Wrongful convictions don’t just happen. They’re built — one lie, one omission, one conflict at a time.
In my case, it wasn’t just a bad defense or an overzealous prosecutor. It was an entire network of failure that included a perjuring witness, a silent defense team, and a government so determined to win that they buried the truth.
Here’s how the system collapsed — and who helped push it down.
Government witness Wes Keeling testified under oath that he never taught Universal K9’s TVC-approved program — a statement proven false by metadata, department emails, and the Midlothian Police Chief’s own sworn affidavit.
At the time he testified, Keeling had already been Brady-listed for dishonesty and falsifying evidence. The prosecution knew. The defense had the documents. And no one said a word.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Surovics had the same documents. He had the Midlothian TVC approval letter. He knew Keeling’s testimony was false. Yet he stood by silently — and used that testimony to convict.
He’s now named in a civil rights lawsuit. Because he didn’t just allow perjury — he relied on it.
Lead defense counsel Thomas McHugh was directly warned by the DOJ about a conflict of interest on his own team — Fred Olivares, a former FBI supervisor connected to the case. Instead of disclosing the conflict, McHugh submitted a false affidavit denying he ever knew about it.
Fred Olivares later submitted his own false affidavit, claiming he gave me a key subpoena to have served — even though I was on house arrest and couldn’t have done so. The subpoena was never served.
Co-counsel William Brooks filed the subpoena, but like the others, he said nothing when it disappeared.
This wasn’t an accident. It was coordination through silence.
The result? A trial where the witness perjured himself, the prosecution let it happen, and the defense never objected. A subpoena that could have changed everything was buried. And a man was convicted while everyone in power looked the other way.
This wasn’t a flaw in the system. It was the system doing exactly what its worst actors wanted.
Fred Olivares, former FBI supervisor turned private investigator, played a central role in one of the most disturbing defense collapses ever seen in a federal criminal case. Based in San Antonio, Olivares quietly joined the defense team after years of government service—without a single disclosure or waiver to the court.
Now, his name sits at the center of bar complaints, DOJ letters, and civil rights litigation. And the truth is catching up.
Olivares previously supervised FBI agents assigned to investigate Bradley Croft. Then, he resurfaced as part of Croft’s defense team—despite a clear, documented conflict of interest. A letter from the U.S. Attorney’s Office confirms that the Department of Justice had warned lead defense counsel Thomas McHugh of this exact conflict.
Instead of disclosing it to the court or stepping away, Olivares stayed on. Quietly. Strategically. Unethically.
In 2018, Croft requested that his defense team subpoena witness Wes Keeling—whose credibility had already been compromised through Brady listings and disciplinary memos. Attorney William Brooks filed the subpoena with the court.
But no one served it.
When confronted during a bar complaint, Fred Olivares submitted a sworn affidavit claiming he handed the subpoena to Croft and instructed him to have his civil attorney serve it. The problem? Croft was on the strictest form of house arrest—unable to go anywhere other than court, his attorney’s office, or the doctor. He had no legal ability to execute that subpoena, and Fred knew it.
This wasn’t incompetence. It was coordinated failure. Olivares, McHugh, and Brooks all had the opportunity—and the duty—to act. Instead, they stayed quiet while a subpoena was buried, a Brady witness testified, and a conviction took root.
And now, Olivares’ false affidavit is preserved in the record. Alongside the DOJ’s letter. Alongside the unserved subpoena. Alongside a mountain of evidence showing that this wasn’t just a trial gone wrong—it was a defense that never tried to win.
Thomas McHugh, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney based in San Antonio, played a lead role in a federal prosecution now unraveling under the weight of Brady violations, false affidavits, and suppressed conflicts. McHugh wasn’t just present — he orchestrated the case, shaped the indictment, and silenced the defense.
Now, the record is catching up.
Despite being directly informed by the Department of Justice about a major conflict involving the defense team’s investigator — a former FBI agent who had prior involvement in the prosecution — McHugh submitted a sworn affidavit to the Texas State Bar claiming he had no such knowledge.
That affidavit is now refuted by DOJ’s own letter, exposing McHugh to potential perjury and professional misconduct.
McHugh’s failure to disclose the conflict didn’t just violate ethical rules — it destroyed the client’s right to a fair trial. When confronted during a bar investigation, instead of correcting the record, he lied to cover his own tracks. And that lie is now central to both pending Rule 60 motions and a federal civil rights complaint.
It wasn’t just what McHugh knew — it was what he chose to conceal.
Rather than stepping aside or disclosing the conflict, McHugh advised the client to proceed to a bench trial and failed to correct false testimony from the government’s key witness. This wasn’t just trial strategy — it was a setup.
The silence of Thomas McHugh helped send an innocent man to prison. That silence is now part of the public record — and it’s being challenged in every court that matters.
