Introduction
The DOJ still headlines its 2021 press release: “Owner of Dog Training School Sentenced for Defrauding Veterans Affairs.” But that narrative has collapsed. In September 2025, Brad Croft of San Antonio filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Fifth Circuit, laying out what he calls the Four Pillars of Fraud that infected the case from indictment to post-conviction rulings. These filings prove fraud on the court so completely that there is no answer the Government can give to cure it — which is why prosecutors continue to avoid responding.

Pillar I – The Phantom Agent “Sean Scott”

In 2018 the Government presented “Sean Scott” to the grand jury as an IRS-CI agent. FOIA responses confirmed no such agent exists — “Sean Scott” was a pseudonym with no personnel file. Fraud at the grand jury tainted the entire prosecution of Brad Croft San Antonio, and no government filing can rewrite that history.

Pillar II – Fred Olivares: A Structural Conflict of Interest

Fred Olivares, introduced at trial as a “former but not former FBI agent,” had been part of the original prosecution team in 2013. Yet he later embedded in Croft’s defense without waiver or inquiry. This was a structural Sixth Amendment violation that presumptively denied Brad Croft of San Antonio conflict-free counsel. Fraud at this level is incurable — no retroactive excuse can undo a structural conflict.

Pillar III – Wes Keeling’s Perjury & AUSA Surovics’s Subornation

Wes Keeling falsely denied teaching VA-approved courses. DOJ records, FOIA emails, affidavits, and IRS filings prove otherwise. AUSA Gregory Surovics elicited this false testimony despite possessing proof to the contrary — a classic Napue violation. Keeling was also Brady-listed for dishonesty before trial, impeachment evidence the Government suppressed in the prosecution of Brad Croft San Antonio. Once a conviction rests on perjury knowingly presented, it is incurable fraud — silence is the Government’s only option because no truthful answer exists.

Pillar IV – Judge Ezra’s Ratification of Tainted Filings

Post-conviction, Judge Ezra allowed AUSA Surovics — the very prosecutor tied to perjury — to draft the Government’s §2255 response, co-signed by U.S. Attorney Jamie Esparza. Ezra declared the filing “ripe” and ratified it. This converted prosecutorial misconduct into judicial complicity in the case of Brad Croft San Antonio. The Government cannot cure a record where both prosecutors and the court itself have ratified fraud.

Conclusion
From the phantom agent at the grand jury, to the conflicted defense investigator, to perjury and suppression, and finally judicial ratification of tainted filings — every stage of the Brad Croft San Antonio case is anchored by fraud on the court. There is no answer the Government can file to cure proven fraud; their refusal to respond is itself an admission. The Writ of Prohibition asks the Fifth Circuit to bar Judge Ezra, reassign the case, strike the conflicted filings, and require a conflict-free rebriefing of Croft’s §2255 petition.

The story of Brad Croft San Antonio is gaining visibility across multiple platforms. These mentions build the record of truth and strengthen the reach of documented evidence. Below is a collection of published coverage.

Substack Coverage

• Substack: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth
• Substack: Thomas McHugh — Conflict of Interest
• Substack: William Brooks — Silent Complicity
• Substack: Fred Olivares — Retired FBI Conflict
• Substack Note: First Update

Substack Brad Croft Checkmate DOJ

LinkedIn Coverage

• 
  LinkedIn (Personal Profile): Media Mentions — Brad Croft San Antonio
  
• 
  LinkedIn (Company Page – Universal K9): Media Mentions — Brad Croft San Antonio
  

Why It Matters

While the DOJ and local outlets leave outdated headlines untouched, these Substack posts are alive, updated, and supported by affidavits, filings, and FOIA records. This list will continue to expand as coverage grows across Substack, LinkedIn, Medium, and other platforms.

Bill Harris, longtime DOJ prosecutor, reappeared decades later at Bradley Croft’s trial. Why was Harris present every day despite not being lead counsel? This post exposes his history of retaliation, hidden coordination, and unresolved conflicts in The Great Scam.

