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

Vol XVI

2024-05-14
Source PDF
Day Overview

Volume XVI covers Tuesday, May 14, 2024 — a full trial day with two witnesses. The morning session featured Dinna Wade-Ardley, Director of Educational Equity for Bloomington Public Schools, who testified that her team distributed food at Oak Grove Middle School in partnership with Mukhtar Shariff and Khalid Omar's operation, but served a maximum of approximately 1,000 people per week — not the 3,000 weekly or 3,500 daily figures appearing in submitted claims and a support letter the defendants ghostwrote for her signature. The afternoon session introduced IRS Special Agent Brian Pitzen, who reviewed the Cellebrite extraction of Abdiaziz Farah's phone and walked the jury through extensive WhatsApp message threads showing defendants calculating and splitting child nutrition reimbursements totaling $49 million with near-zero discussion of food logistics or children. The most significant moment was the introduction of text messages in which Mahad Ibrahim instructs Kara Lomen to tell MDE her team 'saw the distribution' at Tot Park — a site Mahad said Kara herself instructed them to use. The volume ends with Pitzen still on direct examination mid-way through the Abdimajid Nur text thread.

Government Strategy

The government used this day to establish two major lines of evidence. First, through Dinna Wade-Ardley (a Bloomington Public Schools official), the government demonstrated the use of legitimate institutional partners to lend credibility to inflated meal claims — she confirmed her team never served anywhere near the thousands of meals per day claimed by Mukhtar Shariff and ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry at the Dar Al-Farooq/Oak Grove Middle School sites, and that she was manipulated into signing a fraudulent support letter without knowing the financial stakes. Second, through IRS Special Agent Brian Pitzen (who began his testimony before the day ended), the government introduced a massive tranche of WhatsApp text message excerpts extracted from Abdiaziz Farah's seized phone, showing defendants obsessively dividing federal child nutrition reimbursements among themselves, discussing rosters as a bureaucratic obstacle rather than as real records of children served, and explicitly referencing Kara Lomen of Partners in Nutrition as the sponsor through whom their sites were paid. The government also introduced photos and videos from Farah's phone that showed food staging but none of the scale of distribution claimed.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- KARA LOMEN IS THE KEY UNCHARGED ACTOR: Every volume in this trial raises Lomen's centrality without the government charging her. In this volume alone: she received $2.7M invoices in a single month from defendants; Ibrahim told Farah 'she did all was requested of her'; Mahad Ibrahim told her to 'tell MDE you saw the distribution' at Tot Park (a site she apparently directed them to use); and Farah described her as being willing to 'get stop pay removed.' She was never charged, never interviewed by FBI (per earlier volumes), and never testified. For an incoming defense attorney, Lomen is the third-party culpability narrative — the jury should hear about her at every opportunity. - THE STOP-PAY LITIGATION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD: The text messages about MDE's stop pay show defendants were anxious about scrutiny — but they also show defendants distinguishing their operation from FOF and arguing PIN (Lomen) should be handling compliance issues. Farah's statement 'I know Kara and MDE approved sites that were not eligible, and that's not our problem' is a gold-mine — it shows he believed responsibility lay with the sponsor (Lomen), not the site operators. This is a good-faith argument. - THE ROSTER EVIDENCE NEEDS REGULATORY CONTEXT: Pitzen's testimony about rosters is potentially misleading. He testified that 'initially some of the sites during the summer food program didn't need a specific name,' but conflated this with post-stop-pay requirements. Under actual SFSP open-site rules, individual-name rosters were NEVER required regardless of pandemic waivers — only meal counts were required. If MDE began requiring rosters retroactively through the stop-pay litigation, that is a change in practice, not a reflection of what the law required. This regulatory distinction must be developed through expert testimony or through cross of the MDE witnesses. - THE CLICKER VIDEO IS NOT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS: The H-61b video at Autumn Holdings showing rapid clicking needs expert analysis. Rapid clicking during a drive-through distribution event is consistent with legitimate counting — multiple family members picking up multiple bags in quick succession. The government's 'fraud clicker' narrative is a lay opinion from an agent who was not present. - WADE-ARDLEY'S TESTIMONY ACTUALLY HELPS: Her cross-examination established that legitimate food distribution programs (including Bloomington Public Schools) operated exactly like the defendant-operated programs — no ID checks, no roster, food given to anyone who asked, distribution volumes fluctuating. This is the COVID open-site reality. The government is trying to use her 'that seems like a lot' reaction to make arithmetic skepticism into evidence of fraud — but she had no knowledge of Dar Al-Farooq and cannot speak to what occurred there.