Thomas McHugh – FAQ
Who is Thomas McHugh in the Brad Croft case?
Thomas McHugh was one of Croft’s defense attorneys in San Antonio. He is now accused of betraying his client by hiding a major conflict of interest involving federal investigators and by allowing exculpatory evidence to be buried.
What was McHugh’s conflict of interest?
McHugh knew that Croft’s private investigator, Fred Olivares, was a “former but not former FBI agent” who had actually helped open the case against Croft years earlier. Instead of exposing this, McHugh allowed Olivares to embed himself inside the defense team while still aligned with law enforcement.
What happened with the Midlothian subpoena?
Defense attorney William Brooks drafted a subpoena to the Midlothian Police Department. Before it was ever served, Olivares used FBI contacts to preview what it would reveal and discovered that Wes Keeling was Brady listed. Under McHugh’s watch, the subpoena was buried and never served.
Why is the “Croft deliver the subpoena” story impossible?
Olivares later swore in an affidavit that Croft said he would deliver the subpoena himself. That is impossible. Croft was on strict house arrest with an ankle monitor, forbidden to travel except for court or hospital visits. Midlothian PD is over 300 miles away, and Croft had paid over $120,000 for McHugh, Brooks, and Olivares to handle subpoenas and defense work. Expecting him to serve his own subpoena was absurd and a cover story.
What did the FOIA request reveal after trial?
A FOIA request later confirmed that Wes Keeling was Brady listed before Croft’s trial. This meant the government knowingly used a compromised witness while McHugh and his team buried the evidence.
What filings involve McHugh today?
McHugh is a central figure in Croft’s Rule 60(b) filings, civil rights lawsuits, and forthcoming bar complaints. These filings argue that McHugh knowingly permitted a compromised defense team, concealed Brady material, and failed to act on government misconduct.
Will Brooks San Antonio Attorney Who Stayed Silent While I was Wrongly Convicted
William Brooks, a San Antonio-based attorney, played a quiet but pivotal role in a case that has now unraveled into one of the most disturbing examples of prosecutorial misconduct and systemic failure in recent memory. While the spotlight often shines on prosecutors and investigators, it’s sometimes the silence of co-counsel like William Brooks that speaks the loudest.
Brooks was present at critical junctures of the Universal K9 prosecution. He was paid, privy to discovery, and served as co-counsel alongside Thomas McHugh — the same McHugh now accused of hiding Brady material and submitting a false affidavit to the Texas Bar.
And what did William Brooks do? Nothing.
No disclosure. No objection. No motion to withdraw.
When the defense team fractured ethically, Brooks stayed silent — and that silence helped a wrongful conviction stand.
William Brooks had every reason — and responsibility — to speak up.
He had the same access to the discovery, the same conflict concerns, and the same duty to protect the client.
Yet he let the conflict grow in plain view. He let the lies slide. He let the court get misled.
According to federal Sixth Amendment jurisprudence, the right to conflict-free counsel is not optional. When an attorney stays silent in the face of constitutional violations, they cross the line from negligence into complicity.
While prosecutors like Gregory Surovics and former agents like Fred Olivares are now under fire, William Brooks has so far escaped public scrutiny.
That changes now.
He was there. He saw it. He said nothing. And soon, the court will hear about it.
Image File Name: william-brooks-san-antonio-attorney.jpg Alt Text: Attorney William Brooks San Antonio – Universal K9 Fraud Case Caption: William Brooks, San Antonio-based attorney named in Universal K9 federal misconduct case.
William Brooks – FAQ
Who is William Brooks in the Brad Croft case?
William Brooks was part of Croft’s defense team in San Antonio. He is accused of silent complicity — knowing about major conflicts of interest and failing to act on them.
What was Brooks’s conflict of interest?
Brooks was fully aware that Croft’s PI, Fred Olivares, had helped open the case against Croft while with the FBI, and that Thomas McHugh allowed him to sit inside the defense team. Brooks knew this created a structural conflict but chose not to challenge it.
What was Brooks’s role in the Midlothian subpoena?
Brooks drafted the subpoena to Midlothian PD. Before it was served, Olivares used FBI contacts to learn that Wes Keeling was Brady listed. Instead of serving it, Brooks let the subpoena be buried and never brought it before the court.
Why is the “Croft deliver the subpoena” story unbelievable?
Olivares later claimed in an affidavit that Croft said he would deliver the subpoena. Brooks echoed this in his bar response. The claim is impossible: Croft was on strict house arrest with an ankle monitor, barred from travel except court or hospital, and Midlothian PD is over 300 miles away. Croft had also paid over $120,000 for his defense team to handle subpoenas, not to serve them himself.
What did the FOIA request later confirm?
