Trial I · US v. Farah

Vol VII

2024-05-01

Day Overview

Volume VII began with the conclusion of Emily Honer's (MDE) cross-examination. Four defense attorneys cross-examined her — Patrick Cotter (Ismail), Ian Birrell (Abdiaziz Farah), Clayton Carlson (Said Farah/Bushra), and Eduardo Sapone (Abdimajid Nur) — each extracting significant concessions. Defense cross focused on: COVID waivers that permitted non-congregate, multi-day, multi-meal pickup without ID or children physically present; MDE's continued payment of claims for 8-9 months after reporting to FBI; MDE's failure to use audit or clawback authority; MDE's exclusive communication channel through sponsors (never with vendors or sites); and Honer's personal stake from the FOF civil lawsuit accusing her of racism. On redirect, Honer invoked her Native American identity to rebut the racial animus narrative. The government then called FBI Special Agent Jared Kary, the lead case agent, who began a lengthy direct examination covering: the investigation's origins from MDE's referral, the formation and rapid growth of Empire Cuisine & Market (organized April 1, 2020, ~$30 million in 18 months), the web of entities including ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry (Mahad Ibrahim), the Afrique Hospitality Group investor pitch deck explicitly treating child nutrition program funds as revenue to 'hedge' a restaurant business, and massive stacks of meal count forms produced by Partners in Nutrition via grand jury subpoena. The Kary direct was still ongoing at day's end. The most significant moments were: Honer's admission that she had no personal knowledge whether any meals were or were not served; MDE's continued payments after the FBI referral; and the Afrique pitch deck as documentary evidence of alleged criminal intent.

Government Strategy

The government used this day to accomplish two major objectives. First, they completed Emily Honer's cross-examination (by four defense attorneys) and tried to rehabilitate her on redirect by invoking her Native American identity and passion for the programs — reframing her bias as mission-driven concern rather than personal animus from the FOF lawsuit. Second, they launched the direct examination of FBI Special Agent Jared Kary, the lead case agent, establishing the investigation's origins, methodology, and early documentary evidence: the formation of Empire Cuisine & Market, its ties to Kara Lomen and Partners in Nutrition, the Mahad Ibrahim/Mukhtar Shariff connection through ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry, the Afrique Hospitality Group pitch deck showing child nutrition program funds treated as a 'hedge' for a restaurant venture, and extensive meal count records from Partners in Nutrition grand jury subpoenas showing enormous, consistent daily numbers across dozens of sites over months. The government is building a documentary foundation around the internal communications of the defendants and their connections to one another and to Kara Lomen.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The Afrique pitch deck (Gov. Ex. G-110) is the most dangerous single exhibit in this volume and likely in the trial. It shows defendants discussing CACFP/SFSP revenues as a hedge for a restaurant business in their own words. Defense counsel must develop a coherent narrative for this document — the most defensible argument is that the food service revenues were anticipated to be legitimately earned and that this is a business plan, not a confession. If food was actually procured and distributed, this document loses much of its sting. The evidentiary question is whether the 2,500 daily meals were delivered, not whether the defendants planned to use legitimate food service revenue for other business purposes. - The Dar Al-Farooq emails (C-319, C-320) are a significant vulnerability for the conspiracy theory — they show an insider (Ibrahim) reporting to Lomen that sites were registered without mosque knowledge and food was not being distributed, followed by Shariff orchestrating a transfer. Defense counsel must investigate whether the Dar Al-Farooq site's food distribution history can be established through records (procurement receipts, delivery logs) or witnesses. If this site was genuinely fraudulent, it may be the weakest link. - Kara Lomen is conspicuously absent from the prosecution despite being the executive director who: (1) enrolled all the relevant sites; (2) reviewed and certified all meal count submissions; (3) submitted the claims to MDE; (4) received the reimbursement from MDE; and (5) made the 'turn off the errors' statement (from prior volumes). Defense counsel should aggressively develop the Lomen defense angle — if the sponsor who controlled the submission process is uncharged and the vendors who had no CLiCS access are being prosecuted, there is a serious argument about the locus of criminal responsibility. - MDE's post-FBI referral payment approval (April 2021 through January 2022) is an underutilized defense asset. For approximately nine months, MDE was simultaneously: reporting concerns to the FBI, continuing to approve and pay these specific claims, and never notifying vendors or sponsors that the claims were being investigated. This creates a strong argument that defendants had no reason to believe their conduct was criminal during this entire period. This may support both lack of willfulness and potential estoppel arguments. - The regulatory mischaracterization by Honer on 'attendance records' and 'names on a list' for SFSP open sites is a significant vulnerability that prior defense did not fully exploit. Defense counsel should file a motion in limine or request a jury instruction clarifying that SFSP open sites do not require individual child identification or attendance rosters — and should prepare a cross that uses the actual USDA regulations (7 CFR Part 225) and waiver text to correct the jury's understanding before the government argues at closing that the absence of such records proves fraud.

