Trial I · US v. Farah

Vol XV

2024-05-13

Day Overview

Volume XV, Monday May 13, 2024, covered five witnesses: Shane Ball (retired FBI, search-warrant agent), Vicki Klemz (FBI digital forensics/CART), Amanda Knez (FBI, ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry search), Falon Wanless (Clifton Townhomes property manager), Gary Theisen (La Cruz maintenance supervisor), and Blake Hostetter (FBI, Mohamed Ismail passport fraud/flight risk). The most significant moments were: Ball's direct testimony authenticating a duffel bag full of program documents found in Ismail's home — including contracts, meal count forms, invoices addressed directly to Kara Lomen at Partners in Quality Care, and handwritten notes tallying site meal counts totaling over $1.5 million — which the government used to tie Ismail, Farah, and the program operations together; Wanless and Theisen both credibly denying having seen any meals distributed at Clifton Townhomes and La Cruz in the volumes claimed; and Hostetter establishing that Ismail fraudulently obtained a replacement passport after his was seized and then booked a one-way flight to Kenya (where his family lived) before being arrested. Defense counsel should pay close attention to: (1) the regulatory knowledge gaps of Wanless and Cotter successfully elicited on cross; (2) the defense's successful framing of the Boyer trucks as food-delivery infrastructure; (3) the government's use of Kara Lomen's name throughout (as authorized representative of Partners in Quality Care, appearing on contracts and site forms) without calling her; and (4) the ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry office search producing essentially nothing.

Government Strategy

The government used this day to layer circumstantial evidence across multiple tracks: (1) search warrant returns from the Ismail residence and Empire Cuisine showing a web of program documents, invoices addressed to Kara Lomen at Partners in Quality Care, handwritten notes tallying meal counts by site, and large vehicle purchases as alleged fraud proceeds; (2) digital forensics foundation through CART examiner Klemz to authenticate phone extractions that will later support text-message exhibits; (3) site witnesses — property manager Wanless (Clifton Townhomes, Shakopee) and maintenance supervisor Theisen (La Cruz, St. Cloud) — who testified they never saw the massive meal distributions claimed under the program, directly attacking the legitimacy of the meal counts; and (4) Special Agent Hostetter to introduce the passport fraud subplot against Mohamed Ismail, framing it as consciousness of guilt and an attempted flight from prosecution. The cumulative narrative was: fraudulent program documents were centrally organized (found in Ismail's duffel bag), the money flowed through Partners in Quality Care/Kara Lomen to Empire Cuisine, the meals were never served at the claimed sites, and at least one defendant tried to flee.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The COVID-19 non-congregate waiver is the single most important argument left on the table throughout this trial. Site witnesses like Wanless and Theisen testify they 'never saw large crowds' — but USDA pandemic waivers explicitly permitted non-congregate service where parents picked up bagged meals for children who were not present. A property manager or maintenance worker would not observe 400 families each picking up a bag at different times during the day. Defense counsel must make this argument his centerpiece when cross-examining any site witness. - Carlson's mathematical framework (residents eating meals at home dwarfs the claimed meal counts) should be a permanent tool in the defense toolkit. 173,016 meals claimed over 3 months at a 900-resident complex is entirely consistent with residents eating in their own homes without any organized visible event. - Kara Lomen appears prominently throughout this volume — on every contract (Partners in Quality Care/Partners in Nutrition), every invoice, every site form — yet she has never been charged, interviewed by the FBI, or called as a witness. She is the private sponsor executive who controlled claims submission to MDE, received MDE payments, and distributed money to sites. Any defense should build toward the argument that if fraud occurred, Lomen's role as the controlling intermediary is the key issue the government has studiously avoided. - The handwriting/authorship gap is significant: the government has hundreds of meal count forms with initials (MI, AF) and signatures, but conducted no handwriting analysis. Defense in future trials should demand this early in discovery and argue the gap at trial. - The Cellebrite/Rule 1006 ruling is a preserved appellate issue. The court allowed the government to present formatted summaries as substantive exhibits. The defense should make a clean record that the underlying raw Cellebrite data was not introduced and the government's formatted version omits source metadata that would allow verification. - The anonymous letter in H-51i (white text on black, alleging Mukhtar Shariff as mastermind of MYC food fraud, pasted into a text exchange) is a textbook hearsay-within-hearsay problem that the court is taking seriously. If defense counsel has a client with a similar situation — anonymous letters or social media posts forwarded in chats — he should use this ruling as precedent.

Witnesses

Shane Ball

Retired FBI special agent (27+ years) who participated in two search warrants on January 20, 2022: the Ismail residence in Savage and Empire Cuisine & Market in Shakopee.

FBI Government

Direct Examination

The government used Ball to walk the jury through voluminous documents recovered from a duffel bag in Ismail's home: SFSP vended-meal contracts between Partners in Quality Care (signed by Kara Lomen as executive director) and Empire Cuisine & Market (signed by Abdiaziz Farah as owner), site transfer request forms listing Mahad Ibrahim as authorized representative across 23 sites all signed by Kara Lomen, meal count forms with initials 'MI' and 'AF,' weekly consolidated meal counts, invoices from Empire Cuisine and Somali Community Resettlement Services totaling over $1.5 million and $633,000 respectively — all addressed to Kara Lomen at Partners in Quality Care — handwritten notes listing site names with corresponding SFSP meal counts, large vehicle purchases (two Freightliner box trucks for $167,012 and a Ford Transit) found at Ismail's address, and similar records from the Empire Cuisine search including a SFSP site delivery receipt showing 999 meals shipped and received at Clifton.

