For the full case overview, see the cornerstone post: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know.
Filed Under: Conflict of Interest, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Wrongful Conviction
Keywords: Fred Olivares FBI, Fred Olivares San Antonio, embedded FBI agent, wrongful conviction, Universal K9, Thomas McHugh, William Brooks
FRED OLIVARES: THE RETIRED BUT NOT RETIRED FBI AGENT
This isn’t theory. It isn’t speculation. It’s on the record.
“Also at the defense table with us is Mr. Fred Olivares, a retired, but not retired FBI agent.”
— Thomas McHugh, Oct. 8, 2019, Day One of Trial
That’s how Fred Olivares was introduced to the federal court and judge. Not as a neutral investigator. Not as a defense witness. But as a man with one foot still in federal law enforcement — sitting at the defense table.
Olivares wasn’t there by accident. He was planted in the heart of the defense team by Thomas McHugh, and allowed to stay there by William Brooks. Neither disclosed the extent of Olivares’ connection to the FBI. Neither explained his role. And neither filed a motion to address the glaring constitutional crisis that unfolded in plain view.
Why?
Because they thought no one would challenge it.
Fred Olivares was described as “retired, but not retired” for a reason: he wasn’t truly out of the loop. He was still aligned with federal law enforcement, still in contact with those pursuing the prosecution, and still part of a structure that buried Brady and manipulated the defense from the inside.
The government knew. The defense knew. And the court let it slide.
No jury in America would believe they were getting a fair trial if they knew a federal agent was embedded on the defense side, monitoring strategy, steering outcomes, and keeping quiet while the prosecution concealed key evidence.
But that’s what happened here. And they all thought it would never surface.
It has.
No Conflict Motion. No Disclosure. No Excuse.
McHugh disclosed Olivares’ FBI affiliation to the court without even flinching. Brooks said nothing. And Olivares — instead of stepping back — remained in place for the entire trial.
The Sixth Amendment requires conflict-free counsel. What Croft got instead was a team poisoned by prior law enforcement ties, conflicted loyalties, and willful silence. That’s not assistance of counsel. That’s theater.
Bar complaints have now been filed. Exhibits submitted. Transcripts published. The system they relied on to protect them has failed. The record now speaks.
They thought they could bury it.
But the man they tried to silence is the one holding the receipts.
Related Posts:
- Thomas McHugh Conflict of Interest – Mid-Trial Disclosure Shakes Case Foundation
- William Brooks San Antonio – The Attorney Who Stayed Silent
Bar Complaint Filed: State Bar + Texas DPS (Private Security Program) – July 2025
Author: Bradley Lane Croft
Tags: #FredOlivares #EmbeddedFBI #WrongfulConviction #UniversalK9 #ConflictOfInterest #HoldTheReceipts
Fred Olivares – FAQ
Who is Fred Olivares in the Brad Croft case?
Fred Olivares was hired as Croft’s private investigator. What the judge never knew is that Olivares was also a former FBI agent who had helped open the case against Croft before switching sides to join the defense team.
What was Olivares’s conflict of interest?
Olivares was directly involved with federal investigators during the early stages of the case. Later, as Croft’s PI, he had inside access to defense strategy while maintaining ties to law enforcement. This dual role was a textbook structural conflict that poisoned the defense from within.
How did Olivares handle the Midlothian subpoena?
William Brooks drafted a subpoena to Midlothian PD. Before it was served, Olivares used his FBI contacts to check what it would reveal and learned that Wes Keeling was Brady listed. Rather than forcing disclosure, Olivares buried the subpoena and never served it.
What about Olivares’s later affidavit?
Years later, Olivares filed an affidavit claiming Croft said he would deliver the subpoena. This is false. Croft was on strict house arrest, could not travel 300 miles to Midlothian, and had already paid over $120,000 for his defense team to handle such matters. The affidavit was a cover story to protect McHugh.
What did the FOIA request reveal?
The FOIA response confirmed that Keeling was Brady listed before Croft’s trial. This matched what Olivares had discovered through FBI contacts. The government used a known liar to convict Croft, while Olivares helped conceal the truth.
What filings involve Olivares today?
Olivares is named in Croft’s Rule 60(b) motions, malpractice demand letters, and civil rights complaints. His role is highlighted as a “structural constitutional violation” that went beyond ineffective assistance into outright denial of the right to counsel.
Read the central report: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know
Update – September 2025
What’s new: We’ve consolidated the record on Fred Olivares’s dual role and the buried Midlothian subpoena. This update is for clarity and search visibility, and it links to the central hub and related filings.
Key facts now documented
- Olivares was Croft’s private investigator while also a former FBI agent tied to the early investigation—an undisclosed structural conflict.
- Midlothian subpoena was drafted by William Brooks, but before service Olivares used FBI contacts, learned Wes Keeling was Brady listed, and the subpoena was buried.
- No service ever occurred. Years later, Olivares filed an affidavit claiming Croft would deliver it—a claim impossible under Croft’s strict house arrest and 300+ mile distance.
- FOIA confirms Keeling’s Brady status existed before trial, proving the government relied on a compromised witness while the defense concealed exculpatory facts.
Mini timeline
- Brooks drafts subpoena → Olivares checks via FBI channels.
- Keeling confirmed Brady listed → subpoena buried (never served).
- Trial proceeds → government uses Keeling.
- Years later: Olivares affidavit blames Croft for “delivery.”
- FOIA production confirms pre-trial Brady listing.
Related pages
See the full context and filings at the central hub: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth.
Companion posts: Thomas McHugh — Conflict of Interest · William Brooks — Silent Complicity
Why this matters
This is not a paperwork mistake. It is a documented Brady/Giglio/Napue breakdown plus a defense-team conflict that denied Croft a fair trial. This page will continue to be updated as filings and exhibits are added.