Witnesses

Emily Honer

Director of Nutrition Program Services (or equivalent title) at the Minnesota Department of Education, administering the CACFP and SFSP programs — the government's foundational regulatory witness who established program rules and MDE's concerns about the claims.

MDE Government

Direct Examination

Honer's direct examination occurred in prior volumes. In this volume she was in cross-examination, redirect, and recross only.

Cross-Examination

Four defense attorneys collectively drew out major concessions over roughly 90 pages of transcript. Cotter (Ismail) established the waiver framework allowed anyone to come pick up multi-day bulk meals for multiple children without ID. Ian Birrell (Abdiaziz Farah) established that vendors had no CLiCS access, no direct MDE contact, and received only the message that payments were being approved. Carlson (Said Farah) established MDE had zero knowledge of Bushra Wholesalers, zero contact with Said Farah, and that MDE continued paying claims it had reported to the FBI for 8-9 more months. Sapone (Abdimajid Nur) established that Honer had no personal knowledge of how many meals were served at any site, never visited any site during the relevant period, and that she personally could have caused audits but did not.

▸

Cotter: Under the combination of waivers, a person could come to an open SFSP site, pick up meals for multiple days for multiple children without ID, without children present, without enrollment — 'bulk meals,' multi-day, non-congregate. Honer: 'Yes, as long as proper food handling and all the other pieces were met.' (page 1490) — Core defense theme: pandemic waivers legitimized the high-volume, no-ID, children-not-present distribution model that the government implies was fraudulent. Honer conceded the operational model was legally permissible. [p. 1490]

▸

Cotter: MDE had authority under regulations to disallow claims, demand reimbursement from sponsors, and adjust numbers downward, but MDE 'to this date' has not exercised those options. Honer: Agreed. (pages 1498-1499) — MDE's failure to use its own regulatory remedies undermines the government's narrative that these claims were obviously fraudulent at the time. If MDE believed the claims were clearly invalid, it had tools available and chose not to use them. [p. 1499]

▸

Cotter: MDE continued paying claims even after stop pay was lifted: 'MDE made the decision to continue paying these claims, correct?' Honer: 'That is correct.' Then confirmed repaid stopped claims and did not seek civil remedy. (page 1499) — Powerful impeachment: MDE's own conduct was consistent with the claims being valid — it kept paying them. This is strong good faith evidence for every defendant. [p. 1499]

▸

Ian Birrell: 'Abdi Farah wouldn't have had any log-in information [to CLiCS], to your knowledge?' Honer: 'Not to my knowledge.' And: the only communication MDE's actions sent to Empire was 'payments were being approved.' Honer agreed. (pages 1508, 1715-1718) — Vendors were structurally excluded from the MDE-sponsor communication channel. Abdiaziz Farah had no direct access to CLiCS and received no warnings — his only feedback was continued payment approval. [p. 1508]

▸

Ian Birrell: 'MDE never issued Empire a serious deficiency notice.' Honer: 'No, we did not.' And: 'MDE had the authority to... clawback the money' but 'to this date, no.' (pages 1724-1751) — MDE had every tool to signal non-compliance to Empire and chose not to use any of them. This is one of the strongest arguments for lack of knowledge/willfulness. [p. 1724]

▸

Ian Birrell: MDE tried to conduct a more extensive review in spring 2021 but was told it did not have investigative authority; MDE did not visit sites; MDE's concerns 'remained' even after receiving documentation. Honer confirmed. (pages 1529-1534) — MDE's inaction was driven by institutional constraints (lawsuit, lack of investigative authority), not by a conclusion that the claims were valid. This is a double-edged sword — it shows MDE suspected fraud but also that it never told defendants. [p. 1529]