▸

Duffel bag in Ismail's hallway contained SFSP contract between Partners in Quality Care (Kara Lomen, executive director) and Empire Cuisine (Abdiaziz Farah, owner) with $600,000 estimated total payments, dated October 1, 2020. — Directly links Kara Lomen of Partners in Quality Care to Farah and the program operations. Government is using this to show Lomen/PIN was the conduit through which the fraud money flowed — but notably Lomen is not a defendant and is not on the stand. [p. 3452-3453]

▸

23 site transfer request forms listing Mahad Ibrahim as site authorized representative across sites including Empire Cuisine & Market, all co-signed by Kara Lomen on behalf of Partners in Quality Care, dated April 1-4, 2021. — Establishes Lomen's direct operational involvement in moving sites between sponsors. Mahad Ibrahim appears as a key non-defendant figure whose email (Mahad.Ibrahim@gmail.com) was never subpoenaed, per defense cross. [p. 3461-3468]

▸

Handwritten notes (H-70r, H-70s) listing SFSP sites with individual meal-count numbers summing to 172,050 and 249,941 total meals; another note labeled 'Superstar!' with site subtotals; a second-page note showing $1,482,150.13. — Government argues these are internal fraud tallies. Defense could argue they are legitimate operational planning documents. [p. 3471-3473]

▸

Invoice from Empire Cuisine to Kara Lomen / Partners in Quality Care for SFSP sites totaling $1,586,195, dated March 31, 2021; second invoice from Somali Community Resettlement Services to Kara Lomen / Partners in Quality Care for CACFP sites totaling $633,334.95. — Shows the massive dollar flows going through Lomen/Partners in Quality Care as the sponsor conduit. These are among the most financially significant documents in the case. [p. 3473-3477]

▸

Boyer Trucks bill of sale for two Freightliner M2 heavy-duty box trucks totaling $167,012, signed by Mohamed Ismail for A&E Logistics, and vehicle receipt for a 2016 Ford Transit — all found in Ismail's home. — Government frames these as 'fruits of the crime' — lavish purchases with fraud proceeds. Defense reframed: box trucks are food delivery vehicles consistent with legitimate operations. [p. 3449-3450]

▸

Partnership agreement between Ismail, Abdiaziz Farah, and Farhiyo Mohamud Mohamed for Empire Cuisine, with both Ismail and Farah listed at the same address (13825 Edgewood, Savage), and Farah designated managing partner. — Ties Farah and Ismail together as business partners operating Empire Cuisine, the primary vendor in the Partners in Quality Care/PIN program contracts. [p. 3485-3488]

▸

SFSP site delivery receipt from Empire Cuisine (H-120) showing 999 breakfasts and 999 lunches shipped and received at Clifton Townhomes, signed by site supervisor beginning with 'M.' — Specific corroboration of large meal counts at a site where the later property manager (Wanless) will testify she never observed such distributions. [p. 3489-3491]

Cross-Examination

Defense counsel effectively limited Ball's testimony by establishing he had no independent knowledge of program operations, was merely a search-and-retrieve agent, and could not speak to what the documents meant. Cotter made the strongest points: Ball could not identify ownership of the duffel bag, Ismail was cooperative and voluntarily provided his phone password, and the box trucks were consistent with food delivery. Mohring established that no handwriting analysis was done on the documents and Mahad Ibrahim's email was never subpoenaed. Birrell secured agreement that buying trucks to deliver food is not inherently criminal.

▸

Ball confirmed he had no knowledge of how food programs worked and did no independent research: 'Do you have any specific knowledge about how the food programs at issue in this case worked? A. I do not.' — Completely undercuts his testimonial value beyond custodian of records. He cannot connect the documents to any fraud. [p. 3498]

▸

Ball could not identify who the duffel bag belonged to beyond its physical location: 'You don't actually know who that duffel bag belongs to, correct? A. Not — not past where it was located.' — Critical chain-of-custody gap. The duffel bag's presence in Ismail's home does not establish Ismail was its owner or had knowledge of its contents. [p. 3503-3504]

▸

Ismail was fully cooperative with agents, voluntarily answered the door, and gave his phone password and safe combination. — Strongly cuts against consciousness-of-guilt argument. Defense should emphasize this whenever government implies flight risk or culpable knowledge. [p. 3499-3503]

▸

No handwriting analysis was conducted on any of the meal count forms, initials, or signatures: 'Are you aware of any handwriting analysis having been done in connection with those documents? A. I'm not aware, but I wouldn't be.' — The government has no forensic foundation linking any specific defendant to any specific form or signature. This is a significant evidentiary gap Defense counsel should exploit. [p. 3519]

▸

Box trucks from Boyer are consistent with food delivery: 'an important piece of evidence would be to see, is there any documents or things that might indicate someone's actually delivering any food.' Ball agreed evidence cuts both ways. — Defense successfully used the very 'fruit of the crime' evidence to argue legitimate business operations — delivery infrastructure for a real food program. [p. 3505-3507]

