TULSA, Okla. — March 09, 2026 (The Oklahoma Post)
Wade Ryan Reeves did not show up to his trial on March 2, 2026. He also did not show up to several hearings before that one. What he did do, consistently, every single month through 2025, was send a child support payment to California. The amount was always the same: $1,292. It is the figure from the original 2017 court order he agreed to. It is not the $7,000 per month figure from a 2022 modification he says he never signed and has been fighting in California courts ever since.
The distinction matters, though it did not seem to matter much to Tulsa County District Court Judge Loretta Radford on March 2, when she found Reeves guilty of willful indirect contempt of court and sentenced him to six months incarceration in the Tulsa County Jail. The purge fee required to recall the active arrest warrant is $295,712.30.
Reeves, 43, handles marketing for his family’s RV dealership, appears regularly on social media, and is, by his own description, “just a goofy guy known for dancing on RVs.” He is also, at present, a man with no attorney, an active arrest warrant, and a petition to the United States Supreme Court that was docketed on March 6, 2026, the same day his ex-wife’s attorney filed to quit the case.
“What Oklahoma order am I in contempt of?” Reeves asked in an interview with The Oklahoma Post. “There is none.”
That question, simple as it sounds, turns out to be genuinely complicated.
How a California Divorce Became an Oklahoma Criminal Matter
Reeves and his former wife, Alisha May Gregorio, divorced in California’s Stanislaus County Superior Court. They negotiated a marital settlement agreement that both parties signed, which was incorporated into the dissolution of marriage. Under that agreement, Reeves agreed to pay $1,292 per month in child support for the couple’s three children and a period of spousal support that has since terminated. For years, according to court records, the arrangement held.
Then, in July 2021, Reeves says his ex-wife’s attorney, whom he describes as a commercial collections attorney connected to her family’s waste management business in Oakdale, California, moved to substantially increase the child support obligation. What followed, according to Reeves, was a process he found both legally irregular and deeply expensive.
“They sent me four different DISSOMASTER Guideline Calculator figures,” Reeves said, referring to the California child support calculation software used to generate proposed modification amounts. “One said $2,800 a month, then $4,000, then $6,000, then $9,000. It didn’t make any sense.”
The figure that ultimately emerged from a California court proceeding on May 19, 2022 was $7,000 per month, retroactive to June 2021, with $40,000 in arrears for the intervening period. Reeves contends that order is not valid because it was issued by a commissioner rather than a judge, without the required stipulation under California Constitution Article 6, Section 21, and without his signature, which he says local rule 7.14 of Stanislaus County requires for a child support modification.
“They said I agreed to it via Zoom,” Reeves said. “But they refuse to supply the audio because of government code 69957. They claim to have only recorded the Zoom hearing to review their employees and then destroyed the recording after two years. My signature is not on the record.”
Stanislaus County Superior Court records reviewed by The Oklahoma Post confirm the May 19, 2022 stipulation and order exists and was subsequently registered in Oklahoma. The California Department of Child Support Services certified in February 2026 that total child support due under all orders is $431,980, of which Reeves has paid $185,357.65, leaving $246,622.35 in unpaid principal and $49,089.95 in accrued interest, for a total of $295,712.30 as of January 1, 2026.
In a June 2024 hearing before Judge April Seibert, Tulsa attorney Benjamin Aycock stated on the record that Reeves’ gross monthly income for child support purposes, per the California order, is $53,987. Reeves disputes that figure. He says it was never litigated or substantiated in California and does not reflect his actual personal income. According to Reeves, the number represents combined gross revenue across three separate businesses before expenses, not take-home income. “That is the gross amount of three different businesses combined,” Reeves told The Oklahoma Post. “That is not income and does not factor the cost of doing business.” The income figure used to calculate a $7,000 monthly child support obligation, Reeves argues, was accepted by an Oklahoma court based on testimony from the opposing attorney in a proceeding where the underlying California modification order remains invalid.
His position is that the 2022 modification is legally defective, that he has been fighting it through proper California appellate channels, and that Oklahoma enforcement machinery should not have been running while that litigation remained active.
“I showed up every time in California,” he said. “I participated every time. There was no reason for them to cross state lines.”
Audio From Before the Order Existed
Reeves says he possesses audio recordings from April 21, 2022, predating the May 19, 2022 stipulation and order by nearly a month, in which California attorneys and the California Department of Child Support Services were already threatening contempt proceedings against him.
