Home / Trial I / Witnesses / Vol VI
Trial I · US v. Farah

Vol VI

2024-04-30
Source PDF
Day Overview

Volume VI covers the second day of Emily Honer's testimony. Direct examination by AUSA Thompson consumed the entire morning and afternoon pre-lunch, walking through dozens of CLiCS applications and catering contracts for two primary sites — Samaha Islamic Center (vended by Empire Cuisine & Market under Partners in Nutrition sponsorship) and Tot Park in Circle Pines (also vended by Empire, sponsored by Partners in Nutrition for Mind Foundry). Thompson then pivoted to the Dar Al-Farooq/ThinkTechAct site under Feeding Our Future's sponsorship, introducing both the Empire Cuisine and Afrique Hospitality Group vendor contracts, with Aimee Bock and Mukhtar Shariff as signatories. Cross-examination by Mr. Goetz (for Mukhtar Shariff) was the most substantive of the day, introducing seven USDA waiver documents, confronting Honer on MDE's voluntary payment of all claims, MDE's auto-approval of those claims without document review, and Honer's personal bias arising from the racism allegations. Mr. Cotter cross-examined on the complexity of pandemic-era regulations and the activity-requirement waiver. The most significant moment was Goetz eliciting that USDA has never clawed back any of the money and that the court never ordered MDE to pay — MDE did so voluntarily.

Government Strategy

The government used Day 2 of Emily Honer's direct examination to establish the full operational history of Empire Cuisine & Market and Partners in Nutrition's role as sponsor through the CLiCS application and claims record — a voluminous paper trail designed to show systematic, escalating fraud. Thompson walked the jury month by month through site applications for Samaha Islamic Center and Tot Park, demonstrating how claimed meal counts exploded from 300 to 2,000 per day. The government also introduced the Afrique Hospitality Group (defendant Mukhtar Shariff's company) as a second vendor contracting with Feeding Our Future. The day ended with Honer's account of MDE's failed stop-pay intervention and her referral to the FBI, framing the entire narrative as institutional alarm bells that went unheeded until law enforcement intervened. The government sought to establish that no legitimate food operation could serve 2,000+ children per day at a restaurant or park site, and that the consistent round-number daily attendance figures were fabricated.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- THE ROSTER ISSUE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT REGULATORY POINT IN THE CASE: Honer testified on direct (page 1266) that 'attendance rosters' are required documentation for SFSP sites. For open SFSP sites — which the Samaha Islamic Center and Dar Al-Farooq sites both were — this is legally incorrect. Federal SFSP regulations require only a count of meals served, not individual child identification. Retaining a USDA/SFSP regulatory expert to establish this point is essential. The government's entire documentary fraud proof depends on the jury believing that rosters identifying specific children were required — if they were not required, the absence of rosters is not evidence of fraud. - THE WAIVERS ARE ALL IN EVIDENCE: Through Honer's cross-examination, the defense successfully admitted ten USDA waivers without objection. These waivers collectively establish that (1) children did not need to be physically present eating on site; (2) parents could pick up food for children; (3) food could be distributed in bulk at non-mealtime hours; (4) onsite monitoring was waived; (5) area eligibility was eliminated; (6) SFSP operated year-round; and (7) the activity/enrichment requirement was waived. The government's physical surveillance evidence (empty sites, small numbers of children observed) is legally irrelevant under these waivers. - KARA LOMEN IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: Lomen is Executive Director of Partners in Nutrition (a private sponsor, not an MDE employee). She signed every Empire-PIN vending contract. She submitted every Partners in Nutrition claim to MDE. She controlled what was verified before submission. She has never been charged, never been called before the grand jury (apparently), and never testified. Partners in Nutrition processed the majority of the money at issue. Any defense of a defendant whose liability depends on claims submitted by Lomen's organization should aggressively develop this point. - MDE'S OWN AUTO-APPROVAL IS A GIFT: Every single disputed claim was auto-approved by MDE's CLiCS system without human review. MDE approved application caps of 4,000–6,000/day and never adjusted a single claim. This creates a powerful structural argument: the government designed, operated, and maintained a system that paid every dollar without review, and now seeks to prosecute recipients of that auto-approved money for fraud. - THE CLAWBACK ADMISSION SHOULD BE IN EVERY CLOSING ARGUMENT: USDA has the legal right to clawback all disputed money from the State of Minnesota. USDA has not done so. The federal agency most knowledgeable about the program requirements and most directly harmed by the alleged fraud has taken no action to recover the money. This is an extraordinary fact that the jury needs to hear and understand.

