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

Vol IX

2024-05-03
Source PDF
Day Overview

May 3, 2024 was consumed almost entirely by cross-examination of FBI Special Agent Jared Kary, the lead case agent, by five separate defense attorneys (Schleicher, Cotter, Sapone, Garvis, and Brandt) representing different defendants. The cross was a sustained, coordinated attack on the investigation's methodology: zero physical surveillance at any of the relevant SCRS sites, no pole cameras, no search warrants at Bushra Wholesalers warehouse, no undercover operations at the defendants' sites, no Cellebrite analysis of cooperating witness Hadith Ahmed's phone, interviews of key witnesses conducted only weeks before trial, and Kary's admission that he personally lacked knowledge of whether food was actually distributed at any of the charged sites. A critical impeachment moment occurred when Kary initially denied participating in the April 5, 2024 interview of Janet Wolfe at Mary's Montessori, then was forced to correct himself after being shown the report — an interview that occurred less than 30 days before trial. At day's end, Bill Menozzi, director of finance and operations for the Shakopee School District, began direct examination laying out the logistics of legitimate pandemic meal distribution, testimony that appears positioned to contrast with defendants' claimed meal volumes.

Government Strategy

The government's primary objective on this day was to survive a withering multi-attorney cross-examination of lead case agent Jared Kary while preserving the core narrative that the meal counts, rosters, and invoices were fraudulent. Thompson's brief redirect attempted to rehabilitate Kary by signaling that forensic accountants would address money flow and use-of-funds evidence, and that another agent would testify about roster content. The government then pivoted with its new witness, Bill Menozzi (Shakopee School District finance director), to establish a baseline for what legitimate pandemic-era school meal service actually looked like — setting up an implicit comparison to the defendants' claimed meal counts. Menozzi's testimony about 300-600 students per day at the district's largest high school, with 58 food service employees across ten buildings and a $4.5 million annual budget, was designed to make the defendants' meal count numbers appear implausible by contrast.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The complete absence of physical surveillance at every defendant site is the single most powerful theme in this case. The FBI had GPS coordinates and nine months. They never tested their theory. Defense counsel should structure his defense around this: 'They never looked because they didn't want to find food.' The Bushra warehouse is the key — if defense can show via Idriss Omar and other witnesses that food was actually stored, shipped, and distributed from 3004 Pillsbury, the government's theory collapses. - Kara Lomen (Executive Director of PIN) remains the ghost in this case. She never testified, was never FBI-interviewed, and her text message about turning off errors in the system so meal counts could be entered 'before anyone notices' has not been fully exploited. She and PIN, not the vendor defendants, controlled what was submitted to MDE. The sponsor-responsibility concessions Kary made on cross (sponsors bore primary regulatory, financial, and monitoring responsibility) are critical for any vendor-side defendant's defense. - The COVID-waiver argument is underutilized. Sapone's parental-pickup math (1000 meals is not 1000 children; families with 6 kids take 42 meals in one visit) was powerful but brief. Defense counsel should hire an expert on USDA SFSP regulations and COVID waivers to testify affirmatively about what was legally permitted under the non-congregate service waiver. No physical presence of children at a site inspection is entirely consistent with legitimate parental pickup under the waivers. - Bill Menozzi's testimony is a double-edged sword for the government. His description of Shakopee's large Somali community (cultural liaisons, communications in Somali) actually supports the plausibility of community demand for the defendants' distribution sites. On cross, Defense counsel should focus on distinguishing institutional school meal service from SFSP non-congregate community distribution — different program rules, different populations, different mechanics. - Said Farah's wire fraud Count 12 (receiving one email 3 days post-search warrant that he didn't send or use) is the weakest substantive count in the case. Kary admitted no evidence the email was forwarded or used. This is a Rule 29 motion waiting to be filed.

Witnesses
Jared Kary
FBI Special Agent, one of the lead case agents on this investigation, who directed the investigative strategy and served as the government's primary summary/case witness for the first part of trial.
FBI Government
Direct Examination

Kary's direct examination occurred in prior volumes (Vol VII-VIII). This volume consists entirely of cross, redirect, and recross. On direct, Kary had testified about the CLiCS documents, meal counts, invoices, site applications, and the general structure of the fraud theory.