▸

No agents were tasked with physically locating the Boyer delivery trucks, and Ball did not observe box trucks at Empire Cuisine during the search. — The government seized purchase records for delivery trucks but made no effort to verify whether those trucks were used for food delivery. Defense can argue the government cherry-picked evidence. [p. 3507-3508, 3529-3530]

▸

Mahad Ibrahim's email (Mahad.Ibrahim@gmail.com) appeared on 23 site transfer forms but was never subpoenaed: 'Are you aware of any searches or warrants or subpoenas that focused on that email address? A. Again, outside of that day, I don't know.' — Ibrahim is a non-defendant who signed as site authorized representative for 23 sites. The government's failure to investigate his email is a major investigative gap that defense should exploit. [p. 3522-3524]

Vulnerabilities Ball is a pure custodian witness with no knowledge of program rules, regulations, or the meaning of any document he handled. He cannot authenticate handwriting, identify document authors, or connect any document to any particular defendant's knowing participation. The duffel bag ownership is unproven. The government used him to flood the jury with documentary evidence through a witness who lacks foundation to contextualize it. No COVID-19 waiver issues arose directly with this witness, but the box trucks cross-examination opened that door. Key vulnerability: Ball confirmed no handwriting analysis and no investigation of Mahad Ibrahim's email address.

For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should request that any future search-warrant custodian witnesses be limited to authenticating seized items without being permitted to characterize them as 'evidence of crime' or 'fruits of crime.' The Boyer trucks should be highlighted as affirmative evidence of a real food distribution operation. The duffel bag chain of custody and ownership question should be re-examined. If Kara Lomen or Mahad Ibrahim are relevant to his client, Ball's testimony establishes the government never subpoenaed Ibrahim's email and Lomen was never interviewed (consistent with prior volumes).

Vicki Klemz

FBI digital forensic examiner (CART team, 9 years in role) who imaged and processed seized electronic devices in this investigation, creating Cellebrite extraction reports passed to case agents for review.

FBI Government

Direct Examination

Klemz laid the foundation for digital evidence: described the chain-of-custody process from seizure through imaging through processing to delivery of extraction reports to case agents. She testified that roughly 23 devices were imaged (11 USB drives, 2 laptops, 7 phones, 3 Apple watches), all pursuant to search warrants, with hash-value verification at each step. She confirmed IRS Agent Brian Pitzen will testify about the text/WhatsApp content.

▸

Approximately 23 devices imaged in this case cluster; 7 iPhones processed using Cellebrite Physical Analyzer and Axiom; all devices processed pursuant to search warrants. — Foundation for the government's text message evidence. Establishes chain-of-custody from seizure to Cellebrite report. [p. 3550-3553]

▸

One Mac laptop could not be imaged because agents lacked the passcode; 3 Apple watches not directly imaged but synced data was obtained through paired iPhones. — There is a data gap — one Mac laptop's contents were never obtained. Defense should explore whether that device contained exculpatory material. [p. 3556-3559]

▸

USB drives and SD cards were imaged but not 'processed' through forensic decoding tools — only active files were exported, not deleted files. — Deleted files on USB drives were not recovered. Defense should ask whether any USB drives belonging to defendants contained exculpatory data that was overwritten or deleted. [p. 3559-3561]

Cross-Examination

Defense effectively established that Klemz's role ended at creating reports; she did not review content or make investigative decisions. Ian Birrell surfaced gaps: watches not fully imaged, Mac laptop contents lost, cloud-based data sometimes not captured. Mohring established that no Mukhtar Shariff-associated device was processed by Klemz.

▸

Cloud-based documents (e.g., Google Drive files open on the phone at time of imaging) may or may not be captured: 'Sometimes yes; sometimes no.' — If defendants used cloud storage for operational records, those records may not appear in the Cellebrite extractions. This is an argument that absence of documents in the extraction does not mean absence of legitimate records. [p. 3561-3562]

▸

No Mukhtar Shariff-associated device was processed by Klemz or recognized as such. — Defense for Shariff successfully created a record that he was not linked to the primary digital evidence in this cluster. [p. 3566]

Vulnerabilities Pure technical foundation witness; no substantive knowledge of case. The Mac laptop gap is the most significant — its contents were never obtained. Defense should demand a full accounting of what devices were seized versus what was actually imaged and processed. Cloud data gaps mean the Cellebrite reports are incomplete records, not comprehensive captures of all defendants' digital activity.

For Defense Counsel Establish affirmatively through Klemz or Pitzen that deleted files on USB drives were not recovered, cloud documents were not reliably captured, and at least one device (Mac laptop) yielded zero data. Use this to argue the government's digital evidence is a selective, incomplete picture. If any defendant used cloud services for program documentation, Klemz's admission supports the argument that legitimate records exist but were not captured.

Amanda Knez

FBI Special Agent (white collar crime squad) who searched the ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry office at 200 Southdale Center, Suite 156, Edina, on January 20, 2022.

FBI Government

Direct Examination

Knez testified that the ThinkTechAct office — associated with Mahad Ibrahim — was essentially empty: no functioning equipment, no phone, no printer, no scanner, only one iMac on a desktop, sparse documents, and moving boxes. She observed that the office across the hall (Suite 138) looked like a functioning business by comparison. The government used this to suggest ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry was a shell with no legitimate operations.

