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

Vol X

2024-05-06
Source PDF
Day Overview

Volume X of Trial 1 was a high-volume day featuring continuation of Bill Menozzi's testimony and three new site-witness testimonies. Menozzi (Shakopee School District) finished his direct and faced extensive cross before stepping down — the cross effectively surfaced that he was not personally familiar with CACFP or its pandemic waivers, and that thousands of children in the district were getting food from other sources throughout the pandemic. The government then called William Walker (former program manager at The Landing, a Three Rivers Park District site in Shakopee) and John Ruhland (former crew chief at The Landing) — both of whom testified they never saw a single meal served at The Landing during the July-December 2020 period when nearly 100,000 meals were claimed. Next, Damaris Graffunder (owner of a Holiday Stationstore adjacent to Scott Park in Apple Valley) testified she never saw the hundreds of thousands of CACFP meals claimed at Scott Park, though she did see a food truck arrive a handful of Friday evenings and adults picking up boxes of vegetables on Saturday mornings — critically, she saw no children, and these were not hot prepared meals. Finally, Oldemar Lopez (office manager at 4020 Minnehaha) testified he saw only five to ten people per week picking up bags near the warehouse, not the 637,000 meals claimed over 10 months. The most strategically significant moment was defense cross of Graffunder, where Cotter introduced a surveillance video showing people lined up at the Acacia Montessori — the court excluded it for lack of foundation, but the attempt to show actual food distribution activity at the Scott Park site is notable. Lopez's cross by Carlson was particularly strong, surfacing that Lopez told the FBI Somali Community Resettlement approached him to hire temp workers to help package food — direct evidence of actual food packaging operations at the building.

Government Strategy

The government used this day to build a 'no meals were actually served' narrative at three specific site locations registered under the SFSP/CACFP programs: The Landing (Shakopee), Scott Park (Apple Valley), and 4020 Minnehaha Avenue (Minneapolis). By calling witnesses who were physically present at or adjacent to these sites, the government attempted to establish that the claimed meal volumes — totaling nearly 100,000 meals at The Landing alone in six months — were physically impossible and that no one with proximity to these sites ever saw any food distribution activity. The government also continued direct examination of Bill Menozzi (Shakopee School District Director of Finance and Operations) to establish what legitimate pandemic food distribution actually looked like — modest numbers (mid-20s per site per day), school-managed, and well-documented — as a contrast to the defendants' inflated claims. The government's theory is that the defendants registered sham sites, submitted fabricated meal counts, and pocketed federal reimbursement money without ever serving the food.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The government's site-witness strategy has a fatal structural flaw: every single site witness either confirmed food was actually being distributed (Graffunder: truck + people, Lopez: families picking up bags, temp worker hiring request, dumpster waste) or admitted they had no knowledge of activity outside park perimeters or on weekends. Not one government witness affirmatively testified 'I was present and observed on all claimed service days and no food was distributed.' Defense counsel should brief this as a pattern of inadequate investigation and speculative absence-of-observation testimony. - Defense Exhibit D2-32 showing people lined up at Acacia Montessori must be authenticated and admitted in defense counsel's trial. This is potentially the most powerful piece of defense evidence to emerge from this volume. Whoever took that video needs to be identified, subpoenaed, and called as a witness. - The FBI's investigation timeline is deeply troubling: agents did not contact Walker until ~3 years after the alleged fraud, did not contact Ruhland until ~18 months after the fraud, did not contact Graffunder until March 2024, did not contact Lopez until approximately April 2024 — and crucially, Graffunder's 31-camera surveillance system from 2021 was NEVER requested. This is not a case where the government conducted thorough on-the-ground investigation before filing charges. Defense counsel should move to compel production of any surveillance footage that exists and argue that the government's failure to preserve it constitutes a spoliation issue. - Menozzi's testimony creates a powerful defense framing: the school district was only reaching 600-1,200 children per day (out of 7,800+ enrolled, plus thousands of non-enrolled kids in the area). Thousands of children needed food from other sources. The defendants' program was serving exactly this underserved population. This is not fraud — this is gap-filling in a crisis. Defense counsel should retain a nutritional access or social services expert to quantify the unmet need. - The government's reliance on comparison between school district meal volumes and defendants' claimed volumes is methodologically flawed: different programs (SNP vs. CACFP/SFSP), different site types (closed delivery vs. open distribution), different populations, different hours, different rules. Menozzi admitted he does not know CACFP or SFSP. Defense counsel should retain a CACFP/SFSP regulatory expert to testify about what legitimate open-site meal counts would have looked like during the pandemic period, accounting for all applicable USDA waivers.

Witnesses
Bill Menozzi
Director of Finance and Operations, Shakopee Public Schools — called to testify about the district's pandemic food distribution operations at sites that overlap with defendant-claimed locations, establishing the contrast between legitimate and allegedly fraudulent meal counts.
Other Government Government
Direct Examination

Menozzi described in detail the Shakopee School District's pandemic food distribution system: meal pickup at Shakopee High School (300-600 per day) and delivery to ten low-income sites (30-60 meals per site per day) from March 2020 through summer 2021. He was then shown government exhibits (N-28, N-46, N-18) comparing claimed meal counts at Clifton Townhomes, Sarazin Flats, and Bonnevista Terrace — all Shakopee locations that the defendants also claimed — and testified the defendants' numbers (400-1,000 per day per site) were 'significantly more' than what the school district ever observed or served.

