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

Vol XIII

2024-05-09
Source PDF
Day Overview

Volume XIII is entirely devoted to continued and completed cross-examination of cooperating government witness Hadith Ahmed (previously sworn in Vol XII). The day opens with Mr. Schleicher (for Defendant Said Farah) resuming his cross, focusing on the proffer agreement, cooperation letter, plea agreement terms, and Ahmed's failure to know Said Farah personally or receive checks from him directly. Mr. Sapone (for Defendant Abdimajid Nur) cross-examines at length about Ahmed's motive to cooperate, the narrow single-count conspiracy charge against him (max five years), and the kickback payments he received from companies associated with Liban Alishire. Mr. Andrew Birrell (for Defendant Abdiaziz Farah) establishes that Ahmed did not know Aimee Bock was the sole CLiCS submitter, explores the FOF-vs-Partners in Nutrition competitive rivalry, and forces Ahmed to confirm his plea agreement contains no mention of Abdiaziz Farah. Mr. Goetz (for Defendant Mukhtar Shariff/Mahad Ibrahim area) pursues Ahmed's inability to visit sites, the 113 COVID waivers of which Ahmed was unaware, the ayuuto money-transfer system used by Ikram Mohamed, the timeline of Dar Al-Farooq's CLiCS registration predating Ahmed's claimed involvement, and Ahmed's admission that he forged supervisor signatures on every meal count form. Mr. Cotter (for Defendant Mohamed Ismail) elicits the key concession that until sometime in 2021 there was no name-collection requirement at the sponsor level — only a clicker — corroborating the pandemic waiver framework. The most significant moment of the day is the recross by Mr. Andrew Birrell confirming there is not one word about Abdiaziz Farah in Ahmed's plea agreement. Defense counsel should study the cross by Schleicher on the proffer/cooperation documents closely, as well as Goetz's pandemic waiver questioning and the Dar Al-Farooq CLiCS timeline challenge.

Government Strategy

This entire volume was occupied by multi-defendant cross-examination of cooperating witness Hadith Ahmed. The government's original strategy — having Ahmed narrate the pay-to-play kickback scheme at Feeding Our Future and implicate defendants through his direct testimony — is on defense terms all day. The government uses a brief redirect to shore up Ahmed's credibility by having him read the factual basis of his plea agreement aloud and to rehabilitate his account of the Dar Al-Farooq site transfer sequence. The government also used redirect to emphasize that Ahmed received over $1.38 million in kickbacks and named specific payment sources, attempting to reframe defense attacks on his credibility as attacks on a self-admitted fraudster whose core admissions are nevertheless corroborated by documents. The government's challenge on this day was containing damage to Ahmed's credibility while preserving his usefulness as the primary insider cooperator.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The single most powerful fact from this entire volume is that Hadith Ahmed's plea agreement — which describes the full Feeding Our Future fraud scheme in its factual basis — contains not one word about Abdiaziz Farah. If this cooperating witness could not name your client in the core fraud document, his trial testimony implicating your client deserves maximum scrutiny. - The clicker-only/no-names concession from Cotter is your pandemic waiver exhibit: a cooperating government witness confirmed from inside Feeding Our Future that until sometime in 2021, no individual name collection was required at the sponsor level — only a click count. This directly contradicts any government argument that sites were required to maintain individually-identified child rosters during the pandemic period. - Ahmed's cooperation is governed by a 5K1.1 structure in which the government — in its 'sole discretion' — decides whether he rendered substantial assistance. He faced 46-57 months and has spent no days in jail. The financial and liberty stakes could not be higher. His reliability must be assessed against this reality in every argument. - Ahmed had no personal knowledge of operations at specific sites including Dar Al-Farooq. He never visited it, never counted meals there, and knows only what appeared on forms. Any site-level testimony he offers is derivative and should be challenged on foundation. - Kara Lomen appears in Exhibit E-29 correctly as Executive Director of Partners in Nutrition (private sponsor, not MDE). She is not charged, was never interviewed by the FBI, and controlled a parallel reimbursement pipeline. The exhibit confirms MDE — not any defendant — had exclusive authority to approve site transfers. This systemic MDE gating function is an important structural defense.

