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

Vol XI

2024-05-07
Source PDF
Day Overview

Volume XI was a high-volume day of lay witness testimony, presenting six consecutive 'site witnesses' — people associated with locations claimed in Partners in Nutrition CACFP/SFSP meal submissions — none of whom had any knowledge of food distributions at their sites. The morning opened with a significant pre-trial ruling on the scope of lay witness opinion under FRE 701, following defense objections from Vol X. Six witnesses testified: Gretchen Hawk (Huntington Park Apartments, Shakopee), Bill Petracek (Lexington city administrator, Tot Park), Tamara Zaharia (Heather Court, Owatonna), Erin Nelson (Parkview Heights, Owatonna), Julia Garcia (Shamrock Court Apartments, St. Paul), and defense counsel Hamilton (The Cedar Cultural Center, Minneapolis). The most strategically significant moments were: (1) the defense's elicitation from multiple witnesses that they had no knowledge of CACFP/SFSP program rules, meaning their 'I never saw it' testimony cannot rule out legitimate pandemic-era non-congregate operations; (2) defense counsel (particularly Goetz) repeatedly establishing that Kara Lomen's name — not the defendants' — appeared on every site application; (3) Sapone's introduction of Defendant's Exhibit D4-1, a signed authorization form from Shamrock Court showing ThinkTechAct Foundation had authorized permission to operate at that site, directly undermining Garcia's testimony; and (4) the Schleicher cross of Erin Nelson establishing that the FBI did not request surveillance footage from Parkview Heights until June 2022, well after the 3-month retention period had expired, destroying potentially exculpatory evidence. Defense counsel should pay close attention to the repeated COVID waiver implications: none of these witnesses were asked about, or knew anything about, USDA waivers permitting non-congregate meal pickup or delivery — meaning their 'no meals seen' testimony is legally compatible with legitimate operations.

Government Strategy

The government's central strategy on this day was to establish through a parade of lay witnesses — property managers, city administrators, and community organization directors — that no food was ever actually distributed at multiple sites registered under the Partners in Nutrition / Mind Foundry program. Each witness was associated with an address used in a CACFP/SFSP meal claim (Huntington Park Apartments, Tot Park/Northway Mall, Heather Court, Parkview Heights, Shamrock Court, and The Cedar Cultural Center), and each testified they never observed food distributions corresponding to the tens of thousands of meals billed to MDE. The government also introduced financial evidence showing Partners in Nutrition writing checks to Mind Foundry and The Free Minded Institute for amounts tied to these sites, while none of the site witnesses had any knowledge of those organizations. The theory being built is that sites were fictitious or phantom — claimed on paper by Kara Lomen and Partners in Nutrition but never actually operated.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- KARA LOMEN IS THE KEY WITNESS NOT CALLED: Every single site document in this volume — from Huntington Park to Tot Park to Heather Court to Parkview Heights to Shamrock Court to Cedar Cultural Center — has Kara Lomen of Partners in Nutrition as the named contact and responsible sponsor. She submitted every application, certified every claim, and received every reimbursement from MDE. She has never been charged and has never testified. Defense counsel must confront this at every turn: the government has charged defendants for a fraud that was administered and filed by a person they have given complete immunity to or simply not charged. - COVID WAIVERS: NOT A SINGLE SITE WITNESS WAS ASKED ABOUT THEM: The government put six property managers and community officials on the stand to say 'I never saw 10,000 children eating at my site.' Not one defense attorney asked any of them: 'Do you know that under USDA pandemic waivers, meals could be pre-packaged and picked up, or delivered to individual units, without any children ever eating on-site?' This is the biggest missed opportunity of the day. In defense counsel's trial, every site witness must be cross-examined on COVID waiver implications before any weight is given to their 'I never saw it' testimony. - D4-1: THE AUTHORIZATION FORM TEMPLATE: Sapone's introduction of the Shamrock Court authorization form signed by Taylor Coenen is a template Defense counsel should pursue at every site: who authorized the program? The government presents these sites as having no knowledge of the program, but D4-1 shows that at least one site authorized ThinkTechAct Foundation by name. Are there similar forms for other sites? Were they simply not found? Were they not subpoenaed? The prior investigative record must be subpoenaed. - SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE DESTRUCTION: At two sites (Parkview Heights: 3-month retention; Shamrock Court: 15-day retention), the FBI's delayed contact meant all 2021 surveillance footage was permanently destroyed before it was ever requested. This is a recurring pattern. Defense counsel should investigate whether this same pattern holds at all sites in his trial and consider a spoliation argument or jury instruction request based on the government's failure to timely preserve evidence. - HAMILTON / CEDAR CULTURAL CENTER PHOTOS: Defense showed Hamilton box-truck-with-people-lined-up photos in the alley adjacent to The Cedar. These photos were not admitted into evidence but appear to show actual food distribution activity. If these photos can be dated, authenticated, and admitted, they are potentially the most powerful single piece of exculpatory evidence in the entire volume — showing real operations at a site the government claims was phantom. Defense counsel must obtain these photos and investigate their provenance.