▸
At Clifton Townhomes, Menozzi observed an average of 25 meals per day during the pandemic. The government exhibit (N-28) showed claimed average daily attendance of 406-450 children per day at that site in Oct-Dec 2020. 'Not close. As I mentioned, during the summer...' (answer cut off by objection). — Core contrast evidence: defendant claimed 406+ meals/day at a location where the school district — the only known food distributor — served 25/day on average. Government uses Menozzi to argue the claimed numbers are physically impossible. [p. 2312]
▸
Menozzi testified the school district never delivered 80,600 servings in a month or 93,000 servings in a month to Clifton Townhomes: 'No again. And I don't believe that would be possible.' He cited logistical constraints — the parking area fits only 50-70 vehicles. — Establishes implausibility of claimed volumes at a specific site defendants registered. Strong visual/physical anchor for jury. [p. 2314]
▸
Menozzi confirmed the school district submitted for 'the number of meals served, not the number of meals prepared' and did not collect child names: 'We submitted for the number of meals served... We did not make them write their name down or check anything off.' He described this as 'normal practice for all public school districts in Minnesota.' — Critically, this establishes that the legitimate program ALSO did not maintain individual child rosters — the government cannot use absence of individual name records as evidence of fraud for open SFSP sites. Defense should hammer this point. [p. 2370]
▸
Menozzi acknowledged the USDA's parent pickup waiver — he testified that his district only gave meals directly to children until 'April of 2021' when USDA guidance allowed parents to pick up on behalf of children, but on cross-examination, defense established there were parent pickup waivers in place 'as early as March of 2020 or April 2020' from other programs. — Menozzi's knowledge of waivers was limited to what his food service manager forwarded to him. His characterization of when parent pickup was permitted may not accurately reflect the USDA waiver regime applicable to other sponsors. Defense counsel properly surfaced this inconsistency. [p. 2341]
▸
The school district enrolled approximately 7,800 students. Pre-pandemic, approximately 5,000 per day received meals from Shakopee schools. During the pandemic, only 600-1,200 meals per day were distributed by the district. Menozzi conceded that the remaining ~4,400 children 'still had to eat' and he had 'no information on where they received their food.' — Establishes significant unmet food demand in the Shakopee area during the pandemic. Defense argues this is the population the defendants were serving. Menozzi could not account for where thousands of children got their food. [p. 2336]
▸
Menozzi admitted he was 'not familiar' with CACFP and did not know whether the school district's pandemic meals were claimed under the School Nutrition Program or SFSP: 'That would be information that our food service manager would have.' — Severe limitation on Menozzi's credibility as a witness about CACFP or SFSP program requirements. He simply does not know the regulatory framework applicable to the programs at issue. His opinions about what was 'possible' or 'not possible' reflect only his experience with SNP, not CACFP/SFSP. [p. 2329]
Cross-Examination

Defense cross (led by Goetz, supplemented by Ian Birrell, Cotter, and Sapone) was productive. Goetz exposed that Menozzi's knowledge of the applicable regulatory programs (CACFP, SFSP) was minimal and dependent on his food service manager. Ian Birrell established Menozzi had no knowledge of the defendants' operations, menus, food purchase quantities, or delivery methods. Cotter extracted the key admission that no child names were required — just meal counts — and that even toddlers not in school 'had to eat.' Sapone established that Menozzi had no knowledge of whether other food distributions occurred at the same sites before 11 a.m. or after 1 p.m.

