Tuesday, April 14, 2026

The Motion to Reconsider April 14th 2026

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA


Albert G. Gerhart.

Plaintiff;


Case No. CJ-2025-7725


v.


JOHN ROBERT BENNETT, an individual and in his former capacity as CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY,

CHARITY LINCH, an individual and in her capacity as current CHAIRWOMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY,

JOHN DOES 1-5, unnamed co-conspirators,

and the OKLAHOMA REPUBLICAN PARTY,

Defendants


PLAINTIFF’S CLARIFICATION, OBJECTION TO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER/VACATE DISMISSAL

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, pro se, and respectfully moves the Court to reconsider its April 13, 2026, ruling and vacate the strike order. In support, Plaintiff states:

I. Clarification of Oral Statements & Objection to Ex Parte Hearsay Plaintiff explicitly denies utilizing the phrase "Hail Mary" (See Exhibit EE). Plaintiff’s discussion with staff (identified as Tara Nixon) was a cordial conversation regarding her "double duty" as court reporter and manning the desk and her face mask that caused the Plaintiff to not initially recognize her. Plaintiff accurately stated the filings were "out of time" solely because the mandatory procedural trigger for transmutation under 12 O.S. § 2012(B) was only identified Sunday night. The Court’s reliance on an inaccurate, unsworn characterization of an office conversation violates the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.9.

II. Extrinsic Fraud: Evidence of Collusion and the Denial of a Record Plaintiff had filed the Cherokee Maiden email chain (See Exhibit HH) and subpoenaed records from the Ferate Yahoo account. These records contain direct accusations from a close associate of then-counsel A.J. Ferate, alleging collusion between Defense Counsel and the Judge specifically to deprive the Plaintiff of a fair adjudication. This extrinsic fraud is corroborated by the Krigel email (See Exhibit GG), which memorializes the 2022 Court's refusal to allow a court reporter during the closed-door hearing on other issues that led to Judge Mai recusing from the case, effectively ensuring no record of the collusion could be made. Taking these allegations as true, as required in a Motion to Dismiss under Fanning v. Brown, establishes clear Fraud upon the Court.

III. The "Smoking Gun": Failure to Consider the April 1, 2026, Amicus Brief The Court’s claim to have "reviewed everything" is contradicted by the docket. David Van Risseghem filed his Amicus Curiae Brief on April 1, 2026 (See Exhibit DD). As one of many of the primary drafters of the OKGOP Bylaws, Mr. Van’s brief provides expert analysis of the $43,081.60 gap, millions in financial irregularities, and the "Institutional Blockade". The Court’s dismissal completely ignores this expert filing that had been on the record for twelve days.

IV. The Court Erred by Denying Leave to Remedy Technical Defects To the extent the dismissal is based on Plaintiff’s pro se status, such defects are remediable. Under 12 O.S. § 2012(G), the Court shall grant leave to amend to allow the Plaintiff time to secure counsel for the entity. Dismissing without an opportunity to cure these technical defects is an abuse of discretion.

V. Failure to Apply Mandatory Standard of Review (12 O.S. § 2012(B)(6)) Under Fanning v. Brown, the Court must take all well-pleaded facts as true. If the Court takes as true the fact that the "True Client" (the State Committee) was never informed of the lawsuit and that the record was suppressed, then the original judgment was obtained through Extrinsic Fraud and res judicata cannot apply . By stating in the April 13th email that notified the parties of her decision, the Court wrote that she "reviewed everything presented for the Court’s consideration,", (except the three filings filed on April 13th mentioned in the last paragraph), the Court has admitted to considering matters outside the pleadings. Under 12 O.S. § 2012(B), when such matters are presented and not excluded by the Court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 13. The Court’s admission of "reviewing everything" triggered a mandatory statutory requirement to provide the Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to present all material pertinent to a summary judgment motion, including discovery of the State Committee records.

