was not made on a number of parties. On July 27th, 2022 the case appears to have been DISMISSED (with PREJUDICE) For Failure to Prosecute.

Chavez, Dina B v. DeCastro, Jose Maria

California

On 09/23/2021 CHAVEZ, DINA B filed a Family - Harassment lawsuit against DE CASTRO, JOSE MARIA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WARREN, JEANMARIE. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

People v. DeCastro (BA441837)

California

On November 29, 2015, Jose Maria DeCastro was charged with violating California Penal Code 422(A) - Criminal Threats. The case went through numerous preliminary and pretrial hearings. On, April 8, 2023, the date of the Jury Trial, the court records found so far indicate that the case was either DISMISSED or NOT PROSECUTED with no other information provided.

DeCastro, Jose, et al v Swimsuit Centerfold LLC et al

California

On 09/30/2015 JOSE DECASTRO a/k/a CHILLE DECASTRO and DAVID CONDON filed a Property - Other Property Fraud - Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction) - lawsuit against SWIMSUIT CENTERFOLD LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

State of Oregon v. DeCastro (DCR9611703-D)

Oregon

On December 31, 1995, Jose Maria DeCastro was charged Giving False Information to a Police Officer. According to the attached court record, an Arrest Warrant was issued on May 8, 1996. The record appears to show no activity over the next 8 years and so, between August and September, 2008, the case was DISMISSED and the warrant recalled.

State of Oregon v. DeCastro (9560193-D)

Oregon

On May 4, 1995, Jose Maria DeCastro was charged with several motor vehicle infractions. Exceed Maximum Speed, Opr Vehcile/Vio Restrictions, and Driving Uninsured. The charges were all listed as DISMISSED on June 1, 1995.

The 'Opr Vehicle/Vio Restrictions' statute appears to be 'Driving wo License' which give qualifies this record for inclusion in the 'Criminal Record ?' category.

State of Oregon v. DeCastro (DCR9412084-D)

Oregon

On April 1, 1994, Jose Maria DeCastro was charged Giving False Information to a Police Officer. According to the attached court record, a warrant was issued on July 14, 1994 for Failure to Appear. On July 18, a motion was filed to disqualify the Judge. Another warrant, this time an Arrest Warrant, was issued on February 17, 1995. On June 6, 1999, the case is shown as having been DISMISSED and the warrant quashed.

Our Mission

To present the facts about a controversial social media personality and self-proclaimed 'constitutional legal scholar' who may be misinforming and harming the public with commentary that can be viewed as anti-law enforcement, anti-free speech. His reaction to negative or opposing viewpoints often leads to charges of harassment or other legal action, the exposing of critics personal information, and copyright strikes on videos used under the Fair Use doctrine. With the vast number of document locations, our goal is to become a single resource for viewing all the publicly available material.

The Documents

All documents on this site can be found in various locations on the Internet. They have been released under FOIA by government organizations, or by public entities, corporations and individuals. They are public records. ThePublicDocuments.com obtains these files from Internet sites, or directly from the parties listed above. If information appears to be inaccurate or incomplete, contact the person, organization, agency, or corporation responsible for originally releasing the information to the public. New, updated, corrected, or modified documents will be posted here as soon as we receive a copy.
Gavel   = Active Case