▸
Menozzi admitted he was not familiar with CACFP: 'I do not know that information.' When asked whether his summer food distribution fell under SNP or SFSP: 'I am not familiar with the meals that were claimed during COVID, if they fell under the School Nutrition Program or the Seamless Summer Option.' — This witness is testifying about alleged fraud in CACFP/SFSP programs, but he does not understand those programs. His testimony about what 'legitimate' food service looks like is based entirely on the separate SNP/school meals world. This is a major foundational weakness. [p. 2329]
▸
Menozzi confirmed he had no knowledge of: the defendants' menus, the type of food they provided, where they purchased ingredients, quantity of ingredients, how they refrigerated food, whether they served parents or children, or how many meals they ultimately handed out. — Menozzi's entire testimony is about Shakopee School District operations, not the defendants. He cannot testify that the defendants did not serve meals — he simply has no information about the defendants at all. [p. 2348]
▸
On the question of parental pickup waivers: Goetz established that 'there were parent pickup waivers in place as early as March of 2020 or April 2020' from testimony of other witnesses. Menozzi's district only implemented parent pickup in April 2021, but this was a choice specific to the SNP/school meal program — not a limitation imposed on CACFP/SFSP sponsors. — Menozzi's April 2021 date for parent pickup permission does not accurately describe the USDA waiver landscape for other program operators. The USDA nationwide non-congregate and parental pickup waivers were broader and earlier for SFSP/CACFP. Significant regulatory mischaracterization risk if not addressed. [p. 2341]
▸
Cotter: 'Did I understand correctly that over 50 percent of the student population in the Shakopee School District is minority?' Menozzi: '51 percent.' Cotter surfaced that Somali students attend Islamic school at the mosque — children not counted in any district enrollment figure, who would still need to eat during the pandemic. — Strengthens the argument that there was a large underserved Somali/immigrant population in Shakopee whose children were not in Menozzi's data and who would have had legitimate need for CACFP/SFSP meal services. [p. 2362]
▸
Sapone: 'You don't know whether students picked up meals somewhere else before 11:00 on those days, right?' Menozzi: 'No... I was never told that information.' Sapone also: 'You don't know whether parents, on behalf of students, picked up meals from somewhere else before 11:00 a.m., right?' Menozzi: 'No, I do not know that.' — Menozzi could not rule out that the same children obtained additional meals from other distributors — including the defendants — at different times of day. His testimony establishes only what Shakopee School District did, not what happened at the defendants' sites. [p. 2367]
Vulnerabilities Menozzi's core vulnerability is that he has almost no knowledge of CACFP or SFSP — the programs actually at issue in this case. His testimony is entirely about the School Nutrition Program / Seamless Summer Option operated by a public school district, which operates under different rules than private sponsor organizations like the defendants'. His views on 'legitimate' operations and 'impossible' claim volumes reflect SNP norms, not CACFP/SFSP norms. He does not know whether USDA waivers applicable to other sponsors allowed different practices. His characterization that parent pickup was only permitted from April 2021 is potentially incorrect as applied to CACFP/SFSP operators with earlier USDA waivers. He was not present at the defendants' sites, has no knowledge of their operations, and his comparisons are therefore apples-to-oranges. The government used his testimony to establish low local baselines for meal distribution, but Menozzi himself acknowledged that thousands of children in the area were not being served by the school district and had to get food elsewhere — from exactly the kind of private distributors the defendants represented.
For Defense Counsel If Menozzi appears in defense counsel's trial: (1) Establish immediately that he has no knowledge of CACFP or SFSP — these are the only relevant programs; (2) Get him to concede the USDA waivers applicable to private sponsors were broader than what Shakopee School District implemented; (3) Highlight the demographic reality: 51% minority, growing Somali population, many children outside the district's enrollment data; (4) Establish that Shakopee School District was only distributing 600-1,200 meals/day during a period when 7,800+ students plus non-enrolled children all needed food; (5) Use Menozzi's own concessions — no child names were ever collected, just meal counts — to defeat the government's argument that the absence of individual identifiers indicates fraud; (6) Consider whether to attack the comparison exhibits (N-28, N-46, N-18) — the government's methodology of comparing school district numbers to defendants' CACFP numbers is a category error since they operate under different rules at different types of sites serving different populations.
William Walker
Former Cultural Resources Manager and Site Supervisor at The Landing (Minnesota River Heritage Park, Three Rivers Park District, Shakopee) from approximately 2015 to April 2023 — called to testify that he never observed any meal distribution at the park during the period when defendants claimed to have served nearly 100,000 meals there.
Other Government Government
Direct Examination

Walker provided detailed testimony about The Landing — a low-visitation historical park in Shakopee with 20-25 visitors per day on average. He described his role supervising 7 staff, walking the park daily, and maintaining detailed knowledge of all park activity. He testified unequivocally that he never saw meals served, delivery trucks, signage, or any food distribution during the July-December 2020 period when Government Exhibit C-84 shows the defendants claimed 6,000-14,260+ meals per month at the site. He also confirmed no one ever contacted the park about using it as a meal distribution site, that the pavilion was not rentable during the pandemic, and that the park would have been entirely incapable of accommodating the claimed volumes without extensive evidence of such activity.

▸
Walker: 'I am not. To my knowledge, there were none' [meals being served]. 'I did not' [see any meals being served]. 'Not once' [see that during the pandemic]. — Core government evidence: the on-site manager of the claimed location says no meals were ever served there. Government Exhibit N-22 shows nearly 100,000 meals claimed July-December 2020. [p. 2401]
▸
Government Exhibit C-84 shows claimed meals at The Landing: July 2020 = 3,000 breakfast + 3,000 lunch over 15 days; August = 5,450 each over 30 days; September = 6,050 each over 30 days; October = 9,800 each over 28 days (with upward adjustment); November = 10,212 each over 30 days; December = 14,260 each over 31 days. Walker denied observing any of these meals. — The escalating trajectory of claims — growing from 6,000 total in July to 28,520 total in December — while the park manager says nothing was happening is the government's strongest evidence of fabricated claims at The Landing site. [p. 2415-2420]
▸
Walker testified the park had 20-25 visitors per day and 10-15 vehicles on average during the pandemic. The pavilion/picnic shelter — the only logical space for large meal distribution — was closed to rentals by policy from March 2020 through at least early 2021. No one contacted the park about using it for food distribution. — Establishes physical impossibility narrative: even the park's maximum capacity for events (400 people, with stanchions and staff) dwarfs the claimed daily meals, and the park specifically locked down all rentable facilities. [p. 2405-2406]
▸
Walker: 'I'm here today because my staff called me even though I no longer work for the park district.' He confirmed he was NOT contacted by federal agents until 'a couple of months ago' — agents reached out through his former administrative assistant who contacted him. — The FBI did not contact the on-site manager of this location until approximately February-March 2024 — roughly three years after the alleged fraud. This is a significant investigation delay that defense should exploit for any suggestion of fabricated or coached testimony. [p. 2411, 2423]
▸
Walker testified the site application (Government Exhibit C-84) listed 'Mind Foundry - The Landing: Minnesota River Heritage Park' as the vendor, and 'Empire Cuisine & Market' as the vendor name. Walker had never heard from either organization about providing meals at The Landing. — The site application listed a registered vendor (Empire Cuisine & Market) that never contacted the park. This is a factual predicate for the fraud charge — the site was registered without anyone ever contacting the park's management. [p. 2413]
Cross-Examination

Cross by Ian Birrell and Sapone was brief. Birrell got Walker to admit he could not know what happened outside the park perimeter, including on County Road 101 adjacent to the park on weekends when he was not working. Sapone established that federal agents did not contact Walker until 'a couple of months ago' — approximately February-March 2024, three years after the alleged fraud period.