Those recordings would suggest enforcement action was underway before the order it was based on was finalized, a sequence of events with direct bearing on the validity of everything that followed in both California and Oklahoma courts. Reeves described the recordings as documenting what he characterized as an “auction or bidding of child support,” suggesting the monthly amount itself was negotiated through a process he was not meaningfully part of.
“I want you to hear those and tell me they were not threatening contempt on something that’s not even a thing,” Reeves wrote in a message to The Oklahoma Post. “In violation of the MSA.”
The Oklahoma Post has requested those recordings and will report on their contents upon review.
The California Contempt That Went Away
Before the Oklahoma proceedings began, Alisha May Gregorio filed a contempt action in California based on the same May 2022 order. That case was dismissed in open court on September 19, 2022.
“Her attorney said, ‘Your Honor, we dropped it,'” Reeves recalled. “They could not substantiate it. There is an order after hearing saying I’m not in contempt. Matter dropped.”
The following day, Gregorio engaged the Oklahoma Department of Human Services to pursue enforcement under the federal Title IV-D child support program and simultaneously retained Tulsa attorney Benjamin Aycock of Henry + Dow + Masters + Aycock to pursue enforcement through private action. Aycock is listed as attorney for Gregorio throughout the OSCN docket for case FD-2022-1789.
Reeves raised the dismissed California contempt as a due process argument in Oklahoma proceedings. His position is that if Oklahoma courts chose to give full faith and credit to the California order establishing the $7,000 obligation, those same courts were obligated to give equal weight to the California order finding him not in contempt of it.
The Oklahoma courts declined to see it that way.
Three Contempt Citations and a Jurisdictional Fight
The OSCN docket for FD-2022-1789 runs 47 pages and reflects nearly four years of litigation. It shows three separate contempt citation attempts, routing disagreements between judges over which docket properly held the case, multiple motions to stay enforcement pending California appeals, and a sustained jurisdictional dispute that produced at least one order acknowledging the problem.
According to Reeves, Special Judge Deborah Ludi Leitch issued an order on September 13, 2024 placing the case in administrative abeyance and stating she did not have jurisdiction. The order followed a hearing in which multiple witnesses, including private investigators and community members, submitted formal affidavits of maladministration alleging that Aycock had misrepresented to the court that the Oklahoma Supreme Court had confirmed jurisdiction over the matter. State Sen. Dana Prieto was present in the courtroom and spoke out on Reeves’ behalf, though he did not submit a formal affidavit. The September 2024 order exists in the OSCN docket.
The January 3, 2025 docket entry from Judge Loretta Radford confirms the contempt matter was struck from the docket to be reset only upon proper application. Reeves contends what followed instead was a status conference converted into a pretrial, which was then converted into a trial date, without proper service and in violation of the September 2024 order that had placed the matter in abeyance.
By March 2, 2026, Reeves had not appeared for his trial. Judge Radford issued a default judgment finding him guilty of willful indirect contempt, sentenced him to six months in the Tulsa County Jail, ordered the relinquishment of all Oklahoma licenses including his driver’s license, CDL, business licenses, hunting and fishing licenses and any concealed carry permit, and set the purge fee at $295,712.30. A civil bench warrant is active.
The December 2025 bench warrant, issued in the amount of $200,000 when Reeves failed to appear for a status conference, was apparently never executed. Reeves said Rep. Chris Banning contacted the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office and confirmed that deputies never attempted service at his home. Reeves said he has a Ring doorbell and exterior cameras and received no notification of any attempt. That warrant was superseded by the March 2 warrant for $296,212 without the original ever being served.
Reeves filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition in Error the day after the default judgment. His petition to the United States Supreme Court was docketed on March 6, 2026.
“If they felt like this was real and provable, why didn’t they take this federally?” Reeves asked. “I’ve already reported it to the Department of Justice. They should investigate and prosecute me if it has merit. I’m not hiding.”
The Judge Who Signed the Warrant
Before Wade Ryan Reeves ever heard the name Loretta Radford, a Vietnam veteran named Leroy Theodore Sr. already had.
Theodore was 76 years old, quadriplegic, and communicating exclusively through eye movements when he arrived at St. Francis Hospital in Tulsa in the spring of 2025. His daughter Valerie Parks, who held power of attorney and had converted a bedroom in her Sapulpa home into a fully outfitted hospital room to care for him, called an ambulance when his tracheostomy tube became obstructed. She did not know that trip to the hospital would be the beginning of the end.