Witnesses
Emily Honer
Business Operations and Support Services Supervisor at the Minnesota Department of Education (2019–2022); oversaw CACFP and SFSP administration, processed site applications and claims, and initiated referrals to USDA OIG and FBI.
MDE Government
Direct Examination

Thompson continued building the foundation of the government's fraud narrative through Honer. He introduced approximately 30 CLiCS exhibits covering the full application and claims history for Samaha Islamic Center (Empire/Partners in Nutrition) and Tot Park (Empire/Partners in Nutrition), showing meal counts escalating from 300/day in April 2020 to 2,000/day by December 2020 and through 2021. He then introduced the Dar Al-Farooq/ThinkTechAct site (Feeding Our Future), showing CACFP and SFSP claims reaching 98,000–112,000 meals per month with identical average daily attendance figures month after month. Honer also described MDE's March 2021 notice of serious deficiency, the stop-pay order, the Feeding Our Future lawsuit, and her ultimate referral to the FBI based on her belief that claims were fraudulent.

▸
Honer testified that 'attendance rosters' are part of the required documentation for meal claims, and that Thompson confirmed this on the record: 'meal counts, attendance rosters, invoices' and 'menus' are all required documentation submitted by sites to sponsors. — CRITICAL REGULATORY FLAG: For SFSP open sites (which most of these sites were classified as), rosters identifying individual children are NOT required under federal regulations. Open SFSP sites must count meals served, not identify children. Honer's lumping of 'attendance rosters' into SFSP open site requirements is inaccurate and potentially misleading to the jury. This is a foundational mischaracterization that the defense should aggressively challenge. [p. 1266]
▸
Kara Lomen is listed as 'executive director' of Partners in Nutrition on CLiCS site applications and catering contracts, and is correctly identified by Honer as 'the executive director of Partners in Nutrition' — a private sponsor organization, not an MDE employee. — Properly establishes Lomen's role as private sponsor executive. However, the government never highlighted her uncharged status or the significance of her controlling the submission of millions in claims while having never been charged or interviewed by the FBI. [p. 1313]
▸
Honer testified that the May 2020 application for Samaha Islamic Center changed the site classification from 'closed enrolled' to 'open site,' yet she continued to imply throughout direct that attendance records and individual child identification were required. — REGULATORY FLAG: Once a site is classified as an SFSP open site, there is no requirement to identify individual children or maintain individual attendance rosters. The government's fraud narrative depends in part on the implication that these open sites should have had identifiable rosters of attending children, which is incorrect for open SFSP sites. [p. 1323-1324]
▸
Thompson asked: 'You can't get reimbursed by MDE or the USDA for meals that aren't actually served?' Honer: 'Absolutely not.' This was presented as a fundamental program rule the defendants violated. — True as a matter of law, but the government's proof of meals 'not actually served' depends almost entirely on surveillance at sites and official characterizations — not documentary evidence that meals were not distributed. Under noncongregate/pickup waivers, the absence of children eating at the site is not evidence that meals were not served. [p. 1332]
▸
Honer testified that Tot Park in Circle Pines claimed 2,506 average daily attendance for March, April, May, and June 2021 — the same exact number each month. She stated 'from reviewing multiple claims across multiple sponsors, that is not realistic' because children get sick and attendance varies. — This is the government's strongest statistical fraud indicator: identical daily attendance figures across consecutive months. However, under the waiver allowing bundled meals and parent pickup, the 'attendance' tracked was not physical presence but rather meals distributed. The defense should explore whether the 2,506 figure reflected enrolled participants eligible to receive bundled weekly distributions rather than daily physical attendees. [p. 1383-1385]
▸
Honer introduced Government Exhibit C-32, a CACFP vended meal contract between Mind Foundry Learning Foundation and Empire Cuisine & Market signed by 'Mahad Ibrahim' for Mind Foundry. — Mahad Ibrahim, not Abdiaziz Farah, is identified as the Mind Foundry signatory on this contract. This is relevant to proving Abdiaziz Farah's connection to Mind Foundry sites. Honer had earlier speculated (incorrectly based on the document itself) that Abdiaziz Farah ran ThinkTechAct; Goetz later established she did not know from personal knowledge. [p. 1363]
▸
Honer testified that between Partners in Nutrition and Feeding Our Future, she saw combined reimbursements of $119 million in the program year up through March 2021, compared to $5 million/year for PIN and $2 million/year for FOF pre-COVID. — This is the government's central financial anomaly argument. However, neither the area eligibility waiver, the noncongregate waiver, nor the year-round SFSP waiver were in existence pre-COVID, meaning no valid comparison to pre-COVID baselines is possible without accounting for the exponentially expanded universe of eligible sites and participants. [p. 1403]
▸
Honer described the CLiCS auto-approval system: 'In the normal course, does an MDE employee review the documentation prior to paying out a claims submission? No, we do not.' Claims were automatically processed and paid weekly if they matched application parameters. — The auto-approval system means MDE paid every single disputed claim without any human review of supporting documentation. This is a critical defense point: the government paid over $100 million without reviewing a single underlying invoice, menu, or meal count sheet. [p. 1404]
▸
Honer testified that the March 31, 2021 serious deficiency notice for Feeding Our Future was the 'second' serious deficiency — meaning Feeding Our Future had received a prior serious deficiency notice and continued operating. — The government continued paying Feeding Our Future claims even after multiple serious deficiency notices, undermining the narrative that the fraud was obvious and the government was helpless to stop it. [p. 1402]
▸
On the Dar Al-Farooq/ThinkTechAct site, Honer testified that Feeding Our Future submitted and MDE approved a maximum daily participation of 4,000 (SFSP) and 6,000 (CACFP) at the application stage. Claims actually submitted were below 4,000 daily. — The government approved applications for 4,000–6,000 daily participants at a single site. This undermines any argument that the numbers were inherently incredible — MDE approved them. [p. 1387-1388, 1444-1445]
Cross-Examination