Witnesses
Gretchen Hawk
Part-time resident caretaker and groundskeeper at Huntington Park Apartments in Shakopee, Minnesota — a location claimed in a Feeding Our Future SFSP/CACFP site application.
Other Government
Direct Examination

Hawk testified she worked 7:30 a.m. to noon, Monday through Friday at Huntington Park Apartments, described the property's layout (125 units, 350-400 residents, approximately 100 children), and stated she never saw any organized food distribution at the complex other than one isolated church visit in spring 2021. She was shown Gov. Ex. C-275, a meal claim form listing Huntington Park Apartments as a site with Aimee Bock (Feeding Our Future) as contact, and testified she had no knowledge of any application to serve meals and never received such food.

▸
No one other than a Hosanna Lutheran Church pastor ever asked permission to distribute food at Huntington Park Apartments, and that pastor came once with a box truck in spring 2021, distributed for about three hours with approximately six to seven people picking up food, and never returned. — Directly undercuts any claim that systematic food distribution occurred at this site in 2021. [p. 2542-2545]
▸
The site application (C-275) for Huntington Park showed 502 meals per day over 31 days, and Hawk denied seeing anything like that occur. — Government introduced the scale of the claim to establish impossibility. [p. 2546]
▸
Hawk described her own neighbor picking up meals from a nearby school for her son without the child being present and without ID — simply by appearing with the neighbor's kids. — Defense (Sapone) elicited this to show that COVID-era meal pickup did not require individual identification or the presence of the specific child, consistent with USDA waiver provisions for parental/guardian pickup. [p. 2555]
Cross-Examination

Andrew Birrell established the key point that the program site was administered by Feeding Our Future (Aimee Bock), not by Abdiaziz Farah, and that Hawk had no knowledge of how the program structure worked. Goetz highlighted that neither Mukhtar Shariff's name nor Afrique Hospitality Group appeared on any document shown to Hawk — only Aimee Bock and Feeding Our Future. Sapone elicited the helpful pandemic waiver fact that neighbors could pick up meals for children who were not physically present and without ID.

▸
The documents shown to Hawk identified Aimee Bock / Feeding Our Future as the program sponsor — not Mukhtar Shariff, not Afrique Hospitality Group. — Defense used every site witness to reinforce that their clients' names do not appear on the relevant program documents; only sponsor-side actors are named. [p. 2557-2558]
▸
Birrell established that Hawk did not know what Farah's role in the food program was, did not know that a sponsor's obligation is to provide meals to MDE, and could not speak to the internal structure of the program. — Undermines the government's implication that Farah was responsible for food delivery to this site. [p. 2554]
Vulnerabilities Hawk only worked mornings (7:30-noon), was not present on weekends, and has no knowledge of CACFP or SFSP program rules, COVID-19 waivers, or how meals are defined under the program. Her 'I never saw it' testimony does not foreclose the possibility of weekend or evening distributions, non-congregate pickup, or distributions when she was not present. She is personally a low-income resident who admitted she would have gotten free food if it were available — making her a sympathetic witness for the government but also one whose knowledge is severely limited by her schedule and position.
For Defense Counsel Any future defense should cross heavily on the one actual food distribution that did occur (the church visit) to establish that legitimate distributions from box trucks do happen and look exactly like what the government says was fraudulent here. The neighbor pickup anecdote should be expanded to emphasize that under COVID waivers, parents could pick up meals for children — and the school district itself operated this way — validating the exact distribution model defendants used.
Bill Petracek
City administrator of Lexington, Minnesota for 10+ years — called to testify about Tot Park, a small municipal park that was sold and demolished in May 2020 and registered by Partners in Nutrition / Mind Foundry as a meal distribution site in 2021.
Other Government
Direct Examination

Petracek testified that Tot Park was sold to a developer and converted to a construction site in May 2020, making it impossible to serve meals there in 2021. He described the area as fenced off for construction and stated no permits for food service were ever requested or granted. He reviewed the CLiCS application (Gov. Ex. C-230) showing Mind Foundry/Tot Park registered under Partners in Nutrition (Kara Lomen as contact) and testified that no such program was known to him or the city.

