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

Vol XVII

2024-05-15
Source PDF
Day Overview

Volume XVII covers the morning of May 15, 2024, beginning with three interposed witnesses (Amenta, Rieta, Morris) called to establish interstate wire fraud nexus elements, then resuming FBI Special Agent Brian Pitzen's direct examination for the remainder of the day. The Pitzen testimony was the heart of the session: Thompson walked the jury through dozens of pages of WhatsApp message threads extracted from Abdiaziz Farah's phone, showing Farah and co-defendants coordinating distribution of millions of dollars in program reimbursements among their LLCs, tracking checks from the sponsor organization (referred to as 'Partners in Quality Care' in the texts), wiring money to Kenya for real estate investment through Capital View Properties Limited, and exchanging invoices and spreadsheets related to site operations. The most significant single moment was the 'I picked up 536,000 from Kara' text (H-73h, p. 4087), directly tying Abdiaziz Farah to collecting a large sum from Kara Lomen's private sponsor organization. The screenshot of Lomen's email to Farah confirming claim submissions and check availability (H-59, p. 4151) was equally significant. Defense counsel must understand that 'Partners in Quality Care' in this transcript refers to Kara Lomen's private sponsor organization — this entity (also called Partners in Nutrition in prior proceedings) was never charged, and Lomen was never interviewed by the FBI. Defense counsel largely allowed the Pitzen testimony to proceed without cross-examination on this day; cross has not yet begun.

Government Strategy

The government used this day to advance three interlocking pillars of its wire fraud and money laundering case. First, it called Federal Reserve (Amenta) and JPMorganChase (Rieta) bank custodians to establish the interstate nexus required for wire fraud counts — specifically to prove that Fedwire transfers and gmail transmissions crossed state lines, satisfying the 'in interstate commerce' element. Second, it called a Google custodian (Morris) to authenticate the gmail accounts charged as wire fraud vehicles. Third, and most extensively, it resumed the direct examination of FBI Agent Brian Pitzen, walking the jury through voluminous WhatsApp message extractions from Abdiaziz Farah's phone showing the defendants coordinating check disbursements from sponsor organizations, splitting program reimbursements among their entities, sending money to Kenya for real estate investment, and communicating about program operations — including a critical message where Farah states 'I picked up 536,000 from Kara' (referring to Kara Lomen, Executive Director of Partners in Quality Care, the private sponsor organization) and a screenshot of Lomen's email to Farah confirming that claims had been submitted and a check was ready for pickup. The day ended mid-examination; Pitzen's direct will continue on Friday.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The 'I picked up 536,000 from Kara' text (p. 4087) and the Kara Lomen email screenshot (p. 4151) are the two highest-stakes moments in this volume. Both are being used to imply a corrupt relationship between Farah and the sponsor. Your cross of any agent or witness referencing these must establish: Lomen is a private sponsor executive — not MDE — who controlled claim submission and check issuance; site operators receiving checks from their sponsor is the normal, legally required program flow; and Lomen has never been charged, interviewed, or called as a witness. The government has no explanation on this record for why Lomen is not a defendant or cooperating witness, and that gap is exploitable. - 'Partners in Quality Care' (the name used throughout this transcript) may be different from 'Partners in Nutrition' (the name in the MEMORY.md). Investigate whether these are the same entity, a DBA, or affiliated organizations. If Kara Lomen ran two separate sponsor organizations under different names, that complexity adds to the government's authentication burden and may matter for chain-of-custody arguments on the invoices. - The COVID-19 pandemic waiver defense was not invoked at all during a day that included: (a) a 'permission slip for home meal delivery during COVID-19' from the private sponsor; (b) 3,000 meals/day claimed at a small market unit; and (c) site photos taken years after the program ended. Under SFSP open-site rules and USDA pandemic waivers, large meal counts at small physical locations are facially consistent with non-congregate packaged meal pickup. Your defense must establish this regulatory framework before any government witness characterizes site photos or meal counts. - The conditional admissions of the major WhatsApp exhibits (H-73h through H-73m, H-59, H-52a through H-52zz) have unspecified conditions. Identify what foundational conditions were required for final admission and consider whether a motion to exclude can be made before Pitzen's cross begins. The government used this strategy to get documentary evidence before the jury before completing the authentication foundation. - The government's stipulation to authenticate any emails obtained pursuant to a search warrant (p. 4036) opens the door to admit defense-favorable communications from the same Gmail accounts without calling witnesses. Consider whether there are emails in the Google production that show defendants seeking regulatory guidance, complying with program requirements, or communicating in ways inconsistent with fraudulent intent — these could be introduced through the government's own stipulation.

