5th Appeals Court of Texas

05-20-00128-CV
In Re: Ryan Gallagher,
Name change to:
Ryan Sasha-Shai Van Kush

Brief

In this Case I am requesting that the State allow me to change my Christian Name, Ryan
Alexander Gallagher, on IDs and other various forms of State Documentation, to my Hindu
Name: Ryan Sasha-Shai Van Kush. This appeal comes on various Grounds, first and most
obvious is clear Error. I met all State requirements for name change, and there is a Public
Interest in allowing name changes for Religious purposes, both under Texas Bill of Rights
Article 6 and TX Code Title 5 Chapter 110 TX RFRA; as well as the 1st Amendment of the US
Constitution, the 14th Amendment and the 9th Amendment. I am not a Felon, I am not in Prison,
on Parole, or Probation or anything. I have met all State Requirements.
IN RE: Kirson Barnes 13–13–00685–CV (TX App. 2015)
“In this case, even assuming that Barnes met the requirements of section 45.102(a), Barnes
judicially admitted in his pleading that he is currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice—Institutional Division for a felony conviction.   See DowElanco v. Benitez, 4
S.W.3d 866, 871 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi, no pet.)  (“A judicial admission is a formal waiver
of proof, usually found in pleadings or the stipulations of the parties, that dispenses with the
production of evidence on an issue and bars the admitting party from disputing it.”).   A “final
felony conviction” prohibits a petitioner in Texas such as Barnes, who is still incarcerated, from
seeking a name change.   See also Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 45.103(a).   Therefore, having
reviewed the record, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barnes's
request for name change pursuant to this provision.   We overrule Barnes's sole issue.”

Salahuddin v. Carlson, 523 F. Supp. 314 (E.D. Va. 1981)

Rahman v. Stephenson, 626 F. Supp. 886 (W.D. Tenn. 1986)
In Re Name Change Petition of Mullin, 892 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
In Re Change of Name of Picollo, 668 N.W.2d 712 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003)

In Re Arnett, 148 Cal. App. 4th 654 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)
“This is an appeal from the denial of a petition filed by a federal inmate seeking to change his
name from Timothy Wayne Arnett to August Damian Kokopelli.

"One's name is a signboard to the world. It is one of the most permanent of

possessions; it remains when everything else is lost; it is owned by those who *2
possess nothing else. A name is the Only efficient means to describe someone to
contemporaries and to posterity. When one dies it is the only part that lives on in
the world. [Citation.]" In re Marriage of Gulsvig (Iowa 1993)​ ​498 N.W.2d 725​, 730
(dis. opn. of Snell, J.).)”
Second, the Dallas County District Court likely made this decision under some form of Coercion
as they allowed Collin County to be present at all hearings in this In Re case, allowed them to
object, and even ruled in their favor and gave them more than they asked for, as if you read the
transcript you will find that they were simply requesting that the name change apply to all my
cases, which I agreed with.

And that brings us to the Issue of Collin County's arguments themselves. First, they argued that
I was a Resident of Colorado, was from Colorado, and that Dallas had no Jurisdiction. But once
I proved I was a Dallas Resident, born and raised here, with a Collin County Highschool
Transcript (where I lived from the ages of 2-18, as well as a few other places after Parents
divorced) and Rent Receipts from Dallas for the past 3 years…
They decided to argue that I was changing my name to "slip away" or get out of old court cases.
This argument is superseded by TX Code Chapter 45, Liabilities Unaffected

That section states that changing your name does not remove Rights or Obligations of your
previous name.

So they asked that I apply my name change to all my cases. They agreed, and the Judge
denied the name change.

1. The Judge Obviously didn't want to rule against Collin County, as she gave no legal
reasoning for her ruling
2. Collin County should have remained in the audience and not joined in the hearings
3. TX Code Title 5 Chapter 110 needs to be weighed against these actions
4. The Court needs to review the Record to see I met all State requirements, and there is a
compelling Public Interest
5. The Lower court ruling must be overruled and the name change granted

S/_Ryan_Gallagher___
Rev. Ryan “Sasha” Gallagher
Mahatmajapa@gmail.com
1723 Candleglow
Castle Rock, Co 80109