▸
Tot Park was sold and demolished in May 2020; by 2021 it was a fully fenced construction zone. Meals 'absolutely' could not be served there. — The government's most powerful site impossibility argument in this volume — the site literally did not exist during the claim period. [p. 2563-2577]
▸
The CLiCS application listed Kara Lomen of Partners in Nutrition as the contact — Petracek had never heard of Kara Lomen, Mind Foundry, or Partners in Nutrition. — Reinforces that PIN / Kara Lomen submitted the fraudulent site registration, not the defendants. [p. 2576]
▸
Petracek stated that serving thousands of meals at a park would require a city permit application and background check — and none was ever requested. — Adds a layer of impossibility: even if the park existed, the operational requirements were not met. [p. 2577-2578]
▸
MDE never contacted the City of Lexington about the Tot Park site — Petracek only learned of the program from FBI contact approximately a year before trial. — Demonstrates MDE failed to conduct basic site verification before approving and paying claims — this is a government failure, not just a defendant failure. [p. 2600-2601]
Cross-Examination

Defense counsel effectively established that Petracek had no knowledge of CACFP or SFSP program rules, that the actual address on the application was the mall (not Tot Park, which had no address), and that the surrounding area (Blaine, Circle Pines, Mounds View, Spring Lake Park) had tens of thousands of children who could theoretically have been served. Cotter elicited that Petracek's 'ridiculous number' assessment was based on his opinion of Lexington, not any understanding of the program rules. Goetz confirmed that Mukhtar Shariff's name and Afrique Hospitality Group appear nowhere on the relevant documents — only Partners in Nutrition and Kara Lomen.

▸
Petracek admitted he has no knowledge of how CACFP or SFSP operated in 2020-2021, and his conclusion that the meal numbers were 'ridiculous' was based solely on his knowledge of Lexington, not program rules. — Undermines his testimony as lay opinion without CACFP context — he cannot speak to whether the program allowed serving children from surrounding communities. [p. 2243-2253]
▸
The address on the site application was 9101 South Highway Drive (Northway Mall address), not Tot Park — which never had a street address. — Suggests the application may have been for the mall area generally, not the demolished Tot Park specifically — creating some ambiguity about the intended site. [p. 2589-2590]
▸
Neither Mukhtar Shariff's name nor Afrique Hospitality Group appeared on any of the CLiCS documents; all claims were filed under Partners in Nutrition / Mind Foundry. — Establishes documentary separation between Shariff / Afrique and the relevant fraudulent filings. [p. 2602-2604]
Vulnerabilities Petracek is clearly not an expert in CACFP/SFSP and his 'absurd numbers' testimony is based purely on his lay view of Lexington's size — he has no knowledge that SFSP open sites may draw from broad geographic areas under program rules, or that COVID waivers allowed non-congregate pickup potentially serving children traveling from Blaine (70,000 residents), Circle Pines, or Mounds View. He confirmed MDE never contacted the city, which is a significant regulatory failure that cuts both ways. The fact that the application used the mall address rather than 'Tot Park' address also creates some factual complexity the government glossed over.
For Defense Counsel The strongest angle is that MDE never called the Lexington city administrator, never verified the site, and paid on this claim for months. If MDE had done basic verification, this site would have been flagged immediately — MDE's failure to supervise is itself a significant issue. Defense counsel should also explore the SFSP open site geographic reach: even if Tot Park was gone, if the application was actually for the mall parking lot or surrounding area, the site might have been viable (though still fraudulent given the construction context).
Tamara Zaharia
Former site manager at Heather Court Apartments (subsidized housing, 36 units, Owatonna, Minnesota) from July 2021 to March 2022 — a location registered under Partners in Nutrition / Mind Foundry for meal claims.
Other Government
Direct Examination

Zaharia testified she managed Heather Court from July 2021 onward and never saw any food distribution there. She was shown meal claim data (Gov. Ex. C-216) showing thousands of meals claimed per month — 7,500 in July, 15,333 in August, 16,000+ in September, averaging 1,147 daily in November — and denied seeing any of it. A check from ThinkTechAct Foundation was shown (Gov. Ex. O-017) with 'Heather Court, October' on the memo line, payable to Mind Foundry for $79,637.52.

▸
The site application (C-216) shows the sponsor as Partners in Nutrition and the site as Mind Foundry/Heather Court, with Kara Lomen as the contact. Zaharia did not know Lomen, Mind Foundry, or Partners in Nutrition. — Again: all registration documents traced to Lomen/PIN, not to the defendants. [p. 2618-2619]
▸
Check from ThinkTechAct Foundation (Mahad Ibrahim Joo, account holder) payable to Mind Foundry for $79,637.52 with 'Heather Court, October' on memo line. — Financial trail linking ThinkTechAct / Mahad Ibrahim Joo to Mind Foundry payments. Mahad Ibrahim Joo appears to be a different person from defendant Mahad Ibrahim. [p. 2619-2620]
▸
Heather Court had no surveillance cameras on the outside of the building. — Eliminates a potential source of exculpatory evidence about what actually occurred at the site. [p. 2623]
Cross-Examination

Ian Birrell effectively established that Zaharia worked limited and flexible hours (Mon/Wed/Fri mostly), was there far less on weekends (about 1/8 of the time), and only started in mid-July 2021 — meaning she has no knowledge of the January-July 2021 period when most of the claims were filed. Cotter confirmed no surveillance cameras. Goetz again confirmed that Mukhtar Shariff's name does not appear on any relevant document — only Partners in Nutrition and Kara Lomen appear.