Without warning, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services Adult Protective Services division initiated proceedings to seize legal guardianship of Theodore. The family was denied access. Parks’s power of attorney was set aside. APS allegations of caretaker neglect were investigated and found unsubstantiated. None of that stopped what came next.
On April 29, 2025, Judge Radford awarded a 30-day temporary guardianship of Leroy Theodore to APS. Four days earlier, Creek County District Court Judge Pam Hammons had awarded a competing 30-day guardianship to Theodore’s own children. There were now two courts, two guardianship orders, and one quadriplegic veteran caught between them.
In May 2025, according to reporting by Oklahoma Watch, Radford called Theodore’s family by phone with an APS attorney on the line and asked them to relinquish their guardianship. They refused. Radford told them she would contact Judge Hammons in Creek County. Shortly afterward, Hammons vacated the family’s guardianship. Radford awarded temporary guardianship to APS.
Theodore was transferred to Cross Timbers Nursing and Rehabilitation in Midwest City, roughly 150 miles from the family that had been caring for him. The family did not know where he was for approximately six weeks. When Oklahoma Watch accompanied Parks and her siblings to Cross Timbers on June 4, nursing home staff threatened to call police and ordered them off the property. After a two-hour standoff in the parking lot, Midwest City police permitted a brief supervised visit, citing a 2015 opinion from then-Attorney General Scott Pruitt that guardians cannot restrict visitation without a specific court order.
Leroy Theodore Sr. died in early August 2025 while still under APS guardianship. His family was not directly notified. Parks’s sister learned of her father’s death from a reporter. Parks received a letter by mail on August 4. Nearly a month after his death, Theodore’s remains were held in legal and logistical limbo.
Radford declined to comment for Oklahoma Watch’s reporting. APS, DHS, St. Francis Hospital, and a public defender assigned to Theodore all declined as well.
The Theodore case is not mentioned here as a legal parallel to Wade Reeves’s child support matter. The underlying facts are entirely different. It is mentioned because the judge who sentenced Reeves to six months in absentia, ordered the relinquishment of every license he holds, and set a $295,712 purge fee on a California court order is the same judge whose most publicly documented act ended with a veteran dying in state custody while his family was not notified.
Radford is a Special Judge on the Tulsa County District Court, appointed in late 2022. She is not elected. She is not subject to the retention elections that district judges face. She spent 24 years as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma, rising to First Assistant and serving as Acting U.S. Attorney during a presidential transition. She has no documented background in family law prior to her current assignment. The Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints has no public record of any disciplinary action against her.
Special judges in Oklahoma are appointed by and serve at the discretion of the district judges in their judicial district. They are not chosen by voters. There is no public retention vote. The primary check on their conduct is a largely confidential complaints process that produces public findings only when formal charges are brought, which is rare.
Former Oklahoma Long-Term Care Ombudsman Esther Houser, who spent years monitoring the conditions under which vulnerable Oklahomans were supervised by courts and state agencies, put the institutional context plainly when Oklahoma Watch asked her about the Theodore case.
“We used to refer to Tulsa DHS as the State of Tulsa,” Houser said, “because they would just do things their own way and say they were using a different model.”
Current Ombudsman William Whited acknowledged the structural gaps that make oversight difficult. “There’s not enough judges to read all the reports,” he said. “There is not an entity or system that is set up to review those guardianships.”
Wade Reeves is a 43-year-old marketing professional with a petition pending before the United States Supreme Court. His case is not Theodore’s case. But both men appeared before the same judge, both had their most fundamental legal protections subordinated to the institutional preferences of the state, and both were left without meaningful recourse in a system that, by the account of its own former oversight officials, does not have a mechanism in place to review itself.
The Consistent Payments Nobody Mentioned
The California Department of Child Support Services Case Audit Report, certified by a California DCSS official on February 12, 2026 and submitted to the Oklahoma court as part of the default judgment record, contains a detail that received no apparent weight in the March 2 proceeding.
From February 2025 through January 2026, every payment Reeves made to the California registry was exactly $1,292.00. Not approximately that amount. Not rounded. The precise figure from the original 2017 order he entered into voluntarily and has never argued was invalid.
A man paying precisely the amount from the order he says is legitimate, every single month, for over a year, is making an argument. It is not the argument a person makes when he has simply decided not to support his children. It is the argument a person makes when he believes he is honoring a valid contract while contesting the validity of a superseding one.
The payment record also reflects at least one period in which Reeves paid more than his obligation. He said Gregorio told him she was struggling financially during her own divorce proceedings and he increased his payments voluntarily to ensure his children would not face housing instability.