▸

Carlson: MDE had zero knowledge of Bushra Wholesalers LLC, zero contact with Said Farah, zero files, zero communications. Said Farah 'never signed any meal counts that were reported to MDE.' Honer: 'I do not.' (pages 1542-1543) — Bushra/Said Farah had no direct interface with MDE whatsoever — entirely insulated through the sponsor layer, consistent with the program's design. [p. 1543]

▸

Carlson: MDE did not ask the FBI to use MDE's audit rights to get documents; the second permanent stop pay came only after January 2022 search warrants — approximately 8-9 months after MDE began cooperating with the FBI. Honer confirmed. (pages 1901-1970) — For 8-9 months after MDE reported concerns to the FBI, MDE kept paying the same claims it suspected were fraudulent. Defendants receiving payments throughout that period had no notice of any investigation. [p. 1969]

▸

Sapone: 'Truth be told, you don't know how many meals were provided by Empire at each of the sites, right?' Honer: 'That is correct.' And: 'At no time in the ten-month period [April 2021 to January 2022] did you ever visit even one site [to check if food was being handed out]?' Honer: Confirmed. (pages 1555-1558) — Honer, the government's principal regulatory witness, has zero first-hand knowledge of whether any fraud occurred. Her testimony is entirely based on administrative data and concerns, not observation. [p. 1558]

▸

Sapone: Under SFSP open site rules combined with waivers, a parent saying she had 6 children could walk away with 42 meals (6 children x 7 days); no ID required; children did not need to be present. Honer confirmed. (pages 1552-1553) — Concretely illustrates how the program's own structure, not fraudulent manipulation, could generate high meal counts. A site serving families with multiple children under these rules could legitimately reach large daily numbers. [p. 1552]

▸

Sapone: Honer acknowledged the racism accusation in the FOF civil lawsuit 'was not flattering,' she was 'angered,' 'a little hurt,' 'disappointed' — and these actions she took against FOF came after the lawsuit. (pages 1553-1560) — Establishes bias and motive to cooperate with the criminal prosecution as a vindication narrative. She went to the FBI after being publicly accused of racism in a lawsuit — creating a potential motive to see defendants convicted. [p. 1557]

▸

Sapone: 'Could you have caused an audit?' Honer: 'I believe I had that authority.' Sapone: 'Did you do it?' Honer: 'I did not.' (page 1558) — MDE had the authority and opportunity to audit and chose not to. The government cannot claim the fraud was obvious when MDE's own supervisor with authority to audit declined to use it. [p. 1558]

▸

Garvis: Judge never ordered MDE to lift the stop pay — it was voluntary based on a statement from the Ramsey County judge. Honer confirmed: 'There was no order.' (page 1567) — Corrects an impression left by earlier testimony that MDE was compelled by court order to resume payments. MDE made a voluntary decision — which weighs against the narrative of helplessness in the face of fraud. [p. 1567]

▸

Garvis: After MDE reported to FBI, it 'did not give notice of that to the sponsors' or 'to the vendors.' Honer: 'No, I did not.' (page 1567) — Defendants were kept in the dark about the FBI referral while payments continued — making a willful fraud inference highly problematic for the period after April 2021. [p. 1567]

▸

Honer confirmed that she last communicated with Kara Lomen 'within the last couple of months through their attorney.' (page 1506) — As of trial (May 2024), MDE was still in contact with Partners in Nutrition/Lomen through legal counsel. Lomen remains uncharged, and MDE maintains a cooperative relationship with PIN — the sponsor that processed the majority of the money. [p. 1506]

▸

Honer on attendance: 'Yes, and attendance' — when Ian Birrell listed required documentation (menus, meal plans, meal counts, receipts). (page 1521) — REGULATORY FLAG: Honer spontaneously added 'attendance' to the list of required records. Under SFSP open site rules, attendance records (individually identified children) were NOT required — operators count meals served, not individual children. This characterization conflates CACFP/closed enrolled SFSP requirements with SFSP open site requirements, and misleads the jury about what the regulations actually required. [p. 1521]