▸
Zaharia only started at Heather Court in mid-July 2021 — she has zero personal knowledge of the January through mid-July 2021 period, which covers the bulk of the meal claims period. — Her testimony is temporally limited; the government's use of her to deny distributions across the full claim period is misleading — she simply was not there. [p. 2621-2622]
▸
She worked Monday, Wednesday, Friday during the day and occasionally Saturday drive-bys — on the order of 1/8 of the time on weekends. — Significant gaps in her presence mean she could not rule out weekend or evening operations. [p. 2621]
▸
FBI first contacted her in March or April 2022 — already more than a year after the claim period ended. — Late FBI contact is a pattern across all site witnesses on this day; the government was investigating long after the fact. [p. 2621]
Vulnerabilities Major gap: she was not employed at Heather Court before mid-July 2021, so she cannot testify to anything that happened January through mid-July. She worked limited, flexible hours with no weekend presence most of the time. She has no CACFP/SFSP knowledge and cannot speak to program rules or COVID waivers. The government presented her as if she covered the full period, which is misleading. No surveillance cameras means no corroborating or contradicting footage.
For Defense Counsel Challenge the time period gap aggressively — the government never addressed who was at this property or what happened January-July 2021 before Zaharia started. Explore whether the property had any regular presence during that prior period. Note that SFSP open site rules allow serving any child who appears — even if Zaharia never saw it, distributions could have occurred when she was not present.
Erin Nelson
Property manager at Parkview Heights, an 8-building townhome complex (48 income-based units, Owatonna, Minnesota) since July 2019 — a location registered under Partners in Nutrition / Mind Foundry for SFSP/CACFP meal claims.
Other Government
Direct Examination

Nelson testified she worked on-site generally Monday through Thursday with occasional weekend drive-throughs, never observed food distribution on the scale of the claims, and did not see lines of people or food delivery trucks. She was shown a claim form showing 34,000 meals in March 2021 and denied seeing anything like it. She confirmed that in 2020, an African American gentleman had come to her office with a flier about food distribution, she contacted her regional manager Kelly Krick who authorized it, and a box truck appeared once in 2021 with approximately six people picking up food.

▸
Nelson confirmed that in 2020, someone came to her office with a flier about food distribution, and her regional manager Kelly Krick did authorize food distribution at the property. — This is a critical admission: distribution at this site was not unauthorized or unannounced — it was affirmatively approved by property management, undermining the government's suggestion of phantom operations. [p. 2633-2634]
▸
Nelson saw one box truck distribute food to approximately half a dozen residents. She did not know the name of the company or the man who came with the flier. — An actual distribution was observed, but at a much smaller scale than claimed. The discrepancy may reflect frequency/timing issues, not pure fabrication. [p. 2634]
▸
Parkview Heights had a video security system with a 3-month retention period. The FBI first contacted Nelson in June 2022 — well beyond the retention period, meaning all footage from 2021 was permanently destroyed. — Defense elicited this (Schleicher cross): if the FBI had acted earlier, surveillance footage could have definitively shown whether distributions occurred. The government's delayed investigation destroyed potential exculpatory evidence. [p. 2646-2648]
▸
Only Kara Lomen's name appeared as the contact on all Partners in Nutrition / Mind Foundry site applications and claim maintenance forms for Parkview Heights. — Mukhtar Shariff and Afrique Hospitality Group are nowhere in the Parkview Heights documentation. [p. 2642-2645]
Cross-Examination

Ian Birrell established that distribution had been authorized by property management, that Nelson did not know the company or person who came with the flier, and that she worked part-time with flexible hours. Cotter established she had no CACFP or SFSP knowledge and cannot speak to how meals were defined under the program. Schleicher's cross on surveillance footage was the most significant: he established that the FBI's delay in contacting Nelson (until June 2022) meant all 2021 surveillance footage was gone. Goetz confirmed Shariff's name did not appear anywhere in the relevant documents.