Mr. Goetz conducted the most effective cross of Honer to date, methodically introducing seven USDA waiver exhibits (D7-165 through D7-173, D2-64, D2-65, D2-67) and establishing that (1) all claims were automatically approved by MDE's CLiCS system without human review; (2) all disputed claims remained approved and were never adjusted; (3) USDA has never clawed back a single dollar; (4) MDE voluntarily paid the claims after the stop-pay ended — no court order required it; and (5) Honer never conducted a desk audit of any concerned site despite having that authority. Goetz also developed Honer's personal bias from the racism allegations and her admission that she did not want MDE to follow certain waivers. Cotter's shorter cross established the activity-requirement waiver (D2-65), the area eligibility waiver (D2-67), and the school-year SFSP extension waiver (D2-64), each admitted without objection.

▸
Goetz established through Honer that MDE's own CLiCS system automatically approved every single claim for the Dar Al-Farooq site — January through November 2021 and the SFSP claims for July and August 2021 — without any MDE employee reviewing the underlying documentation. — All claims were approved. The auto-approval undercuts any government theory that MDE was on notice of obvious fraud: if it was obvious, their own system still approved and paid it. This also creates a reliance argument for operators acting in good faith. [p. 1447-1451]
▸
Goetz: 'With respect to any of the claims that are at issue in this case with respect to Dar Al-Farooq, has the USDA made any effort to clawback that money?' Honer: 'No, they have not.' And as to any of the disputed claims generally: 'They have not.' — The federal agency with ultimate oversight authority and the legal right to clawback the money has not done so. This is powerful: either USDA doesn't believe the money was fraudulently obtained, or USDA is implicated in the systemic failure. Either way it undermines the fraud narrative. [p. 1617-1618]
▸
Goetz: 'The judge in that lawsuit in Ramsey County, Judge Guthmann, he never ordered MDE to pay the claims, MDE did that voluntarily?' Honer: 'That is correct. He did not make an order on that date.' — MDE's voluntary payment of all disputed claims after the stop-pay was lifted (without any court order compelling it) is a critical admission. The government's narrative implies MDE was forced to pay fraud — the truth is MDE chose to pay after losing a legal challenge to its stop-pay authority. [p. 1460]
▸
Honer confirmed she never conducted a desk audit of any specific concerned site, even though the monitoring waiver explicitly authorized desk audits as an alternative to in-person reviews: 'I personally did not' conduct a desk audit, and 'no, I did not do a desk audit.' — MDE had the tools and authority to investigate its concerns remotely but did not use them. This undermines Honer's credibility as an alarm-bell witness: she rang the alarm but did not do the investigation available to her. [p. 1336-1338]
▸
Honer acknowledged that USDA waiver D7-168 allowed noncongregate meal service (children do not need to be physically present eating), D7-169/D7-171 allowed parent/guardian pickup, D7-172/D7-173 waived onsite monitoring, and D7-165/D7-166 allowed meal service time flexibility. — The defense successfully introduced all seven waiver exhibits into evidence through the government's own witness. Each waiver directly undermines the government's physical presence and surveillance-based fraud proof. [p. 1412-1422]
▸
On the roster question under CACFP noncongregate rules: Goetz asked whether sites were 'not required to maintain or collect attendance records' under the noncongregate and activity waivers. Honer replied: 'I disagree.' She then conceded: 'if children were not gathering, the attendance didn't necessarily be required, but a roster for the enrichment activity was still required.' — REGULATORY ACCURACY FLAG: Honer's position that some form of roster was always required (even under waivers) was not fully tested on cross. Under Waiver 3 (D2-65) — the activity requirement waiver admitted by Cotter — the enrichment activity itself was waived, which logically eliminates the need for the activity roster Honer insisted was still required. The defense should press this harder. [p. 1433-1435]
▸