Cross-Examination

Five defense attorneys subjected Kary to an exceptionally broad and effective cross-examination covering: (1) the complete absence of physical surveillance at any of the defendants' sites before the January 20, 2022 search warrants; (2) no search warrants or searches at Bushra Wholesalers warehouse, SCRS offices, or Islamic Society of Marshall; (3) no Cellebrite extraction of cooperating witness Hadith Ahmed's phone despite 13 contacts with him; (4) Kary's personal ignorance of food activity at the warehouse, food delivery logistics, or meal quantities; (5) Said Farah's name appearing nowhere in the CLiCS documents, contracts, site applications, or claim submissions; and (6) Kary's false testimony about the Janet Wolfe interview. The cross was highly effective and exposed serious investigative gaps.

▸
No physical surveillance was conducted at Bushra Wholesalers warehouse (3004 Pillsbury), Bushra Property Management, Lafey Plaza, any SCRS office (Minneapolis, Stevens, Faribault, Willmar, Rochester), Islamic Society of Marshall, or Somali Athletic Club in St. Cloud. The only pre-warrant surveillance was of Said Farah's residence, where agents observed him coming and going from his own home. — Devastating to the government's theory. If fraud was ongoing for months, the FBI had exact GPS coordinates of every site and conducted zero physical surveillance to observe what was actually happening. Defense can argue this is either investigative incompetence or, more powerfully, that surveillance would have disproved the theory. [p. 2086-2088]
▸
No search warrants were executed at any of the SCRS locations, Bushra Wholesalers warehouse, Bushra Property Management, Lafey Plaza, Islamic Society of Marshall, or the Somali Athletic Club. — The government never searched the warehouse where food was allegedly stored and distributed. All of this was known territory — they had GPS coordinates — yet they chose not to look. [p. 2091-2093]
▸
Kary admitted: 'I was not aware of the actual shipments specifically'; 'I was not [aware food was stored there]'; 'I was not [aware food was distributed from there]'; 'I was not' aware Bushra sold groceries to customers; 'A hundred percent not sure' of what took place at 3004 Pillsbury. — The lead case agent has zero personal knowledge of whether Bushra Wholesalers was a real grocery business. This opens a powerful defense that food was legitimately purchased from Bushra and distributed, and the agent simply never looked. [p. 2107-2108]
▸
Said Farah's name appears on none of the CLiCS site applications, site contracts, meal count documents, or email claims submitted to FOF or PIN. Kary confirmed: 'I do not see his name' and 'I do not believe so' as to every category of document. — Systematically establishes that Said Farah had no formal role as sponsor, site, site supervisor, or claim submitter. The government's theory must depend on circumstantial inferences, not documentary proof of his participation. [p. 2110-2117]
▸
Kary initially testified that he was not involved in the April 5, 2024 interview of Janet Wolfe at Mary's Montessori. When shown the report, he admitted he was present and had been 'mistaken.' The interview occurred less than 30 days before trial. — This is direct false testimony — or at minimum a remarkable failure of memory for a recent event. The defense used this to show the jury that even things from one month ago, Kary forgot while under oath. This undermines his credibility as to events from 2020-2021. The interview itself produced information about food distribution that was blocked by hearsay objections. [p. 2145-2148]
▸
Kary admitted that no Cellebrite extraction was done on cooperating witness Hadith Ahmed's cell phone, no toll analysis of Ahmed's calls, no WhatsApp or text messages from Ahmed's device were reviewed, and Ahmed has Kary's personal FBI cell phone number with which he contacts Kary for meeting logistics. — The cooperating witness's communications were not independently verified. Ahmed's phone was not searched to corroborate his account. This is a significant bias and reliability gap for cross-examining Ahmed when he testifies. [p. 2135-2137]
▸
Kary confirmed no search warrant was executed on Abdimajid Nur's house; no cell site records, LPR records, or electronic devices belonging to Nur were obtained. Kary also agreed the site supervisor was not required to be present at each site distributing food. — Undermines the government's theory as to Nur: if his role as site supervisor did not require physical presence at distribution, and there is no surveillance or device evidence, the government's case rests entirely on the meal count signatures and money flows. [p. 2174-2177]
▸
Kary acknowledged that parents/guardians picking up meals could receive a bundle of 7 meals per child; if 100 families came with 6 children each, that would be 4,200 meals distributed in a day from a single visit — and he admitted he did not know how many hours distribution occurred, how many parents came, or how many children they had. — This is a critical COVID-waiver and operational concession. Under the pandemic program rules, parental pickup was permitted; non-congregate delivery was permitted; and the math shows how large numbers of meals could be legitimately distributed without large crowds being observed. Defense can use this to argue the meal count numbers are not inherently implausible. [p. 2179-2181]
▸