▸
Nelson confirmed that food distribution was affirmatively authorized by her regional manager Kelly Krick — it was not done without the property's knowledge. — Directly contradicts the government's implicit suggestion that the site was phantom; someone at the property authorized operations. [p. 2640]
▸
FBI contact in June 2022 meant the 3-month video retention period had already expired; footage showing what occurred at this site in 2021 is permanently gone. — Potential Brady/destruction of evidence argument; at minimum, argument that the government's investigation methodology destroyed what could have been the best corroborating or exculpatory evidence. [p. 2647-2648]
Vulnerabilities Nelson admitted authorization was given by her manager, saw one actual distribution (truck), and has no CACFP/SFSP knowledge. Her testimony does not rule out additional distributions on days she was not present (part-time, flexible schedule). The surveillance footage gap is a major problem for the government. The government never called Kelly Krick (the manager who authorized the program) — a significant gap.
For Defense Counsel Call or subpoena Kelly Krick, the regional manager who authorized the distribution at Parkview Heights. This person affirmatively approved the program and is the key witness the government did not call. The FBI's failure to request surveillance footage when it was still available is potentially a Brady/Youngblood argument. SFSP open site rules mean that even if Nelson did not see thousands of people, distributions could have occurred through non-congregate pickup without being visible from her office.
Julia Garcia
Property manager at Shamrock Court Apartments (151 affordable housing units, Lower Afton Road, St. Paul) from November 2020 through July 2022 — a location registered under Partners in Nutrition / The Free Minded Institute / Mind Foundry for meal claims.
Other Government
Direct Examination

Garcia testified she was on-site Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., never saw any organized food distribution for children beyond a school district delivery to individual units during COVID. She saw one sign for food distribution that she pulled down as unauthorized. She was shown contracts (C-15) between The Free Minded Institute (Julius Scarver) and Empire Cuisine & Market (Abdiaziz Farah as authorized representative) for vended meals at Shamrock Court, and denied any knowledge of those entities or that anyone had asked permission.

▸
The government showed C-15: a CACFP 'Contract For Vended Meals' with The Free Minded Institute / Julius Scarver as sponsor and Empire Cuisine & Market / Abdiaziz Farah as vendor for Shamrock Court. Garcia denied any knowledge of this contract or Farah. — This is the most direct linkage of defendant Abdiaziz Farah to a Shamrock Court meal claim introduced through any site witness in this volume. [p. 2662-2665]
▸
Garcia removed an unauthorized sign posted on the building door advertising food distribution — she did not know the organization, the language appeared to be Somali or Oromo, and it was not pre-approved. — A sign was posted, which means someone was advertising the program at the site. This cuts against the 'pure phantom' theory — someone was trying to attract participants. [p. 2659, 2682-2683]
▸
Garcia confirmed the property had at least 16 surveillance cameras with a 15-day retention period. The FBI did not ask to see camera footage during their March 2024 interview. — Again, the FBI failed to collect available surveillance footage. With a 15-day retention, even the 2024 footage could no longer be retrieved by trial. [p. 2675-2676]
Cross-Examination

Birrell established that Garcia saw the names, contracts, and checks for the first time just before trial, does not understand the roles of any party in the program, and confirmed the FBI never asked for surveillance footage. Goetz established that a Somali male had come to the office and asked permission to distribute food — directly contradicting Garcia's direct testimony. Sapone's critical contribution was introducing Defendant's Exhibit D4-1: a signed authorization form from Taylor Coenen (Garcia's assistant) dated August 30, 2021, authorizing ThinkTechAct Foundation to operate a CACFP food service program at Shamrock Court. This exhibit directly shows that someone at Shamrock Court did grant permission for the program.

▸
Goetz elicited that Garcia told FBI agents in March 2024 that a Somali male came to her office and told her he could bring free food to distribute at Shamrock Court — directly contradicting her direct examination testimony that no one ever asked permission. — Prior inconsistent statement to FBI agents versus trial testimony. On direct she said 'No' to whether anyone asked permission; on cross she admitted she told agents someone did. [p. 2081-2083]
▸
Defendant's Exhibit D4-1 (admitted): A ThinkTechAct Foundation authorization form for CACFP food service at Shamrock Court Apartments, signed by Taylor Coenen (Garcia's assistant) on August 30, 2021. — This is a major defense win: authorization was given by property management for the program to operate at Shamrock Court. Garcia's direct testimony was effectively impeached — permission was granted, just not by her personally. [p. 2687-2689]
▸
Garcia confirmed she saw box trucks at Shamrock Court on multiple occasions and would sometimes ask them to move due to parking rules. — Trucks were present at the site. This is consistent with food delivery operations, not phantom fraud. [p. 2676]
▸
The FBI never asked Garcia for surveillance camera footage during their March 2024 interview; cameras only retained footage for 15 days. — Mirrors the Parkview Heights pattern — government failed to collect surveillance footage at every site during the investigation. [p. 2675-2676]
Vulnerabilities Garcia gave prior inconsistent statements to the FBI (someone did ask permission) versus her trial testimony (no one asked). The signed D4-1 form by her own assistant grants ThinkTechAct Foundation permission to operate CACFP programming at the site on August 30, 2021. She has no CACFP/SFSP knowledge. She saw box trucks on multiple occasions at the site. She pulled down a sign advertising the food program, which proves someone was affirmatively advertising the program at the site. The FBI never retrieved surveillance footage that could have resolved the question definitively.
For Defense Counsel Garcia is the most vulnerable site witness. Her prior inconsistent statement, the D4-1 authorization form, and the multiple box truck sightings all support the defense theory that operations were actually occurring. Defense counsel should: (1) explore who at ThinkTechAct Foundation was operating the site and whether they had a genuine program; (2) investigate Taylor Coenen as a potential defense witness who granted authorization; (3) argue that the sign, the box trucks, the authorization form, and the Somali male's visit all confirm real program operations, even if not at the claimed volume.
defense counsel Hamilton
Executive director of The Cedar Cultural Center (416 Cedar Avenue, Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, Minneapolis) from August 2018 to February 2022 — a location registered under Partners in Nutrition for meal claims in 2021.
Other Government
Direct Examination