▸
Birrell: 'You don't know one way or the other whether food was distributed from another nearby location outside of the park's perimeter.' Walker: 'I do not.' And: 'You don't know whether food was distributed on the weekends on the corner of CR 101 outside of the park's perimeter.' Walker: 'I did not [see that].' — Walker's testimony is limited to inside the park perimeter during his working hours (Monday-Friday). He has no knowledge of activity outside the park or on weekends. If food was distributed in the parking lot of a nearby business, on the roadside, or on weekends, Walker would not know. [p. 2422]
▸
Sapone established that federal agents did not contact Walker in August 2021, nor in 2022 or 2023. The first contact was 'a couple of months ago' — approximately March-April 2024. — Critical investigation timeline issue. The FBI was aware of The Landing site and had Government Exhibit C-84 showing the claimed meal counts — yet they waited nearly three years to contact the on-site manager. This raises questions about the government's investigation methods and timeline. [p. 2423-2424]
Vulnerabilities Walker's testimony is limited in scope: he was present Monday-Friday during park hours, not on weekends, not before 8:30 a.m., not after 5:30 p.m. The claim application listed meals served 11:00-12:00 — a window that overlaps with Walker's schedule, but he admits he would not know what happened outside the park perimeter. The government pushed him to say 'it would be difficult to imagine' he wouldn't notice large groups — but his actual testimony is 'I believe I would have' and 'I don't think so,' which is softer than the government's narrative. The 3-year delay in the FBI contacting him is a significant vulnerability — either the FBI knew the site was fraudulent from other evidence and did not prioritize confirming it, or they were building the case without corroborating basic facts. Walker has no knowledge of what happened outside the park. He also cannot explain the mechanism of how claims were submitted or who submitted them — his testimony is purely about absence of observation.
For Defense Counsel If Walker appears in defense counsel's trial: (1) Establish that Walker's Monday-Friday schedule means he has no knowledge of weekend activity — and many food programs distribute on weekends; (2) Establish that Walker himself said The Landing is adjacent to County Road 101, and that the nearby area includes other parking areas and locations where food could be distributed; (3) Highlight the 3-year delay — if this was such obvious fraud, why did the FBI wait until 2024 to talk to the park manager?; (4) Walker repeatedly said 'I believe' and 'I don't think so' rather than certainty — this is speculative testimony about absence; (5) Note that the claim application listed Empire Cuisine & Market as a vendor with a Shakopee address — did the FBI ever contact Empire Cuisine & Market directly? Establish whether any surveillance was conducted at The Landing during the relevant period.
John Ruhland
Former Crew Chief (maintenance supervisor) at The Landing, Three Rivers Park District, from 2012 to July 2023 — called as a corroborating witness to Walker, to establish that maintenance staff also never observed any food distribution at the park during July-December 2020.
Other Government Government
Direct Examination

Ruhland corroborated Walker's testimony from a different vantage point — he was the maintenance chief who would notice physical evidence of large gatherings (tire marks in gravel, increased trash, parking lot degradation, porta-john usage). He confirmed an average of 20-25 visitors and 10-15 vehicles per day at The Landing in 2020. He testified he never saw meals being served, no delivery trucks, no signage, no food debris, and no parking lot degradation consistent with hundreds of vehicles arriving daily. He specifically denied that anyone named Abdiaziz Farah or Mohamed Ismail ever contacted him about providing meals at The Landing.

▸
Ruhland: average 20-25 visitors per day and 10-15 vehicles during 2020. He never saw lines of vehicles picking up meals, never saw trucks unloading large amounts of meals, never saw signs or flyers advertising free meals. — Physical corroboration of Walker's testimony from the maintenance perspective. A 10-15 vehicle average versus 200+ vehicles per day implied by the claimed meal counts would have been physically obvious. [p. 2437, 2441]
▸
Ruhland testified that if thousands of meals were distributed, physical evidence would remain: increased trash, tire marks in gravel after regrading, more porta-john cleanings needed, noise from cars coming and going. He observed none of this. — Establishes physical evidence theory: mass food distribution at a gravel lot site would leave a physical trace. The absence of such traces corroborates the absence of distribution. [p. 2443-2444]
▸
At the conclusion of direct, Ms. Walcker asked: 'Would you have liked to have brought home free meals for your children if they were provided at The Landing, where you worked during that time?' Ruhland: 'Yes.' This was Ruhland's last answer before cross. — Transparently rhetorical question designed to personalize and humanize the fraud narrative for jurors. Defense should flag this type of prosecutorial embellishment — it is designed to evoke sympathy and has no evidentiary value. [p. 2448]
▸
Like Walker, Ruhland confirmed that the FBI/government first contacted him about this case only about 'a month and a half ago' — approximately March-April 2024. — Second confirmation of the 3-year investigation gap. Two critical on-site witnesses were not contacted until trial preparation began in early 2024, suggesting the investigation was built primarily on financial records and was corroborated with site witnesses only in the final months before trial. [p. 2449]
Cross-Examination

Cross was minimal. Cotter confirmed all of Ruhland's testimony was about inside the park perimeter. Sapone established the 3-year delay in FBI contact.