Witnesses
Dinna Wade-Ardley
Director of Educational Equity for Bloomington Public Schools — a lay witness who distributed food at Oak Grove Middle School in partnership with Mukhtar Shariff's operation during COVID, providing context about the actual scale of distribution at that site.
Other Government Government
Direct Examination

Wade-Ardley testified that Bloomington Public Schools partnered with Khalid Omar and Mukhtar Shariff to distribute food at Oak Grove Middle School on Saturdays starting January 2021. Her team typically distributed food to 500 per week on average, maximum 1,000 — far below the 3,000-to-3,500/day figures in submitted claims. She was also duped into signing a ghostwritten letter claiming 'up to 3,000 children' were served through the partnership, which she now regrets and admits was inaccurate based on what she personally knew.

▸
Government showed her meal count claims (Gov. Ex. C-361, C-360) stating 14,000 meals per week and 21,000 snacks/suppers per week in January and February 2021 — she responded 'That's a lot of meals' and confirmed her team distributed nothing near those numbers at Oak Grove Middle School. — Provides an eyewitness anchor for the inflated numbers — but critically, she had no knowledge of what occurred at Dar Al-Farooq, the separate site that may explain additional distribution. [p. 3746]
▸
Wade-Ardley signed a letter (Gov. Ex. C-336/G-336) drafted by Khalid Omar stating 'We routinely serve up to 3000 children through this partnership' — but testified the number was inaccurate and she signed it only after Mukhtar Shariff explained by phone it represented both sites combined. — Government used this to show the defendants manufactured institutional cover for inflated claims; defense used it to show she voluntarily signed after being satisfied with Shariff's explanation. [p. 3753]
▸
She testified that when she distributed food to Georgetown Townhomes for Bloomington Public Schools, she did not check IDs, did not verify the number of children in each household, and just gave food to whoever asked — she 'just give them the food.' — Inadvertently supports the defense regulatory argument that no-ID, no-verification food distribution was the norm under COVID conditions — undermining the inference that the absence of verification proves fraud. [p. 3772]
▸
Government introduced Gov. Ex. D-34 (email from Abdiaziz Farah to Mahad Ibrahim, Mukhtar Shariff, and Abdi Nur re '1506 Southcross and DFC July Claim') and Gov. Ex. D-35 (email from Abdimajid Nur with meal counts showing 3,500 snacks and suppers per day and invoices of $600,000+ for August 2021). Wade-Ardley confirmed she was unaware of these claims. — Establishes the scale of the alleged fraud at the sites connected to her, through a witness who appears entirely credible and had no motive to lie. [p. 3760]
▸
Introduced Gov. Ex. O-20 (check from Afrique Hospitality Group to Empire Cuisine & Market for $275,000, Aug. 26, 2021) and Gov. Ex. O-53 (check from Empire Enterprises to Wadani Consulting — Mukhtar Shariff's company — for $80,000, Oct. 2021) on redirect. Wade-Ardley testified she had no idea Shariff was receiving these payments. — Government used these checks to paint Shariff as enriching himself off a program he claimed was charitable — directly countering defense's 'legitimate business profit' framing on cross. [p. 3822]
Cross-Examination

Mr. Goetz (for Mukhtar Shariff) conducted effective cross, eliciting key admissions: real food was actually distributed at Oak Grove Middle School every week; Wade-Ardley never personally attended the Dar Al-Farooq site and had no knowledge of how many meals were distributed there; and when she questioned the 3,000 figure, Shariff gave her a reasonable explanation combining both sites, which she accepted and believed at the time. Multiple defense photographs of actual food distribution activity at Oak Grove Middle School were admitted without objection.