Honer acknowledged that at some point she 'did not want to accept the waivers because of the concerns I had' — she personally opposed applying certain USDA waivers that were legally in effect. — Honer's personal opposition to the waivers that were the law reveals her bias: she wanted to impose stricter requirements than federal law required during the pandemic period. This casts doubt on the objectivity of her regulatory characterizations throughout her testimony. [p. 1438]
▸
Honer admitted she remembered telling investigators in March 2022 that she was 'upset by the allegations that [she] and [her] staff were being discriminatory and were racist,' and in April 2024 prep that she 'felt disrespected.' — Establishes personal animus toward Feeding Our Future and, by extension, the defendants. A witness who felt personally accused of racism by the entities she was investigating, and who was instrumental in referring them to the FBI, has a motive to confirm her original suspicions. [p. 1461]
▸
Cotter elicited that USDA Waiver D2-65 (Nationwide Waiver of Activity Requirement in After-School Care Child Nutrition Programs) waived the requirement that after-school meal sites have educational or enrichment programming. Honer acknowledged the waiver 'waives that requirement in the waiver' though she resisted the implication that enrichment activity was entirely dispensed with. — If the activity requirement was waived, a site that distributed food without a structured after-school program was operating within the waiver framework, not committing fraud. This directly undercuts the government's theory that sites without observable programming were fraudulent. [p. 1470-1472]
▸
Cotter established that Waiver D2-64 (extending SFSP operations through school year 2020-2021) nowhere limits itself to schools, though Honer stated she was 'under the impression' it was only for schools based on USDA training. She conceded: 'I would agree' that 'the specific waiver itself says nothing about limiting it to schools.' — Honer applied a restrictive interpretation of the SFSP year-round waiver that was not in the text of the waiver itself. Operators who read the plain text of the waiver and understood it to permit year-round SFSP operations were not acting fraudulently. [p. 1477-1478]
Vulnerabilities Honer has multiple significant vulnerabilities Defense counsel must exploit: (1) REGULATORY MISCHARACTERIZATION — She repeatedly implied that attendance rosters identifying individual children were required for SFSP open sites. This is false under federal regulations. SFSP open sites require only meal counts, not individual child identification. The government's fraud theory depends on this mischaracterization. (2) AUTO-APPROVAL ADMISSION — MDE's CLiCS system automatically approved every single contested claim without human review. She explicitly confirmed this. (3) NO DESK AUDIT — Despite having authority and tools to investigate her concerns (desk audits, photo requests, video monitoring), she personally never conducted one for any of the sites she was concerned about. (4) WAIVER OPPOSITION — She admitted at one point she personally did not want to apply USDA waivers that were legally in effect, revealing she was operating with a stricter standard than the law required. (5) PERSONAL BIAS — Feeding Our Future accused her and her staff of racism; she was instrumental in the FBI referral; she 'felt disrespected.' She is not a neutral regulator. (6) VOLUNTARY PAYMENT — MDE voluntarily paid every claim after the stop-pay was lifted, with no court order. (7) MDE APPROVED EVERYTHING — MDE approved applications for 4,000–6,000 daily participants and never adjusted a single claim. (8) NO CLAWBACK — USDA, the ultimate authority, has not clawed back a dollar. (9) INTERPRETATION OVERREACH — She testified that Waiver 59 (year-round SFSP) was 'intended' only for schools, but admitted the waiver text says nothing about limiting it to schools. (10) ACTIVITY WAIVER — She resisted the implication that the activity waiver eliminated the enrichment activity requirement entirely, but the waiver text supports the defense position.