▸

ThinkTechAct office in Edina had 'two desks, one iMac, some moving boxes, no phone, no printer, no scanner, very few documents' — agent testified she saw 'no evidence of a $20 million business being run out of this location.' — Direct attack on Mind Foundry/ThinkTechAct as a legitimate organization. The government is using this to suggest the Mahad Ibrahim entity was a fraudulent front. [p. 3578-3581]

▸

The original search target was Suite 160 (ThinkTechAct's old address, still bearing that signage), but it had already been vacated. Agents obtained a new warrant for Suite 156 on the same day. — ThinkTechAct had moved three weeks earlier. A recently-moved office will inherently look sparse. Defense can argue the 'empty office' observation proves nothing about the company's operations. [p. 3582-3584]

Cross-Examination

Mohring elicited that Knez could not connect ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry to Mukhtar Shariff or Afrique Hospitality Group. Garvis confirmed the office had just moved and there was little to find because of the recent relocation.

▸

Knez did not recall Mukhtar Shariff or Afrique Hospitality Group appearing in the search warrant application documents or in any seized materials. — Critical for Shariff's defense — no physical or documentary nexus between Shariff and the ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry search. [p. 3584-3586]

▸

The office had moved in only three weeks before the search — Knez acknowledged this. — A recently relocated office will lack standard furnishings. The 'sparse office' observation is weak circumstantial evidence. Defense counsel should argue any client associated with a newly moved office would look the same. [p. 3577, 3587]

Vulnerabilities Knez's observations are entirely circumstantial. She has no knowledge of what ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry's actual business operations were, whether they used cloud-based systems (no need for physical files), or whether a consulting/program-administration business would normally maintain heavy paper records. The 'no evidence of a $20 million business' opinion is a Rule 701/702 lay-opinion characterization that was objected to (overruled) but is vulnerable on appeal.

For Defense Counsel Challenge the 'empty office = shell company' inference directly. Many legitimate administrative and consulting organizations operate paperlessly and remotely, especially post-COVID. The office had just moved. No seized documents from this search have been tied to any specific fraudulent transaction. If Mahad Ibrahim is relevant to defense counsel's client, note he remains a non-defendant despite being central to 23 site transfer forms and both the ThinkTechAct and Mind Foundry entities.

Falon Wanless

Former property manager at Clifton Townhomes (Shakopee, Section 8 housing, ~50-57 units), employed by Heartland Realty, May 2019 through mid-July 2021; testified she never saw any meal distributions at Clifton beyond the Shakopee School District bus.

Other Government Government

Direct Examination

Wanless testified that during her tenure as on-site, full-time property manager at Clifton Townhomes she observed only the Shakopee School District distributing meals (via school bus, 10-20 recipients at a time). She stated she never gave permission to any other party to use Clifton as a food distribution site, never observed the volumes of meals claimed (e.g., 11,772 breakfasts and lunches in October 2020 alone), and said she would have noticed had that many people come to the small property.

▸

Wanless testified she saw no evidence of 11,772 breakfasts and lunches distributed in October 2020: 'There's no way that I would not have noticed 11,772 people being served.' — Core negative eyewitness testimony against the meal-count legitimacy at Clifton. Jury will remember the reaction moment. [p. 3607]

▸

Clifton was claimed as an SFSP site with maximum daily participation of 1,100 and listed operating days in July, August, September on Wednesdays; vendor Empire Cuisine & Market. — Shows the site application (Gov. Ex. C-119) was submitted listing Clifton without property management knowledge or consent, and with implausible participation numbers. [p. 3603-3604]

▸

A CACFP at-risk after-school program was also claimed at Clifton (Gov. Ex. C-112, Oct. 2021–Sept. 2022); Wanless was unaware of any such program. — Multiple separate program enrollments at the same site, none authorized or known by the on-site property manager. [p. 3605-3606]

Cross-Examination

Cotter and Goetz both scored important points: (1) Wanless left in mid-July 2021, so she had no knowledge of what occurred during the approval periods for C-119 (July 2021–April 2022) or C-112 (October 2021–September 2022); (2) she had no knowledge of USDA regulations, CACFP/SFSP rules, COVID-19 waivers, or how program sites are approved; (3) she was first contacted by the FBI on April 30, 2024 — after trial had already started — and had reviewed a news article about the case before testifying; (4) she did not know if her supervisor (Brittany Hart) had spoken with anyone about food program authorization; (5) she could not identify who submitted the program enrollment forms.

▸

Wanless left Clifton in mid-July 2021. Government Exhibit C-119 covers July 2021–April 2022; C-112 covers October 2021–September 2022. She has no personal knowledge of what happened at Clifton during the bulk of those periods. — Significant temporal gap. Much of the claimed fraud period occurred after she left. Her 'I never saw it' testimony does not cover the periods actually at issue. [p. 3612-3614]

▸

Wanless admitted she has no knowledge of USDA food program regulations, CACFP or SFSP rules, COVID-19 waivers, site eligibility determination, or how programs are administered during the pandemic: 'I would not be aware of that.' — Critical COVID-19 waiver gap. Under pandemic waivers, non-congregate pickup was permitted, meaning children or parents could have picked up meals without Wanless observing congregation. Her 'I never saw people' testimony is legally irrelevant if non-congregate service was permitted. [p. 3616-3617]