▸

Sapone: 'They would ask the names of the children?' Honer: 'For certain programs they should have asked the names of the children.' Later: 'If the children's names that she provides matches on a list, yes [give her the meals].' And: 'A child, though, would be signed up for a childcare program.' (pages 1552, 1557) — REGULATORY FLAG: Honer again blurred CACFP (childcare-enrolled children, named lists) with SFSP open sites (no enrollment, no names required). Her answers conflated two different programs, potentially leaving the jury with a false understanding that names and lists were required at SFSP open sites. For SFSP open sites, no roster or child-name list was required. This was not adequately challenged. [p. 1557]

Vulnerabilities Honer has multiple serious vulnerabilities for incoming defense counsel. (1) BIAS: She was personally accused of racial discrimination in a public lawsuit by FOF before she went to the FBI — creating a clear motive to see defendants convicted as vindication. She conceded she was 'angered,' 'hurt,' and 'disappointed' by those accusations. (2) ZERO FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE: She admitted she has no personal knowledge whether any meals were or were not served at any site, never visited sites during the relevant period, and had no visibility to vendor-level operations. (3) MDE'S OWN CONDUCT: MDE continued paying claims for 8-9 months after the FBI referral, never issued a deficiency notice to Empire, never used its audit authority, never clawback funds — all inconsistent with a belief that fraud was obvious. (4) REGULATORY CHARACTERIZATIONS: Honer repeatedly conflated SFSP open site requirements (no roster, no individual child ID) with CACFP or closed-enrolled requirements. She volunteered 'attendance' as a required document and implied children's names had to be matched to a list — neither of which was required for SFSP open sites. This mischaracterization was not adequately challenged on cross. Defense counsel should prepare a focused cross on SFSP open site regulations versus CACFP if she appears again. (5) INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS: Her testimony showed MDE's inaction was driven by the FOF lawsuit and lack of investigative authority — not by a conclusion the claims were valid. But this cuts both ways — it makes her caution understandable without vindicating the defendants. (6) KARA LOMEN: Honer communicated with Lomen 'frequently' and as recently as months before trial through attorneys. Lomen remains uncharged. The contrast between MDE's cooperative posture toward PIN/Lomen and the criminal prosecution of lower-level vendors deserves emphasis.

For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should consider: (1) Pre-trial motion in limine to preclude Honer from testifying about 'attendance records' or 'child name lists' as requirements for SFSP open sites — this is legally inaccurate and prejudicial. (2) Cross examination specifically on 7 CFR 225.9(d) (SFSP open site requirements) versus 225.16 (closed enrolled) to expose the regulatory mischaracterization. (3) If Honer testifies about attendance/names, prepare a defense exhibit with the actual USDA regulations and waiver text. (4) Emphasize MDE's post-FBI-referral payment approvals as affirmative evidence that defendants had no notice of non-compliance. (5) Develop the Lomen contrast — the sponsor executive who controlled submissions, made the 'turn off the errors' statement, and was never charged or interviewed by FBI, while MDE maintained friendly contact with her through trial. (6) The racism lawsuit and subsequent FBI referral timeline is ripe for cross on motive. (7) Consider whether the voluntary nature of the stop-pay reinstatement is admissible to show MDE itself was uncertain about the legal authority to deny these claims.

Jared Kary

FBI Special Agent (16 years), complex financial crimes squad; one of the lead case agents on this investigation — the government's central investigative witness who will present the full scope of documentary evidence against all defendants.

FBI Government

Direct Examination

Kary's direct (still ongoing at day's end) began with credentials, then covered the investigation's origins (MDE referral, spring 2021), methodology (grand jury subpoenas for bank records, Secretary of State records, email search warrants), and focused extensively on Empire Cuisine & Market: its formation on April 1, 2020 by Abdiaziz Farah and Mohamed Ismail, its rapid accrual of approximately $30 million in CACFP/SFSP funds through Partners in Nutrition and Feeding Our Future over roughly 18 months, the ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry (Mahad Ibrahim) connection as a site operator and conduit, the Afrique Hospitality Group pitch deck, and dozens of meal count forms produced by Partners in Nutrition showing large, consistent daily numbers across many sites with defendants' signatures as site supervisors.

