Even Edge Craft? Haven't been there yet, might be a while, don't relish standing in a parking lot in this heat, so I don't have a personal opinion...

I have never had to wait more than 20 minutes at Edge Craft, and it's worth at least a 30-minute wait, but whine on.

I highly doubt both predictions

I'm trying to think of a post on this board in which I've agreed with you. Struggling.

The other thing that frustrates me about this entire situation is that I've always wondered why we couldn't have a nice restaurant at the state lake lodges. And while I'm not a fan of their BBQ. I thought the food, and service, at Foggy Bottom was pretty solid, at least at the Lake Murray location, and they were busy every time I was there. Makes me think they could have made a go of it.

Agree with this. As someone who loves our state parks and lodges, I was pretty pumped about Foggy Bottom. Seemed like a great concept, and was a great concept. Even good to very good food at a state park is part of the charm, and I'm sure the food was good, which was a big step up from previous state park joints. It's a shame it ended up turning into such a disturbing scandal. Greed and fraud are bad.

I have never had to wait more than 20 minutes at Edge Craft, and it's worth at least a 30-minute wait, but whine on.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

It was pointed out long ago that waiting is generally inside, which I acknowledged and will go there when we get around to it, but misrepresent on...

This July, Edge Craft will celebrate its 3rd anniversary and their business is strong but not crazy.

The funny thing is that, in spite of all this, Swadley's is still claiming that the state owes them somewhere north of $1 million.

The funny thing is that, in spite of all this, Swadley's is still claiming that the state owes them somewhere north of $1 million.

Even more if they actually won that lawsuit.

Swadley's issued a letter. They must be feeling the pressure. I don't have a comment, that's what a trial by jury is for.
https://swadleys.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Letter-to-the-Editor_Brent-Swadley.pdf

We eat at the Bethany location regularly and they are never hurting for business inside or at their drive thru.

We eat at the Bethany location regularly and they are never hurting for business inside or at their drive thru.

And the Facebook comments are overwhelmingly positive, but I'm sure Swadley is worried about the outcome of a potential trial.

Swadley's issued a letter. They must be feeling the pressure. I don't have a comment, that's what a trial by jury is for.
https://swadleys.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Letter-to-the-Editor_Brent-Swadley.pdf

Really hard to buy his Christian values schtick when he was caught on tape saying, “I bootlegged barbecue. I wouldn’t be where I’m at today if I followed by the rules and satisfied all the permits and all the legalities and stuff out there. Sometimes you’ve just got to go out there and do it and don’t worry about it.”

Swadley's issued a letter. They must be feeling the pressure. I don't have a comment, that's what a trial by jury is for.
https://swadleys.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Letter-to-the-Editor_Brent-Swadley.pdf

Kinda funny/ironic that Avast blocks them (Blacklist).

And the Facebook comments are overwhelmingly positive, but I'm sure Swadley is worried about the outcome of a potential trial.

And they should be. I don’t want their business to fail but they are definitely guilty of something here. lol.

When does this trial start?

Mark Stonecipher -- OKC City Councilman -- is now representing Brent Swadley.

How in the world does that work?

He's an attorney. He's not representing them in his capacity as a member of the City Council, which is itself a part time job. His day job is business litigation for Fellers Snider.

He's an attorney. He's not representing them in his capacity as a member of the City Council, which is itself a part time job. His day job is business litigation for Fellers Snider.

So there is still zero conflict of interest here? Just seems odd but I'm not pretending like I would know any better.

The City of Oklahoma City and the State of Oklahoma are two completely separate governmental entities, so no, there's no conflict of interest.

The City of Oklahoma City and the State of Oklahoma are two completely separate governmental entities, so no, there's no conflict of interest.

Obviously they are 2 separate entities, lol, I'm not that ignorant.

Certainly not suggesting that you are in any way. However I'm having a difficult time myself understanding where there might be a conflict of interest. There isn't.

Certainly not suggesting that you are in any way. However I'm having a difficult time myself understanding where there might be a conflict of interest. There isn't.

Same. Odd question.

I'm guessing because Mr. Swadley will be known as a high-profile, business crimes, criminal defendant, based in Oklahoma City, who is represented by an Oklahoma City Councilor?

I'm guessing because Mr. Swadley will be known as a high-profile, business crimes, criminal defendant, based in Oklahoma City, who is represented by an Oklahoma City Councilor?

But it still makes NO sense. The issues with Swadley's are with the state park locations, not the city locations. So it is not a city issue, at all, other than him being an OKC resident using another OKC resident as his attorney. People want there to be something nefarious here, but there isn't (in terms of who his attorney is).

Urbanized clearly works at FS. HAHAHA. It may not technically be a conflict, but everyone can see with their own eyes what it is.

Urbanized clearly works at FS. HAHAHA. It may not technically be a conflict, but everyone can see with their own eyes what it is.

What is it, then? And don't patronize us with some vague riddle or metaphor or conspiracy theory.

There is no city issue here. Stonecipher isn't a state employee or legislator. This is strictly a state of Oklahoma issue with Swadleys. So why is his attorney being a city of OKC councilman a conflict of interest, even indirectly?

