Blog

Some conflicts aren’t loud. They don’t storm into courtrooms. They creep in quietly, then sit there, doing damage in silence.

That’s what happened with William Brooks.

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.

Read the full breakdown here.

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.

FRED Olivares: The Gatekeeper Who Switched Sides — and the Prosecutor Who Let Him

When you peel back the layers of my case, you don’t just find lies — you find proximity. Proximity to the facts. Proximity to the agents. Proximity to the truth that never made it into the courtroom.

Take Fred Olivares.

The government called him a defense investigator. What they didn’t tell the court, or the public is that Olivares wasn’t just any investigator. He was a former FBI Special Agent who sat shoulder-to-shoulder with the government’s original case agent, Erin Isley, at the San Antonio field office during the early years of the investigation against me.

In fact, she took her problems to him. Not just because he was experienced — but because he was her daily advisor. He sat at the desk right next to hers. The Department of Justice admitted as much in a 2018 letter from Gregory Surovics to my former attorney.

Yet somehow, Fred Olivares later walked onto my defense team. No one blinked. No one disclosed. No one stopped it.

And the prosecutor? He let it happen.

When you dig into Fred’s resume, it becomes clear he wasn’t some passive, retired agent with no ties. He publicly advertises that he reviewed federal criminal cases for both factual and legal sufficiency. He reviewed cases like mine.

Think about that.

If Fred Olivares had been sitting on the prosecution team with that level of proximity, the defense would have moved to disqualify him immediately.

But when he switched sides?
They just let it slide.

Conflict doesn’t get much clearer than that. It’s not speculation. It’s documented. And the harm didn’t end with my conviction — it continues with every day I remain confined while they pretend none of this matters.

This is what it looks like when a justice system protects its own instead of the truth.

Fred Olivares played both sides of the chessboard. And the prosecutor who let him do it — Gregory Surovics — still hasn’t explained why.

While Fred Olivares quietly joined my defense team despite a clear conflict, what’s worse is that Thomas McHugh — my lead attorney — said nothing. He never objected, never disclosed, and never challenged the government on Olivares’ proximity to the original case agent. Read how McHugh failed at the most basic level of legal defense: The Indictment Failure of Thomas McHugh.

William Brooks played a quiet but crucial role in a case that was anything but quiet. A former defense investigator in my federal prosecution, Fred Olivares had access, insight, and opportunity — yet never once sounded the alarm about what was unfolding around him.

The truth is, Fred Olivares wasn’t just an investigator. He was once an FBI agent — someone trained to spot red flags, false narratives, and constitutional violations. But during the government’s prosecution of me, he said nothing as the system leaned on false evidence and conflicted actors.

In a case riddled with Brady violations, suppressed evidence, and undisclosed relationships between government witnesses and prosecutors, William Brooks’ silence wasn’t neutrality. It was complicity. And when you trace his career history, you start to understand why.

This wasn’t just a failure to speak up. This was a pattern of passive validation. Brooks sat alongside Thomas McHugh and Fred Olivares — both of whom were wrapped in conflict, misconduct, or worse. He had a duty to report it. Instead, he sat quietly and collected a paycheck.

The keyword here is William Brooks VA fraud case. Because fraud isn’t always about money — sometimes it’s about silence. And silence, when you’re tasked with uncovering the truth, can be as damning as a lie.

What if the entire case against you was built on a fact that wasn’t true — and your own lawyer never challenged it?

That’s exactly what happened to me.

In my case, the government claimed I submitted an application to the Texas Veterans Commission by email — and used that to justify a federal wire fraud charge. But the Texas Veterans Commission doesn’t accept emailed applications. They never have. The agency’s own employee said it. Their website confirms it. The entire wire fraud theory was false from the start.

And yet, my defense attorney, Thomas McHugh, never challenged it.

He didn’t investigate the submission procedure. He didn’t ask for clarification from the agency. He didn’t call the right witness. He didn’t file a motion to dismiss. He didn’t raise it at trial. He didn’t raise it on appeal. He didn’t raise it at all.

That failure — to catch and confront the false foundation of the government’s indictment — wasn’t just a missed detail. It was a fundamental breakdown in the basic duties of criminal defense. And today, I filed a motion under Rule 60(b)(6) to correct it.

Because here’s the truth: I never sent a valid application by email. And even if I had, that method wasn’t authorized. The agency required applications to be mailed. No exceptions. No gray area. No confusion.

This wasn’t a gray-area conviction. It was a wire fraud case built on a wire that legally never existed — and a defense lawyer who never spoke up.

I had to do it myself. Years later. From a halfway house. With no legal degree. Because no one else would.

You can read more about McHugh’s deeper role — and the failures that stacked up around him — here.

But this post is about one thing:
The cost of silence from someone who was supposed to speak on my behalf.

And the fight to make sure the truth still gets heard anyway.

In wake of universal k9s founder brad croft disappointing trial the government has continued to release false information pertaining to the alleged fraud committed against the VA. The government is now saying that since fraud was committed against the VA all the handler and dog training was also fraudulently given, this affecting thousands of cases brought by the good work k9s and their handlers have done. However the government theory is flawed and here is how.

There is no proof that the training given by universal k9 does not meet or exceed industry standards. In the simple fact that the majority of universal k9 students have gone out and were successful in finding drugs and making cases proves the training was excellent. An alleged false statement on an application does not somehow void all of the training individuals receive from Uk9. UK9 classroom instruction was given by Wes Keeling, Dustin Bragg and Jonthan Lowrance, all who are TCOLE instructors and employed as current Police officers in the state of Texas. In trial the director of TVC said on the stand the school could be approved with just 1 instructor.

Point number 2 is all the law enforcement k9 policy requires and annual recertification for all k9 teams. That recert is usually performed by a nationally recognized org such as NNDDA or NAPAWADA and most UK9 students pass that directly after class before hitting the streets.

Point number 3 is the Supreme court that has ruled in Florida VS Clayton Harris that training and deployment records are the Gold Standard when it comes to litigating an criminal case. NO certificate from any organization trump’s training and deployment records.

All students who completed a UK9 handlers course and received an excellent trained dog can continue to use their dogs with no problem. Just like you were taught in class make sure you maintain excellent records. The government’s case against Croft is not over and the appeal still needs to be heard.