▸
Cotter: 'Just real quick, everything you're talking about was within the confines of the park, correct?' Ruhland: 'Yes.' — Same limitation as Walker — testimony is confined to inside the park. Defense preserves the argument that food distribution could have occurred on nearby public streets, parking areas, or on weekends. [p. 2449]
Vulnerabilities Same limitations as Walker: weekday-only, inside park-perimeter only. Ruhland's physical-evidence argument (tire marks, trash, noise) assumes the claimed meals would all be distributed from inside the park — but if they were distributed from the parking lot of a nearby business or roadside, these physical markers would not apply. His testimony about gravel parking lot degradation is based on experience with large events like 3,000-person food truck festivals — a sudden daily surge of 200 vehicles would indeed leave marks, but his observations during COVID may be compromised by the already-increased foot traffic he described. Additionally, Ruhland split time with Hyland Park starting around Thanksgiving — he was personally present at The Landing only about three days per week in December 2020, when the highest claimed counts (14,260 meals/day) were occurring.
For Defense Counsel Same strategy as Walker. Additionally: (1) Ruhland was only at The Landing 3 days/week in December 2020 — he cannot testify about the other days; (2) His maintenance crew checked the park daily but he personally was not always present; (3) The food truck festival Ruhland described (3,000 people) was a staged, planned event with stanchions and traffic management — the defendants' claimed model was a daily drive-through pickup, not a concentrated event, which would leave less visible physical evidence per visit.
Damaris Graffunder
Owner and manager of the Holiday Stationstore at 14113 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley — owner of the building that also contains Acacia Montessori daycare and is adjacent to Scott Park, the site where defendants claimed to have served approximately 460,000+ meals in 2021 under the CACFP program.
Other Government Government
Direct Examination

Graffunder worked 17-18 hour days, 7 days a week at the Holiday station during the pandemic, was present continuously, and had 31 surveillance cameras covering the Scott Park area and her entire building. She testified that she never saw the massive meal distributions claimed at Scott Park (56,000 to 81,000+ meals per month). However — and this is the critical complexity — she did testify that on approximately four or five Friday evenings she saw a small truck bring food, and on the following Saturday mornings she saw 'a line of people' going into the Acacia Montessori daycare to pick up boxes of vegetables. She had no children and adult-only customers were getting the food. She said it 'wasn't like a big thing of food' — 'just like a little basket' containing vegetables and tomatoes.

▸
Graffunder observed 'a few' instances of food distribution — approximately four or five times on Friday evenings (small truck) and Saturday mornings (line of adults picking up boxes of vegetables). She described the items as vegetables, tomatoes, onions — 'not a ready-to-eat meal.' — Graffunder inadvertently confirmed that food distribution DID happen at the Scott Park/Acacia Montessori location — she saw a truck, people lined up, and food being handed out. This contradicts the total-absence-of-meals narrative. The food appears to be multi-day grocery bundles for families, which is consistent with CACFP meal distribution practices during the pandemic. [p. 2475, 2479, 2581]
▸
Graffunder: The Acacia Montessori daycare was closed during 2021. The government elicited this to suggest the site had no legitimate child population. — Government uses daycare closure to suggest children could not have been served at this site. However, Scott Park is a public park — SFSP open sites serve any child who appears, not just children enrolled in a specific facility. The daycare closure is irrelevant to whether the park served as an SFSP open site. [p. 2469-2470]
▸
Claimed meal counts at Scott Park for 2021 per Government Exhibit N-68: February = 56,000 snacks and suppers; March = 62,000; May = 62,000; June = 22,000; September = 17,486; October = 81,162; November = 69,392; December = 74,980. Graffunder denied seeing these volumes. — These are extraordinary numbers. The October 2021 claim of 81,162 snacks and suppers (~2,600/day) at a public park with no kitchen is the government's primary evidence of fraud at this site. Graffunder's denial, combined with her 31-camera surveillance covering the entire area, is the government's most powerful evidence. [p. 2480-2483]
▸
Defense Exhibit D2-32 (a video of people lined up at the Acacia Montessori) was shown to Graffunder by Cotter on cross. She said it 'fairly represents' what she saw when people came to pick up food. The court excluded the video on foundation grounds — the witness could not establish who took it or when. — This is a major missed defense opportunity. There is surveillance video showing people lined up at the Acacia Montessori. The government's own witness said it looked like what she observed. The defense needs to properly authenticate this video through another witness and get it admitted. [p. 2490-2494]
Cross-Examination

Cotter's cross effectively established that Graffunder saw actual food distribution occurring, the FBI did not contact her until March 2024 (three years after the relevant period), the FBI never asked to look at her 31 surveillance cameras from 2021, and she did not count the people she saw. Ian Birrell surfaced that camera footage from 2021 might still exist but was never requested by agents.

