STILLWATER, Okla. (The Oklahoma Post) — Dec. 3, 2025 —
Oklahoma State Representative Justin Humphrey and citizen advocate Darrell Dougherty have filed an emergency appeal with the Oklahoma Supreme Court challenging Payne County District Judge Jason Reese’s September dismissal of their citizen grand jury petition. The petition sought to investigate allegations of systemic corruption within child welfare agencies and the judicial system.
The appellants’ brief, filed November 24, 2025, in case number 123495, accuses Judge Reese of systematically interfering with constitutionally protected petition rights, refusing to protect children from immediate danger, and allowing political officials to manipulate the grand jury process during the required 45-day signature collection period.
Background of the Petition
Oklahomans for Children’s Rights filed the grand jury petition (GJ-2025-1) on July 21, 2025, in Payne County District Court. Judge Reese approved signature collection on July 25, giving petitioners 45 days to gather sufficient signatures under Oklahoma law. The petition outlined allegations of fraud, perjury, cover-ups and misuse of public funds related to child abuse cases, naming multiple state agencies including the Department of Human Services and Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.
According to Oklahoma statutes, citizens have the constitutional right to petition for a grand jury by collecting signatures equal to the number required for county initiative petitions, with a minimum of 500 and maximum of 5,000 signatures depending on the county. The petition must state specific subject matter and sufficient allegations to warrant potential indictments or removal of public officials.
Emergency Protective Order Requests Ignored
The appeal documents a troubling timeline of repeated emergency requests that Judge Reese allegedly failed to address. On August 14, 2025, Oklahomans for Children’s Rights filed an emergency protective order request asking Judge Reese to protect children and potentially impanel a grand jury on his own authority based on evidence of crimes against Payne County children and families.
Dougherty emailed Judge Reese’s bailiff that same day requesting a time for the emergency hearing. Five days later, on August 19, Representative Humphrey emailed Judge Reese directly asking when the emergency protective order hearing would occur. Dougherty followed up again on August 26, asking about the status of his emergency protective order request.
Judge Reese finally responded on August 26, stating that an ongoing family court case before Judge Nikki Leach was “the appropriate vehicle for the remedy sought” and that he had “no authority or jurisdiction” over that case. The judge noted that his bailiff felt uncomfortable when Dougherty visited the office to discuss the emergency protection needs.
According to the appellants’ brief, Judge Reese never held the requested emergency protective order hearings despite repeated requests over a 12-day period and beyond.
Political Officials Enter Petition Process
The situation escalated when former House Speaker Charles McCall entered the proceedings through attorney Robert G. McCampbell. On August 28, 2025, during the signature collection phase, McCampbell filed an Entry of Appearance on behalf of McCall, followed by a Motion for Notice and Opportunity to be Heard. McCall requested to be heard before any emergency protective order hearing could proceed.
On September 2, McCampbell filed a Brief in Opposition to the petition and a Motion to Quash seeking to remove McCall’s name from the petition. The filings came during the constitutionally protected 45-day signature collection period, which the appellants argue should have been free from outside interference.
On September 4, Judge Reese issued an order during the signature collection period that acknowledged McCall’s standing, ordered the petition to be amended to remove McCall’s name, and directed that Oklahomans for Children’s Rights be formally associated with Oklahomans for Children’s Rights, Inc.
Current House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, who represents District 29 and assumed the speakership in January 2025, also entered the proceedings through attorney J. Scott Henderson on September 5, filing on behalf of himself, “Speaker of the House and the House of Representatives.”
Petitioners Challenge Court’s Actions
Dougherty filed formal motions for disqualification of Judge Reese on September 5 and September 10, arguing the judge was interfering with citizens’ rights to impanel a grand jury and refusing to act on behalf of children in harm’s way. The petitioners also requested that lost time during the signature collection period be restored due to what they characterized as abusive intervention by judges and prominent officials.
In a September 9 order, Judge Reese stated that “the signatures appear to have requested to be substituted as the named Petitioners in this matter,” which the appellants claim misrepresented their position. They had not requested substitution but rather restoration of their original petition rights.
On September 11, Judge Reese held a hearing and continued to proceed without ruling on the disqualification request. He amended the petition at McCall’s request, denied the petitioners’ request for restoration of lost time, and allowed both former Speaker McCall and current Speaker Hilbert to file briefs asserting standing during the signature collection period. Judge Reese also denied Representative Humphrey’s renewed request for an emergency order and hearing to protect children.
