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

1. Brooks drafts subpoena → Olivares checks via FBI channels.
2. Keeling confirmed Brady listed → subpoena buried (never served).
3. Trial proceeds → government uses Keeling.
4. Years later: Olivares affidavit blames Croft for “delivery.”
5. 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.

---

Filed Under: Conflict of Interest, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Wrongful Conviction

Keywords: William Brooks attorney San Antonio, Thomas McHugh conflict, Fred Olivares FBI, wrongful conviction, Universal K9

The Not-So-Great Setup: Brought Down by Their Own Arrogance

They thought they were untouchable.

Thomas McHugh admitted — out loud and on the record — that Fred Olivares was a “retired, but not retired FBI agent” sitting at the defense table. It was a moment that should have triggered alarms, objections, and immediate conflict hearings.

But William Brooks, McHugh’s co-counsel, sat right there. And said nothing.

Brooks wasn’t just a bystander. He was the other half of a defense team that allowed a government-aligned operative to stay embedded with their client through the entire federal trial. He heard the quote. He saw the conflict. And he did nothing to stop it.

That’s not negligence. That’s complicity.

The arrogance of these men is what brought this setup crashing down. They thought no one was smart enough to catch it. That no one would challenge them. That no one would dig through transcripts, uncover DOJ letters, or put the puzzle together.

They were wrong.

William Brooks’ silence wasn’t strategic — it was damning. And now it’s part of the public record, tied directly to a constitutional breakdown that no court has yet dared to confront.

A bar complaint has been filed. The transcript is public. And the narrative they buried is now climbing to the top of every search engine they once assumed no one would ever check.

Because this time, the man they tried to bury is the one holding the receipts.

Related Posts:

• Thomas McHugh Conflict of Interest – Mid-Trial Disclosure Shakes Case Foundation
• Fred Olivares – From FBI Supervisor to Defense Insider in the Universal K9 Case

Bar Complaint Filed: eFile ID #2364 — July 26, 2025

Author: Bradley Lane Croft

Tags: #WilliamBrooks #DOJConflict #FredOlivares #WrongfulConviction #UniversalK9

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

What Thomas McHugh Knew — And What He Chose Not to Say

Filed Under: Conflict of Interest, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Wrongful Conviction

Keywords: Thomas McHugh San Antonio Attorney, conflict of interest, Fred Olivares FBI, Bradley Croft wrongful conviction, Universal K9

Thomas McHugh, once a federal prosecutor himself, crossed the aisle to represent Bradley Lane Croft as defense counsel. But instead of protecting his client’s constitutional rights, McHugh became part of a catastrophic breakdown in due process that led to Croft’s wrongful conviction.

At the very beginning of trial proceedings on October 8, 2019, McHugh introduced Fred Olivares to the court by stating:

“Also at the defense table with us is Mr. Fred Olivares, a retired, but not retired FBI agent.”

This was no slip of the tongue. It was a startling admission made in open court, with McHugh’s co-counsel William Brooks sitting silently beside him. McHugh openly acknowledged that a key member of the defense team was still effectively aligned with the FBI—the very agency involved in prosecuting Croft.

Yet McHugh filed no conflict motion. He offered no Brady disclosure. He took no steps to protect Croft’s Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel.

McHugh had every reason to act. He had every opportunity. But he chose silence and complicity. That choice set in motion a trial poisoned by insider influence, hidden government ties, and suppressed truths.

To this day, not one court has grappled with the full implications of that early admission. But the record exists. The transcript is clear. The damage is done. And now, the public knows the truth McHugh tried to straddle:

You cannot serve two masters. And you cannot defend a man from a system you’re still part of.

Related Posts:

• BREAKING: DOJ Letter, Perjury, and Federal Misconduct Exposed in Bradley Lane Croft Conviction
• Fred Olivares San Antonio – From FBI Supervisor to Defense Insider in the Universal K9 Case
• William Brooks San Antonio – The Attorney Who Stayed Silent

Bar Complaint Filed: eFile ID #2362 — July 26, 2025

Author: Bradley Lane Croft

Tags: #McHughConflict #FredOlivaresFBI #WrongfulConviction #UniversalK9

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

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Thomas McHugh in the Brad Croft case?