Witnesses
Roberto Amenta
Associate Managing Director, Financial Intelligence and Investigations Unit, Federal Reserve Bank of New York — called as custodian of Fedwire records to authenticate specific wire transfers charged as wire fraud counts.
Other Government Government
Direct Examination

Amenta explained how the Fedwire Funds Transfer system works and testified that all Fedwire transactions since April 27, 2009 pass through processing centers in Texas and New Jersey — thereby establishing interstate nexus for every charged wire transfer. He authenticated Government Exhibit L-43 (Fedwire records) and walked through five specific wire transfers: Empire Enterprises LLC to Trademark Title Services ($575,000, April 15, 2021, Count 23); Empire Enterprises LLC to Capital View Properties Limited in Nairobi Kenya ($204,795, May 4, 2021, Count 24); Empire Enterprises LLC to Capital View Properties Limited ($300,000, May 11, 2021, Count 25); Abdiwahab Aftin to Capital View Properties Limited ($200,000, May 17, 2021, Count 27, labeled 'supplies for Bushra Wholesale'); and Empire Enterprises LLC to Trademark Title Services ($334,632.51, October 12, 2021, Count 42).

▸
All Fedwire transactions since April 27, 2009 require two processing centers — Texas (primary, designated FT03) and New Jersey — meaning every transfer necessarily crosses state lines, even if originator and beneficiary are in the same state. — Establishes the interstate commerce element for wire fraud counts 23, 24, 25, 27, and 42 without need for any other proof of interstate nexus. [p. 3984-3985]
▸
Wire transfers from Empire Enterprises LLC (Abdiaziz Farah's entity) to Capital View Properties Limited in Nairobi, Kenya — $204,795 (May 4, 2021) and $300,000 (May 11, 2021) — routed through Wells Fargo, Barclays Bank, and Absa Bank Kenya. — Ties Abdiaziz Farah directly to international money transfers to the Kenya real estate entity at the core of the money laundering charges. [p. 3993-3996]
▸
$200,000 wire from Abdiwahab Aftin (TruStone Financial) to Capital View Properties Limited, with memo field reading 'Supplies for Bushra Wholesale.' — Shows false purpose listed on wire transfer — the money went to a Kenya real estate entity, not for wholesale supplies — supporting money laundering theory. [p. 3997]
Cross-Examination

Mr. Mohring elicited that Fedwire is not the only payment rail, and that the interstate nexus arises because both Texas and New Jersey are involved in every transaction. Mr. Ian Birrell briefly established that Amenta offered no opinion on whether the transfers were legal or illegal. Cross was minimal and did not challenge any factual assertions.

▸
Mohring confirmed that any transfer — even between two entities in the same state — passes through both Texas and New Jersey processing centers, creating an inescapable interstate nexus. — Rather than creating an opening for defense, this cross confirmed the government's position. The defense did not challenge the amounts, the identity of the parties, or the purpose of the transfers. [p. 4002-4003]
▸
Ian Birrell established: 'You're not suggesting or opining either way on if the transfers or funds were legal or illegal, legitimate or illegitimate, right?' — Amenta agreed. — Preserves the argument that wire transfers themselves are neutral; requires the government to prove fraud through other evidence. [p. 4003]
Vulnerabilities Amenta is a technical custodian with no knowledge of or opinion about the underlying transactions. His only function is to establish the interstate element and authenticate records. The defense could challenge whether the government's exhibit L-43 was produced just before trial (certified April 22, 2024, weeks before this trial day), suggesting last-minute subpoena compliance. No foundation attack was made on the underlying transaction records themselves (chain of custody from the originating banks). The defense could also explore whether CHIPS rather than Fedwire was used for any of the international transfers, which might have different interstate nexus characteristics.
For Defense Counsel Challenge foundation — Amenta acknowledged the records were prepared in response to a subpoena dated April 22, 2024, very close to trial, without prior disclosure. Explore whether the 'memo' fields (e.g., 'supplies for Bushra Wholesale' on the Abdiwahab Aftin transfer) were entered by the originating bank or the customer, and who would have knowledge of what they said — the memo field is not proof of actual use of funds.
Maria Dolores Rieta
Payment Life Cycle Associate, JPMorganChase (23 years), wire transfer investigations — called to authenticate Chase bank records and establish interstate nexus for wire fraud counts involving Chase accounts.
Other Government Government
Direct Examination