Signature Certification Controversy
On September 17, Payne County Election Board Secretary Courtney Callison sent a letter to be entered into the case appearing to present a certified petition signature count. However, according to email correspondence included in the court filing, Payne County Election Board Chairman Thomas Walraven later confirmed that the full election board never met, reviewed, or certified the signatures as required by law.
In an October 8 email to Representative Humphrey, Walraven stated: “I cannot verify that the Payne County Election Board, as in myself, Republican member, the Democrat member and the Election Board Secretary certified the signatures for GJ-2025-1 in Payne County. The Payne County Election Board (three members) did not meet, review, or certify the signatures.”
Despite this, Judge Reese proceeded to quash the grand jury petition on September 18, finding that both McCall and Hilbert had standing during the signature collection period and amending the petition multiple times at McCall’s request.
Constitutional Questions Raised
The appellants raise five core questions for the Oklahoma Supreme Court:
First, whether current or former elected legislators have the right to gain standing in a people’s grand jury petition during the 45-day signature collection period.
Second, whether current or former elected legislators have the right to request an appeal or amendment of the grand jury petition during the signature collection period.
Third, whether a district judge appointed by the governor has the right to allow and order entry of standing for elected officials during the signature collection period.
Fourth, whether a district judge has the right to allow and order the appeal or amendment of the petition during the signature collection period.
Fifth, whether a district judge has an obligation to respond to emergency protective order requests on behalf of children and to order grand jury investigations or OSBI investigations when presented with sufficient evidence of crimes against children.
Judge Reese’s Background and Appointment
Judge Jason Reese was appointed to the Payne County bench by Governor Kevin Stitt in December 2024, taking office in January 2025. Before his appointment, Reese served as general counsel to Governor Stitt until September 2021 and later represented State Superintendent Ryan Walters and the Oklahoma State Department of Education in several high-profile legal cases.
The judicial appointment process involved the Oklahoma Judicial Nominating Commission selecting three finalists, including two sitting judges with more than a decade of experience. Governor Stitt chose Reese over Logan County Associate Judge Louis Duel Jr., who had served since 2010, and Payne County Special Judge Katherine Thomas, who had served since 2011.
Reese’s previous political experience includes unsuccessful runs for labor commissioner in 2010, an Oklahoma Senate seat in 2012, and an Oklahoma House seat in 2018.
Representative Humphrey’s Legislative Record
Justin Humphrey has represented House District 19, covering Choctaw, Pushmataha, and parts of Atoka and Bryan counties, since 2016. The Republican from Lane previously worked for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections for 20 years and later operated Last Chance Supervision Services, a private company that contracted drug court supervision and private probation services.
Humphrey has been an outspoken advocate on criminal justice issues and has publicly criticized what he characterizes as corruption within Oklahoma’s judicial and corrections systems. He has previously called for investigations into former Department of Corrections director Steven Harpe and has been vocal about supporting clemency in cases involving alleged judicial corruption.
In 2023, Humphrey praised Governor Stitt’s decision to grant clemency to death row inmate Tremane Wood, stating: “I support the governor’s decision. The Oklahoma public needs to know that this pardon is based on judicial corruption. I will continue fighting to make sure all corruption in our legal and judicial system and in our state agencies and government is kept before the public until it is rooted out.”
Former Speaker McCall’s Role
Charles McCall served as Oklahoma’s longest-serving House Speaker, holding the position from 2017 through 2024 before term limits ended his legislative career. The Atoka Republican represented District 22 from 2012 to 2024 and was the first Republican to hold that seat.
McCall served as mayor of Atoka from 2005 to 2012 before entering the legislature. He is the CEO and Board Chairman of AmeriState Bank in Atoka, his family’s bank. On February 18, 2025, McCall announced his candidacy for governor of Oklahoma.
The petition initially named McCall among officials whose conduct the grand jury would investigate. His successful motion to be removed from the petition during the signature collection period became a central point of contention in the appeal.
Current Speaker Hilbert’s Involvement
Kyle Hilbert became the 45th Speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives in January 2025 at age 30, making him the youngest House Speaker in Oklahoma state history. The Bristow Republican represents District 29, covering parts of Creek and Tulsa counties.
Hilbert was first elected in 2016 and served three sessions as Speaker Pro Tempore before his election as Speaker. He earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Oklahoma State University, where he served as Student Government Association President.
His attorney’s September 5 filing represented him as “Representative Kyle Hilbert, Speaker of the House and the House of Representatives,” entering the proceedings during the signature collection period.
Relief Requested from Supreme Court
The appellants ask the Oklahoma Supreme Court to remand all decisions back to district court for correction. They specifically request:
Reversal of all decisions to deny or delay emergency protective orders and investigations on behalf of children, citing the Kelsey Briggs Child Reform Act, Article II-18 of the Oklahoma Constitution, and Oklahoma State Law Title 74, Section 74-150.5.
