*1 statutorily although Attorney effective 2014 OK 24 late; response days General's was filed two Stacey HEMPHILL, Petitioner, L. proponent challenges A of an initiative who prepared by Attorney a ballot title Gen- eral has the burden to show that the Attor- HARBUCK, Honorable Preston Associate incorrect, ney legally General's ballot title is Judge County District Atoka and/or or is impartial, accurately not or fails to Court, Respondent. District initiative; proposed

reflect the effects of the 111,984. Attorney 5. The General's ballot title chal- correct, lenged proceeding legally this is Supreme Court of Oklahoma. impartial, accurately reflects the effects April3,2014. initiative; proposed 6. When a ballot made, appeal title proponent's has been

ninety-day period signa- of time to collect appeal

tures commences when the ballot title

is final. any party Should petition file a rehearing,

for it must be filed within five days

business opinion from the date this is

filed with the Clerk of this Court.72 The first

day five-day period of this is the first busi day occurring immediately

ness this

opinion is filed with Any party the Clerk.

may response file a petition to a for rehear response and a petition rehearing to a for (8)

may eight be filed within days business opinion

after the date this is with clerk of this Court. The time limits to file

petition rehearing response shall not for petition If no rehearing for extended. days

filed within five business from the date opinion is filed with the Clerk of this

Court, opinion then the shall be final on the day opinion

sixth business after the is filed any rehearing petition the Clerk. If

timely five-day period, filed within the then opinion shall not become final until all

requests rehearing adjudicated. are REIF, V.C.J., KAUGER, CONCUR:

WATT,WINCHESTER, EDMONDSON,

TAYLOR,COMBS,GURICH, JJ. COLBERT, 74 NOT VOTING: C. J. 10, ¶ 23, party

72. This Court set the time for a to file rehearing. Henry, Fent v.

522 continually and the trial court

matter alive point, on end it.5 At some attempted to 21, 2012, Hemphill was November about Crabtree Correc the James transferred to County, Oklahoma. Center Alfalfa tional 27, 2012, hear at a scheduled November On matter, attempted the trial court ing on the County.6 Alfalfa matter transfer response on explained The trial court 31, 2013, July that in this Court on Hemp- transferred because was never cause sought a hill never transfer. 16, 2013, filed a July Hemphill ORIGINAL JURIS-