▸
Confirmed real food was distributed at Oak Grove Middle School every Saturday, month after month — cars lined up, families received bags of groceries, food included potatoes, onions, milk, and other items. Defense Exs. D7-47, D7-79 through D7-91, D7-97, D7-98 (photos and video of actual distribution) admitted without objection. — Establishes the defense cornerstone that real food distribution occurred, regardless of whether the precise meal counts were accurate. [p. 3778]
▸
She never checked IDs, never asked to see children in person, never verified family size — just gave people food based on what they requested. 'We had a list' but did not take names to verify during distribution. — Normalizes the absence of individual child verification, consistent with pandemic open-site food distribution rules and undermining the government's emphasis on lack of individual tracking as evidence of fraud. [p. 3773]
▸
Had no personal knowledge of what meals were served at Dar Al-Farooq; had no knowledge of CACFP/SFSP waivers; and admitted: 'you have no reason to believe, even as you sit here today, that [the 3,000 number] is not the truth, do you?' Answer: 'No, sir.' — Critical concession — her suspicion that 3,000 was high was based solely on her own site's experience, not knowledge of Dar Al-Farooq. She cannot rule out that Dar Al-Farooq served 2,000+ on its own. [p. 3832]
▸
Confirmed that anyone could pick up food at Oak Grove Middle School — not just Bloomington Public School students, but private school students, home-schooled kids, and people from outside the district. No ID checks. — Opens the door for the defense to argue the site served a broader population than Bloomington Public Schools enrollment data would suggest. [p. 3806]
Vulnerabilities Wade-Ardley is an emotionally sympathetic witness — genuinely well-meaning, clearly duped. Her vulnerability for the defense is significant: she has zero knowledge of the Dar Al-Farooq site, which was the primary high-volume site in the claims she was shown. She confirmed she would distribute food to anyone who came up, without checking IDs or verifying child counts — behavior consistent with open-site SFSP rules. Her emotional distress at 'being taken advantage of' and her admission that she 'doesn't like lying' are powerful for the government, but defense counsel effectively neutralized the 3,000-number issue by establishing she accepted Shariff's explanation at the time and had no reason to doubt it. The government's use of her emotional reaction to checks she knew nothing about (Empire/Wadani checks) over repeated defense objections was arguably 403 territory — this line should be preserved on appeal. She had no knowledge of the regulatory framework (waivers, SFSP open-site rules) and freely admitted it on cross — undermining any government inference she draws from the mere fact that large numbers 'seem high' to her.
For Defense Counsel Wade-Ardley is actually a better defense witness than government witness if framed correctly. Her testimony establishes: (1) real food was distributed at Oak Grove Middle School weekly; (2) the district served anyone who came, without ID verification, consistent with program rules; (3) she had no knowledge of the Dar Al-Farooq component of the distribution; (4) Shariff explained the combined 3,000 number credibly enough for her to sign the letter believing it. In defense counsel's trial, if similar 'institutional witness' testimony is used, exploit the open-site food distribution rules on cross — no verification was required and none was performed even by legitimate public school programs.
Brian Pitzen
IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent who reviewed the Cellebrite extraction of Abdiaziz Farah's seized cell phone, analyzing WhatsApp text message threads and photographs — primary conduit for introducing text message evidence of money-splitting among defendants and their discussions with/about Kara Lomen of Partners in Nutrition.
IRS/Forensic Government
Direct Examination

Pitzen walked the jury through the Cellebrite extraction of Farah's phone: photos and videos of food (some at Empire Cuisine & Market, some at Autumn Holdings/Faribault), which he testified did not reflect the scale of distribution being claimed; then an extended reading of WhatsApp threads showing defendants calculating and splitting millions of dollars in federal child nutrition reimbursements from Partners in Nutrition (via Kara Lomen) and Feeding Our Future, with almost no discussion of food logistics or children. His testimony was still ongoing at the end of the day.