Most prosecutors move on after a case. Bill Harris didn’t. Decades after his first prosecution of Bradley Croft, Harris reappeared in the courtroom for every day of a new trial — not as lead counsel, not as a named prosecutor, but as a shadow presence with unexplained influence. His role in The Great Scam raises hard questions about DOJ retaliation, secret coordination, and conflicts that were never disclosed.

Harris was no stranger to Bradley Croft. In the early 1990s, Harris was responsible for the first federal charges brought against him. That history should have raised immediate red flags when Harris resurfaced decades later. Instead, it went unmentioned — a silent conflict that shaped everything that followed.

Though not lead prosecutor, Harris attended every single day of Croft’s trial. His presence was never explained to the jury or the defense. When questioned, Harris deflected, pointing toward the official prosecutor as if to say “your client is trying to talk to me.” Yet his silent role speaks louder than words: he was invested in the outcome.

Harris’ reappearance wasn’t isolated. He was tied to Gregory Surovics, who suborned perjury, and to Thomas McHugh, the conflicted defense attorney. Behind the scenes, Harris’ fingerprints were on communications and strategy that undermined any chance at a fair trial. This was not coincidence — it was continuation.

Harris had a history of pressing Croft in earlier cases, including attempts to leverage investigations against third parties. His vendetta-style approach carried forward into The Great Scam, where he quietly guided the narrative without ever having to put his name on the record. Retaliation was his motive; silence was his shield.

Every actor in The Great Scam played a role, but Harris stands out because of his persistence. Most prosecutors close the book on a defendant once a sentence is served. Harris never let go. His shadow role connects the past to the present — proof that the case was never about justice, but about retaliation.

Bill Harris DOJ retaliation, Bill Harris prosecutor misconduct, Bill Harris DOJ conflict, Bill Harris Bradley Croft case, DOJ retaliation Texas, federal prosecutorial misconduct

Bill Harris’ reappearance at trial was not chance. It was part of a long arc of retaliation that defines The Great Scam. His presence links the old case to the new — showing that the DOJ’s interest was never in truth, but in silencing one man. Share this post to expose how retaliation poisons justice.

Read the central report: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know

THE GREAT SCAM! exposes how Thomas McHugh, Fred Olivares, Gregory Surovics, Wes Keeling, Sharleigh Drake, Sean Scott, Jeffrey Breen, and Bill Harris worked together through lies, perjury, and suppressed evidence to destroy justice and dismantle Universal K9.

The Great Scam isn’t just a story about mistakes — it’s a blueprint for how prosecutors, investigators, and conflicted attorneys worked together to destroy truth and silence accountability. From Thomas McHugh to Fred Olivares, from Gregory Surovics to Wes Keeling, the same names surface again and again in a pattern of lies, cover-ups, and betrayal.

Wes Keeling took the stand and told the government’s story. The problem? It was false. A 2015 email proves he was an instructor with Universal K9, contradicting his sworn testimony. Metadata confirmed it came from Keeling’s official Midlothian Police Department account. The Chief of Police himself swore by affidavit that Keeling had indeed been a Universal K9 instructor. Yet prosecutors pushed the lie anyway, knowing the truth sat in their files.

The defense was compromised from within. Thomas McHugh, former Assistant U.S. Attorney, accepted private fees but carried conflicts of interest that were never disclosed. Sitting beside him was Fred Olivares, described in open court as a “former but not former FBI agent.” That wasn’t a defense consultant — it was government presence embedded in the defense camp. This was not just ineffective assistance of counsel — it was structural sabotage of the Sixth Amendment.

Prosecutors didn’t just make mistakes — they made choices. Gregory Surovics suborned perjury and sat silent while Brady/Giglio material was withheld. Bill Harris, who had prosecuted decades earlier, suddenly reappeared at trial every day despite not being lead counsel. His unexplained involvement shows how deep the coordination ran.

