Lawyer Files Motion to Disqualify Attorney General in Fraud Case

News Summary

Brent Swadley, co-founder of Swadley’s Bar-B-Q, filed a motion to disqualify Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond from his fraud case. Facing serious charges including conspiracy to defraud the state, Swadley claims Drummond’s public statements compromise his right to a fair trial. As legal challenges persist, the case highlights the intersection of law and politics in Oklahoma’s judicial landscape.

Brent Swadley Files Motion to Disqualify Oklahoma Attorney General in Controversial Fraud Case

On June 3rd, 2025, Brent Swadley, the co-founder of Swadley’s Bar-B-Q, made headlines after filing a motion aimed at disqualifying Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond from the ongoing criminal case against him. This legal maneuver comes as tensions rise around the complicated web of allegations involving Swadley and his associates Timothy Raymond Hooper and Curtis Ray Breuklander.

Charges and Allegations Against Swadley and Associates

The trio is currently facing a litany of serious charges, including one felony count of conspiracy to defraud the state and five felony counts of presenting false or fraudulent claims against the state. The case stems from an agreement made between Swadley’s Bar-B-Q and the Oklahoma Department of Tourism and Recreation for the renovation of state parks, which has turned contentious.

In April 2022, allegations of fraudulent activity led to the cancellation of the contract by the Oklahoma Tourism Department. Prosecutors allege that Swadley’s Foggy Bottom Kitchen submitted false invoices and instructed suppliers to inflate invoice amounts, drawing heightened scrutiny and controversy.

Oklahoma Attorney General’s Involvement and Political Context

In January 2023, it was announced that the Office of the Attorney General would collaborate with the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation to probe these allegations. However, the involvement of Attorney General Drummond has been fraught with contention. A representative for Swadley’s family has raised alarms, suggesting that Drummond’s public comments might bear a political motive, potentially compromising the integrity of the legal proceedings.

The motion filed by Swadley claims that Drummond’s previous public statements could adversely affect Swadley’s right to a fair trial and influence public perception of the state’s actions. Notably, Drummond’s political ambitions, including his announced candidacy for the Oklahoma gubernatorial seat, have elevated concerns about his possible biases in this high-profile case.

Public Statements and the Gag Order Request

The motion delineates specific comments made by Drummond, which are viewed as politicized and detrimental to Swadley’s character. The Attorney General has been vocal regarding his battle against corruption, further complicating the narrative surrounding the case. In response to what they perceive as overreach and prejudicial remarks, Swadley’s legal counsel even sent a cease-and-desist letter to Drummond’s office in June 2024, calling for an end to public discourse on the matter.

Furthermore, Swadley’s attorneys have sought a gag order that would restrict Drummond and his staff from commenting on the case publicly, aiming to ensure that the proceedings remain untainted by external influences or biases.

Pending Civil Case and Broader Implications

The legal challenges facing Swadley are coupled with a pending civil case regarding the operations of Foggy Bottom Kitchen and the Oklahoma Tourism Department. Both parties have filed lawsuits against each other, indicating that the controversies surrounding Swadley’s business practices are far from resolved.

Conclusion

As this high-stakes legal drama unfolds, Swadley continues to assert his innocence, labeling the prosecution as politically charged. The complexity of the case, intertwined with the political aspirations of Attorney General Drummond, raises questions about the intersection of law and politics in Oklahoma’s judicial landscape. The upcoming decisions made by the Oklahoma County district court could significantly impact the trajectory of this case, echoing the broader implications for accountability and transparency in state operations.