Thomas McHugh was one of Brad Croft’s defense attorneys in San Antonio. He is now accused of betraying his client by hiding conflicts of interest and allowing Brady evidence to be buried.

What was McHugh’s conflict of interest?

McHugh knew that Croft’s private investigator, Fred Olivares, was a former FBI agent who had actually helped open the case against Croft in 2013. Instead of exposing this, McHugh allowed Olivares to embed himself in the defense team while still aligned with law enforcement.

What happened with the Midlothian subpoena?

William Brooks, another defense attorney, drafted a subpoena to Midlothian PD. Before it could be served, Olivares used FBI contacts to discover that Wes Keeling was Brady listed. Instead of disclosing this, the subpoena was buried under McHugh’s watch.

Why is the claim that Croft was supposed to deliver the subpoena impossible?

Years later, Olivares and Brooks claimed Croft was supposed to deliver the subpoena himself. This was impossible: Croft was on strict house arrest with an ankle monitor, barred from travel, and had already paid over $120,000 for his legal team to handle subpoenas.

What filings involve McHugh today?

McHugh is named in Rule 60(b) motions, civil rights lawsuits, and forthcoming bar complaints. These filings argue that McHugh knowingly permitted a compromised defense team, buried Brady evidence, and failed to act on government misconduct.

“Sounds like the bureau just started a dog program… just inherited one, right?”

That quote was caught on FBI bodycam during the 2018 federal raid on my company, Universal K9 — a veteran-owned police dog training program.

Today, I filed that video — Exhibit F — in a federal Rule 60(b)(6) motion alongside sworn declarations, new evidence, and a full timeline that exposes how the DOJ, Texas Veterans Commission (TVC), and key witnesses orchestrated my takedown and handed my business to their own replacement operation: Sector K9.

Watch the video for yourself — this is their voice, their words, their motive:
[UNIVERSAL K9 TAKE DOWN]

Read the full federal filing with exhibits:

What’s proven:

• DOJ agents joked about inheriting my K9 business during the raid
• TVC revoked my program the same day — without due process
• Government witness Wes Keeling launched Sector K9 using my infrastructure
• Sworn affidavit from the Midlothian Police Chief contradicts trial testimony
• Metadata, internal emails, and discovery confirm the timeline

This isn’t a theory. It’s a documented hit job — and it’s now on the record.

They didn’t convict me to protect the public.

They dismantled my business to hand it off to a “BRADY LISTED” GOVERNMENT WITNESS WES KEELING— and now the truth is surfacing in federal court.

Filed: July 15, 2025
U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
Motion: Rule 60(b)(6) – Newly discovered evidence, Brady/Giglio violations, structural conflict

The curtain has been pulled.
The wizard’s exposed.
And this time — it’s all on video.

DOJAccountability #K9Training #UniversalK9 #VeteranJustice #Rule60 #TVCExposed #ProsecutorialMisconduct #CivilRights

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

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 – The Subpoena He Lied About
Thomas McHugh – What He Knew and What He Chose Not to Say
William Brooks – The Attorney Who Stayed Silent
Gregory Surovics – The Prosecutor Who Knew Too Much

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

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.

William Brooks – The Attorney Who Stayed Silent
Thomas McHugh – What He Knew and What He Chose Not to Say
Gregory Surovics – The Prosecutor Who Knew Too Much and Said Nothing

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

For the full case overview, see the cornerstone post: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know.

 

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.

William Brooks – The Attorney Who Stayed Silent
Gregory Surovics – The Prosecutor Who Knew Too Much

Fred Olivares – The Gatekeeper Who Switched Sides

 

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

For the full case overview, see the cornerstone post: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth the DOJ Doesn’t Want You to Know.

 

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.

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

---

Update – September 2025

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

1. Brooks drafts subpoena → Olivares checks via FBI contacts.
2. Keeling confirmed Brady listed → subpoena buried, never served.
3. Trial proceeds → government uses Keeling as key witness.
4. Years later: Olivares affidavit blames Croft → Brooks echoes in bar response.
5. FOIA confirms pre-trial Brady listing.

Related pages

Central hub: Brad Croft San Antonio — The Truth
Companions: Thomas McHugh — Conflict of Interest · Fred Olivares — FBI/PI Conflict

Why this matters

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.

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