K9 Grant Program

How Departments Can Get a Police Dog at No Cost

A K9 Grant is one of the most effective ways for law enforcement agencies to add a working dog without the high upfront cost.

At Universal K9, our K9 Grant Program is designed to help departments obtain a fully operational K9 team while removing the financial barrier that often prevents agencies from building or expanding a unit.

What Is a K9 Grant?

A K9 Grant is a funding solution that allows a department to receive a police dog at little to no cost, typically through sponsorships, community support, or grant funding.

Traditional police dogs can cost between $15,000 and $20,000 before training. Our K9 Grant Program eliminates that cost by providing the dog, while the department covers the handler development portion.

How the Universal K9 Grant Program Works

Our program is built around a simple model:

• We provide the dog at no cost to the department
• The department completes a structured handler development program
• The result is a fully deployable K9 team ready for service

We currently have law enforcement agencies across the United States ready and waiting, allowing for fast placement once a team is prepared.

Single Purpose vs. Dual Purpose K9s

We offer both single purpose detection dogs and dual purpose patrol/detection K9s:

Single Purpose K9s (Detection)

These dogs are selected based on drive and suitability for detection work. In some cases, high-drive dogs identified through shelter partnerships may be used when they meet our criteria.

Dual Purpose K9s (Patrol + Detection)

Dual purpose dogs are sourced through trusted vendors with proven working bloodlines and are selected specifically for patrol, apprehension, and advanced operational work.

This ensures each department receives the right dog for its specific needs.

Benefits of the K9 Grant Program

• No upfront cost for the dog
• Faster access to a working K9 team
• Structured handler development
• Options for both detection and dual purpose work

Funding Options for Departments

Many departments are able to fund the handler development portion through:

• Local business sponsorships
• Community fundraising
• Grant opportunities

If funding is the only barrier, we can help point departments in the right direction.

Get Started with a K9 Grant

If your department is interested in adding a K9 unit but cost has been a limiting factor, our K9 Grant Program provides a clear path forward.

Contact Universal K9 to learn more about how to qualify and get started.

On February 18, 2026, a formal grievance was filed with the State Bar of Texas regarding prior federal criminal representation by Thomas J. McHugh of San Antonio, Texas.

The grievance concerns issues arising from a federal criminal case handled in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. The submission references publicly available court records, sworn affidavits, discovery correspondence, and related filings.

The complaint includes documentation that has already been filed in federal court proceedings and is part of the public record. No confidential materials are referenced in this post.

Thomas J. McHugh, San Antonio attorney, is identified in the grievance by name and Texas Bar number as required by the State Bar’s formal submission process.

The grievance has been accepted for administrative review by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel. The State Bar grievance process is procedural and independent. No determination has been made at this stage.

This update is provided for transparency and public documentation purposes only.

Related:
– Public record filings involving Thomas J. McHugh (San Antonio)
– Federal court proceedings (Western District of Texas – San Antonio Division)
– Source documents and timeline archive

Brad Croft is a San Antonio-based businessman and founder of Universal K9, a canine training and placement organization. Public interest in Brad Croft increased following federal litigation and subsequent media coverage. This page provides a factual, up-to-date overview of Brad Croft’s case background, court filings, procedural history, and post-conviction developments, including materials and perspectives not reflected in earlier media reporting.

### Brad Croft – Professional Overview

• Name: Brad Croft
• Location: San Antonio, Texas
• Profession: Business owner and canine training executive
• Organization: Universal K9
• Legal Context: Federal criminal proceedings and related litigation

### Case Background and Media Coverage

In May 2021, local and national media outlets reported on federal charges and sentencing involving Brad Croft. Much of that coverage reflects the procedural posture of the case at that time and does not incorporate later court filings, evidentiary disclosures, post-conviction litigation, or documented procedural concerns raised in subsequent filings and appellate matters.

### Documented Case Analysis and Procedural Record

The following materials are drawn from publicly filed court records, motions, exhibits, letters, and documented proceedings. They reflect developments occurring after initial media coverage and provide a more complete procedural and factual record.

### 1. Four Pillars of Fraud – Brad Croft San Antonio Case

Brad Croft San Antonio: Owner of Dog Training School CHECKMATES the Government in a 4 Pillars of Fraud Filing

This page outlines the documented “four pillars of fraud” framework applied to the Brad Croft case, including legal theories, evidentiary concerns, and procedural issues arising from the federal record.

### 2. Truth and Case Context – Brad Croft San Antonio

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

This section provides factual context and detailed analysis of the Brad Croft case, including aspects of the record that were not covered or were oversimplified in early news reporting.