The investigative team was no better. Sharleigh Drake (Texas DPS), Sean Scott (IRS-CI), and Jeffrey Breen (VA OIG) each had knowledge of exculpatory material. All three ignored it. Instead, they pushed forward with a pre-packaged narrative designed to secure conviction at any cost.

What did The Great Scam cost? Six years of liberty stolen through false testimony and suppressed evidence. A business dismantled — Universal K9, once approved by the Texas Veterans Commission, destroyed through collusion. Family and community ties ripped apart while prosecutors played delay games and courts looked away.

The pattern is clear. Thomas McHugh, Fred Olivares, Gregory Surovics, Wes Keeling, Sharleigh Drake, Sean Scott, Jeffrey Breen, Bill Harris — each played a role. Each turned a blind eye or actively fueled the scam. By naming names, the truth cannot be buried under vague “mistakes” or “oversights.”

Thomas McHugh conflict of interest, Fred Olivares former FBI, Gregory Surovics misconduct, Wes Keeling false testimony, Sharleigh Drake DPS misconduct, Sean Scott IRS-CI ghost agent, Jeffrey Breen VA OIG, Bill Harris DOJ reappearance, Universal K9 wrongful conviction, prosecutorial misconduct, Brady violation, federal court cover up

The Great Scam is not over — the record is still being written. Each name here is a thread in the same web. And when the whole web is exposed, the truth will no longer be deniable. Share this post. Demand accountability. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Rule 60(b) Filings – Complete Pleadings & Exhibits (Public Archive)

https://www.universalk9inc.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/The-Great-Scam-Rule60b6-Complete-Record-3.pdf

Read the central report: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know

This isn’t just about a name with no record. The deeper issue is how Sean Scott’s unexplained presence in the courtroom — absent from FOIA logs, public records, or professional databases — directly undermines the entire prosecution’s timeline and credibility.

Read more in The Next Brady List.

The DOJ’s silence around Sean Scott creates a suspicious chain of concealment:

• Introduced as IRS-CI in 2011 — before the case officially opened.
• Identified in person via a business card — yet no official records.
• No Giglio disclosure, no background, no accountability.

When a prosecutor introduces an agent into the courtroom—without disclosure of true identity—it raises serious legal concerns (Brady/Giglio violations). But it also poses a journalistic red flag: Why doesn’t the DOJ clarify who this person is? That alone is worth public scrutiny.

The Fifth Circuit could break this silence — forcing the DOJ to respond with facts. Until then, Sean Scott remains emblematic of how secrecy can cloak the truth. His fate is tied directly to the mandate of transparency and accountability we’re demanding.

Read the central report: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know

Gregory Surovics, the lead prosecutor in my case, didn’t just present evidence — he cultivated false narratives and put them before the court as fact. The record shows he was present when those narratives were created, and then actively elicited them during trial.

The clearest example is Wes Keeling.

• Surovics was present for the Memorandum of Interview (MOI) in which Keeling gave statements that were later proven false.
• At trial, Surovics elicited those same false statements as direct testimony, knowing they were contradicted by verified evidence — including metadata-authenticated emails and documents in government possession.
• This was not oversight. It was a decision to use testimony he knew was false in order to support the DOJ’s narrative.

Subornation of perjury is more than just unethical — it’s a direct violation of due process. When a prosecutor knowingly presents false testimony, it undermines the foundation of a fair trial and turns the proceeding into a staged outcome.

Gregory Surovics is one of several names in The Next Brady List — individuals whose actions destroy their credibility and should disqualify them from participating in the justice process.

The Fifth Circuit now has the opportunity to break this wall of silence by vacating the district court’s blanket dismissal, reopening my Rule 60(b) motions, and ordering the DOJ to respond — on the record.

Until then, the truth about Gregory Surovics and his use of known false testimony remains shielded from accountability.

Read the central report: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know

The Department of Justice has perfected the art of silence in my case. With verified constitutional violations on the record — from Brady and Giglio breaches to a structural Sixth Amendment conflict — they’ve refused to file a single substantive response.