Witnesses
Hadith Ahmed
Former Feeding Our Future program support staff and site supervisor who pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud; solicited and received over $1.38 million in kickbacks from FOF-sponsored sites through his shell company Mizal Consulting LLC; also co-created Southwest Metro Youth, a fraudulent site, with Abdikerm Eidleh.
Cooperating Witness Government
Direct Examination

Ahmed's direct examination concluded in Vol XII. This volume covers only cross, redirect, and recross. His direct established him as the inside cooperator narrating how Feeding Our Future's pay-to-play scheme worked, with kickbacks paid to site supervisors in exchange for approving and processing inflated meal claims.

Cross-Examination

Cross-examination by five defense attorneys over the course of the full day systematically dismantled Ahmed's credibility, exposed the significant benefits he received in exchange for cooperation, established he had no personal knowledge of most defendants, and demonstrated he was unaware of pandemic program waivers. Cross also established that his plea agreement names no specific defendant and that Aimee Bock — not Ahmed — was the sole person submitting claims to MDE via CLiCS.

▸
Ahmed admitted he received a proffer letter before the June 22, 2022 meeting stating the government would not use his statements in its case-in-chief or at sentencing; he initially denied having received it, then the document (D5-313) showed his signature. — Demonstrates Ahmed knew he had significant protection before cooperating, undermining his framing of himself as voluntarily coming forward to tell the truth without expectation of benefit. [p. 2956-2961]
▸
Ahmed signed both a proffer agreement (D5-313, June 22, 2022) and a cooperation letter (D5-315, October 5, 2022), in addition to the plea agreement (D5-314, October 13, 2022). The cooperation letter gives the government — not the court — sole discretion to determine whether Ahmed rendered substantial assistance for purposes of a 5K1.1 motion. — Establishes that Ahmed's testimony is shaped by his need to satisfy the government's subjective assessment of his cooperation, creating a powerful motive to shape his testimony to support the government's theory. [p. 2985-2989]
▸
Ahmed's guideline sentencing range is 46-57 months (4-5 years), he has not been arrested or spent a day in jail, and he has not yet been sentenced — the sentencing has been delayed pending completion of his cooperation. — The tangible benefit held over Ahmed is enormous: potential departure below a 46-month baseline to zero days in jail, entirely contingent on government satisfaction with his testimony. [p. 2976-2990]
▸
Ahmed repeatedly and incorrectly insisted he was 'charged with money laundering' when his information (D4-3, admitted) contained only one count — conspiracy to commit wire fraud — with a five-year maximum, and no money laundering or bribery counts. — Exposes Ahmed's factual unreliability even about his own case; he either does not understand his own legal documents or is consciously overstating the charges. Either way it damages credibility. [p. 2976-2980, 3019-3023]
▸
Ahmed said the Hawiye tribe were 'hardened individuals who are not afraid to go to jail' in a proffer meeting, and that most food-program fraud participants were Hawiye. He did not clearly deny this when confronted with the FBI 302 report. — Reveals inflammatory tribal characterizations made during cooperation that were not disclosed to the jury during direct; creates basis for cross-examination about the reliability and fairness of the cooperation process and whether FBI agents shaped or accepted ethnic stereotyping. [p. 2968-2973]
▸
Ahmed confirmed he never met Said Farah before the January 2022 search warrants, never spoke with Said Farah on the phone, never exchanged texts or WhatsApp messages with Said Farah, and was not handed any of the checks from Empire Cuisine by Said Farah. — Fundamentally weakens the government's case against Said Farah. The checks may have passed through Said Farah's company but Ahmed's testimony does not establish Said Farah's knowledge, intent, or direct participation in the kickback scheme. [p. 2998-3004]
▸
Schleicher established that Ahmed served some real food from his site Southwest Metro Youth (purchased at Costco, Sam's Club, and a wholesaler), even if meal counts were inflated — and that food suppliers had no knowledge of inflated counts. — Supports a defense narrative that some legitimate food service occurred; undermines a 100-percent-fabrication theory and opens the door to 'partial truth' or 'exaggeration' arguments that are less culpable. [p. 3005-3008]
▸
Ahmed confirmed that only Aimee Bock had access to CLiCS — the system used to submit claims to MDE — and that she was the only one submitting bills. Ahmed himself never had CLiCS access. — Critical for defendants who were site operators or peripheral figures: the direct submission of claims flowed only through Bock. This limits how much responsibility can be attributed to others up and down the chain. [p. 3110-3111]
▸
Ahmed confirmed that when working for Partners in Nutrition (after being fired by FOF) he relied on a man at a mobile home park site to take attendance, and submitted counts based on that person's numbers without taking attendance himself. — Demonstrates the general practice of relying on site-level staff for counts — which is consistent with a lawful program structure — and shows Ahmed himself operated this way during a period he claims was legitimate, blurring the line between proper and improper procedure. [p. 2996-2997]
