STILLWATER, Okla. (The Oklahoma Post) — Dec. 3, 2025 —
Oklahoma State Representative Justin Humphrey and citizen advocate Darrell Dougherty filed a response December 3, 2025, to Chief Justice Dustin Rowe’s show cause order, refusing to concede they must represent a nonprofit corporation and asserting that Rowe himself is listed as a subject in their grand jury petition.
The response escalates tensions in the appeal of a dismissed Payne County grand jury petition, with the appellants raising concerns about the chief justice’s involvement in the case and the timing of his orders.
Chief Justice Orders Show Cause
On November 3, 2025, Chief Justice Rowe issued a show cause order directing Humphrey and Dougherty to explain by December 8, 2025, how they have standing to appeal the Payne County District Court order or why they can proceed on behalf of Oklahomans for Children’s Rights without an attorney.
The order stated: “The Court notes that Appellants Justin Humphrey and Darrell Dougherty are appealing an order denying a petition for grand jury filed in Payne County District Court. The Court also notes that the petition was filed by a domestic nonprofit corporation, Oklahomans for Children’s Rights, not the Appellants.”
The order cited Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.5(b), which mandates that corporate entities including corporations and limited liability companies in Supreme Court cases must be represented by licensed counsel. The rule was amended in June 2022 to clarify that unlicensed individuals cannot represent corporate entities in appellate proceedings.
However, according to the appellants’ response, Chief Justice Rowe did not file the order until November 24, 2025, three weeks after issuing it and following the appellants’ filing of their brief in chief on November 24.
Appellants Refuse to Show Cause
In their December 3 response, Humphrey and Dougherty stated they “do not concede that ‘the petition was filed by a domestic nonprofit corporation’ as asserted by Chief Justice Dustin Rowe. Therefore, Appellants will not show cause as to why they would need to proceed on behalf of Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc.”
The appellants assert their “constitutional rights to associate as a group for the standing needed to collect signatures in the association phase of the grand jury by petition process.”
They argue that the question of whether they must be associated with Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc. “was already adjudicated and found to be frivolous in the Payne County District Court.”
Timeline Shows Corporate Status Dispute
According to the appellants’ response, the corporate status issue arose during the grand jury proceedings when former House Speaker Charles McCall entered the case during the 45-day signature collection period.
On September 2, 2025, McCall’s attorney filed a motion to quash that “falsely misrepresented Appellants as Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc.” and included the Certificate of Incorporation of Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc.
On September 4, Judge Jason Reese issued an order stating that “an interested party in this matter has provided sufficient, uncontroverted evidence that ‘Oklahomans for Children’s Rights’ is in fact a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma.”
However, on September 8, the appellants filed a Motion to Quash that order, including an affidavit from Mandy Fisher-Reed, identified as Co-Founder of Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc.
Affidavit Disputes Corporate Involvement
Fisher-Reed’s sworn affidavit, notarized September 7, 2025, states: “I did not participate in the drafting, preparation, or filing of the Petition seeking to convene a grand jury in Payne County, Case No. GJ-2025-1. To my knowledge, none of the other co-founders with whom I am associated participated in the drafting, preparation, or filing of said Petition.”
The affidavit adds: “I make this affidavit solely for the purpose of clarifying the record and ensuring accuracy in these proceedings.”
According to the appellants’ December response, on September 11, 2025, Judge Reese held a hearing to confirm substitution where “it was clearly determined that no argument could be made to refute Affidavit filed over 30 days prior and Appellants were clearly not Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc.”
The appellants argue they are “the only team members left after Payne County District Court Judge Jason Reese amended and appealed the Grand Jury filing multiple times during the 45-day association period of collecting signatures. Therefore, Appellants have standing as the only team members left representing Oklahomans for Children’s Rights in this filing.”
Chief Justice Named as Subject in Petition
The appellants raise a significant conflict of interest concern in their response, stating: “Chief Justice Dustin Rowe is listed as a subject on the petition of the Appellants.”
This revelation suggests the grand jury petition named Chief Justice Rowe among the officials whose conduct would be subject to investigation if the grand jury were impaneled. The appellants argue this creates an appearance of impropriety in his involvement with the case.
The appellants state they “feel uncomfortable with the Show Cause order of Chief Justice Dustin Rowe” for multiple reasons beyond his status as a petition subject.
Questions About Timing and Outside Information
The appellants raise concerns about how Chief Justice Rowe arrived at his conclusion about the corporate status of Oklahomans for Children’s Rights.
“Chief Justice Dustin Rowe would have no reason to file his show cause order if he was considering the evidence in this case,” the response states. “He would have had to had influence, knowledge, communication, or investigations outside of the information in this case to come up with his false assumption.”
They note that the chief justice “ordered his show cause on November 3, 2025. However, Chief Justice Dustin Rowe did not file his order until November 24, 2025 following the filing of the Appellants Brief in Chief.”
