Practicing wo a License

Full List by Date Descending

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."

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."

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