▸
Mr. Goetz confronted Ahmed with the fact that he was unaware of the 113 USDA waivers issued during the pandemic. Ahmed's training on program rules came entirely from Aimee Bock — the woman he says was 'consumed' by her MDE lawsuit. — Directly supports the pandemic waiver defense: the government's own cooperating witness did not know about the waivers, was relying on a non-expert to explain rules, and yet was expected to train site operators. This casts doubt on whether sites were intentionally violating rules they were never told about. [p. 3140-3141]
▸
Cotter elicited that until sometime in 2021 (Ahmed said 'at some point in 2021'), at the sponsor level there was no requirement to take down names of individual meal recipients — just a clicker count. 'Before that you just had a clicker, right? A. Correct.' — Strongly corroborates the COVID waiver framework. A sponsor-level employee confirms no individual-name recording requirement prior to 2021. This is devastating to any government theory that rosters were required during the pandemic period. [p. 3161-3163]
▸
Goetz confronted Ahmed with Exhibit E-29, an email from Mahad Ibrahim to Aimee Bock and Ahmed showing the Dar Al-Farooq transfer was 'kicked back by MDE.' The email chain showed Kara Lomen (identified in the email as executive director of Partners in Quality Care / PIN) writing that three sites including Dar Al-Farooq had been pending transfer for almost three months. — Kara Lomen appears in this exhibit, correctly identified as the executive director of Partners in Nutrition (private sponsor). The exhibit shows PIN was the prior sponsor trying to process these site transfers — establishing the competitive dynamic between FOF and PIN at the administrative level, and that MDE — not the defendants — controlled site approvals. [p. 3158-3159]
▸
Ahmed admitted he never visited the Dar Al-Farooq site himself and therefore has no personal knowledge of how many meals were distributed there. He acknowledged Dar Al-Farooq is a large mosque with high foot traffic. — Ahmed's testimony about Dar Al-Farooq's meal counts is entirely derivative — he saw numbers on forms, not actual meals. This is a significant limitation on his firsthand knowledge of any specific site's operations. [p. 3138-3139]
▸
Goetz demonstrated through CLiCS Exhibit C-97 that Dar Al-Farooq Islamic Center under ThinkTechAct was approved as an SFSP site under Feeding Our Future sponsorship as of September 1, 2020 — before Ahmed even began working at FOF. Ahmed's prior claim that he 'helped transfer' Dar Al-Farooq to FOF was therefore undermined by the CLiCS record, though Ahmed argued the transfer involved a specific sub-entity (ThinkTechAct vs. NAYSE). — Exposes inconsistency between Ahmed's direct testimony and the documentary record. Even if there is a technical explanation, the attack on Ahmed's account of how the Dar Al-Farooq site came under FOF-ThinkTechAct is a meaningful impeachment. [p. 3155-3160, 3184-3187]
▸
Ahmed confirmed he forged supervisor signatures on every single meal count form examined (Exhibits Q-38, Q-39, Q-42) — putting names of packaging employees and others who did not sign the documents. — Establishes a pattern of systematic document fraud by Ahmed personally; defense can use this to argue Ahmed cannot be trusted on any matter where documentary evidence is absent, since he was willing to forge signatures as a routine matter. [p. 3144-3146]
▸
On recross by Birrell, Ahmed confirmed there is 'not one word' about Abdiaziz Farah in his plea agreement. 'A. That's correct.' — The government's lead cooperating witness, in an 11-page plea agreement setting out the facts of the scheme, did not name Abdiaziz Farah as a participant. This is a powerful closing moment for the Farah defense. [p. 3183]
▸
Sapone established that Ahmed was hoping to avoid any prison time and expects to receive a 5K1.1 substantial assistance motion; the government — not the court — decides in its 'sole discretion' whether Ahmed rendered substantial assistance. — A clean, documented encapsulation of Ahmed's motive to please the prosecution. For closing argument by any defendant. [p. 2386-2393, 3024-3026]
▸
Ahmed said of the Ikram Mohamed kickback: 'Aimee gave me cash that she give it to Aimee. When Aimee gave me the cash, it was $5,000.' He only took the cash because Aimee told him 'you can't be my friend anymore' if he didn't. — Ahmed's version of events places Aimee Bock as the direct conduit for kickback payments. He did not have direct dealings with Ikram Mohamed regarding money — only with Bock. This insulates defendants who had no dealings with Ahmed. [p. 3126-3127]
▸
Ahmed confirmed that 'all site supervisors' were involved in kickbacks but backed away when pressed on specific named employees like Norma Cabadas, Genesis Alonso, Norma Lopez, and Cole Flynn, admitting he did not know whether they were committing fraud or taking kickbacks. — Ahmed's sweeping 'everyone was doing it' claim is demonstrably inaccurate even by his own account when pushed on specific individuals. Undermines the reliability of his broad characterizations. [p. 3142-3144]
▸