▸

The FBI first contacted Wanless on approximately April 30, 2024 — two weeks after trial started. She read a news article about the case before testifying and met with prosecutors for 20-30 minutes. — Late-developed witness contacted mid-trial; she had been exposed to media coverage before being interviewed by prosecutors. Potential credibility and bias issue. [p. 3617-3619]

▸

Wanless did not know whether her supervisor Brittany Hart had spoken with program administrators about using Clifton as a distribution site: 'I would not have known if they had spoke to them directly.' — Opens the possibility that the landlord-level authorization occurred at the Heartland Realty corporate level, above Wanless's knowledge. Defense can argue the site operators obtained permission from the appropriate party. [p. 3615]

Vulnerabilities Wanless is the most vulnerable government witness on this day from a regulatory standpoint. She has zero knowledge of CACFP/SFSP rules, COVID-19 waivers, or non-congregate service. Her negative observations are not probative of fraud if meals were distributed via non-congregate pickup (which pandemic waivers explicitly permitted). She only worked through mid-July 2021, leaving the bulk of the claimed fraud period outside her observation. She was contacted mid-trial, read about the case before testifying, and cannot exclude authorization through her corporate superiors. Ian Birrell also correctly noted she does not know who submitted the enrollment forms or what a sponsor does versus a vendor.

For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should aggressively exploit the COVID-19 waiver issue with this witness type. Non-congregate service means families could have received bagged meals and taken them home — Wanless would not have seen 400+ people congregating because they were not required to be present simultaneously. The testimony that 'only 10-20 people came to the school bus' is actually consistent with non-congregate distribution where different people pick up at different times or parents pick up for children. Defense counsel should prepare a COVID waiver foundation argument to limit or contextualize this category of 'eyewitness' testimony.

Gary Theisen

Building maintenance supervisor at Catholic Charities in St. Cloud, stationed primarily at La Cruz apartments (8 buildings, 20+ townhomes, ~900 residents), July 2012 through March/April 2022; testified he never saw the claimed volumes of meals distributed at La Cruz.

Other Government Government

Direct Examination

Theisen testified he was on-site daily at La Cruz and was deeply familiar with its operations. He confirmed the Yes Network came to distribute around 150 meals in summer with activities, and a white box van appeared 2-3 times distributing bags of vegetables/milk. He denied ever seeing the claimed meal distributions: 22,986 snacks and 22,986 suppers in October 2021 (average daily attendance of 1,000), or 173,016 food servings in October-December 2021. He identified a check from Partners in Nutrition to The Free Minded Institute for $102,379 referencing La Cruz but had no knowledge of it.

▸

A white box van appeared 2-3 times at La Cruz distributing approximately 10-12 bags of vegetables, fruit, and milk, in and out in 5-10 minutes, with no markings on the truck. — Theisen affirmatively corroborated that some food distribution did occur at La Cruz. The government presented this as minimal, but the defense can argue it supports the existence of a real program delivering food — just not on the scale claimed. [p. 3636-3637]

▸

Theisen testified he would have noticed 22,986 snacks/suppers distributed in October 2021 because 'that would be more people than we even had in all the apartments there.' — Strong negative testimony, but Carlson on cross undermined it by pointing out that 900 residents eating 4 meals/day over 3 months = 2.268 million meals, making 173,000 a relatively small portion that could be distributed in-home without Theisen's observation. [p. 3638-3640]

▸

Program records (C-213) showed Partners in Nutrition as sponsor, La Cruz Community as site, Mind Foundry as site program name, Kara Lomen as contact, for January-September 2021 — all unknown to Theisen. — Kara Lomen appears again as the sponsor/contact on program forms for La Cruz. She is identified as the contact for Partners in Nutrition (not Partners in Quality Care — these are two different sponsor entities). This is actually Partners in Nutrition, not Partners in Quality Care. [p. 3633-3635]

▸

Check from Partners in Nutrition to The Free Minded Institute for $102,379 with La Cruz memo line (dated 11/8/21); Theisen had no knowledge of it. — Shows significant money flowing through the program ostensibly for La Cruz, which maintenance staff were unaware of. However, maintenance staff would not normally know about program reimbursement flows. [p. 3646]

Cross-Examination

Carlson (for Said Farah) scored the most effective cross: mathematically demonstrated that 173,016 meals claimed over three months represents a small fraction of the 2.268 million meals the 900 residents would eat during that period — so the absence of Theisen's observation does not prove absence of the distributions. Cotter established the FBI first contacted Theisen on May 3, 2024 (10 days before trial). Falk and Mohring established Mukhtar Shariff and Afrique Hospitality Group do not appear anywhere on the program forms.

▸

Carlson mathematical cross: 900 residents x 4 meals/day x 7 days/week x 13 weeks = approximately 2.268 million meals over 3 months; the 173,016 claimed is a small fraction of that, easily distributed without Theisen's observation. — This is the most effective defense cross of the day. It contextualizes the meal-count numbers and directly undermines the government's logic that Theisen would have noticed. Defense counsel should use this framework universally for all 'site witness' testimony. [p. 3653-3655]

▸

Theisen was first contacted by the FBI on May 3, 2024, ten days before trial, and had no prior awareness of the food program fraud investigation. — Another mid-trial developed government witness. Consistent pattern across both Wanless and Theisen of government finding new witnesses after trial has already started. [p. 3651-3652]

▸

The white box van visits (2-3 times, bags of vegetables/milk) establish that some food distribution actually occurred at La Cruz — Theisen confirmed seeing this. — Affirmative evidence of real food delivery at La Cruz by an unknown party. This is consistent with the defendants' position that meals were actually distributed. [p. 3636-3637]

Vulnerabilities Same structural weakness as Wanless: zero knowledge of CACFP/SFSP rules, COVID waivers, or non-congregate service. Theisen also had limited hours (7am-6:30pm, Monday-Friday primarily) and could not observe weekend or off-hours distributions. The mathematical cross by Carlson effectively neutralized his 'I never saw it' testimony. He also confirmed real food distributions did occur at La Cruz via the unidentified box van. The government over-relied on a building maintenance worker to prove program-level fraud.