FOIA records confirmed that Keeling was Brady listed before Croft’s trial. This proved the government used a known liar while Brooks and the defense team suppressed the evidence and later misled in official filings to cover their tracks.
What filings involve Brooks today?
Brooks is implicated in Croft’s malpractice demand letters, civil suits, and upcoming bar complaints. He is documented as part of the compromised defense team that buried Brady evidence and denied Croft a fair trial.
What’s new: This update documents William Brooks’s role in drafting the Midlothian subpoena, his decision to let it be buried once it showed Wes Keeling was Brady listed, and his later bar response echoing Olivares’s false affidavit. It links to the central hub and companion posts for context.
Key facts now documented
Brooks drafted the Midlothian subpoena targeting records at Midlothian PD. Before it was ever served, Fred Olivares used FBI contacts, discovered Wes Keeling was Brady listed, and the subpoena was buried.
No service ever occurred. The defense never followed through, despite Brooks having drafted it.
Later cover story: In his bar response, Brooks echoed Olivares’s affidavit claiming Croft would deliver the subpoena. This was impossible—Croft was on strict house arrest, barred from travel, and had already paid over $120,000 for his legal team to handle subpoenas.
FOIA confirms Keeling’s Brady status existed before trial, proving the government relied on a compromised witness while Brooks and the defense team concealed the truth.
Mini timeline
Brooks drafts subpoena → Olivares checks via FBI contacts.
Keeling confirmed Brady listed → subpoena buried, never served.
Trial proceeds → government uses Keeling as key witness.
Years later: Olivares affidavit blames Croft → Brooks echoes in bar response.
This was not an oversight. It was a coordinated act: a subpoena drafted then buried, Brady evidence hidden, and a false cover story repeated in official responses. This page will continue to be updated as filings and exhibits are added.
Thomas McHugh didn’t just betray me as my attorney. He betrayed the entire legal profession — and the Texas State Bar let it happen.
When I first filed a bar complaint against McHugh, he responded with a sworn affidavit claiming he had no idea there was any conflict of interest in my case.
But I now have a DOJ letter, signed by former AUSA Gregory Surovics and addressed directly to McHugh, showing he was told — in writing — about the conflict more than a year before trial.
So let’s be clear: McHugh lied under oath. And the Bar used that lie to dismiss the complaint.
Now I’ve come back with the evidence they chose to ignore. The DOJ letter. The paper trail. And a sworn declaration from me documenting exactly what McHugh said to my face while I was still in custody:
“I know someone at the Bar.”
He said it before I ever filed a complaint. And now I know why.
This isn’t just about a conflict of interest anymore. It’s about a legal system that protects its own — and a disciplinary system that took a false affidavit at face value.
I’m putting the Bar on notice again — and this time, I’m doing it in public.
Federal filings now reveal that prosecutors relied on a false affidavit authored by Thomas McHugh — an affidavit directly contradicted by the DOJ’s own 2018 letter.
This discrepancy strengthens the record of systemic misconduct, conflicts of interest, and fraudulent representations impacting the Brad Croft San Antonio case.
This update box is maintained to reflect ongoing developments.
In federal court, silence isn’t neutral. It’s strategy. And Thomas McHugh knew that better than anyone.
McHugh wasn’t just some overworked defense attorney handed a complex case. He was a former AUSA, a man who knew the system from both sides, and who claimed to know the judge better than the facts.
And still, he stood down.
He never objected to the wire fraud theory — even though the documents proved the Texas Veterans Commission required mailed applications, not emailed ones.
He never questioned why Wes Keeling’s testimony conflicted with federal discovery — or why the prosecutor never corrected it.
He never filed a single motion to dismiss — not even when the indictment contradicted the government’s own evidence.
You can’t call that advocacy.
You call that complicity.
And the proof isn’t just in the transcripts. It’s in the silence. The missed objections. The passive stance while his own investigator’s past relationships with DOJ and the FBI went undisclosed.
Thomas McHugh was one of Croft’s defense attorneys in San Antonio. He is now accused of betraying his client by hiding a major conflict of interest involving federal investigators and by allowing exculpatory evidence to be buried.
What was McHugh’s conflict of interest?
McHugh knew that Croft’s private investigator, Fred Olivares, was a “former but not former FBI agent” who had actually helped open the case against Croft years earlier. Instead of exposing this, McHugh allowed Olivares to embed himself inside the defense team while still aligned with law enforcement.
What happened with the Midlothian subpoena?
Defense attorney William Brooks drafted a subpoena to the Midlothian Police Department. Before it was ever served, Olivares used FBI contacts to preview what it would reveal and discovered that Wes Keeling was Brady listed. Under McHugh’s watch, the subpoena was buried and never served.
Why is the “Croft deliver the subpoena” story impossible?