Goetz raised that Genesis Alonso made a complaint to federal agents that Ahmed had engaged in sexually inappropriate conduct (comments about her breasts), and that Ahmed was never confronted with this allegation during any of his many government meetings. — Raises credibility issues about what the government chose to pursue and what it chose to shield. If true, the government knowingly allowed a witness with a prior sexual harassment complaint against him to testify without disclosing this to the defense. Preserved for further investigation. [p. 3132-3134]
▸
Ahmed confirmed he never contacted law enforcement voluntarily — he was approached by the FBI only after search warrants were executed and evidence was accumulated against him. He said 'I was waiting for it. I knew I will get called in.' — Confirms cooperation was reactive to being caught, not driven by remorse. Useful for closing argument framing. [p. 3010]
Vulnerabilities Ahmed is deeply vulnerable on multiple dimensions. (1) Credibility: He admitted forging signatures routinely, inflating meal counts, creating a shell company, and lying by omission to the government (his professed 'tell the truth' framing collapses under the proffer letter terms). (2) Motive: He faces 46-57 months and is trying to get to zero days; the government controls the 5K1.1 motion in its 'sole discretion.' He met with prosecutors 12-13 times over 2022-2024. (3) Knowledge gaps: He never visited most sites, cannot give firsthand account of what happened at specific locations including Dar Al-Farooq, and relied on others for meal count numbers even during his supposedly legitimate Partners in Nutrition period. (4) Regulatory ignorance: He did not know about the 113 USDA pandemic waivers; he relied on Aimee Bock for program-rule information; he confirmed no-name/clicker-only requirement prior to 2021. (5) Specificity gaps: No direct contact with Said Farah, no mention of Abdiaziz Farah in plea agreement. (6) Inconsistency: Repeatedly claimed he was charged with money laundering when he was not; confused dates, amounts, and companies throughout. (7) Tribal commentary: Made inflammatory FBI proffer statements about Hawiye tribe that were shielded from jury. (8) Sexual harassment allegation: Genesis Alonso apparently complained to federal agents; government never disclosed to or confronted Ahmed with it during cooperation.
For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should: (1) Use the 5K1.1 cooperation letter combined with Ahmed's admitted attempt to avoid prison as a template for a powerful closing argument about motive. (2) Obtain and review all FBI 302 reports from Ahmed's 12-13 meetings — there may be prior inconsistent statements not fully exploited. (3) Follow up on the Genesis Alonso sexual harassment complaint to federal agents — this is a potential Brady issue if the government knew and failed to disclose. (4) Use Cotter's clicker concession as the defense's own witness on the pre-2021 no-name-collection rule. (5) Make the 'no mention of Abdiaziz Farah in the plea agreement' a centerpiece argument. (6) Challenge any site-specific testimony from Ahmed since he acknowledges not visiting the sites. (7) Emphasize the CLiCS-only-Bock-submits point: if only Bock submitted claims, responsibility for fraudulent claims attaches to Bock, not peripheral site operators. (8) Ahmed's admission that Partners in Nutrition 'did nothing to help Delta' and provided no training is useful background on the general regulatory dysfunction and failure of sponsors — including PIN — to perform oversight duties.
Key Evidence
Type Exhibit Description Page Challenge Opportunity
Document D5-313 Proffer agreement signed June 22, 2022 by Hadith Ahmed and AUSA, providing that government would not use Ahmed's statements in its case-in-chief or at sentencing. [p. 2956-2961] Ahmed initially denied knowing about the document, then acknowledged his signature. The gap between his sworn testimony and his own signed agreement on the same topic is a credibility wound.
Document D5-315 Cooperation letter signed October 5, 2022, providing that if Ahmed rendered what the government determines in its 'sole discretion' to be substantial assistance, the government will file a 5K1.1 motion for downward departure. [p. 2983-2989] Ahmed repeatedly tried to say 'the judge decides,' which is factually incorrect as to the 5K1.1 motion trigger — the government decided. Defense effectively used the document's own language to correct him.
Document D5-314 Plea agreement signed October 13, 2022. One count: conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Restitution of $1,380,043. Forfeiture of same amount. Sentencing delayed pending completion of cooperation. [p. 2974-2983, 3172-3183] Ahmed repeatedly insisted he was also charged with money laundering, which is plainly false based on this document. This confusion either reflects ignorance of his own plea or an attempt to exaggerate his exposure to make his cooperation seem more meritorious.
Document D4-3 Criminal information filed September 29, 2022 against Hadith Ahmed: one count, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1343, five-year maximum. [p. 3018-3023] Ahmed's repeated insistence on being charged with additional crimes despite the single-count information is unexplained. Defense should consider whether this reflects government coaching or witness confusion.
Document D7-189 Email from Hadith Ahmed's Feeding Our Future account dated July 29, 2021 to Aimee Bock, establishing Ahmed was still employed at FOF on that date. [p. 3123-3125] Ahmed initially denied seeing his email address on the exhibit and required the physical document to be brought to him.