“I will not be extorted,” Reeves said. “But I’m not somebody that doesn’t support his children.”
The default judgment does not address any of this.
A Question Nobody Has Answered
Reeves now faces three simultaneous and conflicting legal instruments: the original 2017 marital settlement agreement requiring $1,292 per month, the disputed May 2022 California modification order he has contested since its issuance, and the March 2026 Oklahoma default judgment setting a purge amount of $295,712. To whom does he make payments, under which order, and in what amount? The system that produced a six-month jail sentence has not provided an answer.
“Who do I pay,” Reeves said, “and when and how?”
Legislative Attention
Reeves said state Reps. JJ Humphrey and Chris Banning have taken an interest in his case, sending a legislative inquiry to Judge Seibert questioning her statutory authority to register a foreign judgment exceeding $10,000, and co-authoring a more recent letter to Judge Radford raising questions about due process and service.
Reeves said Rick Rose, who served as Oklahoma’s Chief Operating Officer and Director of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services under Governor Kevin Stitt, reviewed his case and told him directly that California had made serious procedural errors in the underlying proceedings. The Oklahoma Post has obtained email documentation confirming a formal meeting was arranged for Reeves at the OMES Capitol Conference Room on April 29, 2025. Rose departed state government on September 26, 2025.
“California messed up bad,” Reeves said he was told. “He was going to help.”
What the Record Shows: Potential Legal Violations
The documented facts in this case map to specific laws and rules.
Oklahoma adopted the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act at 43 O.S. § 601-100 et seq. Under UIFSA, when a support order is actively being contested in the issuing state, the enforcing state’s role is limited. The issuing state retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction as long as one of the parties resides there. Alisha May Gregorio resides in California. California appellate proceedings were active when Oklahoma enforcement escalated. Reeves never consented to Oklahoma jurisdiction in writing. The decision to proceed to default judgment while a California appellate matter remained unresolved raises a direct conflict with UIFSA’s jurisdictional framework.
Oklahoma law under 43 O.S. § 601-606 provides that a party objecting to registration of a foreign support order is entitled to a hearing. The October 31, 2022 default judgment order states in its own findings that Reeves’ request for an evidentiary hearing was denied. Denying a statutorily guaranteed hearing is not a discretionary act. It is a due process violation under Oklahoma Constitution Article 2, Section 7 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution requires Oklahoma courts to honor final judgments of other states. A California court found Reeves not in contempt of the same order Oklahoma later used to sentence him to six months in jail. Oklahoma honored the California order establishing the obligation but declined to honor the California order finding him not in violation of it. Selective application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is not consistent application of the law.
If Aycock represented to the court that the Oklahoma Supreme Court had confirmed jurisdiction when no such mandate existed, that conduct potentially violates Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.3, which prohibits an attorney from making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal. The Oklahoma Bar Association has authority to investigate and discipline attorneys under 5 O.S. § 19. Multiple witnesses submitted affidavits on this point. Those affidavits are filed in the OSCN docket.
Reeves filed multiple requests for ADA accommodations in the Oklahoma proceedings and stated that Oklahoma courts threatened his ADA advocate, Jay Shore, rather than accommodating his needs. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires state courts to provide reasonable accommodations to litigants with disabilities.
The Sworn Testimony That Contradicts the Withdrawal
Four days after Judge Radford sentenced Reeves in absentia and issued a $296,212 bench warrant for his arrest, his ex-wife’s attorney quit. Benjamin Aycock of Henry + Dow + Masters + Aycock filed an Application to Withdraw as Counsel on March 6, 2026 at 11:24 a.m., citing his client’s failure to meet her contractual agreement with the firm.
The withdrawal filing directly contradicts Aycock’s own sworn testimony from a June 17, 2024 hearing before Judge April Seibert, an official District Court of Oklahoma transcript of which The Oklahoma Post has obtained. In that proceeding, Aycock testified under oath that his client did not have the money to pay him and that he had been working the case without compensation since approximately January 2023. “I felt like it was a worthy cause,” Aycock testified. “I’m going to have to stick in this until the end.”
During that same June 2024 hearing, Reeves cross-examined Aycock about his client’s financial representations. Reeves asked whether Aycock was aware that Gregorio had filed documents in Stanislaus County, California claiming to be simultaneously wealthy and unable to pay, and that she was alleged to be a half-owner of a company called Sanders Meats, LLC, valued at approximately $1.5 million. Aycock testified he was not aware of that. Reeves stated the documentation had already been entered in the Oklahoma case through an objection filed by prior defense attorney James Hicks. The court record does not reflect any follow-up inquiry into that claim.