Kary admitted the government never applied for a search warrant on defendant Hayat Nur's home, phone, or email. Hayat Nur had no companies, no forfeiture, no luxury purchases attributable to her. Her conduct consisted of sending emails that were in reaction to emails received from her brother Abdiaziz Farah, which she then forwarded to Christine Twait at PIN. — Brandt's cross painted Nur as the person furthest down the 'funnel,' with the least financial connection and whose emails appear to be simple forwarding operations in response to instructions from her brother. If the government's theory is conspiracy, the sufficiency of her 'knowing and willful' participation is deeply questionable. [p. 2219-2238]
▸
Regarding the wire fraud count against Said Farah (Count 12): he received an email on January 23, 2022 — three days after the search warrants — that he did not send, did not cause to be sent, and which Kary admitted was never used to submit any claim. Kary acknowledged there was no evidence Farah forwarded it or used the information. — The substantive wire fraud count against Said Farah rests on passively receiving one email three days after the program had shut down. This is a thin wire fraud predicate and should be challenged at Rule 29 and on appeal. [p. 2119-2120]
▸
Sponsors bore primary contractual responsibility for: counting reimbursable meals, claiming reimbursement from MDE, ensuring food service conformance with program regulations, monitoring vendors, retaining financial responsibility, and maintaining signature authority on the MDE agreement. Kary agreed these responsibilities rested with the sponsors, not the vendors. — This is a key concession for any defendant who was a vendor/site operator rather than a sponsor. The regulatory responsibilities to ensure compliance belonged to PIN and FOF, not to the sites. Defense can argue defendants reasonably relied on sponsors to verify and submit accurate claims. [p. 2191-2193]
▸
Kary confirmed he became involved in August/September 2021 — approximately five months before the search warrants. He had GPS coordinates of every site from the moment of FBI involvement. No undercover operation was run at any of the defendants' sites. An undercover operation was run at only one location (Crystal) unrelated to these defendants. — The government had five months to conduct actual surveillance, send in an undercover agent to pick up meals, or use electronic tracking — and did none of it for the defendants' specific sites. This is not an investigation that tested whether food was being distributed; it accepted MDE's characterization wholesale. [p. 2148-2152]
▸
On redirect, Thompson asked Kary whether the meal counts raised 'red flags.' Kary said yes. When Thompson asked why, Kary began answering with 'the funds were used for personal expenses' — drawing an immediate objection that was sustained, the answer stricken, and the court finding the question potentially invited an opinion on an ultimate issue under Rule 704. — The government attempted to rehabilitate Kary with ultimate-issue opinion testimony about fraud, which the court struck. This shows how thin the rehabilitation evidence is and that the court is policing opinion testimony on ultimate issues. [p. 2239-2242]
Vulnerabilities Kary is highly vulnerable on multiple fronts: (1) He gave false testimony about the Janet Wolfe interview — initially denied being present, then admitted he was; (2) he personally conducted zero surveillance at any of the defendants' sites despite having precise GPS coordinates for nine months; (3) he is a complete stranger to Bushra Wholesalers' actual operations, never visited the warehouse, never confirmed or denied whether food was stored or distributed from there; (4) his lead cooperating witness (Hadith Ahmed) was never subjected to independent verification — no phone search, no toll analysis, no digital corroboration; (5) he relied entirely on MDE characterizations of the program requirements without independently reviewing USDA regulations; (6) he began the investigation with a hypothesis that fraud occurred (arguably in violation of the neutrality principles he endorsed) and confirmed confirmation bias in how he evaluated documentary evidence (treating Sysco invoices as presumptively valid but other invoices with suspicion based purely on appearance); (7) he has no knowledge of how many meals were actually distributed on any given day at any of the sites; (8) he cannot establish a single direct link between Said Farah and any CLiCS document, claim submission, or sponsor contract. Regulatory characterization gap: Kary relied on MDE's framing of the program requirements and never independently reviewed USDA regulations, COVID-19 waivers, or the non-congregate service rules that govern SFSP open sites.
For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should exploit Kary's false testimony about the Wolfe interview as an entry point to challenge his credibility on all prior representations. The complete absence of physical surveillance creates a powerful theme: the FBI formed a theory and never tested it. The Bushra Wholesalers gap is particularly valuable — if defense can show food was actually shipped, stored, and distributed from that warehouse, Kary's ignorance of it undermines the entire fraud theory. The parental pickup/bundling concession should be used in closing to explain high meal counts. The 'sponsors bear primary responsibility' concession can be used to argue that any regulatory violations were attributable to PIN and FOF, not the vendor defendants. The Janet Wolfe impeachment should be preserved for closing argument as evidence of the government's selective investigation.
Bill Menozzi
Director of Finance and Operations for the Shakopee Public School District, called to establish what legitimate pandemic-era meal distribution looks like — 58 employees, 10 buildings, $4.5M annual budget, 300-600 meals/day at the largest site — as an implicit baseline against which defendants' claimed meal counts will be compared.
Other Government Government
Direct Examination