For Defense Counsel Carlson's mathematical framework should be the template for defense counsel when cross-examining any 'site witness.' Theisen's admission that a real box van did deliver food at La Cruz is affirmative helpful evidence. The COVID waiver non-congregate issue applies equally here. Additionally, Theisen cannot testify about what happened on weekends, evenings, or in residents' apartments — a large distribution of bagged meals picked up individually would not produce the visible congregation he expected.

Blake Hostetter

FBI Special Agent (supervisor, public corruption and civil rights squad) who participated in the arrest of Mohamed Ismail at Minneapolis-St. Paul airport on April 20, 2022, after Ismail fraudulently applied for a replacement passport.

FBI Government

Direct Examination

Hostetter testified about two tracks: (1) Abdiaziz Farah's passport and passport card were seized in the January 2022 search of his home; two months later, Farah applied for a replacement passport claiming both documents were 'lost' at an 'unknown' location, despite them being in FBI custody and itemized on a receipt left at his home; and (2) Mohamed Ismail's passport was seized in the January 2022 search (from a safe to which he gave agents the code); in February he was notified he was a target of the investigation; in March he obtained a fraudulent replacement passport; on April 4 he booked a one-way ticket from Rochester to Kenya (via Minneapolis and Amsterdam); on April 20, Hostetter arrested him in the jetway at MSP, traveling alone with 7 bags.

▸

Abdiaziz Farah applied for a replacement passport on March 16, 2022, declaring his book and card 'lost' at 'unknown' location — two months after they were seized by the FBI and itemized on a receipt left at his home. — Government uses this to show Farah made a false statement under penalty of perjury, and/or as consciousness-of-guilt evidence. However, Farah never attempted to flee (Andrew Birrell elicited this on cross). [p. 3663-3673]

▸

Ismail: passport seized January 2022, given FBI safe combination voluntarily; notified as target February 2022; fraudulently obtained replacement passport March 22, 2022; booked one-way ticket Rochester to Kenya April 4; arrested in MSP jetway April 20 with 7 bags traveling alone. — Government frames this as a flight attempt. Ismail pled guilty to passport fraud charge. Defense context: his wife and children lived in Nairobi; it was Eid; he had been there before. But the one-way ticket remains damaging. [p. 3674-3683]

▸

Abdiaziz Farah never attempted to flee: 'Mr. Farah, Abdiaziz Farah, he never tried to flee, did he? A. Not that I'm aware of.' — Important distinction Birrell elicited on cross. The passport fraud evidence relates to Ismail; Farah's replacement application is on different record. The flight-risk narrative does not apply to Farah. [p. 3690]

Cross-Examination

Cotter landed several important points: Ismail pled guilty to the passport charge and accepted responsibility; his family (wife and kids) lived in Nairobi; it was Eid time; Hostetter did not review Ismail's prior travel history; the luggage contents were never inventoried; Hostetter did not know if Ismail had a history of regular family visits to Kenya.

▸

Ismail's wife and children lived in Nairobi; it was approximately the end of Ramadan/Eid at the time of the flight booking; he had not reviewed Ismail's prior travel history. — Contextualizes the 'one-way ticket' as potentially consistent with a family visit for Eid. Without prior travel history, the government cannot establish this was aberrant behavior. [p. 3683-3688]

▸

Luggage contents were never inventoried by Hostetter. Cotter suggested the 5 checked bags contained Eid gifts for his children; Hostetter had 'no knowledge of the contents.' — The government implied 7 bags = flight preparation; defense countered = Eid gifts. Hostetter couldn't rebut because no inventory was done. [p. 3686-3687]

▸

Ismail pled guilty to the passport fraud charge: 'He did plead guilty to those charges.' — This charge is resolved. The government should not be permitted to use the passport fraud as propensity evidence — it was a separate crime for which Ismail has been convicted and sentenced. [p. 3683-3684]

Vulnerabilities The passport fraud subplot is largely resolved — Ismail already pled guilty. The government is using it to paint consciousness-of-guilt for the broader food fraud case. But the relevance is limited: (1) Farah never fled; (2) Ismail's destination (Kenya, where his family lived) and the timing (Eid) offer an innocent explanation. Hostetter did not review Ismail's travel history, did not inventory the luggage, and confirmed the FBI had notice of Ismail's family in Kenya. The Farah passport application is separate and weaker — Farah never fled, and the 'lost at unknown location' claim is legally insufficient to prove guilt in the food fraud case.