You're making a mole hill out of a speck of dirt. Please don't come in here bashing a well-respected poster because you want something nefarious to be going on, where there isn't anything at all nefarious.

Urbanized clearly works at FS. HAHAHA. It may not technically be a conflict, but everyone can see with their own eyes what it is.

lol Urbanized in no way works at FS ... lol


thank you for letting us know you are new around here ..

We eat at the Bethany location regularly and they are never hurting for business inside or at their drive thru.

Enjoy the Bethany location as well. Anxious to see how this turns out. Swadley's is very reputable established business in Oklahoma; lots of questions to be answered. Was there any benchmarks and safeguards in choosing a food provider for the State parks . . .

What is it, then? And don't patronize us with some vague riddle or metaphor or conspiracy theory.

There is no city issue here. Stonecipher isn't a state employee or legislator. This is strictly a state of Oklahoma issue with Swadleys. So why is his attorney being a city of OKC councilman a conflict of interest, even indirectly?

You're making a mole hill out of a speck of dirt. Please don't come in here bashing a well-respected poster because you want something nefarious to be going on, where there isn't anything at all nefarious.

Not nefarious, but it is the currency of connections. Brent Swadley is a criminal defendant who employs over 100 people in Oklahoma City. He is also a good self-promoter. Mark Stonecipher is a business attorney who is a partner in a prominent Oklahoma City law firm. He is also Vice-Mayor and Ward 8 Councilman. If I am any city employee who does any business with Swadley (and his companies) as part of my job, I must assume that the Vice-Mayor will be contacting me regarding anything that is unfavorable in my interaction with him or his minions. The same is true (although with a diminished level of stress) for County or State employees. Also, because Mr. Stonecipher is not known as a criminal defense attorney, the mind of the average citizen begins to speculate that Mr. Swadley must be "Juiced in".

Not nefarious, but it is the currency of connections. Brent Swadley is a criminal defendant who employs over 100 people in Oklahoma City. He is also a good self-promoter. Mark Stonecipher is a business attorney who is a partner in a prominent Oklahoma City law firm. He is also Vice-Mayor and Ward 8 Councilman. If I am any city employee who does any business with Swadley (and his companies) as part of my job, I must assume that the Vice-Mayor will be contacting me regarding anything that is unfavorable in my interaction with him or his minions. The same is true (although with a diminished level of stress) for County or State employees. Also, because Mr. Stonecipher is not known as a criminal defense attorney, the mind of the average citizen begins to speculate that Mr. Swadley must be "Juiced in".

No, the mind of the average citizen doesn't go there. Most people in this city don't even know this is still a thing (the Swadley's issue) let alone know who he has as his attorney. Your conflating OKCTalk with OKC as a whole.

Legal ethics doesn't hinge on whether or not people are aware of the conflict.

I don't think it's an odd question to ask if a business owner that may have business before the city being represented by a prominent city official presents any conflicts.

No, the mind of the average citizen doesn't go there. Most people in this city don't even know this is still a thing (the Swadley's issue) let alone know who he has as his attorney. Your conflating OKCTalk with OKC as a whole.

I will respectfully disagree. I would suggest businessman intrigue has never been more interesting in the political landscape. And national trickles down to the local.

If the City had any Swadley’s business come before it then Stonecipher would surely recuse himself from a vote. That’s what happens when someone has an ACTUAL conflict of interest, which, while it might not occur often, does indeed happen occasionally around the horseshoe. Council members almost all have day jobs, and thousands of companies and organizations in OKC routinely do business directly with the City.

But guess what: it’s highly unlikely that the City will have any new Swadley’s business before it, other than perhaps building permits or the like. You can rest assured that the City would not enter into any newly-contracted business relationships with Swadley’s at this point in time.

And business relationships are surely what Stonecipher is focused on; his area of practice is business litigation. This would almost certainly be contract litigation (based on agreements with the state of Oklahoma and NOT the City of Oklahoma City), and not related directly to criminal charges, should they be pressed. That’s the role of a criminal defense attorney. If Swadley needs one of those he’ll be hiring someone else for THAT job (likely already has). Very different practice areas.

I’m honestly not trying to be rude, but this whole line of questioning lacks pretty basic civic and legal sophistication. And suggesting impropriety on a public forum where there is not even a whiff of it in the real world borders on slanderous.

Legal ethics doesn't hinge on whether or not people are aware of the conflict.

I don't think it's an odd question to ask if a business owner that may have business before the city being represented by a prominent city official presents any conflicts.

But asking, being told by people who would know that there is none, then doubling down on thinking there could still be some, is very odd.

Got it, so we are going to spend an entire page telling the other side that they are wrong and that they should think what we think. ok...that always works.