Rieta testified about Chase wire transfer procedures and authenticated records for two charged wires: (1) Abdiaziz Farah walked into a Chase branch in Minnesota and wired $334,632.51 to Trademark Title Services (Bremer Bank, Minnesota) for real estate at 438 Stonewood Lane, Burnsville (Count 42, Oct. 12, 2021); and (2) Abdimajid Nur walked into a Chase branch in Minnesota and wired $30,000 internationally to Farhia Jewellery LLC in Dubai, UAE via Mashreq Bank (Count connected to Nur Consulting LLC, Sept. 1, 2021). She confirmed that Chase had no servers in Minnesota during the relevant period, so every Chase wire necessarily left the state.

▸
Abdiaziz Farah personally walked into a Chase branch in Minnesota and initiated the $334,632.51 wire to Trademark Title Services for real estate purchase at 438 Stonewood Lane, Burnsville — identified from Chase records. — Directly ties Abdiaziz Farah to a large real estate purchase funded by program money; government will argue this was proceeds of fraud. [p. 4013-4015]
▸
Chase had no servers in Minnesota during the relevant period; every Chase wire transfer from Minnesota necessarily traveled interstate even if both sender and recipient were in Minnesota. — Establishes interstate nexus for Count 42 as a matter of bank infrastructure, not the nature of the underlying transaction. [p. 4009, 4016]
▸
Abdimajid Nur walked into a Chase branch in Minnesota and wired $30,000 internationally to Farhia Jewellery LLC in Dubai, UAE, via Mashreq Bank. — International wire from program proceeds to a jewelry company in Dubai supports money laundering / wire fraud theory for Nur. [p. 4018-4019]
Cross-Examination

Ian Birrell elicited that Abdiaziz Farah produced identification when initiating the wire (no concealment of identity), and that Rieta had no opinion on whether the transfers were proper or improper. Mr. Carlson similarly confirmed that the authentication process required photo ID. Cross was brief and did not challenge the substance of the transfers.

▸
Ian Birrell: 'In your research, did you see that there was no evidence or information that Mr. Farah was trying to conceal his identity?' Rieta: 'I'm not able to see that in any wire transfer.' But separately confirmed Farah had to show his ID. — Useful to establish Farah acted openly, which cuts against consciousness-of-guilt arguments. However, Rieta's answer was technically non-responsive — she did not confirm absence of concealment, only that she could not see it in the wire transfer records. [p. 4020-4021]
Vulnerabilities Rieta is a technical custodian with no knowledge of the broader fraud scheme. She cannot speak to what the proceeds of the wire transfers represent or whether the underlying transactions were legitimate. The defense did not challenge whether the purpose-of-payment information (real estate) on the Farah wire was supplied by Farah himself or by the title company. No foundation objection was raised to the branch identification of Farah as the walk-in customer — her identification was based on reviewing the account records, not independent verification.
For Defense Counsel The fact that Farah walked into a branch in person and presented his ID for a large real estate wire is entirely consistent with someone who believed he was spending legitimately earned money. Challenge the inference that wiring money to buy real estate evidences fraud — wealthy individuals regularly wire money to title companies for real estate closings. The defense should consider whether expert testimony on normal real estate purchase wire practices would neutralize this evidence.
Luke Morris
Policy Specialist and Records Custodian, Google Legal Investigations Team — called to authenticate Gmail records for the email accounts charged as wire fraud vehicles in Counts 2-12 and to establish that Gmail transmissions crossed state lines.
Other Government Government
Direct Examination

Morris authenticated Gmail records for Counts 2-12 (Government Exhibits L-2 through L-12), confirming that the Gmail accounts used (aazizfarah@gmail.com, 19anur@gmail.com, hayatnur861@gmail.com, mahad.ibrahim@gmail.com) were Google accounts and that Google had no servers in Minnesota during June 2020 through January 2022, meaning any Gmail transmitted from Minnesota necessarily traveled out of state.