▸
Cotter established that Graffunder saw a line of people at the Acacia Montessori picking up food: 'A customer came into the Holiday station after getting the food' and told her they were giving food away next door. She confirmed they were giving out vegetables and food items. — Graffunder's own testimony establishes that food distribution did occur at this location. The defense should use this as proof of actual program operations — not fabrication. [p. 2488]
▸
Agent Travis Wilmer first contacted Graffunder in March 2024 — three years after the relevant period. Wilmer never asked to see surveillance camera footage from 2021. — The FBI had access to 31 surveillance cameras at the location covering the parking lot and the daycare from 2021, but never requested the footage. This is a significant investigation failure. Defense counsel should explore whether this footage still exists and what it shows. [p. 2785-2788]
▸
Ian Birrell established that Graffunder does not know if the 2021 surveillance footage is still stored: 'I can no answer because I don't know.' — The 2021 footage may or may not still exist. Defense counsel should immediately subpoena the camera system to determine retention capacity. If footage exists, it could show actual food distribution activity. If the government failed to preserve it, there may be a spoliation argument. [p. 2500]
▸
Cotter: 'When I asked you whether you could see people wrapped around the side of the building on your camera, you said you could only see them in front.' This established Graffunder's surveillance coverage had gaps — she could not see all sides of the Acacia Montessori building. — Graffunder's cameras did not cover the entire area. Significant food distribution activity could have occurred in areas outside her camera coverage. [p. 2496]
▸
Cotter asked if she recalled telling Agent Wilmer that there was a lot of people or that it caused disruption to her business traffic. She denied this. Cotter suggested her 302 may say something different. — There may be inconsistencies between Graffunder's trial testimony and her FBI 302 statement. Defense should obtain the 302 through discovery and compare. [p. 2488-2489]
Vulnerabilities Graffunder is the government's most complex witness because she actually confirmed food distribution was happening at the site — she just said it wasn't 'a lot' of people and the food was vegetables in boxes, not prepared meals. Her testimony actually corroborates that the Acacia Montessori / Scott Park area was a food distribution point. The government used her to attack the volume of claims, but she unwittingly confirmed the program was real. She did not count people, did not watch continuously, and her cameras had coverage gaps. The FBI's failure to collect her 2021 surveillance footage is a serious investigation flaw. Her characterization of the food as 'vegetables and tomatoes' rather than prepared meals may actually support the defense — CACFP meal distribution during the pandemic included meal kits and multi-day packages, not necessarily hot ready-to-eat food. Her testimony that 'it was not every Friday' and she saw this 'four or five times' reflects her memory from three years earlier, asked for the first time in March 2024.
For Defense Counsel This witness is potentially a defense asset misused by the government: (1) Graffunder confirmed food was being distributed at the site — this is evidence the program was real; (2) Subpoena her 2021 surveillance footage immediately — it may show far more activity than she recalled; (3) The government's characterization that the food was 'not a ready-to-eat meal' is not necessarily disqualifying — pandemic-era CACFP bundles included groceries and meal kits in some programs; (4) Challenge the government's witness preparation — why was she first contacted in March 2024? Was she told specifically what to look for in her memory?; (5) The excluded defense video (D2-32) needs to be properly authenticated and re-offered through another witness who was present — if it shows people lined up at Acacia Montessori, it is direct evidence of actual food distribution.
Oldemar Lopez
Financial office manager at Laborforce Now (a temp staffing agency), whose office has been located at 4020 Minnehaha Avenue, Minneapolis for approximately nine years — called to testify about the absence of large-scale food distribution from that address where Somali Community Resettlement Services also has offices and where the defendants claimed over 637,000 meals were distributed in 2021.
Other Government Government
Direct Examination

Lopez testified he worked Monday-Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the building and that his office window directly overlooks the warehouse at the back. He saw 'a few Latino families' picking up bags 'a couple times a week' — perhaps five to ten people per week on weekdays. He never saw large groups and never saw advertisements or flyers. He identified Government Exhibit N-50 showing claimed meal totals of 637,000 meals over 10 months (February-December 2021) and denied seeing anything close to that volume.

▸
Lopez: 'I saw a few family -- Latino families picking up bags. Assuming food. I don't know. I wasn't sure what was inside.' On how many times per week: 'Just a couple times a week, just a few families.' On how many per day: 'Maybe five, six.' — Lopez — the government's own witness — confirmed that food distribution WAS happening at this address. He saw people picking up bags. The question for the jury is whether the volume was 637,000 meals or far less. [p. 2507-2508]
▸
Lopez: The claimed totals included 637,000 meals over 10 months. In May 2021 alone, 124,000 meals were claimed. Lopez denied seeing these volumes from his office window. — Lopez's observation of 5-10 people per week is not consistent with 637,000 meals over 10 months if distribution happened only on weekdays during his hours. But Lopez was not present on weekends or before 8 a.m. or after 4 p.m. [p. 2509-2510]
Cross-Examination

Defense cross by Cotter and Carlson was highly effective. Carlson established that Lopez was not present on weekends, did not work early mornings or evenings, and that Somali Community Resettlement approached him to hire temp workers to help package food — directly confirming actual food packaging operations. Carlson also surfaced that Lopez recalled a dumpster with significant food waste, and did the math showing that if bags contained multiple days' worth of meals for multiple children, the number of people Lopez observed was not necessarily inconsistent with the claimed totals.