That the same attorney who testified in June 2024 that he was working for free because he believed in his client’s cause cited her failure to pay as his reason for leaving four days after securing a $295,712 default judgment is a fact now embedded in two separate official court records.
The woman whose support enforcement action produced a six-month jail sentence and the ordered relinquishment of her former husband’s driver’s license, CDL, business licenses, hunting and fishing licenses and right to carry a firearm may now be navigating the remainder of this case alone. Aycock’s withdrawal also represents, by Reeves’ account, the second documented contract violation on the record in this matter, following alleged violations of the original marital settlement agreement itself.
Reeves said he is formally objecting to the withdrawal and has released a public video outlining his position. An attorney who participated in proceedings that allegedly breached the marital settlement agreement between the parties cannot, Reeves argues, simply exit the case the moment his own client stops paying him, taking case files and institutional knowledge with him.
“The rules are the rules and the laws are the laws,” Reeves said when asked what he would want his children to understand about why he fought this case the way he did. “Everybody must obey what is written in the law.”
He paused. “That’s what it is, man.”
Reeves has begun documenting the case publicly as it unfolds. Readers who want to follow the filings, updates, and his response to the proceedings can visit his Facebook page.
The Oklahoma Post will continue to monitor the case and report additional verified developments.
Writing By: Robbie Robertson | Editing by Robbie Robertson
Editor’s Note:
Sources
Court Records and Legal Filings
Tulsa County District Court, Case No. FD-2022-1789, Alisha May Reeves v. Wade Ryan Reeves, OSCN Docket, 47 pages. https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=tulsa&number=FD-2022-1789&cmid=3543182
Order Granting Default Judgment on Contempt Citation, Tulsa County District Court, Case No. FD-2022-1789, filed March 3, 2026, Judge Loretta Radford. https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetDocument.aspx?ct=tulsa&bc=1064818834&cn=FD-2022-1789&fmt=pdf
Application to Withdraw as Counsel, Benjamin Aycock, Henry + Dow + Masters + Aycock, filed March 6, 2026, Tulsa County District Court, Case No. FD-2022-1789. Available via OSCN docket link above.
Official District Court of Oklahoma Transcript, Continued Hearing, Case No. FD-2022-1789, June 17, 2024, before the Honorable April Seibert, reported by Christy Smith, CSR. Document obtained by The Oklahoma Post.
Stanislaus County Superior Court, California, Case No. 8005328, California IV-D Case No. 200000019218886. Dissolution of marriage and child support modification proceedings, 2017-2026.
California Department of Child Support Services Case Audit Report, CSE Case No. 200000001921886, certified February 12, 2026, by Perri Snyder, California DCSS.
Interstate Record of Payment, certified February 17, 2026, by Kamie Castillo, Oklahoma DHS Child Support Services.
Reeves v. Stanislaus County Superior Court et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00027-GKF-SH, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, filed January 19, 2024. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/52066445/Reeves_v_Stanislaus_County_Superior_Court_et_al
Reeves v. Stanislaus County Superior Court et al., Case No. 24-5049, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Order and Judgment issued January 21, 2025. https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinion/24-5049
Government and Agency Documents
Oklahoma Office of Management and Enterprise Services meeting confirmation email, from Michaela Lembeck, Executive Assistant to COO Rick Rose, to Wade Ryan Reeves, dated April 23, 2025. Document provided to The Oklahoma Post
Oklahoma DHS Child Support Services signature block document identifying State’s Attorneys including Courtney N. Driscoll, OBA No. 34385.
Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Opinion on Title 30 and guardian visitation restrictions, 2015.
Statutes and Rules Cited
Oklahoma Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, 43 O.S. § 601-100 et seq. https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=139890
Oklahoma registration of foreign support orders, 43 O.S. § 601-606. https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-43/
Oklahoma Constitution, Article 2, Section 7, due process. https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=93760
United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, due process and equal protection.
United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Title II, Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, access to public services including courts. https://www.ada.gov/topics/title-ii/
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.11, Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_11_special_conflicts_of_interest_for_former_current_government_officers_and_employees/
ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/
Oklahoma Bar Association attorney discipline authority, 5 O.S. § 19. https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69960
California Constitution, Article 6, Section 21, commissioner authority requiring judicial stipulation. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS§ionNum=SEC.%2021.&article=VI
Stanislaus County Superior Court Local Rule 7.14, child support modification signature requirements.