For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should argue that evidence of a collateral passport fraud conviction (already resolved) is irrelevant or 403-prejudicial in the food fraud trial. If his client is not Ismail, the flight-risk narrative is inapplicable. For any Ismail-related client, the prior travel history, Eid timing, and family residence in Nairobi should be developed through a defense witness or stipulation. Hostetter's failure to inventory luggage or review travel history should be highlighted as investigative laziness.

Key Evidence

Type	Exhibit	Description	Page	Challenge Opportunity
Document	Gov. Ex. H-70k, H-70l	SFSP vended-meal contracts between Partners in Quality Care (Kara Lomen, executive director) and Empire Cuisine & Market (Abdiaziz Farah, owner), dated October 1, 2020, with $600,000 estimated payments, covering sites including Albright Townhomes, Chancellor Manor, and Clifton Townhomes.	[p. 3452-3455]	These are legitimate program contracts — their existence proves the parties participated in the program, not that fraud was committed. The $600,000 estimate is a program estimate, not evidence of over-claiming. Defense should note that Lomen has never been charged, indicted, or interviewed, and her role as the private sponsor is the government's own evidence of who controlled the claims.
Document	Gov. Ex. H-70f	23 MDE site transfer request forms listing Mahad Ibrahim as site authorized representative (with Mahad.Ibrahim@gmail.com email) across sites including Empire Cuisine, all co-signed by Kara Lomen for Partners in Quality Care, dated April 1-4, 2021.	[p. 3461-3468]	No handwriting analysis was done. The forms show Mahad Ibrahim as the authorized representative — a non-defendant. His email was never subpoenaed. The government cannot prove who physically prepared or completed these forms or whether the signatories had knowledge of any fraud.
Document	Gov. Ex. H-70n, H-70v	Empire Cuisine invoice to Kara Lomen/Partners in Quality Care for SFSP sites totaling $1,586,195 (March 31, 2021); Somali Community Resettlement Services invoice to Kara Lomen/Partners in Quality Care for CACFP sites totaling $633,334.95; Islamic Center Society invoice for $41,779.80.	[p. 3473-3477]	These invoices are addressed to Kara Lomen at Partners in Quality Care. They are exactly what legitimate program invoices would look like — vendors submitting payment requests to their sponsor for meals delivered. The government would need to show the underlying meal service was fraudulent, which requires more than the invoices themselves.
Document	Gov. Ex. H-70r, H-70s	Handwritten notes listing sites with associated SFSP meal counts (e.g., As-Sunnah 2,000; Winfield 1,000; Albright 550; Clifton 450) and dollar amounts by site summing to $172,050 and 249,941 total meals; second note with 'Superstar!' header listing additional sites totaling $52,750; third page showing $1,482,150.13.	[p. 3471-3473]	These could equally be operational planning documents for a legitimate program — any food program sponsor would need to track sites, meal counts, and payment totals. The notes show the same sites appearing on legitimate program contracts. Without testimony from the author, the government cannot prove these reflect fraudulent intent rather than operational management.
Document	Gov. Ex. H-63, H-64	Boyer Trucks bill of sale for two Freightliner M2 heavy-duty box trucks totaling $167,012, signed by Mohamed Ismail for A&E Logistics; vehicle receipt for a 2016 Ford Transit, also for A&E Logistics.	[p. 3449-3450, 3505-3508]	These are exactly the type of vehicles needed to deliver large quantities of food to multiple sites. The defense successfully argued during cross that box trucks are consistent with a real food distribution operation. No agent was tasked with physically locating these trucks or verifying whether they were used for delivery.
Document	Gov. Ex. C-119, C-112, C-113	CLiCS program enrollment forms for Clifton Townhomes (Shakopee): C-119 covers July 2021–April 2022, listing Empire Cuisine & Market as vendor, maximum daily participation 1,100, SFSP summer meals; C-112 covers October 2021–September 2022, claiming at-risk after-school program with snacks and suppers 7 days/week; C-113 covers October 2020–April 2021 for the same.	[p. 3602-3611, 3622-3623]	Wanless left mid-July 2021 and has no knowledge of C-119 or C-112 periods. These forms are MDE program enrollment documents — the property manager's awareness is not a required element of site enrollment. COVID waivers mean non-congregate distribution would not be visible to property management. Defense should also explore whether corporate-level landlord approval was given.
Document	Gov. Ex. C-213, C-15, N-54	C-213: CACFP program records for La Cruz Community (St. Cloud), Partners in Nutrition as sponsor, Mind Foundry as site program name, Kara Lomen as contact, January-September 2021; C-15: CACFP vended-meal contract between The Free Minded Institute and Empire Cuisine for La Cruz, Sept. 2021–June 2022, 500 snacks and 500 suppers on Fridays at 2:45pm; N-54: Meal count data showing 933 average daily attendance in November 2021 and 173,016 total for October-December 2021.	[p. 3633-3648]	Carlson's mathematical cross demonstrated 173,016 meals over 3 months represents a tiny fraction of what residents ate during that period and would not require visible congregation. Theisen confirmed real food distributions (box van) did occur. Non-congregate distribution means Theisen would not see individual family pickups. He also worked limited hours on weekdays primarily.
Document	Gov. Ex. I-3	Abdiaziz Farah's application for a replacement U.S. passport book and card (March 16, 2022), in which he declared both documents 'lost' at 'unknown' location — while they were in FBI custody, seized January 20, 2022, and itemized on a property receipt left at his home.	[p. 3663-3673]	Abdiaziz Farah never attempted to flee. Andrew Birrell elicited this directly. The passport application, while potentially a false statement, is a collateral matter. It does not prove participation in food fraud. If defense counsel represents Farah, this should be isolated as a collateral offense and argued as irrelevant to the substantive charges.
Financial Record	Gov. Ex. O-141 (pp. 49, 58)	Check from Partners in Nutrition to The Free Minded Institute for $102,379.64 with 'La Cruz' on memo line (dated 11/8/21); additional check for $114,490 also referencing La Cruz.	[p. 3646-3648]	Checks from Partners in Nutrition to a site subcontractor are consistent with how the program works — the sponsor pays the site operator. The maintenance worker's lack of awareness of program reimbursement flows proves nothing about whether the underlying services occurred. The government is confusing program payment records with fraud evidence.