Hamilton testified that he was present at The Cedar Cultural Center daily during 2021 (Monday through Friday, approximately 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.), overseeing building renovations during the pandemic closure period. He denied seeing any food distribution for children, any lines, any trucks delivering food, or any signage about a food program. He was shown Gov. Ex. C-262 — a Partners in Nutrition CLiCS application with the site misspelled as 'Cedar Culture' instead of 'Cedar Cultural Center' — and stated his organization would never have authorized a document with that name misspelling. He was also shown invoices from Mind Foundry Learning Foundation (tied to Abdi Nur/Abdiaziz Farah CACFP email chain) claiming meal counts for Cedar Cultural Center.

▸
The site application for Partners in Nutrition at 416 Cedar Avenue was titled 'Cedar Culture' — not 'The Cedar Cultural Center' — which Hamilton testified was a name his organization would never use or sign; they use the official name 'The Cedar Cultural Center' or 'The Cedar.' — Suggests the application was submitted by someone with no actual connection to the organization — the misspelling indicates it was not created by or with the knowledge of Cedar Cultural Center. [p. 2705]
▸
Hamilton confirmed that Mind Foundry had some prior community connection — they had referred his organization to do music mentoring in Cedar Square Towers — but there were no financial transactions, no MOA, and no formal agreement. — Mind Foundry had some legitimate neighborhood ties, which the defense can use to establish that Mind Foundry was a real organization with real community connections, not a pure fiction. [p. 2706-2707]
▸
Hamilton knew a 'Mukhtar' who worked in the neighborhood with youth — someone who 'went on to work for the state' whom he considered 'a really legit person doing work with youth.' He could not confirm if this was defendant Mukhtar Shariff, and the Mukhtar he knew was not in the courtroom. — Hamilton's description of the Mukhtar he knew is favorable: someone doing legitimate youth work in the neighborhood who later worked for the state. This either supports Shariff's character or complicates the government's theory about him. [p. 2719-2721]
Cross-Examination

Ian Birrell elicited that Hamilton could not rule out food being distributed in the alley area he could not see from his office, and that if it occurred after hours (4 p.m.) he would not have known from personal observation. Cotter established that the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood had large apartment towers nearby (Cedar Square) with thousands of Somali residents, making a 2,500-person daily claim less facially absurd in the broader neighborhood context. Sapone pushed on demographics: 23.4 percent of Cedar-Riverside residents were children ages 5-14, 48 percent lived below the poverty line. Goetz used aerial photos to establish the neighborhood context and the large adjacent Somali population.