▸
Pitzen testified that the WhatsApp conversations he found on Farah's phone showed 'the majority, probably, of the conversation... was about cutting the profit, like cutting up the amount of money that was being distributed — received from Minnesota Department of Education' with 'very little' about food distribution logistics or actual children. — Core government narrative: the defendants talked about money, not meals. Highly damaging for defense if jury accepts this characterization of the message content. [p. 3884]
▸
In H-54m (June 2, 2021 text chain), Mahad Ibrahim tells Farah: 'MDE accused us of fraud today on the call.' Farah responds: 'Bro, Kara and Aimee's mess shouldn't overflow to us.' Ibrahim: 'I tried to call Kara.' Farah: 'I know Kara and MDE approved sites that were not eligible, and that's not our problem.' — The defendants blame Kara Lomen and Aimee Bock (Feeding Our Future) for site eligibility issues — suggesting defendants believed responsibility lay with sponsors, not with them. This is a defense angle. [p. 3931]
▸
In H-54q (June 25, 2021), Mahad Ibrahim tells Farah about the Tot Park dispute with Kara Lomen: 'Her team conducted a site visit... I wrote back saying your team did a site visit. Tell MDE you saw the distribution.' Farah: 'She was the one who told us to do Tot Park.' — Most damaging Kara Lomen text in the volume. Ibrahim instructs Lomen to lie to MDE ('Tell MDE you saw the distribution'). Simultaneously establishes that Lomen directed Tot Park's operation — a double-edged sword pointing to Lomen's culpability but also used to show defendants knew the site's claims were suspect. [p. 3955]
▸
Pitzen identified Kara Lomen as 'the executive director of Partners in Quality Care' — repeating this characterization multiple times throughout testimony. The actual organization name is Partners in Nutrition (also d/b/a Partners in Quality Care). The distinction is noted but both names appear in the record. — Minor mislabeling but important: Lomen is not an MDE employee. She is a private sponsor executive. Pitzen correctly treats her as a third party/sponsor, never as MDE. [p. 3861]
▸
Checks from Partners in Nutrition to Mind Foundry shown through Abdimajid Nur's texts to Farah (H-51a): Tot Park March — $314,201.03; Tot Park April — $304,065.51; Plymouth March — $250,000; Plymouth April — $242,000; Albright March — $62,689.75. The invoice for April 2021 alone totaled $2,725,188.30 for all sites. — Establishes the scale of money flowing from Partners in Nutrition (Kara Lomen) to the defendants — devastating evidence that the sponsor was writing massive checks based on claimed meal counts at sites under scrutiny. [p. 3967]
▸
H-54i (April 21, 2021): Farah says 'Kara is going to get stop pay removed' and separately 'Kara is in the basement. Let's talk at least about first floor.' Ibrahim responds 'TTA will blow them away' (i.e., ThinkTechAct would become a sponsor, replacing FOF and PIN). Farah: 'She did all was requested of her. After seeing FOF, whatever Kara got is piece of cake participant.' — Shows defendants viewed Lomen not as an oversight authority but as a pliable partner who 'did all was requested of her.' This underscores Lomen's vulnerability as an uncharged and unindicted co-conspirator. [p. 3918]
▸
H-54r (Oct 27, 2021): Farah tells Ibrahim 'No Plymouth money because I can't get them to send me roster.' Ibrahim responds: 'Abdullahi just told me they got 9,000 names, full DOB and everything.' Farah: 'LOL. How?' Ibrahim: 'They were motivated... they have appreciated the training TTA has given.' — 9,000 roster names appearing suddenly for Plymouth strongly implies fabricated rosters to satisfy MDE's post-stop-pay documentation requirement. However, defense can argue rosters were developed by the site operators independently. [p. 3957]
▸
Faribault cluster: Four sites (Autumn Holdings, Four Seasons, Greenwood Place, Lifestyle) all in a one-block area all claimed identical numbers — 500 average daily attendance, 15,500 snacks/suppers, 31 service days in May 2021 — for a combined 2,000 meals daily. With additional Faribault sites, total claims reached 7,000 meals/day in a town with 4,200 school-aged children. — Mathematical impossibility argument: claims exceeded the entire school district's child population. This is among the government's strongest evidence of fabricated numbers. [p. 3867]
▸
Video H-61b from Farah's phone, taken at Autumn Holdings in Faribault, showed a person using a hand clicker ('fish clicker') rapidly clicking 35-40 times in a 16-second video while food was being distributed — Pitzen testified the clicking appeared random, not tied to individual meal handoffs. — Government's most direct evidence of fraudulent meal counting — the clicker going rapid-fire without corresponding to actual distribution events. Defense can argue the video simply shows someone counting without proving the count was fraudulent. [p. 3878]
Cross-Examination