Olivares later swore in an affidavit that Croft said he would deliver the subpoena himself. That is impossible. Croft was on strict house arrest with an ankle monitor, forbidden to travel except for court or hospital visits. Midlothian PD is over 300 miles away, and Croft had paid over $120,000 for McHugh, Brooks, and Olivares to handle subpoenas and defense work. Expecting him to serve his own subpoena was absurd and a cover story.
What did the FOIA request reveal after trial?
A FOIA request later confirmed that Wes Keeling was Brady listed before Croft’s trial. This meant the government knowingly used a compromised witness while McHugh and his team buried the evidence.
What filings involve McHugh today?
McHugh is a central figure in Croft’s Rule 60(b) filings, civil rights lawsuits, and forthcoming bar complaints. These filings argue that McHugh knowingly permitted a compromised defense team, concealed Brady material, and failed to act on government misconduct.
In every federal case, the players leave a paper trail.
Except this one.
The man at the center of my investigation — IRS-CI Agent Sean Scott — has no trail. No published cases. No known assignments. No law enforcement acknowledgments. No FOIA-confirmed identity. It’s as if he was never there.
But he was. I met him personally at a hearing in 2011. He handed me his card. He was with another agent, Sharleigh Drake, who now works under the Texas Department of Public Safety. They were watching me long before the government claims any official investigation had started.
Here’s what I now know: The government claims my case was opened in 2015. But Scott and Drake were surveilling me in 2011. They sat in my hearing. They were inside the courtroom. They were not there by coincidence.
I asked for records. Nothing. I submitted FOIA requests. Silence. No one can verify his history. The name “Sean Scott” leaves no trail in any court or public record.
So here’s the question:
If the lead federal agent who helped build the government’s case can’t be verified, how much of that case was real? How much was manufactured?
What else is the government hiding?
This isn’t a ghost story. It’s the blueprint of a conviction built on secrecy, false identities, and institutional silence.
In 2018, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Surovics issued a letter that should have changed everything. In it, he acknowledged that Fred Olivares — who had quietly become part of my defense team — once sat shoulder-to-shoulder with the original FBI case agent in the very office investigating me. Erin Isley, the case agent, was under Olivares’s supervision. He was her mentor.
That’s not a gray area. That’s a flashing red conflict of interest.
But instead of bringing it to the court’s attention, instead of disclosing the conflict to the defense or moving to protect the integrity of the case, Gregory Surovics did nothing.
Worse, he allowed Olivares to stay embedded in my defense team — the same Olivares who had access to the government’s internal knowledge and likely had firsthand input on the very case strategies now being used against me.
And the DOJ has the audacity to pretend that no harm occurred.
The letter alone should have resulted in immediate court review. Instead, it was buried. Quietly sent to my former attorney, not filed in court, not disclosed to me, and not acted on in any meaningful way.
That is the very definition of concealment.
It wasn’t a mistake. It wasn’t an oversight. It was a deliberate choice to stay silent about something that strikes at the heart of justice. And it came from the prosecutor himself.
AUSA Gregory Surovics didn’t just fail to act. He enabled the conflict. He allowed Olivares to operate in dual roles, undermining the fairness of the process and the legitimacy of my defense.
I sat through trial. I was convicted. And I never once knew that my own investigator had sat at the right hand of the agent who helped build the case against me.
This isn’t a technicality. It’s prosecutorial misconduct by omission.
Gregory Surovics let the conflict unfold. But Thomas McHugh watched it happen from the defense table and let it ride. He never filed a motion to dismiss, never objected to the false wire fraud theory, and never disclosed Olivares’ history. That wasn’t just negligence — it was silence by design. Here’s what McHugh knew — and what he let happen.
When I was being prosecuted, Brooks didn’t stand across the aisle. He was my attorney. And while he hadn’t worked for the FBI, he acted more like an observer than an advocate.
In a case built on lies, faulty assumptions, and suppressed truth, having a defense attorney who didn’t challenge any of it was a liability, not an asset.
No motion. No objection. No question about the government’s collapsing wire fraud theory. And absolutely no spotlight on the fact that the Texas Veterans Commission didn’t even accept electronic applications — something that would have blown a hole straight through the government’s indictment.
Brooks knew better. But silence is a decision, too.
His silence isn’t incidental. It’s central to understanding why no one on my side raised the red flags. Why no one asked why the government’s timeline didn’t make sense. Why no one demanded the truth about who trained who, when, and where.
In a case where the truth could have saved me, William Brooks said nothing.
Brooks stayed silent, but McHugh was the one with the power — and the obligation — to act. His failure to challenge the fraudulent indictment or disclose the conflicts behind my defense wasn’t just incompetence. It was complicity. See the full breakdown: Thomas McHugh’s Failure to Defend.