The appellants argue: “If Chief Justice Dustin Rowe had actual evidence that the Appellants were associated with the Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc on November 3, 2025, he should not have waited to file the order and delayed the Appellant’s rights to the court for an additional 3 weeks.”
Chief Justice Rowe’s Background
Chief Justice Dustin Rowe was elected by his peers to serve as chief justice for a two-year term beginning January 1, 2025. He was appointed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court by Governor Kevin Stitt on November 20, 2019, and assumed office on December 20, 2019.
Rowe is a lifelong resident of Tishomingo and served as the youngest mayor in Oklahoma from 1994 to 1999 while still a teenager. He earned his bachelor’s degree with honors from East Central University and his law degree from the University of Oklahoma College of Law.
Before his Supreme Court appointment, Rowe practiced law in Tishomingo and served as district judge for the Chickasaw Nation District Court from 2011 to 2019. He unsuccessfully ran for Oklahoma’s 2nd Congressional District in the 2012 Republican primary, finishing in fourth place with 10 percent of the vote.
Rowe won a retention election in November 2022 and his current term as justice extends to January 7, 2029. He previously served as vice chief justice from January 2023 until assuming the chief justice role in January 2025.
Constitutional Arguments About Association
The appellants frame their challenge as a fundamental question of constitutional rights, asserting that “the citizens of Oklahoma do not need to request permission to associate for the redress of government.”
They present two key questions for the court: “How was a subject of the grand jury petition by signature allowed standing to interfere in the association phase of the citizens’ right to associate and collect signatures?” and “How [could] a Payne County District Court Judge amend the Appellants’ petition during the 45-day association period of collecting signatures in the grand jury by petition process?”
Oklahoma law provides that citizens have the right to petition for a grand jury by collecting signatures during a statutorily protected 45-day period. The appellants argue this period should be free from judicial amendment or interference by subjects of the petition.
Request for Impartial Access
The appellants conclude their response by demanding “immediate and impartial access to the court” and requesting “Oklahoma Supreme Court opinions on each of the orders of the Payne County District Court which appealed and amended the petition during the Appellants’ 45-day period to associate and collect signatures in the Grand Jury By Petition process in Payne County.”
They “adamantly request a judicial process free of delay and free of any appearance of interference in these matters.”
The response emphasizes that the corporate status issue was raised during district court proceedings by a subject of the grand jury investigation (former Speaker McCall) and was refuted through sworn affidavit testimony showing the nonprofit corporation was not involved in drafting or filing the petition.
Broader Pattern of Alleged Interference
The show cause dispute fits within the appellants’ broader allegations of systematic interference with the grand jury petition process. Their original brief documented what they characterize as repeated attempts by political officials and judicial actors to prevent the citizen petition from proceeding.
The appellants argue that Judge Reese allowed outside parties to intervene during the constitutionally protected signature collection period, amended the petition multiple times at the request of a petition subject, and ultimately dismissed the petition despite uncertified signatures and disputed procedural grounds.
The corporate status question now raised by Chief Justice Rowe appears to the appellants as another attempt to block their appeal on technical grounds despite evidence that the nonprofit corporation was not involved in creating the petition.
Legal Framework for Corporate Representation
Oklahoma Supreme Court Rule 1.5(b) is clear that corporate entities must be represented by licensed counsel in appellate proceedings. The rule was amended in 2022 specifically to mandate this requirement after cases where unlicensed individuals attempted to represent corporations.
The amendment states: “Corporate entities including corporations and limited liability companies that are parties to actions in the Supreme Court or Court of Civil Appeals shall only be allowed to proceed if represented by counsel licensed to practice law.”
The rule further provides: “Failure to secure licensed counsel to represent a corporate entity in any proceeding in any appellate court proceeding will result in dismissal of the case or a bar to participate in the proceeding, including striking filings from the record.”
However, this rule applies only if the appellants are indeed representing a corporate entity. The appellants dispute this fundamental premise, arguing they are individuals exercising constitutional petition rights, not corporate representatives.
Association Rights Versus Corporate Law
The case presents a potential conflict between Oklahoma’s corporate representation requirements and constitutional rights to petition government for redress of grievances.
If individuals associate under a group name for purposes of filing a grand jury petition, does that make them representatives of a corporation if a corporation with a similar name exists? Or do they retain individual petition rights regardless of whether someone else has incorporated under a similar name?
The appellants argue they are the individuals who filed the petition, not representatives of the nonprofit corporation, and therefore have standing to appeal as individuals defending their constitutional rights.
The Fisher-Reed affidavit supports this interpretation by clarifying that the corporation’s co-founders were not involved in the petition’s creation.