▸

Empire Cuisine & Market was organized April 1, 2020 — the first day of the pandemic shutdown — by Abdiaziz Farah and Mohamed Ismail. It accumulated approximately $30 million in child nutrition program funds in approximately 18 months (mid-2020 to January 2022). (pages 1583-1586) — The government frames the timing as suspicious. Defense should be prepared to argue that many food businesses pivoted to food service contracts during the pandemic, and the program was specifically designed to encourage rapid scaling of food distribution. [p. 1583]

▸

Kary testified that Kara Lomen is 'the director of Partners in Quality Care, Partners in Nutrition.' He correctly identified her as a private sponsor executive, not an MDE employee, and described emails between her, Abdiaziz Farah, and Mahad Ibrahim about site applications. (page 1604) — Kary correctly characterizes Lomen as a private sponsor-side executive. The defense should reinforce this distinction whenever the government blurs Lomen's role. [p. 1604]

▸

Email (G-37/C37, April 15-16, 2020): Lomen to Farah: 'This is the agreement that I need signed by someone from the site... Looking forward to working with you.' Farah responds asking if a former childcare site with no enrolled kids could become 'an open site for all families during the pandemic.' Lomen: 'You can have another site as long as the address qualifies.' (pages 1606-1608) — The government uses this to suggest Farah was shopping for sites without genuine participants. Defense counter: Farah's email shows he understood what an 'open site' was — serving families generally during the pandemic — and confirmed this understanding with the sponsor before proceeding. Lomen's response is an explicit green light. [p. 1607]

▸

Afrique Hospitality Group pitch deck (Gov. Ex. G-110, December 31, 2020 email from Mahad Ibrahim to Mukhtar Shariff): Revenue model explicitly states 'Hedge risk and volatility of hospitality business with large, consistent revenues from food service contracts, CACFP and SFSP.' Business model assumption: '2500 kids daily worth of food service contracts.' (pages 1750-1758) — This is the most damaging single exhibit of the day and likely among the most damaging in the trial. It shows defendants explicitly planning to use child nutrition program revenues to subsidize a restaurant venture — the government's core fraud theory stated in the defendants' own words. Defense must address this directly: treating food service contracts as 'consistent revenue' is not inherently fraudulent if the food was actually served. The question is whether 2,500 daily meals were in fact delivered. [p. 1751]

▸

Dar Al-Farooq email (C-319): Mahad Ibrahim to Kara Lomen, November 2020 — reporting that the Imam of Dar Al-Farooq contacted other mosques and 'they all realized they were registered as sites without their knowledge... as far as they know, food is not being distributed.' (pages 1744-1745) — Extremely damaging: an insider email from Mahad Ibrahim himself reporting that a site was registered without the mosque's knowledge and food was not being distributed. This is direct evidence of scheme elements — a site operator denying knowledge of registration and denial of food distribution. [p. 1744]

▸

Mukhtar Shariff email (C-320, December 18, 2020): Shariff to Aimee Bock at FOF, attaching a site transfer request form for Dar Al-Farooq, seeking to move the site from FOF to Partners in Quality Care. Shariff signed as 'assistant director at Dar Al-Farooq.' (pages 1746-1748) — The government argues this shows Shariff was orchestrating a transfer of a site where food was not being distributed to a different sponsor. The Dar Al-Farooq cluster is a key government target. [p. 1747]

▸

Meal count exhibits (F-1g through F-1p, Partners in Nutrition grand jury subpoena): Dozens of meal count forms for Empire/Mind Foundry sites from January 2021 through September 2021 showing consistent large daily numbers — e.g., As-Sunnah 2,000/day (14,000/week), Dar Al-Farooq 2,000-3,500/day (up to 24,500/week), Apple Valley 1,000/day, Plymouth 2,000/day — with defendants' names (Abdimajid Nur, Abdiaziz Farah, Mohamed Ismail, Abdiwahab Aftin) signed as site supervisors. (pages 1665-1742) — Voluminous documentary foundation for the government's volume/implausibility argument. The defense strategy on these documents must focus on: (1) the waivers permitted these numbers; (2) the sponsor (Partners in Nutrition) reviewed, accepted, and submitted these to MDE; (3) MDE approved and paid every one; (4) no contemporaneous MDE or FBI action signaled these numbers were non-compliant. [p. 1665]