VI. Threshold Jurisdictional Issues (5 O.S. § 5 and 12 O.S. § 2023.1) The Court failed to address the 5 O.S. § 5 challenge to Defense Counsel’s authority, which must be resolved before a dismissal can be heard. Further, the Court violated 12 O.S. § 2023.1, which prohibits the dismissal of a derivative action without notice to the association members. If the Court takes as true, as required by Fanning v. Brown, that the State Committee was never aware of the lawsuit and never voted to hire lawyers to defend a lawsuit, then extrinsic fraud has been proven. Add to that the fiduciary duty and the inability of the State Committee to defend someone working against the group's bylaws and against the interests of the group. Likewise, if the judge has taken as true the Defendant Bennett and Linch working to cover up the $43,000 embezzlement of a previous chairman and over two million dollars in financial irregularities caught by the FEC, then how can the case be dismissed? An officer cannot use group funds to defend their own personal fraud and the ruling entity of an organization cannot defend the rogue official's ultra vires acts.

VII. The Doctrine of Unclean Hands Bars Dismissal The Defendants possess "Unclean Hands" due to the extrinsic fraud, the Hendrix "swatting" tactics (See Exhibit AA), the Fake VA Suicide Hot Line report (See exhibit Exhibit CC) that came from Defendant Bennett's own office and the libelous smear campaign launched specifically to protect the embezzlement and stolen valor from discovery. Equity will not assist a party acting in such documented bad faith and if the judge had to take these facts as true, how can the case be dismissed?

VIII. The 2022 Judgment Was Never Adjudicated on the Merits Exhibit FF (2022 Order) proves the prior litigation was never decided on the merits. Judge Mai specifically X-ed out and rejected (See Exhibit FF) the Defendants' proposed language that the case was "frivolous" or "ruled on the merits". This Court cannot grant a dismissal based on a prior judgment that the prior Judge admitted was not a ruling on the merits. Since the prior judge's X-ed out the paragraph in the journal entry and this has to be taken as true under Fanning v. Brown, how can the case be dismissed?

IX. The "Ward Hendrix" Conspiracy (See Exhibit BB Police Report /Call Number C17-42207) establishes that the Bennett administration used a fictitious persona ("Ward Hendrix") to "swat" a material witness to silence his testimony regarding John Bennett’s "Stolen Valor". This documented misconduct proves the Defendants' intent to suppress the truth through criminal-adjacent means. Likewise when National Committee Person Karen Hardin, one of the four Central Committee members with Defendant Linch, uses false accusations of criminal convictions to bully political opponents and posts meeting notices in graveyards and gas stations so as to replace long serving precinct officials, that is an indication of knowing no moral or legal bounds when pushing a political agenda.

X. THE COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING ON ISSUES NOT RAISED BY DEFENDANTS

Since we have no idea why Judge Palumbo ruled as she did on the merits of the case, to the extent the Court’s dismissal was based on the Plaintiff’s status as a pro se representative—an issue not explicitly raised or briefed in the Defendants’ Joint Renewed Motion to Dismiss—the Court acted sua sponte. In Oklahoma, a court may not dismiss an action based on a perceived technical defect without first providing the Plaintiff with notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard on that specific issue. Furthermore, under 12 O.S. § 2012(G), the mandatory remedy for a "representative capacity" defect is an order to secure counsel within a specified timeframe, not a summary dismissal of the entire action with prejudice.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court vacate the dismissal, correct the record regarding the inaccurate "Hail Mary" mischaracterization, and schedule a hearing to address these threshold issues.

Respectfully submitted,


Albert G. Gerhart, Pro Se

358 North Rockwell Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73127

(405) 942-2644 al@thecarpentershop.net



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 14th day of April, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed postage prepaid to:

R. Tom Hillis TITUS HILLIS REYNOLDS LOVE 15 East Fifth Street, Suite 3700 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103

and Charity Linch, 27863 S 4380 Rd Vinita, Ok 74301-7621

Albert G. Gerhart





























List attached Exhibits:

  • Exhibit AA: The Hendrix Affidavit (The witness) .

  • Exhibit BB: The Police Report (The "Ward Hendrix" fake identity) .

  • Exhibit CC: The VA Report (The weaponization of medical status) .

  • Exhibit DD: The David VanRisseghem Amicus Brief (File-stamped April 1st).

  • Exhibit EE: The Email Chain to Kirsten Baker (Your immediate objection).

  • Exhibit FF: The 2022 Order by Judge Mai (With the hand-written "X-outs").

  • Exhibit GG: The Krigel Email (Memorializing the denial of the court reporter).

  • Exhibit HH: The Cherokee Maiden Email Chain with Yahoo Account Info showing her email address on AJ Ferate's Chickasaw Warrior Yahoo email account (Evidence of collusion).





at