Immediate protective order hearings for children identified as being in distress, based on emergency protective order statutes at 22 Oklahoma Statutes Sections 60.2-60.4.
Reversal of decisions that denied constitutional protections including rights of association, redress of government, fair and impartial courts, and freedom of speech, citing multiple sections of the Oklahoma Constitution including Articles II-1, II-2, II-3, II-6, II-7, II-18, and II-22.
Removal of all actors who are not team members of Oklahomans for Children’s Rights, immediate reinstatement of the original petition, and return of all days lost during the amendment and appeal process, citing grand jury statutes at 38 Oklahoma Statutes Sections 101-107.
Reversal of the ruling that Payne County citizens do not have the same rights of redress as Oklahoma County citizens regarding where grand jury petitions may be filed.
Reversal of the order requiring petitioners to have an attorney to associate, which the appellants characterize as unconstitutional.
Kelsey Briggs Reform Act Context
The appellants cite the Kelsey Smith-Briggs Child Protection Reform Act as establishing judicial obligations to protect children. The act, signed into law in May 2006 by Governor Brad Henry, reformed how Oklahoma courts and the Department of Human Services handle child abuse and neglect cases.
The legislation was named for Kelsey Smith-Briggs, a two-year-old girl from Meeker who died from blunt force trauma in October 2005 after a judge returned her to her mother and stepfather despite ongoing child welfare monitoring and documented injuries including broken bones. The case exposed systematic failures in Oklahoma’s child protection system.
The reform act empowered the Department of Human Services to request hearings on child placement decisions, required judges to document their reasoning in child welfare cases, mandated national training standards for Court Appointed Special Advocates, and gave DHS and judges authority to request Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation resources in child abuse cases.
Pro Se Filing Without Attorneys
The appellants filed the brief without legal representation, stating: “Appellants do not bring attorneys in these matters as we believe the Oklahoma Supreme Court has an obligation to restore these constitutional rights without interference of process or court rules.”
They argue that “no Oklahoma citizen will be harmed by the restoration of rights guaranteed by the Oklahoma Constitution” and that “the inherent power of the people should not be interfered with.”
The brief requests emergency relief, oral arguments if necessary, and asks the Supreme Court to “take all other appropriate actions to bring justice in these matters, accountability to those who have interfered and protection for these children and their families.”
Signature Requirement Dispute
The appellants also challenge Judge Reese’s determination regarding the number of signatures required. Judge Reese ruled that 16% of the county’s prior gubernatorial vote count was required for a grand jury petition.
The appellants argue that grand jury petitions, which are always convened in one county, should require only 8% as specified for initiative petitions in Article V, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. They contend that while the legislature determined initiative petitions in a single county require double the signatures (16%), no corresponding legislation exists that diminishes grand jury petition rights.
They assert that the Oklahoma Supreme Court lacks authority to create law that would reduce the citizen grand jury process, which is constitutionally protected under Article II, Section 18.
Loading Viewer…
Broader Context of Child Welfare Concerns
The petition emerged from broader concerns about Oklahoma’s child welfare system and judicial handling of child abuse cases. The allegations centered on systematic failures to protect children from documented abuse, conflicts of interest within the judicial system, and what petitioners characterized as preferential treatment for certain defendants in child welfare and criminal cases.
The case intersects with ongoing federal litigation in which similar allegations of systematic corruption have been raised. The timing and nature of the interference alleged by the petitioners raises questions about whether citizen-initiated oversight mechanisms can function when challenging powerful political figures and established judicial networks.
Case Now Before Supreme Court
The appeal, filed as an emergency action with oral arguments requested, now awaits Oklahoma Supreme Court review. The Court must determine whether Judge Reese exceeded his authority by allowing political officials to intervene during the constitutionally protected signature collection period, whether he properly dismissed the petition despite uncertified signatures, and whether he fulfilled statutory obligations to protect children when presented with emergency requests.
The case presents fundamental questions about the balance of power between citizen petition rights and judicial authority, the independence of grand jury processes from political interference, and judicial obligations under child protection statutes.
A decision could have significant implications for citizen-initiated grand jury petitions throughout Oklahoma and may address whether appointed judges have conflicts of interest when petitions target officials connected to their appointing authorities.
The appellants assert that “Oklahomans for Children’s Rights believe that the inherent power of the people should not be interfered with” and that “children should be protected immediately,” framing their appeal as both a constitutional rights matter and an urgent child safety issue.
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.
