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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> **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:
Vacate the district court’s blanket dismissal.
Reopen all Rule 60(b) motions.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
New federal filings confirm that an Independent Action in Equity has now been filed and made public, naming federal criminal defense lawyer Thomas J. McHugh as a defendant.
The action alleges fraud on the court based on false sworn statements, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and judicial reliance on tainted materials — issues that could not be addressed through ordinary post-conviction remedies.
This filing is not a criminal appeal. It is an equitable action seeking to restore the integrity of the judicial process where the record itself was allegedly corrupted.
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.
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.