### 3. Broken DOJ Letter – Perjury and Federal Misconduct

BREAKING: DOJ Letter, Perjury, and Federal Misconduct Exposed in Brad Croft San Antonio Case

This page presents a documented Department of Justice letter and related filings exposing alleged perjury and federal prosecutorial misconduct in the Brad Croft case.

4. Media Mentions and Coverage – Brad Croft San Antonio
https://www.universalk9inc.com/media-mentions-brad-croft-san-antonio-coverage/

### 5. Thomas McHugh False Affidavit – San Antonio

Bradley Lane Croft – San Antonio Federal Judge Relied on a False Affidavit Authored by Thomas McHugh

This page documents a false affidavit attributed to attorney Thomas J. McHugh in the context of the related litigation, providing additional procedural and evidentiary context relevant to the Brad Croft case.

This index catalogs media mentions and coverage of the Brad Croft case, with links and summaries to help distinguish early reporting from later procedural developments.

### Current Status and Ongoing Proceedings

As of the most recent filings, Brad Croft’s case continues to attract documented court filings, procedural motions, and evidentiary developments beyond earlier media reporting. These records address issues of constitutional significance, evidentiary disclosures, and ongoing litigation affecting post-conviction relief and appellate review.

This page is provided for informational purposes and is based exclusively on publicly available court records, filings, and documented materials. Readers are encouraged to review the source documents directly and to distinguish between historical media reporting and developments occurring after initial coverage.

Thomas J. McHugh is a San Antonio-based criminal defense attorney and former Assistant United States Attorney. He has represented clients in federal criminal matters in Texas and beyond. This page provides a factual overview of Thomas J. McHugh’s professional background and serves as an index to publicly documented case analysis involving his representation.

### Thomas J. McHugh – Professional Overview

• Name: Thomas J. McHugh
• Location: San Antonio, Texas
• Profession: Criminal Defense Attorney
• Former Role: Assistant United States Attorney
• Practice Focus: Federal criminal defense

## Documented Case Analysis Involving Thomas J. McHugh

The following materials are based on publicly available court records, filings, transcripts, and contemporaneous documentation. Each page addresses a specific aspect of Thomas McHugh’s involvement in federal litigation.

### Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Issues

**Thomas McHugh Conflict of Interest – Case Analysis**

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

This page documents conflict-of-interest issues, disclosure failures, and structural concerns arising from Thomas McHugh’s role in federal litigation.

### Federal Equity and Fraud-on-the-Court Exhibits

**Federal Equity Exhibits – Fraud on the Court (Thomas McHugh)**

FEDERAL CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER THOMAS J. McHUGH NAMED IN NEW FEDERAL EQUITY CASE

This section indexes equity-based filings and exhibits addressing fraud on the court and related procedural violations involving Thomas McHugh.

### Conflict and Professional Misconduct

**Thomas McHugh Conflict and Misconduct Review**

Thomas McHugh San Antonio Attorney – Conflict of Interest, False Affidavit, and Prosecutorial Misconduct Exposed

This page examines allegations of misconduct, ethical concerns, and failures tied to Thomas McHugh’s representation.

### Knowledge, Omissions, and Record Evidence

**What Thomas McHugh Knew – And What He Chose Not to Say**

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

This analysis focuses on the evidentiary record regarding what Thomas McHugh knew during litigation and what information was not disclosed.

This index is provided for informational purposes and is based solely on publicly available records and filings. Readers are encouraged to review the source material directly and draw their own conclusions.

Last Updated: December 2025
Author: Bradley Lane Croft
Filed Proceedings: Fifth Circuit No. 25-50775

WHY THE TOP GOOGLE RESULTS ARE NO LONGER ACCURATE

If you search “Brad Croft San Antonio,” Google still surfaces headlines from 2021 claiming that a San Antonio dog trainer was sentenced to 10 years in prison for defrauding veterans.

Those articles do NOT reflect the current legal reality.

As of now, that conviction is under active Fifth Circuit supervision, supported by:
• Unopposed emergency bond motions
• A pending writ of prohibition
• Documented fraud on the court
• Judicial actions taken without jurisdiction
• Government silence on the merits

This is no longer a closed case. It is an unfolding constitutional crisis inside a federal prosecution.