▸
Google had no Gmail servers in Minnesota from June 2020 through January 2022, so any email sent from Minnesota via Gmail would have to travel out of state to a Google server before reaching a Minnesota recipient. — Establishes the interstate commerce element for all charged Gmail-based wire fraud counts (Counts 2-12) by infrastructure argument. [p. 4031-4032]
▸
Government Exhibits L-2 through L-12 (Gmail records for the charged email accounts) admitted without objection. — All Gmail-based wire fraud counts now have authenticated email records in evidence. [p. 4025]
Cross-Examination

The cross produced several useful defense points. Mr. Mohring attempted to introduce additional emails from the same Gmail accounts that were not part of the government's direct examination, but the court sustained an objection that Morris was not the appropriate custodian for those records (Morris had only reviewed the specific charged emails). Mr. Brandt elicited that IP addresses were not included in the exhibits (so the government cannot prove from these records where the emails were actually sent from), that Morris could not confirm whether Google had servers in neighboring states like Wisconsin, Iowa, or North Dakota during the relevant period, and that the exhibits did not show whether recipients actually opened the emails.

▸
Morris confirmed: 'The IP addresses were not listed on the exhibits.' The subpoena only asked about Minnesota, so Morris did not know if Google had servers in Wisconsin, Iowa, or North Dakota during the relevant period. — Creates a gap: the government cannot prove from these records where the emails were actually transmitted from, and the interstate nexus argument rests entirely on the absence of Minnesota servers — not affirmative proof that emails traveled through out-of-state servers. [p. 4037-4038]
▸
Brandt elicited: if an email is sent within a state that has a Google server, to a recipient in that same state, it would stay within the state and would not go into interstate commerce. Morris confirmed: 'It should, yes.' — Opens the theoretical argument that if the emails were sent from a state with a Google server, there would be no interstate nexus — though this is largely academic here given the senders were in Minnesota. [p. 4038-4039]
▸
The exhibits showed only the body of the emails, 'not the folders that the emails were in.' No information was produced about whether recipients opened the emails. — For any count where the defense can argue the recipient never read the email, actual reliance/receipt cannot be established from this evidence. [p. 4040]
▸
Mohring's attempt to introduce additional emails from the same accounts (which the defense sought to use) was blocked on scope grounds. The court ruled Morris was not the right witness for those emails. The government noted it would stipulate to foundation for any emails obtained pursuant to a search warrant. — The defense could potentially introduce exculpatory emails from the same accounts through stipulation or through calling the FBI case agent (Travis Wilmer) — the government opened this door by stipulating to foundation. [p. 4034-4037]
Vulnerabilities Morris was a limited-scope custodian who only reviewed the specific charged emails — he never read the search warrant, did not personally pull the data, and could not speak to Google's full production. He admitted the exhibits did not include IP addresses (which would identify actual sending locations), metadata about folder placement, or read receipts. The government structured his testimony narrowly to avoid these vulnerabilities. A future defense team should consider obtaining the full Google production (including IP logs and metadata) through discovery, which may show where emails were actually sent from or received.
For Defense Counsel Subpoena the full Google records for all relevant accounts including IP address logs, which could show emails were not sent from Minnesota or were sent from locations other than the defendants' addresses. Challenge the inference that the defendant whose name appears on a Gmail account was the person who actually sent each specific email — authentication of the sender requires more than the 'From' line. The government stipulated it would authenticate any emails obtained pursuant to search warrant, opening the door to admit exculpatory emails from the same accounts.
Brian Pitzen
FBI Special Agent, lead case agent for the Feeding Our Future investigation — resumed direct examination covering WhatsApp message threads extracted from Abdiaziz Farah's phone showing program money distribution, the 'I picked up 536,000 from Kara' text, the Kara Lomen email screenshot, the Kenya real estate investment through Capital View Properties Limited, and site photos.
FBI Government
Direct Examination

Agent Pitzen resumed his direct examination (which had been interrupted by the three interposed witnesses) covering (1) continued review of WhatsApp exchanges between Abdiaziz Farah and Abdimajid Nur about distributing program checks among defendant-controlled entities; (2) WhatsApp exchanges between Abdiaziz Farah and Mohamed Ismail (business partner), including the critical 'I picked up 536,000 from Kara' text (March 10, 2021) referencing Kara Lomen of the private sponsor organization Partners in Quality Care, and a second text reporting $78,950 still owed 'from Kara for summer'; (3) the full WhatsApp thread between Abdiaziz Farah and his brother Said Farah (H-59, 75 pages, Dec. 2020 – Jan. 2022) showing program invoices, site enrollment lists, Kenya bank account opening, wire transfer instructions, and a screenshot of an email from Kara Lomen confirming claim submissions; (4) photos of six Faribault site locations; (5) Capital View Properties Limited corporate documents and Kenya real estate transactions; and (6) WhatsApp messages between Abdiaziz Farah and Ahmednaji Maalim Aftin (Abdiwahab's brother, in Kenya) about money management, land purchases, and bank transfers in Kenya. The examination was still ongoing at day's end.