Pitzen's cross-examination had not begun by the end of Volume XVI — his direct examination was still ongoing when the court adjourned at 4:47 p.m. This testimony will continue in Volume XVII.

Vulnerabilities Pitzen was not cross-examined in this volume, so vulnerabilities must be assessed from what will arise. Key vulnerabilities include: (1) He was assigned to the case in early 2023 and was not the follow-the-money agent — the FBI forensic accountants did that work. He is a conduit for phone evidence he didn't create or control; (2) He repeatedly mislabeled Partners in Nutrition as 'Partners in Quality Care' throughout his testimony (both names appear in the record, but the organization operating under MDE as a sponsor is Partners in Nutrition — this confusion about the actual sponsor entity name could affect exhibit foundation arguments); (3) He testified to inferences from text message content ('I found messages coordinating distributing the money, not so much about messaging about coordinating food distribution') that reflect his interpretive gloss, not objective fact — the text messages speak for themselves and show both money discussions AND operational references; (4) The 'no logistics' argument is overstated — the texts do reference menus, menu matching, MDE approval processes, site visits, sponsor check pickups, and food distribution operations; (5) The regulatory framework governing rosters and SFSP open sites needs to be challenged: Pitzen testified that 'initially some of the sites were — during the summer food program, didn't need a specific name. After the stop pay they needed to have rosters' — this characterization should be scrutinized against actual SFSP open-site regulations, where individual-name rosters were never required.
For Defense Counsel The most important cross-examination opportunity Defense counsel should prepare for if Pitzen appears: (1) Challenge the 'no logistics' narrative by pointing to the specific operational text messages that DO discuss site operations, menus, food preparation, and distribution logistics — the government cherry-picked the money messages; (2) Explore the distinction between SFSP open sites (no roster requirement) and CACFP at-risk sites (NOTE: rosters are NOT required for CACFP at-risk afterschool under federal regulation — at-risk is an open-site model; this characterization in the prior analysis was incorrect) — Pitzen's blanket characterization conflates these; (3) Highlight that Kara Lomen (Partners in Nutrition) directed Tot Park operations and that Mahad Ibrahim's instruction to her to 'tell MDE you saw the distribution' is evidence that LOMEN was the one suborning false statements, not necessarily the defendants who were downstream; (4) Challenge the clicker video by having an expert examine whether the video proves fraudulent counting or simply rapid-counting methodology; (5) The Faribault mathematical impossibility argument can be challenged if the sites were open-site SFSP programs drawing from a broader catchment than just Faribault school district children.
Key Evidence
Type Exhibit Description Page Challenge Opportunity
Document Gov. Ex. G-336 Email from Dinna Wade-Ardley to Mukhtar Shariff and others (cc: Aimee Bock/FOF and Mahad Ibrahim) dated July 23, 2021, stating 'We routinely serve up to 3000 children through this partnership' — ghostwritten by Khalid Omar at Shariff's direction, then sent by Wade-Ardley. [p. 3751] The 3,000 figure was explained by Shariff as combining two sites (Oak Grove + Dar Al-Farooq). Wade-Ardley testified she accepted this explanation and believed it at the time. She has no knowledge of what was actually distributed at Dar Al-Farooq, so she cannot establish the combined 3,000 was false.
Document Gov. Ex. C-336 Similar support letter from Wade-Ardley to Partners in Nutrition (Kara Lomen), again drafted by others. [p. 3757] Same as G-336. Wade-Ardley had no personal knowledge about Dar Al-Farooq distribution volume.
Document Gov. Ex. C-361, C-360 Meal count submission records showing 14,000 meals/week (January 2021) and 21,000 snacks and suppers/week (February 2021) for the Dar Al-Farooq site group — approximately 3,500 meals per day. [p. 3746] Dar Al-Farooq is one of the largest mosques in Minnesota, drawing from the entire Twin Cities metro. The site used open-site SFSP rules under COVID waivers — no individual child roster required, and parental pickup was permitted. The meal counts represent meals served, not individuals enrolled.
Document Gov. Ex. H-53a through H-53s WhatsApp message excerpts from Abdiaziz Farah's phone showing messages between Farah and Kara Lomen — 1,500 pages total, excerpted to 19 selected slides. Admitted conditionally under Bell procedure as potential coconspirator statements. [p. 3887] Admitted conditionally — Bell finding not made for Lomen specifically (she is uncharged). Foundation for 801(d)(2)(E) as to Lomen-Farah chain is contestable because Lomen has not been charged or identified as a coconspirator. The excerpts selected represent a small fraction of a 1,500-page conversation thread.
Document Gov. Ex. H-54a through H-54s WhatsApp excerpts from Abdiaziz Farah's phone of messages between Farah and Mahad Ibrahim — extensive money-splitting discussions, references to Kara Lomen, rosters, the MDE stop pay dispute, and investments. Conditionally admitted. [p. 3890] The texts also contain operational content (menus, site operations, sponsor contact) that the government's narrative omits. The 'cut' language could refer to legitimate vendor/subcontractor payments rather than fraud proceeds. The roster 'LOL 9,000 names' exchange could be read as surprise at legitimate grassroots outreach by the site operator, not fabrication.