▸
Defense showed photos of a box truck with people lined up in the alley behind Cedar Cultural Center; Hamilton said he did not recognize it or remember seeing it, but could not say when the photos were taken. — The defense has photographs showing what appears to be actual food distribution in the alley adjacent to The Cedar — which Hamilton could not rule out. These photos, if dated to 2021, are powerful exculpatory evidence. [p. 2715-2718]
▸
Hamilton admitted he was there generally 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and was not there evenings, weekends, or when the construction crew was not there. — Large gaps in his presence at the site. [p. 2725-2726]
▸
Cedar Square Towers — the large Somali-populated high-rises directly adjacent to The Cedar Cultural Center plaza — housed thousands of residents, many of whom are children and families. Cotter elicited that 23.4 percent of the neighborhood were children, 48 percent below poverty, and the area is known as 'Little Mogadishu.' — The government's theory depends on making the meal counts seem impossibly high; defense established the neighborhood itself had a massive potential beneficiary population directly adjacent to the site. [p. 2723-2745]
Vulnerabilities Hamilton was only present weekday business hours (10 a.m. to 4 p.m.) and was gone evenings and weekends. The defense has photographs showing what appears to be food distribution from a box truck in the alley adjacent to the Cedar plaza. The Cedar Square Towers directly adjacent to the site house thousands of low-income Somali families with children — the program's precise target population. Hamilton's own cross-examination established demographic facts that support the plausibility of the program. He acknowledged a prior, legitimate relationship with Mind Foundry. His 'I never saw it' testimony is limited by his schedule and vantage point.
For Defense Counsel The box truck alley photographs are potentially the most important piece of evidence on this day for the defense — if they can be dated to 2021, they directly corroborate that food was actually being distributed at this site. Defense counsel should obtain and authenticate these photos. The Cedar-Riverside demographic evidence is powerful for closing argument: this is exactly the community SFSP open sites are designed to serve, and with thousands of children living within walking distance in adjacent towers, the meal counts — while high — are not inherently impossible.
Key Evidence
Type Exhibit Description Page Challenge Opportunity
Document Gov. Ex. C-277 Photographs of Huntington Park Apartments in Shakopee, Minnesota — the site registered under a Feeding Our Future SFSP application. [p. 2535] Photos alone do not speak to whether distributions occurred; they simply show a small apartment complex.
Document Gov. Ex. C-231b Three satellite/aerial images of the Lexington, Minnesota area showing the Tot Park location at different times: pre-construction (2019), under active construction (October 2020), and still under construction (August 2021). [p. 2568-2574] The application address was the mall address (Northway Mall), not Tot Park. The application may have contemplated meal service in the mall area or parking lot, not the demolished park specifically. No one verified this distinction.
Document Gov. Ex. C-230 CLiCS site application for Partners in Nutrition / Mind Foundry / Tot Park at 9101 South Highway Drive, Circle Pines, MN 55014. Kara Lomen listed as contact. Claims after-school snacks and suppers for 2021. [p. 2575-2576] The address on the form is the mall address, not the park — the application may have contemplated a different physical location than what Petracek described. Lomen's name on the form is critical to establish her responsibility for fraudulent submissions.
Financial Record Gov. Ex. N-60 Summary chart of meal claims for Mind Foundry/Tot Park from January through June 2021 — including 8,000 after-school snacks and suppers served in January over eight days. [p. 2581-2583] Petracek acknowledged he has no knowledge of CACFP/SFSP rules; he cannot speak to whether surrounding communities' children could have been served under SFSP open site rules.
Document Gov. Ex. C-222 Photograph of Heather Court Apartments in Owatonna — the site registered as Mind Foundry/Heather Court under Partners in Nutrition. [p. 2609] No challenge beyond standard site photographs.
Document Gov. Ex. C-216 CLiCS application and CACFP claim maintenance forms for Mind Foundry/Heather Court under Partners in Nutrition, with Kara Lomen as contact, showing monthly meal claims totaling tens of thousands of meals. [p. 2618-2619] Kara Lomen is the responsible party on all submissions; defendants' names do not appear.
Financial Record Gov. Ex. O-017 Bank statement and check register for ThinkTechAct Foundation (account holder: Mahad Ibrahim Joo) showing a check payable to Mind Foundry for $79,637.52 with memo 'Heather Court, October.' [p. 2619-2628] Mahad Ibrahim Joo (the ThinkTechAct account holder) appears to be a different person from defendant Mahad Ibrahim in this case. The government has not established the connection. The jury should not conflate the two names.
Document Gov. Ex. C-254 Photograph of Parkview Heights townhome complex in Owatonna. [p. 2632] No challenge.
Document Gov. Ex. C-16 Photographs of Shamrock Court Apartments on Lower Afton Road, St. Paul. [p. 2651] Shows limited parking but a playground area and multiple building access points.
Document Gov. Ex. C-15 CACFP 'Contract For Vended Meals' between The Free Minded Institute / Julius Scarver (sponsor) and Empire Cuisine & Market / Abdiaziz Farah (vendor) for meal delivery at Shamrock Court Apartments. [p. 2662-2665] Garcia had no knowledge of this contract before the government showed it to her. The contract on its face shows Farah's role was as food vendor (Empire Cuisine & Market), not as the site operator or the person making claims to MDE — that is The Free Minded Institute / Julius Scarver and then Partners in Nutrition / Kara Lomen.
Financial Record Gov. Ex. O-141 Bank statement for The Free Minded Institute (Julius Scarver, account holder) showing a November 2021 check from Partners in Nutrition to The Free Minded Institute for approximately $38,000 with memo 'Shamrock Oct.' [p. 2671-2672] Establishes Partners in Nutrition / Kara Lomen as the entity making payments — further cementing that PIN is the sponsor-side actor responsible for submitting and paying claims.
Document Gov. Ex. C-264 Photographs of The Cedar Cultural Center at 416 Cedar Avenue, Minneapolis, showing the building, plaza area, mural, and the cedar-Riverside neighborhood including Cedar Square Towers in background. [p. 2695] Defense photos of a box truck with people lined up in the alley behind Cedar (shown to Hamilton but not admitted into evidence) potentially show actual food distribution at this site.
Document Def. Ex. D4-1 Authorization form signed by Taylor Coenen (assistant property manager at Shamrock Court) on August 30, 2021, authorizing ThinkTechAct Foundation to operate CACFP food service programming at Shamrock Court Apartments. [p. 2687-2689] Government will argue Taylor Coenen was the assistant and did not have authority to grant permission on behalf of the property owner.
Document Gov. Ex. C-262 Partners in Nutrition CLiCS application for '416 Cedar Ave' with the site name spelled 'Cedar Culture' (not the correct 'The Cedar Cultural Center'), Kara Lomen as contact, claiming capacity of 2,500. [p. 2704-2705] The misspelled name ('Cedar Culture' vs. 'Cedar Cultural Center') actually supports the defense argument that Kara Lomen or her team fraudulently registered sites without the knowledge or consent of the actual location operators.
Legal Rulings & Objections
⚖
Pre-trial ruling (out of jury presence): Court addressed defense objections (Cotter, Ismail's counsel) to government witnesses being asked ultimate questions — 'Did it happen?' — as lay opinion under FRE 701/704. Court ruled that this testimony was proper lay opinion based on personal observations, not expert opinion under FRE 704. Court instructed government to frame future questions as 'Did it happen in your observation' rather than an unqualified 'Did it happen,' to avoid appearing to elicit an ultimate fact determination from a lay witness. — The ruling is significant for future defense. The government witnesses are testifying about their own observations, not certifying that no food was ever served anywhere by anyone. This framing should be exploited on cross to limit each witness's testimony to the narrow scope of their personal observation — with the COVID waiver point that 'not observing distributions' does not mean they didn't occur. [p. 2525-2329]
⚖
Court ordered government to file written response to a defense letter concerning attempted video evidence (referenced as 'the video that was attempted to get into evidence yesterday'). Specific video not identified in this transcript excerpt, but the court required a written response by the following day. — Suggests there is a contested video exhibit from Vol X or earlier that the defense sought to introduce. Defense counsel should review Vol X-XI rulings on video evidence carefully. [p. 2529]
⚖
Goetz (Shariff counsel) obtained a standing relevance objection (401/402) on all site testimony as to defendant Mukhtar Shariff, on the grounds that Shariff has no connection to these sites and no documents bearing his name were associated with them. Court overruled but noted the standing objection. — The relevance objection is well-founded and should be preserved for appeal. The government's theory is a sweeping conspiracy under which site evidence regarding Mind Foundry (associated with other defendants) is attributed to Shariff — but the documentary evidence shows that Shariff's name does not appear on any of these site applications, claim forms, or financial instruments. [p. 2541, 2574, 2698-2705]
⚖
Defendant's Exhibit D4-1 was admitted over government objection of 'lack of foundation.' Court overruled. The exhibit — a signed property authorization form for ThinkTechAct Foundation at Shamrock Court, signed by Taylor Coenen on August 30, 2021 — was admitted and published to the jury. — This is the most significant evidentiary ruling in the volume. A defense exhibit was admitted directly impeaching the government's site witness (Garcia) and showing that property management authorized ThinkTechAct Foundation to operate CACFP programming at Shamrock Court. This is a model for how defense teams should challenge 'site witnesses' who deny program authorization. [p. 2257-2259]
⚖
Court sustained objection at sidebar that government was being repetitive and cumulative (403) by asking each witness about individual months. Court agreed from 'efficiency' standpoint but overruled on prejudice, allowing government to continue but with some scope limitation. — Defense raised proper 403 objections to the cumulative parade of identical 'I never saw it' testimony. These objections are worth preserving; the prejudicial effect of repeating 'no food' testimony from six witnesses in a row, without ever addressing COVID waivers or program rules, is real. [p. 2637-2638]
Prior Defense Performance