Not nefarious, but it is the currency of connections. Brent Swadley is a criminal defendant who employs over 100 people in Oklahoma City. He is also a good self-promoter. Mark Stonecipher is a business attorney who is a partner in a prominent Oklahoma City law firm. He is also Vice-Mayor and Ward 8 Councilman. If I am any city employee who does any business with Swadley (and his companies) as part of my job, I must assume that the Vice-Mayor will be contacting me regarding anything that is unfavorable in my interaction with him or his minions. The same is true (although with a diminished level of stress) for County or State employees. Also, because Mr. Stonecipher is not known as a criminal defense attorney, the mind of the average citizen begins to speculate that Mr. Swadley must be "Juiced in".

To be fair, this is is a white collar criminal case. I'll bet if it goes to jury trial, they'll have a criminal defense attorney first chair the trial. At this stage, it's a white collar allegation and that lends itself more to someone with lots of civil experience.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news/2024/05/17/swadleys-bbq-owner-brent-swadley-switches-defense-attorneys-oklahoma-conspiracy-charge/73719418007/

Criminal attorney works at the same firm.

Urbanized clearly works at FS. HAHAHA. It may not technically be a conflict, but everyone can see with their own eyes what it is.

LOL. WTF are you talking about with any of this?

Swadley, who maintains his innocence and claims persecution, waived his right to a preliminary hearing that was to start on Monday where the prosecution was to reveal all the evidence presented to the grand jury that led to his indictment. Very unusual and I suspect he did not want that evidence being made public.

Also, one of his co-defendants, Curtis Breuklander, has cut a deal and will testify against Swadley.

All of this no doubt prompted Swadley to write his propaganda letter that came out last week.


I suspect he'll end up pleading guilty and will continue to claim this is all somehow political.

My gut is telling me that Swadley will end up making an Alford plea, where he maintains his innocence but accepts the court's penalties, especially if he can negotiate a fine with a suspended sentence or something similar.

It seems clear that he does not want the state's evidence made public, which makes it unlikely that he will go to trial.

He'll probably continue to make a big show about being innocent and the victim of political persecution, but will end up paying millions back to the state and continuing to run his successful restaurant chain.

In this case, appearances for Swadley are more important than the actual outcome.

That just makes me really curious what is in the state's evidence.

That just makes me really curious what is in the state's evidence.

Is it worse than what is already public? That would be really bad for Brent.

Is it worse than what is already public? That would be really bad for Brent.

It would be at least all the details, including the massively inflated invoices, lots of testimony from at the one guy inside Swadley's who was the whistleblower and now testifying for the prosecution.

Now, it's just: "The State alleges Swadley forged invoices", etc.

But seeing documents in black and white and reading testimony under oath from someone who worked at Swadley's would not allow Brent to keep playing the victim card, and that would likely cost him a ton of business and could even sink him.

Grand jury indictments lead to convictions 92% of the time. There is no way he is going to get off the hook here; it's all about preserving public perception.

My gut is telling me that Swadley will end up making an Alford plea, where he maintains his innocence but accepts the court's penalties, especially if he can negotiate a fine with a suspended sentence or something similar.

It seems clear that he does not want the state's evidence made public, which makes it unlikely that he will go to trial.

He'll probably continue to make a big show about being innocent and the victim of political persecution, but will end up paying millions back to the state and continuing to run his successful restaurant chain.

In this case, appearances for Swadley are more important than the actual outcome.

To be clear here. The State has to offer this to Swadley. It is not a right.

To be clear here. The State has to offer this to Swadley. It is not a right.

True of all plea bargains.

I passed by Swadley ranch out in Piedmont the other day. He's been making a ton of money somehow.

To be clear here. The State has to offer this to Swadley. It is not a right.

Although no right for a negotiated plea from State, a defendant has the absolute right to change his plea even if the State objects or doesn't offer anything. Basically called a blind plea leaving it up to the judge to determine sentencing after hearing from both sides.


https://www.oklahoma-criminal-defense-lawyer.com/what-is-an-alford-plea-in-oklahoma/

There's back office politics that happen with plea bargains also. May not be worth going through all the media circus of a Swadley trial that probably won't even change any opinions regardless of the outcome.

Although no right for a negotiated plea from State, a defendant has the absolute right to change his plea even if the State objects or doesn't offer anything. Basically called a blind plea leaving it up to the judge to determine sentencing after hearing from both sides.


https://www.oklahoma-criminal-defense-lawyer.com/what-is-an-alford-plea-in-oklahoma/

I made my comment in response to the poster saying Swadley will "make" an Alford plea. "Take" one maybe. Can't just "make" one. Even then the judge can reject it.

It could be interesting to see where this goes.

I do think that the Governor's office broke several land speed records in the act of distancing themselves from Mr. Swadley after this whole debacle went public--and the grift was common knowledge at the state capitol. Virtually every gathering with state money came from a Swadley's facility--made mostly at taxpayer expense at a state resort and then trucked in. I'm guessing the AG might settle for several bigger fish. Certainly, the previous Attorney General who rubber stamped all of these highly inappropriate contracts has some responsibility here. Winchester almost certainly has some liability here. Maybe even Stitt. The current AG is not a party hack--he's a real law and order guy, so it could get really interesting.

Someone told me Mr Gatti's on N May has new ownership, does anyone know the details?