For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should: (1) Lead with the SFSP open site/roster issue — retain a regulatory expert to establish that open SFSP sites were never required to maintain individual attendance records identifying specific children, before or during COVID. Honer's testimony on this point is demonstrably incorrect. (2) Challenge her on the absence of any regulatory authority stating that parent pickup requires individual child identification. Under Waiver 76/89, parents could pick up for any child in the household — and under open SFSP, no individual child identification was ever required. (3) Develop the auto-approval argument: MDE's own computer system approved and paid every claim. (4) Hammer the bias: she personally wanted stricter rules than the law required, was accused of racism by the targets of her investigation, and was the person who called the FBI. (5) Use the USDA clawback admission: the federal agency with oversight authority has not sought to recover any money, which is inconsistent with the government's certainty of fraud. (6) Develop the 'MDE approved the applications' argument: if 2,000/day was incredible, why did MDE approve applications for 4,000–6,000/day? (7) Explore the Kara Lomen issue: Lomen controlled the submission of all Partners in Nutrition claims, signed all contracts, received all reimbursements, and has never been charged or interviewed by the FBI. The government's case against Empire and its principals depends on the fraudulent claim submissions — which Lomen made.
Key Evidence
Type Exhibit Description Page Challenge Opportunity
Document Gov. Ex. C-17 through C-34 (and continuing through C-580) CLiCS application records, catering contracts, and monthly claims data for the Samaha Islamic Center site (Mind Foundry), sponsored by Partners in Nutrition, vended by Empire Cuisine & Market. These show the progression from 300 meals/day in April 2020 to 2,000 meals/day by late 2020, with claims submitted by Partners in Nutrition for both SFSP and CACFP programs simultaneously (breakfast, lunch, snack, and supper) reaching 62,000+ of each meal type per month. [p. 1309 (C-17 admitted), 1338 (batch admission)] All applications were approved by MDE. All claims were auto-approved by CLiCS. The site was an SFSP open site (as of May 2020) — no individual attendance records required. Kara Lomen signed all contracts and submitted all claims; she has never been charged. The meal counts, though large, were below the approved application caps.
Document Gov. Ex. C-93 and C-100 CLiCS application records and monthly claims data for the Dar Al-Farooq Islamic Center/ThinkTechAct site under Feeding Our Future's sponsorship. C-93 (CACFP) shows claims reaching 98,000–112,000 snacks and suppers per month with average daily attendance of 3,500–3,613. C-100 (SFSP) shows maximum daily participation approved at 4,000 with bundled Saturday meal distribution. [p. 1385-1397 (CACFP claims), 1452-1453 (C-100 SFSP)] MDE approved application caps of 4,000–6,000/day. All claims were below application caps. Every claim was auto-approved. The stop-pay lasted only 6 days for this site. USDA never clawed back the money. The SFSP application specifically called for bundled meals on Saturdays, meaning weekly bulk distribution was explicitly authorized in the application.
Document Gov. Ex. C-102 Summer Food Service Program contract for vended meals between Feeding Our Future (signed by Aimee Bock) and Afrique Hospitality Group (signed by 'Mukhtar Shariff as CEO'). Site: Dar Al-Farooq Islamic Center, Bloomington. Meals: breakfast and lunch, unitized, June 2021–June 2022. Estimated total payments: $245,000. [p. 1389-1393] Honer admitted she is not a handwriting expert and cannot verify it is Shariff's signature from personal knowledge. She did not witness the signing. She knows Afrique only from its appearance on contracts and a Secretary of State search. She could not name any other site Afrique vended for. She never visited Afrique's operations or reviewed its records.
Document Gov. Ex. C-230 CLiCS application and claims data for the Mind Foundry/Tot Park site in Circle Pines, Minnesota. CACFP program, Partners in Nutrition sponsor, Empire Cuisine & Market vendor. Claims show 2,506 average daily attendance for every month from March through June 2021 — the exact same number each month. [p. 1377-1384] Under the USDA parent pickup and bundled meal waivers, the '2,506' figure may have represented enrolled program participants eligible to receive weekly bulk distributions rather than physical daily attendees. Under CACFP with bulk/bundled distribution, the enrolled roster size — not daily physical attendance — could be the operative claim metric. The defense should obtain expert testimony on what USDA guidance said about how to count meals under bulk distribution schemes.