The defense performance on this day was uneven but contained several significant moments of real impact. The strongest work came from: (1) Sapone, who introduced Defendant's Exhibit D4-1 — the authorization form signed by Shamrock Court property management — which directly impeached Julia Garcia and is the single most important defense exhibit admitted in this volume; (2) Goetz, who methodically established with every site witness that Mukhtar Shariff's name and Afrique Hospitality Group appeared nowhere on the relevant site applications or claim documents; (3) Schleicher, who established at two sites (Parkview Heights and Shamrock Court) that FBI delayed contact meant all surveillance footage was irretrievably lost, which is a recurring pattern the defense should argue at trial; and (4) Cotter and Sapone, who consistently elicited that no site witness knew anything about CACFP/SFSP program rules, COVID waivers, or how meals were defined under the program. The most significant miss was that no defense attorney squarely asked any witness about USDA COVID waivers permitting non-congregate, pickup-based, or delivery-based meal service. The entire parade of 'I never saw food distributed' testimony is legally and factually compatible with legitimate non-congregate distribution — but the defense never made this point directly to any witness. The box truck photographs shown to defense counsel Hamilton (but apparently not admitted) suggest the defense has evidence of actual distribution at Cedar Cultural Center that should have been pushed harder into the record. The prior inconsistent statement from Garcia (Goetz cross) was effective but not fully exploited — the government was not asked on redirect why they did not disclose her prior statement about the Somali male coming to ask permission.