▸
WhatsApp text from Abdiaziz Farah to Mohamed Ismail (H-73h, March 10, 2021): 'What do you think? I picked up 536,000 from Kara and waiting on 287,980 next week. Inshallah.' — sent while sharing a Mercedes-Benz vehicle link. — Government argues this is Farah collecting program reimbursement checks from Kara Lomen (the private sponsor executive at Partners in Quality Care) and discussing luxury purchases. CRITICAL: 'Kara' refers to Kara Lomen, Executive Director of Partners in Quality Care (also known as Partners in Nutrition), a PRIVATE SPONSOR ORGANIZATION — not an MDE employee. Lomen controlled the submission of claims and the issuance of checks to site operators. Her role as private sponsor is essential to understanding this text. [p. 4086-4087]
▸
WhatsApp text from Abdiaziz Farah to Mohamed Ismail (H-73i, May 6, 2021): 'We are missing $78,950 from Kara for summer. She is processing it... So we should have close to 1.5M by end of May, bro.' — Second reference to Lomen as a source of funds in close temporal proximity — corroborates that Farah tracked reimbursement checks from the private sponsor. The $1.5M figure suggests the scale of funds the defendants expected to receive by end of May 2021 from program operations. [p. 4087-4088]
▸
Screenshot of email from Kara Lomen to Abdiaziz Farah, subject 'Re: Somali Community Resettlement Minneapolis March,' forwarded by Abdiaziz to Said Farah (H-59, p. 59, August 3, 2021): Lomen writes 'They got submitted on Friday, finally. They will also have a check to pick up on Thursday. Sorry, my email got away from me today.' — This is a screenshot of Kara Lomen, Executive Director of Partners in Quality Care (the private sponsor), directly communicating with Abdiaziz Farah about claim submissions and check availability — showing Lomen as an active participant in the financial logistics of the program. CRITICAL CONTEXT: Lomen controlled claim submissions to MDE. She has never been charged, never been interviewed by the FBI, and never testified. This email raises serious questions about what Lomen knew and did. [p. 4150-4151]
▸
Invoice photograph sent by Abdiaziz Farah to Said Farah (H-59, p. 22, March 29, 2021): Somali Community Resettlement Services invoice to 'Kara Lomen, Partners in Quality Care' for CACFP sites in Minneapolis, Faribault, Rochester, and St. Cloud — amount $633,334.95. — Shows program invoices flowing from site operators through to the private sponsor. NOTE: The transcript refers to the sponsor as 'Partners in Quality Care' throughout — this appears to be either the operational name or a variant of 'Partners in Nutrition' (Kara Lomen's organization per the SUMMARY_PROMPT.md). The name discrepancy in the record should be investigated — it may indicate a different entity or a doing-business-as name. [p. 4137-4138]
▸
WhatsApp thread between Abdiaziz Farah and Abdimajid Nur (H-51l, June 23, 2021): Screenshot from Jodie Luzum, 'director of operations of Partners in Quality Care,' to Mahad Ibrahim and Abdiaziz Farah, subject 'Al-Ihsan Check,' stating 'Good morning. We have a check for Al-Ihsan for April and May. Would you like to come to the office to pick this up?' Farah then responds: 'Total Al-Ihsan will be $271,385. Bushra Wholesaler, $171,385. Empire Cuisine & Market, $100,000.' — Pitzen characterized this as 'they are taking kind of the checks that they receive from the federal nutrition program from Partners in Nutrition and kind of splitting out the cuts.' This is a key money distribution text. NOTE: 'Partners in Quality Care' is the organization referred to throughout — Jodie Luzum is described as its director of operations. The government uses this to show check-splitting from sponsor proceeds. [p. 4073]