That silence isn’t protecting justice. It’s protecting the next wave of names that belong on the Brady list — the roster of government actors whose credibility is so compromised they can’t be trusted in court.

The Ghost in the Room: IRS-CI “Agent” Sean Scott

• No other public cases list him as an agent.
• No press releases, prosecutions, or paper trail — nothing like what you see for a career IRS-CI investigator.
• I first encountered him in 2011–2012 during a hearing — seated with Texas DPS officer Sharleigh Drake — years before the DOJ’s official start date for my case.

If “Sean Scott” is a pseudonym or cover identity, it’s not just unusual — it’s a constitutional problem:

• Brady/Giglio – The defense has the right to know the true identity and background of agents involved.
• Timeline Manipulation – Scott’s early presence contradicts the DOJ’s own version of when this case began.

The DOJ’s Wall of Silence

It’s not just Sean Scott. The Department of Justice is protecting a lineup of actors whose conduct destroys credibility and demands Brady listing:

• Gregory Surovics – Lead prosecutor who suborned perjury and has never been made to answer for the violations.
• Jamie and Fidel Esparza – DOJ leadership, fully aware of the record, doing nothing.
• Fred Olivares – “Former but not former” FBI agent embedded in my defense team, proven conflict of interest and cover-up.
• Wes Keeling – Already Brady listed, yet allowed to testify falsely about his role in the K9 handlers course.
• Jeffrey Breen (VA OIG) – Should be Brady listed. Testified before the grand jury that the case began when Bebe Glasgow contacted him — a statement Bebe Glasgow later testified under oath was false.
• Sharleigh Drake (Texas DPS) – Should be Brady listed. Backed Breen’s false origin story before the grand jury, contradicting Glasgow’s sworn testimony that she never contacted anyone.

Read more: THE NEXT BRADY LIST: How DOJ Silence Protects Ghost Agents and Constitutional Violations

> **Why False Grand Jury Testimony Matters:** > The grand jury is supposed to be the safeguard between the government and the accused — a body that only indicts when there’s probable cause based on truthful evidence. When federal agents give false testimony to a grand jury, they poison the process at its source. If the origin story of the case is a lie, then every action flowing from that indictment is built on a false foundation.

FOIA Confirmations They Can’t Erase

• Keeling was Brady listed as early as 2018.
• DOJ correspondence (2018) directly notified my defense counsel of Olivares’s conflict — a fact later denied in sworn affidavits.
• Communication chains between these actors were intentionally hidden from the defense.

Why This Matters Now

These are not old wounds. I remain under confinement. Every day the DOJ avoids a response is another day these constitutional violations go unaddressed.

My mandamus petition now before the Fifth Circuit asks them to:

1. Vacate the district court’s blanket dismissal.
2. Reopen all Rule 60(b) motions.
3. Order the DOJ to finally respond — on the record.

If they grant it, the silence breaks — and these names could very well be on the next Brady list.

Read the central report: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know

Meta Title: Wes Keeling Perjury and AFF Funding: New Filing Exposes DOJ Misconduct and Defense Conflicts

Meta Description: A new court filing reveals explosive evidence of perjury by Wes Keeling, funding coordination with Animal Farm Foundation, and major conflicts involving McHugh, Brooks, and Olivares. Read the full breakdown with links to every source.

This week I filed a Supplemental Judicial Notice that proves, using their own documents, what I’ve been saying for years:

• Wes Keeling committed perjury during my trial
• The DOJ knew and let it happen
• Animal Farm Foundation (AFF) funded the same training they prosecuted me for
• My defense team — Thomas McHugh, Fred Olivares, and William Brooks — stood by and did nothing
• Thomas McHugh: https://www.universalk9inc.com/thomas-mchugh-conflict-of-interest/
• Fred Olivares: https://www.universalk9inc.com/fred-olivares-retired-fbi-conflict/
• William Brooks: https://www.universalk9inc.com/william-brooks-silent-complicity/

This isn’t opinion. This is verifiable record. It’s time the public sees what they hid.