▸
Carlson: 'Do you recall telling the FBI that at one point people from Somali Community Resettlement actually approached you and asked if they could hire some temporary workers from you to help package food?' Lopez: 'Yeah, I recall that.' And he could not hire them because he did not have available workers. — This is the most important cross-examination moment of the day. The government's own witness — the person whose window overlooks the food distribution warehouse — told the FBI that Somali Community Resettlement (which appears to be connected to the defendants' program) was actively packaging food at this location and sought to hire workers for that purpose. This is direct evidence the food program was real and operational. [p. 2649-2650]
▸
Carlson: 'Do you recall also -- there's a dumpster in the alley by there; is that right?' Lopez: 'Yes.' 'You would notice significant amounts of food that would end up being thrown away in that dumpster?' Lopez: 'Yeah, I remember basketfulls.' — Food waste in the dumpster is physical evidence that food was being handled at this location in significant quantities. This is consistent with a real food distribution operation — not a fully fabricated scheme with no food involved at all. [p. 2655-2656]
▸
Carlson walked Lopez through a math exercise: if each bag contained 7 days' worth of meals, and each pickup covered 5 children, the 637,000 claimed meals could be accounted for by approximately 26-50 people per day picking up on weekdays only. Lopez: 'Maybe.' When asked about the per-week figure: 'They come twice a week to pick up.' — Lopez's observations (5-10 people per week on weekdays) are not necessarily inconsistent with the claimed totals, depending on: (a) how many meals were bundled per pickup, (b) whether distribution also occurred on weekends when Lopez was absent, and (c) whether multiple pickups per family per week occurred. [p. 2713-2752]
▸
Lopez did not know who leased the warehouse during the pandemic — before the pandemic he believed it was 'a gentleman from maybe Nigeria,' but he did not know the current leaseholder. He also did not know if there were security cameras in the building. — The government built its case on Lopez's absence-of-observation testimony, but Lopez is not the leaseholder, not the building manager, and does not have complete knowledge of the building's operations. He was simply an office tenant who happened to have a window view. [p. 2644, 2679]
Vulnerabilities Lopez is the weakest of the government's site witnesses because he inadvertently confirmed that food distribution was real and ongoing at the location, that Somali Community Resettlement was actively packaging food there, and that significant food waste appeared in the dumpster. His testimony was primarily that he did not see large crowds — but he was not present on weekends, not present before 8 a.m. or after 4 p.m., and did not count or track the people he saw. He also admitted he saw multiple families per week picking up bags. His math-based concessions to Carlson suggest that with multi-day meal bundles for multiple children, his observed traffic of 5-10 people per week is not grossly inconsistent with the claimed totals. The 3-year delay in the FBI contacting him is also notable.
For Defense Counsel Lopez is almost a defense witness: (1) He confirmed food packaging was happening — Somali Community Resettlement asked him for temp workers to help package food; (2) He confirmed food waste in the dumpster — physical evidence of real food handling; (3) He confirmed families were picking up bags regularly; (4) He was not present on weekends — distribution on Saturdays and Sundays, when many working families might pick up multi-day meal bundles, is entirely outside his knowledge; (5) The math exercise Carlson ran at trial should be developed into an expert-level analysis for defense counsel's case — if bundles contained multiple meals for multiple children over multiple days, the gap between observed pickups and claimed totals narrows significantly; (6) If the leaseholder of the warehouse can be identified and called, their testimony about actual food operations would be more probative than Lopez's window-based observations.
Key Evidence
Type Exhibit Description Page Challenge Opportunity
Document Gov. Ex. C-84 Site application and monthly meal claim records for 'Mind Foundry - The Landing: Minnesota River Heritage Park' covering July-December 2020, listing Empire Cuisine & Market as the vendor and showing escalating claimed meal totals: 6,000 meals in July, 10,900 in August, 12,100 in September, 19,600 in October (after upward adjustment), 20,424 in November, and 28,520 in December — totaling nearly 100,000 meals in six months. [p. 2413-2420] The exhibit shows claims were submitted through the CliCS system. Defense should challenge: who submitted these claims and through what sponsor? Was it through Feeding Our Future or Partners in Nutrition? Was the landing actually an approved SFSP open site? If so, what regulatory requirements applied? Did the government verify with MDE whether the claims were approved? The government presented this as fraudulent from the outset without establishing what regulatory process was followed. Also: Empire Cuisine & Market is listed as the vendor — has the government interviewed Empire Cuisine & Market about its actual operations?
Document Gov. Ex. N-22 Summary chart of all meal claims at The Landing from July to December 2020, totaling approximately 100,000 meals. [p. 2421, 2447] The exhibit shows claimed totals but does not establish: (a) who submitted the claims, (b) whether they were approved by MDE, (c) what site type was registered, or (d) whether SFSP open-site rules were followed. The government jumped from 'Walker didn't see meals' to 'therefore fraud' without addressing whether some legitimate distribution may have occurred at nearby or associated locations.
Document Gov. Ex. C-245 Site application for 'Mind Foundry: Scott Park' at 14125 Galaxie Avenue, Apple Valley, listing estimated daily enrollment of 1,500, method of meal preparation as 'Meals Prepared On Site,' and claiming after-school snacks and suppers for February through June and September 2021. [p. 2471-2472] Scott Park is a public park — if this was registered as an SFSP open site, there is no enrollment requirement and no requirement that meals be prepared on-site (only that they be delivered). The 'Meals Prepared On Site' checkbox may reflect an error in how the application was completed rather than evidence of fabrication. The application states meals would be served as 'after-school snack and supper' — this is a CACFP At-Risk program category that has specific rules. Defense should verify whether the site registration, if done correctly, would have required different procedures than the government's witnesses assumed.
Data/Summary Gov. Ex. N-68 Claims data for Scott Park showing monthly meal totals including February 2021 = 56,000 snacks and suppers; March = 62,000; May = 62,000; June = 22,000; September = 17,486; October = 81,162; November = 69,392; December = 74,980. [p. 2480-2483] The government presented these numbers without establishing: (a) what site type and program applied; (b) whether the claims were approved by MDE; (c) what the reimbursement per meal was; (d) what food was actually purchased and by whom. Graffunder actually confirmed that food was being distributed at the location. The gap between what she observed (lines of adults picking up boxes) and the claimed numbers is real — but this may reflect distribution at multiple times/days, multi-meal bundles, or distribution from locations she could not see.
Document Gov. Ex. N-50 Claims data for 4020 Minnehaha Avenue site showing total claimed meals of approximately 637,000 over February-December 2021, with monthly peaks of 124,000 in May 2021. [p. 2509, 2541] Carlson's math exercise at trial showed that if bags contained multi-day bundles for multiple children, Lopez's observations of 5-10 people per week on weekdays could be consistent with far higher meal totals when weekend distribution, evening distribution, and multi-child family pickups are accounted for. More importantly, Lopez confirmed that Somali Community Resettlement was actively packaging food at this location and sought to hire temp workers — evidence of a real operational food program.
Document Gov. Ex. C-120, C-197, C-59 Photographs of Clifton Townhomes, Sarazin Flats, and Bonnevista Terrace — low-income apartment complexes and mobile home parks in Shakopee that were Shakopee School District meal delivery sites AND were registered as defendant-claimed meal sites. [p. 2309, 2317, 2319] Menozzi admitted he does not know the defendants' operations. The comparison is between SNP school-district operations and CACFP/SFSP private sponsor operations. Different programs, different populations, different distribution methods. The school district served Shakopee students during school hours. The defendants' program would have served a broader population (any child 18 and under for SFSP open sites) at different hours. The school district's 25-40 meals per day reflects enrolled Shakopee students in a specific delivery model — it does not establish the maximum possible participation for a properly-operated SFSP open site serving a broader area.
Legal Rulings & Objections
⚖
Defense Exhibit D2-32 (surveillance video showing people lined up at Acacia Montessori / Scott Park) was offered by Cotter on cross-examination of Graffunder. Government objected on foundation grounds — witness could not establish who took the video, when it was taken, or that her observations were consistent with what the video showed. Court sustained the objection. — This is a significant ruling. The video apparently shows people lined up at the Scott Park site to receive food — direct evidence the program was real. The court excluded it because Graffunder could not authenticate it. Defense must find another witness to authenticate the video before trial or obtain it through proper discovery channels. Cotter's argument under FRE 901 (personal knowledge of the scene depicted) was rejected. A proper authentication through the video's source (if it's security footage from a neighboring property or from the defendants' records) is needed. [p. 2490-2494]
⚖
Goetz's objection (602, foundation) during Menozzi's direct when asked about numbers at Clifton Townhomes was overruled by the court. — Court allowed Menozzi's testimony about observed meal counts at Clifton Townhomes even though his knowledge was based on spot-checks and data from subordinates, not personal daily observation. Defense should note this for appeal if the conviction rests on Menozzi's implausibility testimony. [p. 2310]
⚖
Cotter's objection that Walker's testimony about whether thousands of meals 'could have been served without you knowing' called for speculation and violated Rules 701/702 was overruled. — The court allowed a lay witness to testify about what he 'would have' known about potential meal distribution at his workplace. This is a recurring evidentiary issue throughout the government's case — lay witnesses speculating about what they 'would have noticed' under hypothetical scenarios. Rule 701/702 challenges to this type of speculative testimony should be preserved for appeal. [p. 2416, 2643]
⚖
Goetz's hearsay objection at the start of the day regarding Menozzi's 302 references to what 'public school staff saw or heard regarding certain locations' and 'relationships with other property managers' — the government agreed not to elicit such testimony. — The government had additional 302 material about what other people told Menozzi about the claimed sites. Defense successfully kept this hearsay out in advance. This strategy — pre-trial objections to anticipated hearsay in government 302s — is effective and should be used by defense counsel's team. [p. 2289]
⚖
End-of-day: Goetz placed on the record a concern that during a sidebar, Ms. Walcker's speaking objection about the Graffunder video was loud enough that the jury likely heard her comments about what the witness's testimony 'showed' and was 'contrary to.' Judge agreed to have clerk inquire with jury, and admonished all counsel against speaking objections. — The government made substantive speaking objections during sidebar that the jury may have overheard — potentially prejudicing the defendants by having jurors hear the prosecutor's characterization of why a defense exhibit should not be admitted. This is a misconduct issue worth preserving. Defense counsel should be vigilant about this during his trial. [p. 2519]
Prior Defense Performance