▸
Capital View Properties Limited corporate documents (J-160): Abdiwahab Aftin purchased shares in a Kenya real estate entity for $200,000 (wire dated May 26, 2021, labeled 'supplies for Bushra Wholesale'); Abdiaziz Farah signed a purchase agreement for 5 units ($725,000 in Kenya shillings) dated June 17, 2021; directors are Abdiwahab Aftin, Abdullahi Maalim Aftin, Abdifatah Maalim Aftin (brothers), and Zeitun Garat Abdinoor. — Connects defendant program proceeds directly to a Kenya real estate investment. The board minutes state the $200,000 was 'meant to procure and ship food stuffs from Kenya to U.S.A.' but was converted to share contribution due to COVID-19 — government argues this is a fabricated justification created after the fact. [p. 4166-4176]
▸
Abdiaziz Farah text to Abdimajid Nur (H-51g, June 16, 2021): 'Bro, can you get the following out of Mahad ASAP, please?' — lists checks: Empire Cuisine & Market $371,879.75 (U.S. Bank); Empire Cuisine & Market $689,218.44 (Old National Bank); Nur Consulting $47,890; Bushra Wholesale LLC $289,750; Bushra Wholesale LLC $228,950. — Shows total disbursement of approximately $1.6M in a single instruction from Farah to Nur for distribution to defendant-controlled entities. These are checks from ThinkTechAct/Mind Foundry (Mahad Ibrahim's nonprofit), which was the site operator entity. [p. 4053]
▸
Site photos admitted (C-146, C-154, C-272, C-212): Four Seasons Apartments (Faribault) — 1,000 meals/day claimed for two sites; Madina Grocery & Market (Faribault) — 3,000 meals/day claimed; Life Style Apartments (Faribault); Somali Community Resettlement Services (inside Faribault Town Square Mall). — Government uses photos of the physical sites (taken March 2024, years after the program period) to suggest the locations could not have served the claimed meal counts. REGULATORY NOTE: Under SFSP open-site rules and COVID-19 pandemic waivers allowing non-congregate distribution, the physical size or appearance of a site at a later date does not establish that meals were not distributed during 2020-2021. [p. 4091-4098]
▸
Abdiaziz Farah to Said Farah (H-59, p. 67): Sends a 'Partners in Quality Care permission slip for home meal delivery during COVID-19.' — Farah himself was using COVID-era program documentation — this reference to COVID home delivery permission slips is directly relevant to the pandemic waiver defense. The private sponsor (Partners in Quality Care) issued permission slips authorizing non-congregate delivery, consistent with USDA waivers. [p. 4155]
▸
Abdiaziz Farah to Said Farah (H-59, p. 55, June 16, 2021): 'For Al-Ihsan, tell them we are still waiting on word from Partners on start date. We can't start without approved applications, and they should have received the email from Kara.' — Shows the defendants waited for Kara Lomen's private sponsor approval before beginning site operations — consistent with normal sponsor-controlled program enrollment, not with a fraudulent scheme that operated without any regulatory anchor. [p. 4057]
Cross-Examination