ORDER ASSUMING 13 On Applica THE DISTRICT DICTION FROM Mandamus and for Writ of Petition ATOKA COUNTY OF COURT Original Jurisdiction tion to Assume 30, 2013, we directed September Court. On Stacey Hemphill petitioner, The T1 court to hear and respondent district custody in the (Hemphill) is an inmate The Hemphill's claim relief. determine On Department of Corrections1 Oklahoma Scott, v. clearly that: "Johnson order stated 11, 2012, in Atoka incarcerated May while 50, ¶13, 56, allows for 702 P.2d 59 OK petition in the District County, he filed a by telephone." testimony offered County change his name to Atoka Court of 25, 2012, Allah." On June "ApokalypseGod {4 court set the respondent district pend stayed proceedings, trial court 22, On December 2013.7 for October Bureau of to the Oklahoma State notice 4, 2013, that again requested pending resolution of a Investigation and the jurisdiction and issue original we assume Federal Court3 Hemphill had filed in action trial mandamus/prohibition to the writ action was not though the Federal Even 12, 2018, December court. On 2013, February the trial disposed of until change of again denying the an order entered July change on court denied the name 1) Hemphill's notice found that: name. He 2012.4 2) deficient; proceedings was by the 201%, appear as directed Hemphill failed to September of Beginning in pertinent part: states Court. 'The order continually keep Hemphill attempted Department of Cor- 86, ¶ 8, 1. Website of Reese, 5. v. Collier (The judicial Supreme Court takes rections. appellate and district the dockets of notice of attempt at a Apparently, second 2. this was his courts.) request for a His first Docket of the name was dismissed in 2009. County, of Atoka of the District Court 6. Docket Number CV of Atoka Case District Court County, states: Number CV-2012-00025 Case 2009-0051. 27, 2012, MINUTE-CASES COURT November County, of Atoka Docket of the District Court 3. ALFALFA CO. TRANSFERRED TO ORDERED CV-2012-00025, states: Case Number 31, 2013, explained in a July On THE COURT IN NOTICE TO PETITIONER'S minute order response this Court that ISSUED BY JUDGE: RE OF COURT MINUTE have and should a scriveners error contained HARBUCK, DIRECTING HON. PRESTON if re- would be transferred stated that the case PRO- NOTICE OF PETITIONER TO PROVIDE accepted by by Hemphill if Alfalfa quested TO THE O.S.B.I. INCLUDING CEEDINGS County. UNTIL PROPER PROCEEDINGS STAYED AND FEDERAL COURT NOTICE IS GIVEN respondent copy district of the order of the 7. A APPEAL IS COMPLETE. 7, 2013 is not con- October court entered on 011-92, Jones, al., is made Hemphill United record. Reference v. et CV tained in the the directions 2013 to order of December District of Court for the Western States District given Hemphill in this order. Oklahoma. example [Plursuant to Johnson 1985 OK ter is a textbook difficulties 56, pursuant policy dealing with an appearing pro se in a District, However, pursuant prison the 25th Judicial civil matter. inmates have of access to the courts of Oklahoma being notified that 'sworn *3 matters, although they civil testimony' expected given in do not was be have the appear personally.10 judge and person, by unless ordered allowed and/or this Court. this Court have both cited Johnson v. 50, ¶¶ 9-11, 1985 OK in the ¶5 provide The trial court did not course of this A reading matter. full of the copy policy with written of the of applicable language in that case is instruc Twenty-Fifth Judicial District referred tive: to in the order. Nor have the District Court Article Section 6 of the Constitution of District, Twenty-Fifth Rules for that Ju the State of provides perti- in District, provided dicial been to the Adminis part: nent justice "The courts of trative Office of the Courts and are thus not open State shall every person, be and Supreme available online on the Oklahoma speedy remedy and certain afforded for (OSCN). Court Network Pursuant to 20 every wrong every injury and for per- 91.8, §$ 00.98.2011 local court rules must be in son, property, reputation...." writing published by and must be appellant Inasmuch as was unable to testi- Supreme homa Court Network to be valid fy imprisoned, because he was we conclude and enforceable.8 Because this has not been judge depose had discretion to done, any Twenty-Fifth local rules for the appellant provisions under of 12 Judicial District are invalid and unenforcea O.S.Supp.1982 §§ 3204 and 3209 and 12 ble. § judge 0.98.1981 397. The could have or- ¶6 14, 2014, January Hemphill On also appellant's testimony dered by be taken an appeal with this Court of the trial deposition upon questions written under 12, 2013, court's final order of December 3208(A), O.S$.Supp.1982§ by deposition case, denying his name This by telephone taken O.S$.Supp. under 12 112,480, yet has not had briefing due or a 3207(C)(7), § deposition or that a completed record filed. The record in this upon oral by examination be recorded oth- provide enough cause does not information to stenographic er than means under 12 notice, alleged deficiency review any. in if 3207(C)(4). Hence, § O.S8.Supp.1982 he 112,480, complete Onee the record is in by doing abused such discretion and so may, suggests, notice issue as the dissent appellant's violated constitutional of primary resolved in that cause. The issue in access to the courts. unwillingness this cause is the of the trial have, in other We had to direct give to allow a sworn testi permit testimony district courts to of mony personally appearing. litigants by appropriate incarcerated civil ar case, This matter Harmon, is a civil a com rangements. In Harmon v. 13, 943 paratively simple change action for a of OK P.2d 599 we held that ¶ fully name.9 This Court is aware of the type trial court should have made some judges difficulties faced arrangement(s) participation the district for husband's in dealing courts of custody this state in his hearing. inmates divorcee child In proceeding pro se in civil Macy, matters. This mat Harris v. State ex rel. 1992 OK 825 allegations petition The material provides: shall be § 8. Title 20 0.8.2011 91.8 evidence, prayer sustained sworn Local rules and administrative orders of dis- any petition granted trict court shall not conflict with statutes shall be unless the court or superior of this state or rules of a court. sought finds that for an writing published Local rules shall be illegal purpose, or fraudulent or that a materi- Supreme on the Oklahoma Court Network to allegation al is false. be valid and enforceable. Maynard, 10. Gaines v. §§ 9. Title 12 0.5.2011 1631-1637. Title 12 0.8. 