Legal Rulings & Objections

⚖

At sidebar during Shane Ball's cross: Court sustained objection when Mohring asked Ball whether Mahad Ibrahim is 'not a defendant in this trial,' with the Court directing jury to disregard the question. Court allowed continued questioning about Ibrahim's role in search warrant documents. — Ibrahim's non-defendant status is a sensitive issue the court is managing carefully. Defense cannot directly highlight to the jury that Ibrahim is an uncharged co-participant in the same transactions, but can explore his role through documents. [p. 3523-3524]

⚖

Court sustained Rule 403 and scope objections on redirect when government attempted to have Ball characterize meal count forms and invoices as 'evidence of an alleged crime,' requiring government to rephrase to simply describe categories of items recovered. — The court is limiting lay witnesses from drawing fraud inferences from documents they merely recovered. This is an important guardrail for defense. [p. 3534-3535]

⚖

Court overruled government objection and allowed cross-examination asking Ball whether handwriting analysis was done on documents seized from duffel bag. — The lack of handwriting analysis is fair game for cross, establishing an investigative gap the government cannot easily explain. [p. 3519]

⚖

Court sustained Goetz objection when government asked Wanless about invoice period after she left Clifton (August 2021 invoice shown to witness who left mid-July 2021): 'the objection is sustained.' — Government cannot use site witnesses to testify about periods outside their personal observation window. This limits the temporal scope of each site witness's negative testimony. [p. 3609-3610]

⚖

End-of-day Cellebrite exhibit ruling: Court ruled that the government's formatted text message exhibits (bubbles with participant names, but not photos) qualify as Rule 1006 summaries of voluminous data from the Cellebrite extraction and may be used as substantive exhibits going back to the jury, but photographs of participants must be removed. — The formatted text message exhibits will go to the jury without participant photos but with names identifying speakers. Defense cannot prevent jury from taking these exhibits back. The Rule 1006 ruling may be preserved for appeal. [p. 3691-3700]

⚖

Court took under advisement (directed government to brief overnight) Mohring's objection to H-51i: a pasted social media post/letter (white text on black background) within a text exchange between Abdimajid Nur and Abdiaziz Farah, alleging MYC/Mukhtar Shariff committed food program fraud — hearsay within hearsay concern. — An anonymous letter making inflammatory accusations against Shariff (and others) is in a text exchange the government wants to introduce. Court recognized hearsay-within-hearsay issue and is studying it. If admitted, this is extremely prejudicial to Shariff. Defense counsel should prepare this argument if any similar evidence threatens his client. [p. 3700-3704]

⚖

Court agreed with Goetz's motion in limine regarding next witness Dinna Wade-Ardley: she only has personal knowledge of what happened at Oak Grove Middle School, not the combined Dar Al-Farooq site figures, and should testify only within her personal knowledge. — Court is holding government to personal-knowledge limits for site witnesses. Defense should invoke this ruling for any site witness who conflates their direct observations with program-wide meal count data. [p. 3704-3705]

Prior Defense Performance

Defense counsel performed well on this day, with Cotter being the most consistently effective. Key successes: (1) Cotter and Goetz both exposed the critical temporal gap in Wanless's testimony — she left before most of the fraud period; (2) Carlson's mathematical cross of Theisen was the single best defense moment of the day, demonstrating that the claimed meal counts were a small fraction of what residents already ate and would not be visible to maintenance staff; (3) Cotter's cross of Ball successfully established that the duffel bag's ownership was unproven, Ismail was cooperative, no handwriting analysis was done, and the trucks were consistent with food delivery; (4) Mohring's identification of the Mahad Ibrahim email subpoena gap and the H-51i anonymous letter issue were important investigative challenges; (5) Birrell successfully elicited that Farah never attempted to flee. What was missed or left on the table: (1) No defense counsel explicitly raised the COVID-19 waiver issue with Wanless or Theisen — this is the most significant missed opportunity. Both witnesses would have been devastated by questions about USDA non-congregate service waivers, which mean that site monitors would not observe meal recipients if meals were packed for pickup or home delivery. This argument was only superficially touched by Cotter who asked Wanless about waivers in general but did not press the specific non-congregate issue. (2) No defense counsel asked Wanless whether the school bus distribution she did see was itself a non-congregate model (people came out, took bags, went home) — which is exactly what pandemic-waiver pickup would look like. (3) The defense did not call out that Kara Lomen's signature on every contract and form is more probative of her culpability than of the defendants' — Lomen controlled claims submission and received the money from MDE, yet she is not a defendant.