Menozzi testified about his background in public school finance (15 years), the Shakopee School District's demographics (7800 students, 51% students of color, 80+ languages, large Somali community), and his role in designing and executing the district's pandemic meal distribution program. He described how the district used two prep kitchens, bus delivery to 10 low-income sites, and high school pickup serving 300-600 students daily with a dedicated staff of 58 food service employees. Direct examination was cut off at 3pm and will continue Monday.

▸
Shakopee High School (2700 students) served 300-600 meals per day during the pandemic, with participation varying significantly by weather; Fridays were the busiest days. — The government is implicitly arguing that 300-600 meals per day at a large high school cafeteria with a professional staff is the legitimate benchmark — making the defendants' claimed daily meal counts of 1,000+ per site appear implausible. Defense counsel must be ready to distinguish an institutional cafeteria model from the non-congregate/parental-pickup SFSP open-site model under COVID waivers. [p. 2269]
▸
The Shakopee district spent $4.5 million per year to feed approximately 7800 students, with approximately half going to actual food costs and the other half to labor, utilities, and equipment. 58 employees were involved in food service across 10 buildings. — Government will use these figures to argue that the per-student, per-dollar ratios in the defendants' claims are implausible. Defense must counter that SFSP open-site community distribution differs fundamentally from institutional school food service — different populations, no enrollment, bundled multi-meal pickups, and COVID waiver allowances for non-congregate distribution. [p. 2265]
▸
Menozzi described the Shakopee district as having a large Somali student population, with cultural liaisons in Somali, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Russian, and communications sent in all three languages. — This actually tends to support the defense: it confirms the Somali community in the Shakopee area is substantial, with many children in low-income areas who would have been eligible for and interested in SFSP meal distribution. It undercuts any argument that large meal counts in Somali-community-serving sites are inherently implausible. [p. 2260-2261]
Cross-Examination

Cross had not yet occurred as of the end of this volume. Menozzi was in direct examination when court adjourned at 3pm.