672; Kordis Kordis, 37 P.3d 866. provides: 2011 1634 lengthy public prison. He has time a district court held that we P.2d 1320 He al history beginning criminal civil suit an inmate's to hear not refuse Stacey Hamphill, L. ready has aliases Recently hearing. a court non-appearance at Smith, Hemphill, Hemphill, Apokalypse Stacey L. in Herd v. order unpublished in an Himphill, Hemphill, Stacey L. L. Terrance 109,668, ordered the we Case No. Pollard, he Ra Now Shabazz. Lagua tele person give an incarcerated to allow the district court to Court to order wants the case. testimony in his own divoree phonic phone telephone and get him to on the allow clear, testimony in a To be legal support a which would in his by telephone, video conference civil case Apokalypse Allah. God change to many juris means is used electronic other the use long record and such a criminal With *4 inmate appropriate ensure both dictions to aliases, peti many purpose the of so timely resolution of the to courts and access change must be to disassociate name tioner's of alternative methods The use of cases.11 past and to fraudu with his criminal himself Such longer unusual. is no past, lently public of his criminal deceive the they commonplace that procedures are so Today purpose. lawful rather than for alternative always considered as be must great lengths to facilitate goes to the any civil case where testimony in methods by ignoring pru our quest petitioner's is litigant. a The inmate is an rules, vitiating process the due con dential permit petitioner to hereby directed to notice, misapprehending cept of suitable elec testify by telephone or other and this Court's homa Constitution does not mean means. This tronic district court's discretion. usurping change. He to a name petitioner is entitled require an act's mandamus to A writ of however, law, is, allowed to under Oklahoma when a has performance will issue elec by telephone or other suitable appear legal right performed," to the act "a clear means, person. rather than tronic respondent's duty "arising from act arises TO ORIGI- APPLICATION ASSUME trust, station," office, or the act is from an AP- GRANTED. NAL JURISDICTION discretionary, respondent has refused not MANDAMUS FOR WRIT OF PLICATION relief," act, provide adequate "the writ will to GRANTED. adequate remedy at clear and there is no Kelley, 2007 OK 100 n. Kelley v. law. TO PER- DIRECTED TRIAL COURT P.3d 403 n. 5. TO TESTIFY MIT THE PETITIONER OR OTHER SUIT- BY TELEPHONE ¶3 Here, are miss four of these elements ABLE ELECTRONIC MEANS. clear petitioner does not have a ing. The by telephone or elec legal right appear to THE BY ORDER OF SU- DONE to tronically; court has discretion the district PREME IN CONFERENCE COURT allow the which method to use to determine APRIL, 2014. 3rd DAY OF THIS part of the rec petitioner's statement to be ord; not refused to allow respondent has V.C.J., COLBERT, C.J., REIF, by telephone or elec appear to EDMONDSON, COMBS, WATT, KAUGER, of name tronically but bases the denial GURICH, JJ., concur. notice; appeal and an change on lack of WINCHESTER, TAYLOR, J., with whom adequate remedy provides an pending which J., joins, dissenting: Thus, proper for a writ to it is not at law. ¶ allow mandating that the district court issue from the Court's respectfully 1 I dissent testify by telephone or other prisoner rights. petition The prisoner's expansion serving means. felon electronic thirteen-time convicted er is a fairness.]; Walbert, by telephone fundamental afforded example, ND Walbert v. 11. For Circuit, al., Gosby et 586 So.2d Judicial due v. Third of an inmate's [Denial 567 N.W.2d (Fla.1991), make inmate court cannot [Trial process rights access to courts of reasonable change seeking personally appear testify when opportunity divorce trial at refuse the name; State, deposition telephone hearing by or by telephone.]; 555 N.W.2d Webb (Iowa 1996), present evidence to inmate to [Offer acceptable.]. highlighted 4 The of this rule is Article section ofVI issuing the Court's the writ in this case. provides: Constitution Here, requires the Court the district court to justice The courts of of the State shall prisoner hold a and allow the open every person, speedy testify though dispute even there is a over remedy every certain afforded wrong properly given. whether notice was The re every injury and for person, property, spondent prisoner states that has failed reputation; or and right justice shall properly give notice and that is one of this sale, denial, be administered delay, denying reasons for the name prejudice. states that he has met all statutory requirements giving notice. In change proceeding, there is no should, the Court it Were to do as which is to wrong injury which would peti- afford a deny opinion the writ and issue an tioner the to access to a court under appeal, the record would be before the Court Rather, provision. constitutional so that this factual issue could be resolved. a name statutory right is a Instead, plows the Court ahead to the issue which can be also restricted statute. Per- petitioner's appearance, ignoring haps Legislature should consider amend- *5 the issue of notice. If the writ in this case is ing prohibit the law to convicted felons from the allowing for sole the changing their names. testify means, by phone to or other electronic ¶ Scott, 50, 8 Neither Johnson v. 1985 OK only ignores it not requirement the notice 56, 702 P.2d nor by the other cases cited the premature peti but is and needless since the support its conclusion. The cause of may give proper tioner never notice or action in regain Johnson was to Johnson's dismiss the doing case before so. Without personal Further, property. Johnson would notice, having given proper has have allowed the the discretion to ac right testify no as the Court directs. cept written rather than dictate ¶5 By ordering proceed that this matter getting method for the sworn evidence without a factual determination of whether Harmon, before the court. Harmon v. 1997 properly given, notice was the Court vitiates 91, 599, proceed was a divorce requirement case; the notice in all prisoner's personal property which the and, seeking change; other cases a name visitation, rights custody, to child possibly, in all Simply put, civil cases. Likewise, support at were issue. Herd v. today, party may the Court's decision a avoid (Okla. Smith, 109,668 28, 2011), Nov. was giving by running notice to the Court for a proceeding. a divorce Harris v. State ex rel. ordering writ proceed the district court Macy, 1992OK 825 P.2d dealt awith proper notice. Because notice is a property. forfeiture of These unlike process requirement due under the United here, injury wrong one all involved an Constitution, States opens the Court the door for which the Oklahoma Constitution affords for the United Supreme States Court to re through redress the courts. view our cases to ensure that minimum due process protected by this State's courts. ¶ many 9 There are United States constitu rights person upon tional which a loses im primarily 6 The Court relies on article prisonment felony for conviction. The section VI of the Oklahoma Constitution and assemble; right First Amendment Johnson v. firearms; right Second Amendment support to bear proposition its that a the Fourth appear by right entitled to Amendment to be free from phone or other elec seizure; tronic means unreasonable search and and the on a name Fifteenth, right change. These to vote embodied in the support sources do not Nineteenth, Twenty-Sixth Court's conclusion. Title section 1634 of Amendments requires only upon felony Statutes are forfeited conviction. Addi allegations material tionally, be sus right the First Amendment to free testimony. tained speech sworn is limited. rights under the loss of In addition to Constitution, a convicted