Document Gov. Ex. H-51a through H-51r WhatsApp excerpts from Abdiaziz Farah's phone of messages between Farah and Abdimajid Nur — photographs of checks from Partners in Nutrition to Mind Foundry, invoice drafts being prepared by Nur, and fund distribution instructions. Conditionally admitted. [p. 3961] Checks from a sponsor to a site operator are normal program operations. The question is whether the underlying meal counts supporting those checks were fraudulent — something Nur's check-photography alone does not establish.
Exhibit Gov. Ex. H-60 18-page collection of food photographs found on Abdiaziz Farah's phone, showing bags of produce, boxed groceries, and packaged meal bags at Empire Cuisine & Market and other locations, mid-2020 through late 2021. [p. 3850] The photos actually show real food being prepared and distributed — they are evidence OF legitimate food distribution, not against it. The government's 'staging' inference is just that — an inference. No expert testified about the quantity of meals the photographed food would produce.
Exhibit Gov. Ex. H-61a, H-61b, H-61c Three videos from Abdiaziz Farah's phone: H-61c (food at Empire Cuisine & Market); H-61b (Autumn Holdings, Faribault — person using hand clicker rapidly while food is distributed); H-61a (apartment foyer with gallons of milk and 'Free Milk' sign). [p. 3874] The clicker video is ambiguous. Someone counting rapidly during a pickup distribution could be doing so legitimately — many people may have come and gone in quick succession. Without an expert on meal counting methodology, the government's 'fraud clicker' narrative is speculative.
Document Gov. Ex. D-27 Email from Abdimajid Nur to Kara Lomen (cc: Abdiaziz Farah) with subject 'CACFP Attendance and Invoice,' dated May 31, 2021 — invoice from Mind Foundry to Partners in Quality Care totaling $2,725,188.30 for April 2021 across all sites. [p. 3869] The invoice reflects submitted claims, not fraudulent ones per se. The question is whether the underlying meal counts were fabricated. This document alone does not establish fraud — it establishes the business relationship.
Document Defendants' Exs. D7-47, D7-79 through D7-91, D7-97, D7-98 Defense photographs (10 images) and a video showing actual food distribution at Oak Grove Middle School — bags of produce, lines of cars, Dinna Wade-Ardley's team in action. [p. 3778] None — this is defense-favorable evidence.
Legal Rulings & Objections
⚖
Motion in limine on screen captures in WhatsApp thread (Document 518-1 — 'Parents, your children have been exploited'/'Minnesota Youth Connection committed fraud' letter): Court ruled to admit the 'attention parents' portion but ordered redaction of: (1) the sentence naming Mukhtar Shariff as 'mastermind'; (2) the sentence 'Minnesota Youth Connection, a/k/a MYC, has committed fraud'; and (3) the a/k/a reference. Admitted conditionally as nonhearsay offered for notice and intent (not truth) for Farah and Nur. Not offered as to Shariff. — The court drew a careful line on notice evidence — the jury sees the complaint that names/kids were being misused but does not see explicit fraud allegations against Shariff. Preserved for appeal: whether the 'notice' framing is a fig leaf for truth-of-the-matter use. [p. 3795]
⚖
Coconspirator standing objection: Court granted all defendants a standing hearsay objection to all text messages and WhatsApp messages admitted through Agent Pitzen, conditionally admitted under Bell procedure. Court noted it had made a preponderance finding on Farah and Nur as coconspirators based on prior evidence, but the 'in furtherance' determination was reserved for end of government's case. — This preserves the defense's Bell objection for all Pitzen text message exhibits. At end of government's case, the court must make findings under Bell — if it fails to do so, or if the evidence falls short, there may be grounds for reversal on all conditionally admitted exhibits. [p. 3836]
⚖
Objection to foundation for Wade-Ardley testifying about combined meal count numbers for Dar Al-Farooq sites (which she had no personal knowledge of): Court overruled and allowed testimony, noting she could testify about her own site and that it was 'appropriate matter for cross.' Defense standing objection on 401/402/403 throughout this line of questioning noted. — The government was allowed to use Wade-Ardley's limited knowledge at Oak Grove to make her implicitly vouch for the impossibility of the Dar Al-Farooq numbers — even though she had zero knowledge of that site. This is a preserved appellate issue. [p. 3744]
⚖
Objection to Pitzen's 701/702 opinion testimony ('you would expect when someone is attempting to carry out a very large scheme... they're taking to try to make it appear or give the appearance of legitimacy'): Overruled. — Pitzen was permitted to characterize the food photos as 'staging' for appearance of legitimacy — a lay opinion with expert-opinion implications. Preserved for appeal on foundation and 701/702 grounds. [p. 3848]
⚖
Jury requested the indictment. Court declined to provide the full indictment narrative but agreed to provide a chart listing charges against each defendant after counsel confer. Court noted it told the jury there were '20 counts of wire fraud' in preliminary instructions — inexact. — The court's willingness to provide a charges chart mid-trial is unusual — suggests jury is actively tracking the case and concerned about keeping the defendants and charges straight. [p. 3800]
Prior Defense Performance