▸

ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry (Gov. Ex. B-1): Mahad Ibrahim founded ThinkTechAct in 2016; Abdiaziz Farah is listed as a board member in amended articles filed June 2021. The organization served as a site operator. (pages 1623-1626) — The government is building the network diagram — Farah connects to Lomen (sponsor), to Ibrahim (site operator/ThinkTechAct), to Shariff (Afrique/Dar Al-Farooq). Each node strengthens the conspiracy allegation. [p. 1624]

▸

Ian Birrell objected at page 1586 when Thompson asked a leading question implying Empire made $30 million; separately Birrell correctly noted at page 1619-1451 that exhibit N-13 heading said 'Dollar Amount Claimed by Mind Foundry' when it actually showed dollars paid by MDE from bank records — and extracted that concession from Kary. (pages 1586, 1620) — Andrew Birrell's attention to exhibit accuracy is important. The distinction between 'claimed' and 'paid' matters — MDE paid these amounts after review, which supports a good faith argument. [p. 1620]

Cross-Examination

Kary's cross had not begun by end of this volume.

Vulnerabilities Kary's cross-examination opportunities (not yet exploited in this volume) will be significant. Key vulnerabilities to develop: (1) He admitted he did not do a full financial analysis himself — the forensic accountants did. He is testifying to conclusions drawn from documents rather than from independent financial analysis. (2) His characterization of the email waiver forwarding (G-48, Farah forwarding MDE bulletin to Ibrahim) as evidence of scheme awareness is highly ambiguous — staying informed about program rules is not evidence of fraud. (3) He did not admit whether FBI interviewed Kara Lomen — the sponsor executive who controlled submissions and who has not been charged. This is a major gap. (4) The Afrique pitch deck shows plans from December 2020 — before Kary claims to have identified fraud; the government must show that the food service revenue contemplated was in fact fraudulently obtained, not that planning to earn food service revenue is itself criminal. (5) The consistent round-number meal counts (2,000/day, 1,000/day) that the government treats as suspicious could also reflect sponsor-level administrative caps set by Partners in Nutrition, not fabrication by site operators.

For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should consider: (1) Cross Kary on whether he interviewed Kara Lomen or whether the FBI chose not to. (2) Cross on the Partners in Nutrition certification process — Lomen's organization reviewed and certified every one of these meal counts before submission. If there was fraud, the sponsor was either complicit or negligent — neither of which is the defendants' fault. (3) Challenge whether round-number daily counts reflect fraud or sponsor-level administrative rounding. (4) Develop the 'no physical surveillance' theme — Kary admitted the FBI did financial investigation without placing anyone at sites during operations. (5) The Afrique pitch deck is the most dangerous exhibit — defense counsel needs a strategy: either argue the food service revenue described was legitimately intended to be earned, or challenge the exhibit's relevance to the specific counts charged.