the United States many rights under

felon forfeits vote, (1) Okla. right

homa statutes: 0.8.2011, 1; § III, 4-101

Const., § art.

(felon period equal register ineligible to and sen judgment prescribed

to time firearm, (2)

tence); possess a right (8)

0.98.2011, 1283; right to sit on a § (4) 28(C)(5); right 0.8.2011, §

jury, 38 judicial or school municipal, "county,

hold a office any other elective

office or period for a of this state

political subdivision completion of the following years of fifteen" (5) (A); 0.8.2011,

sentence, § 5-105a county continue to hold state 0.S8.2011, employment position. office or 24.1(A). example of the perfect This is clog litigation inmate recreational

swarm engage in who

ging Inmates our courts. filing which litigation cases recreational malicious, fail to or which frivolous or

are claim, may to access forfeit state a *6 O.S.2011, See

to the courthouse. Apoka 566.2(A). name to Changing one's

lypse frivolous and is for Allah is God hiding petitioner's

fraudulent unsuspecting victims. past from criminal of Bea- Appeal An from the District Court bring has no Ryan Red- D. County; ver the Honorable Therefore, respectfully dis I frivolous suit. dick, Judge. District Associate sent. Law, Attorney at Diepenbrock,

Daniel H. Liberal, KS, ap- Appellant at trial peal. Cash, Attorney,

Abby District M. Assistant Beaver, OK, the State at trial. 2014 OK CR Pruitt, Attorney of Okla- General E. Scott SOTO, Appellant, Maximino Manuel Miller, Attorney homa, B. Assistant Jennifer OK, General, City, on for the State appeal. Oklahoma, Appellee. STATE of

No. M-2012-1095. OPINION Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal JOHNSON, Judge. A. 27, 2014.

March {1 ap- Manuel Soto Appellant Maximino Judgment and

peals from his misdemeanor Ryan D. by the Honorable imposed Sentence Appeals. proceeding of Criminal 1. This is the seventh and the Oklahoma Court in the Court