California Government Code Section 69957, court recording and retention policies. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=69957
Federal child support enforcement cost reimbursement, 42 U.S.C. § 655. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section655&num=0&edition=prelim
Title IV-D, Social Security Act, federal child support enforcement program, 42 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title42/chapter7/subchapter IV/partD&edition=prelim
Published Reporting Cited or Relied Upon
Hallman, J.C. “Eldercare Nightmare: A Tragic Family Story Raises the Specter of Widespread Guardianship Fraud.” Oklahoma Watch, June 18, 2025, updated August 29, 2025. https://oklahomawatch.org/2025/06/18/eldercare-nightmare-a-tragic-family-story-raises-the-specter-of-widespread-guardianship-fraud/
“Oklahoma Unprepared for Looming Guardianship Crisis.” Oklahoma Watch, September 4, 2025. https://oklahomawatch.org/2025/09/04/oklahoma-unprepared-for-looming-guardianship-crisis/
“Court-Appointed Guardianships: What Happens When State Abruptly Takes Control.” KJRH Tulsa, 2025. https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/court-appointed-guardianships-what-happens-when-state-abruptly-takes-control
“Oklahoma Unprepared for Looming Guardianship Crisis.” KGOU Oklahoma Public Radio, September 8, 2025. https://www.kgou.org/oklahoma-news/2025-09-08/oklahoma-unprepared-for-looming-guardianship-crisis
Moyer, Gregory. “Nearly $400 Million in Federal Welfare Funds Sat Unspent in Oklahoma’s Accounts.” The Oklahoma Post, January 9, 2026. https://theokpost.com
Attorney and Professional Records
Benjamin Aycock, OBA No. 21472, Henry + Dow + Masters + Aycock, 1437 S. Boulder Ave., Suite 1200, Tulsa, OK 74119. (918) 933-4333. ben@henrydowlaw.com. https://www.okbar.org/member-directory/
Courtney N. Driscoll, OBA No. 34385, Driskell Law LLC, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Former Oklahoma DHS Child Support Services State’s Attorney. https://www.okbar.org/member-directory/
Jay Shore, ADA advocate, referenced in Oklahoma proceedings, Case No. FD-2022-1789.
Judicial Records
Judge Loretta T. Radford, Special Judge, Tulsa County District Court, 14th Judicial District, appointed 2022. Prior service: Assistant United States Attorney, Northern District of Oklahoma, 1995-2019; First Assistant U.S. Attorney; Acting U.S. Attorney; Oklahoma County Jail Trust; Oklahoma Board of Bar Examiners; Legal Director, Center for Criminal Justice, Oklahoma City University School of Law. https://www.criminaljusticeconference.com/speaker/loretta-radford/
Judge April Seibert, Tulsa County District Court. https://www.oscn.net
Special Judge Deborah Ludi Leitch, Tulsa County District Court. September 13, 2024 order placing Case No. FD-2022-1789 in administrative abeyance. Full text requested by The Oklahoma Post, not yet received.
Judge Pam Hammons, Creek County District Court. April 25, 2025 guardianship order, Theodore matter.
Legislative Sources
Rep. JJ Humphrey, Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 19. Legislative inquiry to Judge Seibert and letter to Judge Radford regarding Case No. FD-2022-1789. https://www.okhouse.gov/Members/District.aspx?District=19
Rep. Chris Banning, Oklahoma House of Representatives. Co-author of legislative inquiry and letter to Judge Radford regarding Case No. FD-2022-1789. https://www.okhouse.gov
Rick Rose, former Oklahoma State Chief Operating Officer and Director, Office of Management and Enterprise Services, under Governor Kevin Stitt. Departed September 26, 2025. https://oklahoma.gov/governor/newsroom/newsroom/2025/chief-operating-officer-rick-rose-to-depart-omes.html
OMES Capitol Conference Room meeting confirmation email, Michaela Lembeck, Executive Assistant to COO Rick Rose, to Wade Ryan Reeves, April 23, 2025. Document on file with The Oklahoma Post.
Sen. Dana Prieto, Oklahoma State Senate. Present as witness during relevant hearing in Case No. FD-2022-1789. https://oksenate.gov
Oklahoma Standby Guardianship Act, SB 1701, Laws 2025, c. 215, amending Title 30 guardianship statutes. https://oksenate.gov/press-releases/oklahoma-standby-guardianship-act-becomes-law
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.
© 2026 The Oklahoma Post |
By The People’s Popular Paper | Oklahoma Special Report
2026 -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.