Key Evidence

Type	Exhibit	Description	Page	Challenge Opportunity
Document	D2-6	USDA Child Nutrition Response No. 4 — nationwide waiver for meal pattern flexibility during COVID-19 pandemic.	[p. 1486]	Honer's limited familiarity with this waiver undercuts MDE's claimed expertise in administering the program under waiver conditions.
Document	Gov. Ex. A-2	Minnesota Secretary of State Articles of Organization for Empire Cuisine & Market LLC, filed April 1, 2020, listing Mohamed Ismail and Abdiaziz Farah as organizers, with registered address at Ismail's home.	[p. 1584]	Using a home address for a new LLC is standard small business practice. The April 1 timing aligns with the date schools shut down and USDA issued pandemic waivers expanding SFSP — it is equally consistent with a legitimate business opportunity recognized in real time.
Document	Gov. Ex. A-1	Photograph of Empire Cuisine & Market at 232 Marschall Road, Shakopee, Minnesota — a strip mall location adjacent to a Goodyear tire shop.	[p. 1588]	Physical appearance of the premises is not evidence of fraud. Large-scale food packing and distribution for non-congregate pickup does not require a restaurant-grade dining space.
Document	Gov. Ex. G-38 / G-37 / G-39	Email chain between Abdiaziz Farah and Kara Lomen (April 15-16, 2020): Lomen sends vendor agreement for Samaha Islamic Center; Farah asks about converting a childcare site to an 'open site for all families during the pandemic'; Lomen says 'you can have another site as long as the address qualifies' and offers to pre-check addresses.	[p. 1604]	Farah's question shows he understood what an open site was and sought proper authorization. Lomen's response is an explicit authorization from the sponsor. This supports reliance on sponsor rather than independent fraudulent intent.
Document	Gov. Ex. G-110 (Afrique pitch deck)	PowerPoint presentation titled 'Where Minnesota Meets Africa' — an investor pitch for Afrique Hospitality Group LLC, emailed by Mahad Ibrahim to Mukhtar Shariff on December 31, 2020. Revenue model: 'Hedge risk and volatility of hospitality business with large, consistent revenues from food service contracts, CACFP and SFSP.' Business assumption: '2500 kids daily worth of food service contracts.'	[p. 1751]	Planning to earn food service revenue from CACFP/SFSP is not inherently fraudulent if the food was actually served. The pitch deck shows intent to participate in the programs as a revenue stream, not intent to submit false claims. The document predates charges and reflects a business plan. Defense must show either (a) the meals described were actually served, or (b) this document is not connected to the specific false claims charged.
Document	Gov. Ex. C-319	Email from Mahad Ibrahim to Kara Lomen (November 30, 2020): reports that Dar Al-Farooq's Imam 'contacted other mosques, and they all realized they were registered as sites without their knowledge... as far as they know, food is not being distributed.'	[p. 1744]	Ibrahim is reporting a problem to Lomen (the sponsor) — arguably this is exactly what a responsible person in the network would do upon learning of an unauthorized registration. The question of who registered Dar Al-Farooq without its knowledge requires further development. It may implicate site-operator-level fraud rather than vendor-level (Empire) fraud.
Document	Gov. Ex. C-320	Email from Mukhtar Shariff to Aimee Bock at Feeding Our Future (December 18, 2020): requesting site transfer of Dar Al-Farooq from FOF to Partners in Quality Care, with Shariff signing as 'assistant director at Dar Al-Farooq.'	[p. 1747]	Shariff's role as 'assistant director at Dar Al-Farooq' and his knowledge of the Ibrahim email are fact questions. Was he aware of Ibrahim's report that food wasn't being distributed?
Document	Gov. Ex. B-8	Minnesota Secretary of State articles of organization for Afrique Hospitality Group LLC, at 1701 American Boulevard East, Bloomington — Mukhtar Shariff's email address listed for official notices.	[p. 1759]	Being the CEO of a proposed restaurant venture that contemplated legitimate food service revenue is not a crime.
Data/Summary	Gov. Ex. F-1g through F-1p	Meal count forms for Empire/ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry-related sites produced by Partners in Nutrition via grand jury subpoena covering January through September 2021. Sites include: Samaha Islamic Center, As-Sunnah Islamic Center (2,000/day), Dar Al-Farooq (2,000-3,500/day, up to 24,500/week), Apple Valley/Scott Park (1,000/day), Plymouth (2,000/day), Clifton Townhomes (450-1,000/day), Winfield Townhomes (1,000/day), Albright Townhomes (1,248-1,498/day), and many others. Signed by Abdimajid Nur (e-signature), Abdiaziz Farah, Mohamed Ismail, Abdiwahab Aftin.	[p. 1665]	Every one of these meal counts was: (1) certified by the sponsor (Kara Lomen's Partners in Nutrition); (2) submitted through CLiCS; (3) reviewed by MDE; (4) approved and paid by MDE. MDE never objected to or denied any of these claims at the time. The pandemic waiver framework (non-congregate, multi-day, parental pickup) permitted large volumes. The defense must obtain evidence of actual food procurement to counter the government's implicit argument that the numbers were impossible.
Document	Gov. Ex. B-1 / B-3	Secretary of State records for ThinkTechAct Foundation (founded 2016 by Mahad Ibrahim, amended articles June 2021 listing Abdiaziz Farah as board member) and certificate of assumed name 'Mind Foundry Learning Foundation.'	[p. 1623]	Being a board member of a nonprofit in 2016-2021 is not evidence of participation in a fraud scheme. The board membership and the food service arrangements are separate facts that the government must connect.