Document Def. Ex. D7-165 through D7-173 Seven USDA nationwide waivers admitted through Honer on cross: D7-165 (Waiver 1, meal service time flexibility); D7-166 (Waiver 2, noncongregate feeding); D7-168 (Waiver 75, noncongregate feeding extension); D7-169 (Waiver 76, parent/guardian pickup for summer 2021); D7-170 (Waiver 87, noncongregate feeding SY2021-22); D7-171 (Waiver 89, parent/guardian pickup SY2021-22); D7-172 (Waiver 95, waiver of onsite monitoring requirements for CACFP); D7-173 (Waiver 96, extension of monitoring waiver). [p. 1412-1422] Government will argue the waivers were 'flexibilities' not mandates, and that sites exploiting the waivers to commit fraud cannot hide behind them. The defense response is that good-faith reliance on a valid federal waiver cannot constitute fraud.
Document Def. Ex. D2-64, D2-65, D2-67 Three additional USDA waivers admitted through Honer on Cotter's cross: D2-64 (Waiver 59, extending SFSP year-round through SY2020-21); D2-65 (Waiver 3, nationwide waiver of activity requirement in after-school care child nutrition programs); D2-67 (Waiver 32, area eligibility waiver for SFSP). [p. 1470-1478] Honer maintained the activity waiver did not fully eliminate the requirement. The defense should retain a regulatory expert to rebut this interpretation.
Legal Rulings & Objections
⚖
Sidebar on Goetz's hearsay objection to Honer testifying about what USDA 'provided' her in September 2020. Court ruled she could describe changes she made based on guidance, but could not testify to the specific content of USDA's guidance. — Limits government's ability to introduce hearsay USDA communications through Honer. However, the actual waiver documents — now in evidence through defense exhibits — speak for themselves. [p. 1297-1298]
⚖
Cotter's hearsay objection to Honer testifying about what she was 'provided in an email' regarding Tot Park being under construction — sustained. Judge struck the answer. — Government cannot introduce through Honer the tip about Tot Park being under construction. This is a significant limitation: MDE's concern about Tot Park being physically unable to serve 2,500 children per day was based on hearsay that the jury cannot consider. [p. 1376-1377]
⚖
Thompson's objection at sidebar to defense introducing 7 CFR 226.20 (the CACFP meal pattern regulation) through cross-examination of Honer as expert opinion. Court overruled, allowing cross on what she said and use of the document to do it, but limited questioning to what she testified to on direct — not full regulatory cross-examination as if she were an expert. — Defense can use regulatory texts to cross Honer on her regulatory characterizations, but cannot develop full regulatory expert testimony through her. A separate regulatory expert witness is needed. [p. 1427-1428]
⚖
Ian Birrell's objection to Honer's testimony about Feeding Our Future making 'threats of legal action' against MDE — overruled. — Government was permitted to establish Feeding Our Future's adversarial posture toward MDE as context, which the government uses to reinforce the fraud narrative. [p. 1302]
Prior Defense Performance

The defense cross-examination in this volume was the best day of cross to date. Goetz's cross was strategic and methodical: he introduced all seven waiver exhibits through the government's own witness at no cost, obtained the critical USDA clawback admission, established the auto-approval of every claim, exposed Honer's personal bias, and elicited the voluntary payment admission. These are all major wins. What was not fully exploited: (1) The SFSP open site/roster issue was touched on but not fully developed. Honer's statement that 'attendance rosters' are required for SFSP program claims (page 1266) was never directly challenged on cross, even though this is legally incorrect for open SFSP sites. This was the single biggest missed opportunity of the day. (2) The distinction between Kara Lomen's role and the defendants' roles was not developed — Lomen signed every contract, submitted every PIN claim, and has never been charged or interviewed. This asymmetry deserves aggressive development. (3) The 'application cap' argument was partially developed (Goetz showed claims were below caps) but not pressed harder: if MDE approved 4,000–6,000 per day, how can claiming 3,500/day be fraudulent? (4) Cotter's cross was competent but brief — the activity waiver argument was introduced but not pressed to its logical conclusion: if the activity requirement was waived, there was no requirement for on-site educational programming, which undercuts much of the government's 'site was empty' narrative.