Implications for Citizen Petition Rights
The standing question could have significant implications for citizen-initiated grand jury petitions throughout Oklahoma. If individuals who associate under a group name can be forced to obtain corporate status and legal representation, it could create substantial barriers to exercising constitutional petition rights.
The appellants frame this as a question of whether “the citizens of Oklahoma do not need to request permission to associate for the redress of government,” arguing that imposing corporate structure requirements would effectively require such permission.
Oklahoma’s constitutional provision for citizen grand jury petitions exists precisely to provide a check on government power independent of government-controlled processes. The appellants argue that requiring corporate formation and legal representation would undermine this independent check.
Judicial Conflicts and Recusal Questions
The revelation that Chief Justice Rowe is named as a subject in the grand jury petition raises serious questions about whether he should be involved in deciding the appeal at all.
Oklahoma’s Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to recuse themselves from proceedings in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Being named as a subject of investigation in the very petition being appealed would seem to present such a conflict.
The appellants’ response does not explicitly request recusal but makes clear they “feel uncomfortable” with the chief justice’s involvement given his status as a petition subject.
The timing concerns raised by the appellants regarding the three-week delay between issuing and filing the show cause order, coming immediately after they filed their brief, add to the appearance of potential bias or coordination.
Next Steps in the Appeal
The December 8, 2025 deadline set by Chief Justice Rowe has now passed with the appellants filing their response on December 3. The court must now determine whether the appellants have adequately responded to the show cause order or whether their refusal to concede the corporate status question constitutes a failure to show cause.
If the court accepts the appellants’ argument that they are individuals exercising constitutional rights rather than corporate representatives, the appeal can proceed to address the substantive questions about judicial interference with the petition process and child protection failures.
If the court agrees with Chief Justice Rowe that the appellants must represent the corporation with licensed counsel, the appeal could be dismissed for lack of proper representation, potentially ending the case without addressing the underlying constitutional and child welfare issues.
The court could also address the threshold question of whether Chief Justice Rowe should be involved in the case given his status as a petition subject, though the appellants have not filed a formal recusal motion.
Child Protection Concerns Remain Unaddressed
While procedural and jurisdictional questions dominate the current filings, the underlying impetus for the grand jury petition remains the protection of children allegedly at risk in Payne County.
The appellants’ original brief documented repeated requests for emergency protective orders that Judge Reese allegedly failed to address, leaving children in what petitioners characterized as immediate danger.
These child safety concerns remain unresolved regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the standing and corporate status questions. The procedural battles, while legally significant, occur against a backdrop of allegations that Oklahoma’s child welfare system is systematically failing to protect vulnerable children.
The appellants maintain that “children should be protected immediately” and that delays in addressing their appeal further endanger children who they believe need intervention.
Core Questions for Supreme Court
The Oklahoma Supreme Court must now resolve several interconnected questions:
First, are Humphrey and Dougherty individuals exercising constitutional petition rights, or are they representatives of Oklahomans for Children’s Rights Inc. requiring licensed counsel?
Second, should Chief Justice Rowe be involved in deciding a case where he is named as a subject in the underlying petition?
Third, did Judge Reese properly allow subjects of the grand jury petition to intervene during the constitutionally protected signature collection period?
Fourth, were the appellants’ constitutional rights to association and petition violated by judicial amendments to their petition during the signature collection period?
Fifth, did Judge Reese fulfill his statutory obligations under child protection laws when presented with requests for emergency protective orders?
How the court answers the first two questions will determine whether the remaining questions are ever addressed on the merits.
The case now awaits further action by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, with fundamental questions about citizen petition rights, judicial conflicts of interest, and child protection hanging in the balance.
Loading Viewer…
Loading Viewer…
Writing By: Robbie Robertson | Editing by Robbie Robertson
Support Independent Journalism
At The Oklahoma Post, we report on stories that others overlook; from local courtrooms to statewide accountability. We rely on reader support to stay independent. Your contribution helps keep the public informed. If you’d like to help us keep publishing local voices and independent reporting, consider making a one-time donation today. Every contribution makes a difference.
Got evidence, events, birthdays, obits or inside info?
Email The Oklahoma Post confidentially: editor@theokpost.com
And for the record: unlike the courthouse clique, The Oklahoma Post runs on facts, not dark money.
© 2025 The Oklahoma Post |
By The People’s Popular Paper | Oklahoma Special Report
2025 -The Oklahoma Post – TheOKPost.com is dedicated to delivering relevant news and information to Oklahomans, sharing their stories, pictures, and experiences. The content on this website includes contributions from various individuals and links to external public and privately owned sources. The views and opinions expressed in user-generated content are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect The Oklahoma Post. The Oklahoma Post does not independently verify the accuracy of third-party contributions and rely upon contributors to fact-check their work. By sharing links and allowing open contributions, TheOKPost.com exercises the right to free speech and providing a platform for diverse perspectives.