THE CASE IS NO LONGER “POST-CONVICTION” — IT IS ACTIVELY UNRAVELING

1. Two Unopposed Emergency Bond Motions
• One pending in the district court
• One pending in the Fifth Circuit
• The Government has filed ZERO opposition to either

In federal practice, silence on bond—especially where fraud and structural constitutional violations are alleged—is not neutral. It is strategic avoidance.

2. A Live Writ of Prohibition Before the Fifth Circuit

The Fifth Circuit is currently reviewing whether:
• The trial judge may continue presiding at all
• The prosecution team is conflicted and disqualified
• The district court exceeded its authority after jurisdiction transferred to the appellate court

A writ of prohibition is extraordinary relief. It exists to stop judicial conduct that threatens the integrity of the judicial process itself.

THE FOUR PROVEN PILLARS OF FRAUD ON THE COURT

The current filings are not speculative. They are exhibit-driven and unrebutted.

Pillar One: A Pseudonymous Federal Agent at the Grand Jury
FOIA responses confirm that the IRS-CI agent presented to the grand jury under the name “Sean Scott” does not exist under that identity. Fraud at the grand-jury stage infects everything that follows.

Pillar Two: A Concealed FBI Conflict Inside the Defense Team
A “former but not former FBI agent” who helped open the investigation later sat embedded with the defense—without waiver, disclosure, or inquiry—creating a structural Sixth Amendment violation.

Pillar Three: Suborned Perjury by the Government’s Core Witness
The prosecution elicited testimony it already knew was false while suppressing Brady and impeachment material. The record now proves this conclusively.

Pillar Four: Judicial Ratification of the Fraud
The same false affidavit and conflicted filings were adopted in post-conviction rulings. A court cannot rely on fraud to deny a motion exposing fraud.

THE WIRE-FRAUD THEORY HAS COLLAPSED AS A MATTER OF LAW

Newly discovered Texas Veterans Commission documents confirm that applications were required to be mailed and that emailed submissions were expressly prohibited.

This renders the alleged “email to TVC” factually false and legally impossible under federal wire-fraud law.

Under Cleveland, Loughrin, and Dubin, the charged theory cannot support a conviction—and the district court itself has repeatedly stated that the testimony underpinning it was “not material to a finding of guilt.”

CONCLUSION

The story Google still tells about Brad Croft San Antonio is outdated.

The real story is this: a federal conviction is under active appellate scrutiny, supported by unrebutted evidence of fraud on the court, structural constitutional violations, and judicial actions taken without authority—while the Government remains silent.

Thomas J. McHugh San Antonio

If you search online for a U.S. federal criminal defense lawyer or a former federal prosecutor turned defense attorney, you will likely come across Thomas J. McHugh of San Antonio, Texas.

---

But a newly filed federal equity lawsuit names McHugh as a defendant — not as a lawyer defending a client, but as a central figure accused of helping place false information into a federal court record.

This case does not argue guilt or innocence in a criminal matter. It asks a federal court to address something much more serious: whether the justice system itself was misled.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT? (PLAIN ENGLISH)

The lawsuit alleges that:

• McHugh knew about a conflict involving a former FBI agent tied to the case
• Despite that knowledge, a sworn affidavit was later submitted denying any conflict
• That affidavit was used by federal prosecutors
• And it was relied on by a federal judge

When sworn statements known to be false are used in court, federal law calls that “fraud on the court.” This is not a technical mistake — it is considered a serious attack on the integrity of the judicial process.

WHY THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM NORMAL APPEALS

Most post-conviction cases argue legal errors.

This one does not.

It was filed as an Independent Action in Equity, a rare type of case used only when normal remedies are no longer available and the court itself may have relied on false information.

In simple terms: the claim is that the court was misled, and equity is the only way to fix it.

WHY THIS MATTERS TO ANYONE HIRING A FEDERAL DEFENSE LAWYER

McHugh publicly markets himself as:
• A federal criminal defense lawyer
• A former federal prosecutor
• A lawyer handling white-collar and federal fraud cases nationwide

Those credentials matter — which is exactly why the allegations matter too.

If proven, the conduct described in the lawsuit would raise serious questions about ethics, honesty, and trust, all of which are critical when someone’s freedom is on the line.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

The case requires the United States to respond on the merits — meaning the allegations must be admitted or denied, not avoided.

That alone makes this filing unusual and important.

No conclusions have been reached yet. But the allegations are now part of the public federal record.

BOTTOM LINE

This isn’t legal drama. It is a serious federal case asking whether false sworn statements were allowed to shape a court’s decisions.

When that question is raised, everyone should pay attention — especially those searching for a federal criminal defense lawyer they can trust.

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.