Cross-examination of Pitzen had not yet begun as of the end of this volume. The direct examination was still ongoing at 3:59 p.m. when court adjourned. No cross has been conducted.

Vulnerabilities Pitzen's testimony is long, dense, and heavily reliant on his characterizations of ambiguous text messages. Key vulnerabilities: (1) He repeatedly characterizes text messages as showing 'splits' and 'cuts' of program money — but the texts themselves show normal business accounting among co-owners of related entities; the government's narrative is baked into Pitzen's commentary rather than established by the texts themselves. (2) The 'I picked up 536,000 from Kara' text: Pitzen offered no testimony about who Kara Lomen is, what Partners in Quality Care is, what her role in the program was, or whether payment to site operators from a sponsor is normal program operation. He simply presented the text as if its meaning were self-evident. (3) The site photos were taken in March 2024 — years after the program period — and Pitzen offered no testimony about how these sites appeared during 2020-2021, what the sites' physical capacity was relative to SFSP open-site rules, or what pandemic waivers permitted. (4) The entire documentary foundation of H-59 (Abdiaziz-Said Farah texts, 75 pages) was admitted conditionally; the conditional admission was over defense objection. (5) Pitzen's testimony is transparently leading — the court sustained multiple leading/argumentative objections, and defense counsel Schleicher made a formal request for a standing objection to the pattern of leading questions, which the court denied but acknowledged. (6) Pitzen said he knew 'Partners in Nutrition' and 'Partners in Quality Care' interchangeably — but his identification of Kara Lomen's organization needs to be pinned down on cross as a private sponsor that controlled its own claim submissions, not an MDE entity. (7) The board minutes for Capital View Properties describing the $200,000 as intended for 'food stuffs from Kenya' with a COVID-19 explanation — Pitzen offered no investigation into whether this business rationale was genuine.
For Defense Counsel Cross-examination should focus on: (1) Establishing what Partners in Quality Care / Partners in Nutrition is — a private sponsor organization, not MDE, that controlled claim submissions and check disbursements. Ask Pitzen whether he knows Lomen was never interviewed, never charged. (2) Challenge the site photo timing — taken years after program operations, no comparison evidence about pandemic-era appearance. For SFSP open sites, there was never a requirement that thousands of children be present at any given time. (3) The 'splitting' narrative: ask Pitzen whether in a normal business partnership, co-owners distribute proceeds among their entities — establish that the check distribution pattern is equally consistent with legitimate co-ownership of multiple entities operating program sites. (4) COVID-19 permission slips for home delivery: Farah himself transmitted a 'Partners in Quality Care permission slip for home meal delivery during COVID-19' — ask Pitzen whether home meal delivery was authorized under USDA pandemic waivers. (5) The Kenya transactions: Challenge whether Pitzen investigated the underlying business of Capital View Properties — was it a legitimate construction entity? Did the government obtain Kenyan court or company records verifying the entity? (6) The conditionally admitted exhibits: press on what condition must be fulfilled for the conditional admission to become final.
Key Evidence
Type Exhibit Description Page Challenge Opportunity
Document Gov. Ex. L-43 Fedwire Funds Transfer records certified by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, covering five wire transfers charged as wire fraud counts: Empire Enterprises to Trademark Title Services ($575,000, Apr. 15, 2021, Count 23); Empire Enterprises to Capital View Properties Kenya ($204,795, May 4, 2021, Count 24); Empire Enterprises to Capital View Properties Kenya ($300,000, May 11, 2021, Count 25); Abdiwahab Aftin to Capital View Properties Kenya ($200,000, May 17, 2021, Count 27); Empire Enterprises to Trademark Title Services ($334,632.51, Oct. 12, 2021, Count 42). [p. 3986-4000] Produced very close to trial (certified April 22, 2024). The records themselves are authentic Fedwire records but say nothing about the source of the funds or the purpose of the transfers. The 'supplies for Bushra Wholesale' memo on Count 27 is a field entered by the customer — its truthfulness or falseness is a separate question not established by the Fedwire record.
Financial Record Gov. Ex. O-12 JPMorganChase bank records for Empire Enterprises LLC account (sole authorized user: Abdiaziz S. Farah) and Nur Consulting LLC account (sole authorized user: Abdimajid Mohamed Nur). Used to authenticate specific wire transfers including the $334,632.51 Burnsville real estate wire and Nur's $30,000 international wire to Farhia Jewellery LLC in Dubai. [p. 4011-4020] Rieta's identification of Farah as the walk-in customer was based on reviewing account records only — no branch video, no teller identification. The Dubai jewelry wire for $30,000 is comparatively modest and context about the purpose was not explored.
Document Gov. Ex. L-2 through L-12 Gmail records authenticated by Google custodian Luke Morris covering emails charged as wire fraud Counts 2-12, involving accounts aazizfarah@gmail.com, 19anur@gmail.com, hayatnur861@gmail.com, and mahad.ibrahim@gmail.com, dated June 2020 through January 2022. [p. 4025-4032] IP address logs not included in the exhibit — the government cannot show from these records where the emails were actually transmitted from. No proof of which specific individual sent emails from each account. No read receipts showing emails were received or opened. Google had servers in states neighboring Minnesota (Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota unknown) — if emails were sent from a neighboring state with Google servers, the interstate nexus argument breaks down.