Mr. Goetz (for Mukhtar Shariff) conducted the most effective cross-examination of the day on Wade-Ardley, successfully neutralizing the government's effort to use her emotional reactions as evidence. He established: real food distribution occurred; she had no knowledge of Dar Al-Farooq; she believed Shariff's combined-site explanation when she signed the letter; and no ID verification was done even in the legitimate Bloomington Public Schools program. He also admitted multiple defense photographs (D7 series) showing actual food distribution activity, which will be valuable in closing argument. His objections on scope and foundation throughout Wade-Ardley's redirect were well-placed (several sustained) and he preserved standing objections effectively. The primary missed opportunity was not pressing harder on the COVID waiver framework — Wade-Ardley freely admitted she had no knowledge of waivers, and a few well-placed questions could have established that the entire program operated under conditions where no physical presence verification was required. Other defense counsel (Birrell, Mohring, Schleicher) preserved important objections (Bell objection standing, 701/702) but did not have primary cross duties with Wade-Ardley. No defense counsel challenged Pitzen, as his cross had not begun by day's end. The defense should be prepared for aggressive cross of Pitzen on: the selection methodology for the text excerpts (only money texts, not logistics texts); the regulatory framework for rosters under SFSP open sites; and the conflation of 'coordinating money' with 'evidence of fraud.'