Vulnerabilities Menozzi is being used for implicit comparison purposes, but his testimony cuts both ways. His Shakopee district has a large Somali population — actually supporting the plausibility of community demand. His daily meal figures (300-600 at the high school) reflect an institutional model with cafeterias, cooking staff, and students eating on-site — fundamentally different from SFSP non-congregate open-site parental pickup under COVID waivers. Defense must hammer the distinction: (1) Menozzi's model is NSLP/school meals, not SFSP; (2) Menozzi's students ate on-site in cafeterias, while SFSP open sites distributed packaged meals for parents to take home for all their children; (3) Menozzi's district has a fixed enrolled population — SFSP open sites have no enrollment limit and can serve any child in a low-income area. Menozzi's testimony about Shakopee's COVID approach (pickup at school plus bus delivery to low-income areas) is actually consistent with the types of non-congregate distribution the defendants engaged in. The $4.5M/7800-student math also works against the government: that is $577 per student per year, or roughly $3.15 per student per meal day — consistent with per-meal reimbursement rates, not evidence that large-scale meal service is implausible.
For Defense Counsel On cross, Defense counsel should: (1) establish that Menozzi operated under NSLP/school meals program rules, not SFSP open-site rules; (2) get him to agree that SFSP open sites don't require enrollment or attendance records; (3) highlight that Shakopee's COVID distribution was also non-congregate (bus delivery, parking lot pickup) and that high turnout on Fridays shows community demand; (4) use his acknowledgment of the large Somali population in Shakopee to support plausibility of high meal counts at community-based distribution sites. If the government uses cost-per-meal ratios, challenge those against actual SFSP reimbursement rates.
Key Evidence
Type Exhibit Description Page Challenge Opportunity
Document Gov. Ex. C-23 CLiCS site application for Samaha Islamic Center listing Kara Lomen as executive director with contact information [p. 2110] Lomen is identified only as executive director — this is entirely consistent with her role as Executive Director of Partners in Nutrition, a private sponsor organization, NOT an MDE employee. The document proves sponsors (PIN) controlled the CLiCS submissions, not defendants.
Document Gov. Ex. C-24 Contract for vended meals between Partners in Nutrition and Empire Cuisine & Market [p. 2110-2111] The contract is between PIN (sponsor) and Empire (vendor). It establishes that vendors contract directly with sponsors, not with MDE, and that the sponsor bears primary regulatory responsibility. This supports defense argument that vendor defendants relied on sponsors.
Document Gov. Ex. D-68 Email forwarded to Said Farah (sfarah198200@hotmail.com) on January 23, 2022, containing meal-count related documents; the basis for Count 12 wire fraud charge against Said Farah [p. 2118-2120] Email was sent to Farah (he did not send it), three days after search warrants were executed, Kary admits no evidence Farah forwarded it, used it, or submitted it in support of any claim. This is a thin wire fraud predicate and should be challenged at Rule 29.
Document Def. Ex. D2-2 Secretary of State certificate of organization for Empire Gas & Grocery LLC, filed December 15, 2016, transferred to Mohamed Ismail in 2019, annually recertified through 2021 [p. 2159] Government will argue this just shows the shell company framework. Defense should use this to show Ismail had legitimate food-related business experience predating any alleged scheme.
Document Def. Ex. D6-1 Minnesota Secretary of State certificate of organization for Bushra Wholesalers LLC (formed February 10, 2021) with amendment showing Aftin transferred his ownership interest to Said Farah in September 2021 [p. 2195-2197] Government will argue Aftin was an owner during the early fraud period. Defense counters he was overseas from fall 2020 to February 2021, and transferred his interest by September 2021.
Document Gov. Ex. H-3 USCIS affidavit of support from 2013 showing Said Farah and Abdiaziz Farah sponsored Abdiwahab Aftin's immigration from Kenya [p. 2198] Having a personal sponsorship relationship is not evidence of fraud. Defense can use this to establish context without any incriminating implications.
Document Gov. Ex. O-114 Abdiwahab Aftin's Bridgewater Trust account records including checks and a signature specimen [p. 2203-2205] The comparison shows a distinctive signature vs. a printed name. Kary was forced to admit he does not know who signed the meal count forms.
Document Gov. Ex. C-103 Government photograph of Dar Al-Farooq mosque in Bloomington in winter [p. 2248] This cuts in the defense's favor — showing the mosque as a substantial community institution whose parking lot could accommodate large-scale food pickup.
Legal Rulings & Objections
⚖
Court sustained 'beyond the scope' objection when Schleicher asked about shell companies and the business entities not covered in Kary's direct examination. Court ruled that shell company/money laundering evidence will be addressed through forensic accountant witnesses. — Defense cannot use Kary to challenge the money laundering theory — that must wait for the forensic accountants. However, the court's ruling implicitly confirmed that the defense will have 'wide latitude' to cross-examine those witnesses on shell company definitions and whether specific entities qualify. [p. 2104-2106]
⚖
Court sustained objection to Schleicher asking about photos taken during execution of search warrant at Said Farah's home, noting the government will call a witness who was present at the search. — The search results at Said Farah's home are coming in through a different witness. Defense should prepare to challenge whatever that witness testifies about and explore whether the search found anything consistent with a legitimate wholesaler operation. [p. 2141-2142]
⚖
Court struck Kary's answer on redirect when Thompson asked why Kary thought the meal counts were fake and Kary began testifying about how funds were used for personal expenses. Court found this potentially violated FRE 704 (opinion on ultimate issue) and directed a rephrasing. — The court will police ultimate-issue opinion testimony from case agents. This ruling should be cited if any subsequent witness attempts to opine directly on whether the meal counts were fraudulent rather than describing specific evidentiary grounds. [p. 2240-2242]
⚖
Court overruled government's objection to Sapone's questions about what Kary knew regarding meal distribution quantities, frequency, and logistics, confirming the defense could cross on the scope of the agent's actual knowledge. — The door is open to expose the government's lack of affirmative evidence about actual meal distribution — the defense can argue the government cannot prove meals were not served because they never looked. [p. 2186-2187]
⚖
Court allowed Mohring to introduce a photograph of Dar Al-Farooq mosque (C-103) on recross over government objection that it was beyond the scope of redirect, finding it fell within the scope of other defense cross-examination. — Defense should proactively introduce photographic and documentary evidence showing the size and legitimacy of the community institutions that served as distribution sites. [p. 2247-2248]
⚖
Court sustained objection during redirect when Schleicher argued Thompson's question about Kary's opinion on the meal counts went beyond the scope of cross-examination. The court struck the answer and required rephrasing. — Government redirect is cabined to the scope of cross. Defense should object promptly to any rehabilitation that attempts to introduce new substantive testimony rather than simply responding to specific cross-examination points. [p. 2239-2242]
Prior Defense Performance