Keeling testified under oath that he never taught the VA-approved handlers course for Universal K9.

But Exhibits H and I — sourced from his own emails and correspondence with AFF — prove otherwise.

In 2017, Keeling led Universal K9’s handlers course. In 2018, AFF transitioned its funding to Keeling — while I was under indictment and still VA-approved.

He continued the exact same training he denied under oath.

The DOJ had all of this:

• The Stacey Coleman FD-302
• The Keeling emails from 2017
• AFF’s 2018 transition communications
• IRS filings and Keeling’s MOI

They ignored it all and said nothing. They let false testimony define the trial.

This wasn’t justice. It was strategic silence.

Thomas McHugh: Former AUSA turned defense lawyer — with active conflict.
William Brooks: Present when McHugh exposed Olivares’ FBI connection — said nothing.
Fred Olivares: “Former but not former” FBI agent embedded in defense — structural conflict.

They didn’t fight for me. They preserved the setup.

Exhibit G: 2018 FBI interview — Stacey Coleman confirms AFF funded the same program Keeling continued.

Exhibit H: Keeling’s 2017 email — he ran the handlers course with media coverage and agency participation.

Exhibit I: AFF’s 2018 transition plan — they moved the same training to Keeling after cutting me out.

The record is closed. The truth is filed. There is nothing left to deny.

This wasn’t just a bad prosecution. It was a calculated replacement.

They built the lie. I filed the truth.

If you’ve been following my case, now’s the time to see what they never wanted the court — or the public — to read.

— Bradley Lane Croft
Universal K9, Inc.

Read the central report: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know

Filed Under: Pseudonym Exposure, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Wrongful Conviction

Keywords: Sean Scott IRS CI, ghost agent, pseudonym, federal misconduct, Universal K9 case, Bradley Croft wrongful conviction

Who the Hell Is Sean Scott?

He sat in the courtroom. He attended Croft’s 2011 hearing. He was introduced as an IRS-Criminal Investigations agent. He was tied to the case from the beginning.

But here’s the problem:

• DOJ case records – nothing
• IRS-CI employment databases – blank
• PACER filings – silent
• LinkedIn, court opinions, trial dockets – zero

It’s as if the man who helped build a federal criminal case — under color of IRS authority — simply doesn’t exist.

And that’s exactly the point.

“Sean Scott” is real. But that’s not his real name.

This wasn’t a background analyst. This wasn’t some indirect witness. This was a direct participant in an investigation and trial, appearing in court, interacting with defense counsel, and involved years before the indictment.

A Ghost in the Record

Bradley Croft met him face-to-face in 2011. Scott was seated in the gallery with another agent (DPS Officer Drake) during Croft’s hearing. When approached, Scott handed over his business card identifying himself as IRS-CI.

Yet when FOIA requests were filed, no employment record was found. When court records were searched, no other cases referenced him. When his name was checked against DOJ staff and trial participants, he vanished.

No alias disclosure. No Giglio material. No accountability.

This isn’t just a clerical oversight. It’s a concealed identity planted in a prosecution where truth was optional and conviction was the goal.

And now, the mask is slipping.

A Name With No Past

If Sean Scott is who they say he is, the DOJ can produce his:

• Real personnel file
• Giglio disclosure (if required)
• Confirmation of identity under oath

But they haven’t. Because they can’t — not without stepping into a deeper lie.

They knew the identity was a pseudonym. They used him anyway. And they buried the truth behind secrecy walls that are now cracking under pressure.

I met the man. But the name was never real.

Let that sink in.

Related Posts:

• Thomas McHugh Conflict of Interest – Mid-Trial Disclosure Shakes Case Foundation
• William Brooks – The Attorney Who Stayed Silent
• Fred Olivares – The Retired But Not Retired FBI Agent Embedded in the Defense

Author: Bradley Lane Croft

Tags: #SeanScott #IRS_CI #GhostAgent #WrongfulConviction #FederalCoverUp #UniversalK9 #HoldTheReceipts

Read the central report: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know