San Antonio, TX – June 23, 2025

A powerful new court filing by Bradley Lane Croft reveals what legal experts are calling one of the most egregious breakdowns of constitutional integrity in recent federal memory. In a series of exhibits now filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Croft exposes a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, attorney perjury, and systemic fraud that will result in the vacatur of his seven-year federal conviction.

At the center of the filing is a November 19, 2018 letter authored by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Surovics. The letter, addressed directly to Croft’s defense attorney Thomas McHugh, warns of a conflict of interest involving Fred Olivarez—Croft’s own defense investigator—who previously served as an FBI agent involved in a prior investigation of Croft. Despite this direct written notice, the conflict was never disclosed to the court. No hearing was held. No waiver was obtained.

Years later, Thomas McHugh submitted a sworn affidavit denying he had ever been made aware of a conflict. That sworn statement directly contradicts the DOJ’s own letter addressed to him.

• Officer Wes Keeling, who under oath denied giving permission to use his name and denied involvement in the veteran training program—despite evidence showing he had in fact authorized his name and participated in the program. Prosecutors continued to rely on Keeling’s testimony even though he had been Brady listed by both the Midlothian Police Department and the Ellis County District Attorney’s Office prior to Croft’s trial.
• The Texas Veterans Commission (TVC) revoked Universal K9’s program approval without due process, in apparent coordination with false allegations pushed by VA OIG investigators. These actions were not only based on demonstrably false premises but directly contributed to the narrative used by prosecutors to justify charges against Croft; under questionable circumstances, with Croft alleging that Scott’s full identity and investigative history were never properly disclosed.

The motion, filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), asserts that these actions amounted to fraud on the court and a fundamental violation of Croft’s Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free counsel. The filing is supported by forensic evidence, metadata, sworn affidavits, and official government correspondence.

Croft’s court filings include both the letter and McHugh’s affidavit as exhibits. This isn’t the only evidence raising questions about the integrity of the prosecution:

• Fred Olivarez, a former FBI agent, was embedded in Croft’s defense team despite having direct prior involvement in the case. His email to Croft dated November 26, 2018, includes the conflict letter he received.
• William Brooks, co-counsel with McHugh, remained silent about the known conflict and took no steps to disclose it. Brooks also authored a subpoena for Officer Wes Keeling that was never served or followed up on—despite the fact that it would have uncovered a treasure trove of Brady material critical to Croft’s defense.

In subsequent proceedings, Fred Olivarez submitted false statements in his response to the State Bar of Texas, falsely claiming the subpoena had been served in an attempt to protect Thomas McHugh from disciplinary exposure. This falsehood was directly addressed and refuted by Croft’s civil attorney, Paul Torres, who formally corrected the record in a written reply to the bar complaint.

Croft’s legal campaign has been led by a determined father-daughter team, working tirelessly since his release from prison to uncover the truth. Their filings also name the individuals involved and include supporting bar complaints and licensing grievances.

“They embedded an FBI agent into my defense team, got caught, and then lied about it under oath,” Croft said. “They thought I’d stay quiet, but I’ve built this case brick by brick. My daughter and I weren’t just defending me—we were defending the Constitution.”

Croft is now demanding full relief: vacatur of his conviction, an evidentiary hearing, and disciplinary action against those involved.

With overwhelming evidence now part of the public record—including sworn affidavits, DOJ letters, and undisputed metadata—the responsibility now rests with Senior U.S. District Judge David Ezra. His ruling will determine whether the federal judiciary will address a fully documented case of fraud on the court and constitutional breakdown—or allow it to persist unchecked. All eyes are now on the Western District of Texas to see whether justice is enforced or evaded.

KEY NAMES INDEXED FOR PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

• Thomas McHugh – attorney San Antonio conflict perjury
• Fred Olivarez – FBI agent defense conflict of interest
• William Brooks – Texas defense attorney misconduct
• Gregory Surovics – AUSA DOJ Brady violation
• Wes Keeling – veteran program false testimony
• Sean Scott – DOJ witness identity withheld
• Bradley Lane Croft – wrongful conviction Rule 60(b)

All documents referenced in this article are available upon request and are part of the public record.

Media Contact:
info@universalk9inc.com
Bradley Lane Croft
San Antonio, TX
(210) 560-1308