Document Gov. Ex. C-97 MDE CLiCS record showing Dar Al-Farooq Islamic Center under ThinkTechAct was approved as an SFSP site under Feeding Our Future sponsorship effective September 1, 2020. [p. 3155-3160, 3185-3187] Ahmed gave a partial explanation — the physical Dar Al-Farooq location was used by NAYSE under a different program, and ThinkTechAct obtained its own approval later. The dispute about which sub-entity was operative at what time leaves room for ambiguity.
Document Gov. Ex. E-29 Email chain in which Mahad Ibrahim forwarded to Aimee Bock and Ahmed a message from Kara Lomen (Executive Director, Partners in Nutrition/Partners in Quality Care) stating three sites including Dar Al-Farooq had pending transfers for almost three months and that 'the program themselves has called and emailed MDE.' [p. 3158-3159] The exhibit actually supports the defense narrative on two levels: (1) Lomen as private-sponsor executive, not MDE official, and (2) MDE's slow processing of site transfers as a systemic factor outside defendants' control.
Document Gov. Exs. Q-38, Q-39, Q-42 Meal count forms for Southwest Metro Youth with forged supervisor signatures. Ahmed admitted he personally signed the names of other individuals (including Ayan Liban) on these forms. [p. 3144-3146, 3383-3390] Defense Sapone raised on recross that Ahmed signed as Ayan Liban, committing what appears to be aggravated identity theft for which he was not charged — a further benefit received from the government for cooperation.
Document Gov. Ex. O-225, O-226 Wells Fargo personal bank account records for Hadith Ahmed showing deposits of kickback checks: $127,000 from SAFA Child Care (memo: 'Consultant'), $10,000 from Great Lakes Inc. (memo: 'Consulting exp.'), $200,000 from Action For East African People (kickback), $19,675.88 from Hope Supplier (memo: 'loan payment'), $25,000 from Hope Supplier (memo: 'loan payment'). [p. 3168-3171, 3177-3179] On recross, Birrell established that the October 31, 2020 check predates the incorporation of Mizal Consulting (December 1, 2020), meaning it could not have been a Mizal payment; the government never explained how this was characterized in the plea agreement's forfeiture amount.
Legal Rulings & Objections
⚖
Court overruled government objection (argumentative) when Goetz asked Ahmed whether he took $5,000 from Aimee Bock 'because you are a friendly person.' Court allowed the question to stand. — Permissive approach to cross-examination tone where the question had a factual basis in the record. [p. 3127]
⚖
Government objected that Schleicher was reading directly from FBI 302 report during impeachment about Hawiye tribe comments. Court sustained the form objection (not the content objection), instructing defense not to read from the document obviously but allowing the underlying impeachment to proceed. — The Hawiye tribe statements remain available for impeachment as prior inconsistent statements, but counsel must use the proper form — asking whether the witness said X, using the document only to refresh recollection. [p. 2968-2978]
⚖
Government objected to Sapone's questions about Ahmed's 'three choices' as potentially eliciting attorney-client privileged information. Court partially sustained, instructing Sapone to rephrase to ask about what Ahmed 'could have done' rather than what he 'learned' he could do — avoiding the implication that the source was attorney advice. — Minor procedural constraint; Sapone successfully elicited the same information in rephrased form. [p. 3014-3017]
⚖
Court overruled government objections on foundation to questions about when ThinkTechAct became the Dar Al-Farooq sponsor on redirect (Goetz objecting), allowing Ahmed to answer. — Court's willingness to allow foundation objections from defense counsel during redirect cross-examination shows balanced evidentiary approach. [p. 3737-3738, 3763-3764]
⚖
Court sustained government objection that Birrell's recross questions about plea agreement contents (firearms disabilities, voting rights) went beyond the scope of redirect. — Court drew a line on scope of recross after redirect focused on the factual basis paragraph of the plea agreement; however, the key point — no mention of Abdiaziz Farah — had already been made. [p. 3250-3252]
⚖
Court reprimanded defense attorneys after the jury left for what it characterized as a 'disrespectful tone' toward the witness during cross, giving them 'some but not all latitude.' Court warned it will not tolerate disrespect toward the court itself. — Defense counsel should be aware that this judge is attentive to tone in cross-examination. Aggressive cross is permitted on substance but disrespectful treatment of witnesses may be curtailed or noted by the court. [p. 3190-3191]
⚖
Court administered jury instructions at end of day on (1) testimony of a witness who has pled guilty (not evidence of defendants' guilt), (2) evidence applying to specific defendants only, and (3) testimony of cooperating witnesses (jury may consider hope of reduced sentence in assessing testimony). — These limiting instructions are standard but their delivery immediately following Ahmed's testimony means the jury is primed to scrutinize his credibility. Defense should reinforce these instructions in closing. [p. 3188-3190]
Prior Defense Performance