Legal Rulings & Objections

⚖

Overruled: Thompson objection to Ian Birrell's question about who was reviewing documents (foundation objection at page 1523). Court: 'Overruled. You may answer if you can.' — The court permitted defense to explore MDE's document review process through Honer despite government's attempt to limit it. [p. 1523]

⚖

Sustained: Thompson's leading objection when Thompson himself asked 'That it had made $30 million in the first 18 months of its existence?' Court sustained and struck the answer, requiring rephrasing. (page 1586) — Minor — Thompson rephrased and the same information came in. But the court is enforcing leading rules. [p. 1586]

⚖

Overruled: Mohring's speculation objection when Thompson asked Kary about what '2500' meant in the Afrique pitch deck. Court: 'Overruled. The answer will stand.' Kary had answered 'Presumably, based on the investigation.' (page 1696) — The court permitted Kary to characterize the meaning of figures in the Afrique pitch deck based on investigation context. Defense should challenge the sufficiency of 'presumably, based on the investigation' as foundation in future cross. [p. 1696]

⚖

Sidebar objection (Schleicher, p. 1587): Schleicher objected that Thompson was looking in the direction of defendants to lead witness toward an in-court identification of Said Farah. Court noted the objection for the record. — Schleicher is preserving the identification issue. If the court's response was inadequate, this is a preserved error for appeal. Incoming defense should request that any in-court identification of their client follow proper procedure. [p. 1587]

⚖

Overruled: Cotter's objection on redirect when Thompson asked whether there was a waiver 'about that a lot of people would become rich in the program.' Court overruled and permitted the answer ('Absolutely not'). (page 1870/1877) — The court permitted the government on redirect to elicit Honer's opinion that no waivers were designed to enable enrichment — framing the waivers as purely operational rather than revenue-expanding. Defense should request limiting instruction or recross opportunity. [p. 1877]

⚖

Overruled: Cotter's relevance objection when Thompson on redirect asked whether Honer 'received consulting payments during COVID.' Court overruled and Honer denied receiving such payments. (page 1893) — The government was preemptively inoculating against any implication that government employees also profited. The consulting payments reference may have been directed at some other witness or defense theory not yet developed. [p. 1893]

⚖

Recross by Ian Birrell (page 1571): Birrell established that none of the defendants in this case and none of their lawyers made the racial discrimination allegations against MDE — those came from Feeding Our Future (Aimee Bock's organization), which is not being tried in this case. Honer confirmed: 'Not to my knowledge.' Court did not restrict this. — Birrell successfully severed the bias narrative — the defendants being tried here had nothing to do with the lawsuit that angered Honer. This is crucial: the prior defense effectively limited the redirect's impact on Honer's motivation. [p. 1571]

Prior Defense Performance

Overall the defense cross-examination of Honer was strong and well-coordinated across four attorneys, each taking a distinct lane: Cotter on the waiver framework and MDE's regulatory options; Ian Birrell on CLiCS access, vendor exclusion, and MDE's continued payments; Carlson on Bushra/Said Farah's complete absence from the MDE record and the post-FBI referral payment timeline; Sapone on Honer's personal bias and her absence of first-hand knowledge. The recross by Ian Birrell was tactically important — severing the defendants from the civil lawsuit accusers. Areas where more could have been done: (1) The 'attendance records' and 'names on a list' statements by Honer went insufficiently challenged. For SFSP open sites, neither attendance records nor individual child names were required. Defense attorneys asked follow-up questions but did not pin Honer down on the specific regulatory distinction between SFSP open sites and CACFP/closed enrolled sites. An expert on SFSP regulations or a focused cross referencing 7 CFR 225 would be more effective. (2) No defense attorney asked Honer whether Kara Lomen had ever been interviewed by the FBI — a glaring gap given that Lomen controlled the claim submission process. (3) The defense did not press on how MDE's continued payment of claims after the FBI referral constitutes an affirmative representation of compliance under estoppel or good faith theories. (4) On redirect, the government's question about whether any waivers were designed to let people 'become rich' was objected to by Cotter but overruled — the remaining attorneys should have objected more forcefully or sought a curative instruction on the loaded framing. The Kary direct saw minimal defense activity — mostly no objections — though Andrew Birrell's sharp challenge of the 'Dollar Amount Claimed' label on exhibit N-13 (getting Kary to admit it actually showed dollars paid, not claimed) was a useful evidentiary challenge.