Overall, defense cross-examination on this day was adequate but left significant opportunities on the table. The most effective work was by Carlson (for Said Farah) on the Lopez cross — surfacing the temp worker packaging request from Somali Community Resettlement and the dumpster food waste, both of which are direct evidence of real operations. Cotter's attempt to introduce Defense Exhibit D2-32 was admirable but inadequately prepared — the video needed authentication before trial, not an improvised attempt to authenticate it through a witness who had no connection to its creation. The Menozzi cross by Goetz was solid, establishing that the witness had no knowledge of CACFP or SFSP — but it could have gone further on the COVID waiver issue. The cross should have directly confronted Menozzi with the USDA's nationwide non-congregate waiver that was in place from March 2020, not just April 2021, and the broader universe of program operators who were permitted to distribute to parents and guardians far earlier than Shakopee School District implemented it. The cross of Walker and Ruhland was appropriately brief — defense correctly identified that the strongest point was the limitation to park perimeter and weekday hours. However, nobody directly asked Walker or Ruhland: 'Did the FBI show you any surveillance footage of the site during the relevant period?' — which would have established what investigative steps were and were not taken. The biggest missed opportunity was not challenging the government's failure to call or show any contact with Empire Cuisine & Market, the registered vendor at The Landing — this entity presumably has records, employees, and testimony about whether they actually operated at The Landing.