Overall, the multi-defense cross-examination of Ahmed on this day was effective and strategically coordinated. Schleicher (Defendant 5/Said Farah) delivered the sharpest cross: he methodically established that Ahmed had no personal relationship with Said Farah, that checks were not handed to him by Said Farah, that the proffer and cooperation documents gave the government enormous leverage over Ahmed's testimony, and that Ahmed was confused about his own plea agreement. The proffer-letter and cooperation-letter cross was textbook impeachment on motive. Andrew Birrell's closing move — no mention of Abdiaziz Farah in the plea agreement — was the single most effective moment of the day. Goetz made important contributions on the pandemic waiver issue (113 waivers Ahmed knew nothing about), the Dar Al-Farooq CLiCS record predating Ahmed's claimed involvement, and the forgery of supervisor signatures. Cotter extracted the key clicker/no-names-required concession efficiently. Sapone covered the information document and the kickback payment companies associated with Liban Alishire. Areas left on the table: (1) The Genesis Alonso sexual harassment complaint to federal agents deserved more development — Goetz raised it but did not fully exploit whether this was a Brady disclosure failure. (2) No attorney pushed Ahmed on the specific implications of the pandemic waivers for open sites — the Cotter clicker concession was useful but could have been connected directly to USDA waiver authority with more specificity. (3) The 'Ahmed served some real food' concession (Schleicher) was extracted but could have been tied more explicitly to the legitimate operation theory. (4) Ahmed's statement that Partners in Nutrition 'did nothing to help' the Delta day care could have been developed further to highlight systemic sponsor-level failures. (5) The Hawiye tribe impeachment was cut short by form objection — a follow-up in better form could have been used more powerfully.