The cross-examination of Kary on Volume IX was among the most effective defense work in the trial record. Schleicher's methodical approach — establishing investigation best practices, then demonstrating each was not followed — was textbook. The surveillance list and search list demonstratives were particularly powerful because they forced Kary to say 'no' nine or ten consecutive times. Cotter's exploitation of the Janet Wolfe false testimony was immediate and disciplined. Sapone's cross on the meal count math (1000 meals is not 1000 children, parental pickup of 7 meals per child, bundles) was critical and underexplored — more time should have been spent on this. Garvis's comparison of Aftin's actual signature to the printed name on the meal counts was clever and visually effective. Brandt's funnel metaphor to place Hayat Nur at the bottom and his showing of the sequential emails (received from brother, then forwarded to PIN) was strategically sound but could have been developed further. Areas missed or underdeveloped: (1) No one asked Kary directly about USDA COVID-19 waivers and whether sites operating under non-congregate waivers would not be expected to have crowds visible to outside observers; (2) no one challenged Kary's assumption that the Lexington/Tot Park drive-by (no surveillance, no report, no photograph) was meaningful evidence of anything; (3) the cooperating witness (Hadith Ahmed) bias — 13 contacts, has Kary's cell phone — was exposed but not fully developed (his financial benefit from cooperation, what promises were made); (4) Schleicher's attempt to cross on shell companies was cut off by the court's scope ruling, but the underlying point about Bushra being a legitimate business with real assets (building, rental property, wholesale inventory) was never fully established through Kary because he admittedly had no knowledge of those assets.