Document Gov. Ex. H-73h, H-73i, H-73k, H-73l, H-73m WhatsApp message excerpts between Abdiaziz Farah and Mohamed Ismail including the 'I picked up 536,000 from Kara' text (March 10, 2021), '$78,950 from Kara for summer' text (May 6, 2021), and August 2021 money distribution lists. Admitted conditionally. [p. 4085-4089] Admitted conditionally — condition not specified in record. 'Kara' is identified only by inference; neither Pitzen nor Thompson established on this record what Partners in Quality Care is, what Lomen's legal role was, or whether collecting checks from a sponsor is normal program operation for a site operator. The text is equally consistent with Farah acting as a legitimate site operator receiving reimbursement checks from his sponsor.
Document Gov. Ex. H-59 Complete WhatsApp thread between Abdiaziz Farah (green) and Said Farah (blue), 75 pages, December 2020 through January 2022. Contains program invoices, site enrollment requests, the Kara Lomen email screenshot confirming claim submissions, Kenya bank account opening letters, wire transfer instructions, CACFP menus, site authorization forms, and Kenya travel/payment records. Admitted conditionally. [p. 4122] Conditionally admitted — Schleicher noted 'no objection to the conditional receipt' which may preserve a later challenge. The exhibit spans over a year of communications between brothers who co-operated a legitimate grocery business (Empire Cuisine & Market) as well as the food program; context is needed to distinguish lawful business discussions from allegedly fraudulent ones. The Kara Lomen email screenshot in the exhibit shows a private sponsor confirming claim submissions — which is normal program operation.
Document Gov. Ex. J-160 Capital View Properties Limited corporate documents from Kenya, including purchase agreements, board minutes, corporate registration, and wire transfer disclosure forms showing Abdiaziz Farah purchasing 5 units for approximately $725,000, Abdiwahab Aftin contributing $200,000, and the company's registration with the Aftin brothers as directors. [p. 4166-4176] The COVID-19 explanation in the board minutes is plausible on its face (Kenya did have COVID lockdowns in 2021 affecting imports). The government produced no Kenyan business registration investigator or expert to challenge the legitimacy of the entity. The purchase of real estate in Kenya is not inherently fraudulent — it becomes significant only if the government proves the source of funds was fraudulent proceeds.
Surveillance Gov. Ex. C-146, C-154, C-272, C-212 Photographs of four Faribault, Minnesota food program sites taken by law enforcement in approximately March 2024: Four Seasons Apartments (claimed 1,000 meals/day with adjacent Autumn Holdings), Life Style Apartments, Madina Grocery & Market (claimed 3,000 meals/day), and Somali Community Resettlement Services (inside Faribault Town Square Mall). [p. 4091-4098] Photos taken March 2024 — approximately 3 years after program operations. Physical appearance may differ substantially from program period (2020-2021). Under COVID-19 USDA pandemic waivers, SFSP sites could distribute non-congregate packaged meals for pickup — the physical site need not accommodate simultaneous presence of all claimed meal recipients. For open sites under SFSP, the meal count represents meals distributed, not children simultaneously present. Pitzen provided no testimony about what the sites looked like during the program period or about pandemic waiver compliance.
Document Gov. Ex. H-51c, H-51d, H-51e, H-51f, H-51g, H-51h, H-51l WhatsApp message excerpts between Abdiaziz Farah and Abdimajid Nur covering June 7-23, 2021: check distribution instructions for program proceeds; bank inquiry about personal expenses on business accounts; Hadith Ahmed contact (Feeding Our Future); the Al-Ihsan check split ($271,385 total: $171,385 to Bushra, $100,000 to Empire Cuisine); and the Jodie Luzum email screenshot from Partners in Quality Care about check availability. [p. 4044-4073] The check split is equally consistent with multiple co-owner entities being entitled to different proportions of program proceeds for sites each operated. Jodie Luzum's email notifying defendants that a check was available is entirely consistent with normal sponsor operations — she worked for the private sponsor organization, not MDE, and informing site operators of available checks is a routine administrative function.
Legal Rulings & Objections
⚖
Court granted Mohring's motion to re-open sidebar and sustained government's objection that Luke Morris was not the appropriate witness to introduce additional Gmail emails beyond the specifically charged counts, ruling the questioning was 'outside the scope.' However, the government offered to stipulate to foundation for any emails obtained pursuant to a search warrant. — The defense may be able to introduce exculpatory emails from the same Gmail accounts through stipulation rather than live witness. The government's offer to stipulate on foundation opens a pathway to admit defense-favorable emails without needing to call the Google custodian or FBI agent who executed the search warrant. [p. 4034-4037]
⚖
Court denied Schleicher's request for a standing objection to the pattern of leading/argumentative questions during Pitzen's direct examination, ruling that standing objections are not available under the Rules of Evidence and that each objection must be lodged individually. The court stated it would continue to sustain leading objections when raised. — Defense counsel must lodge individual objections for each leading question — a resource-intensive burden during a lengthy direct examination of a case agent testifying over multiple days. The court's instruction that the record 'speaks for itself' on the pattern may be valuable on appeal if a leading question elicits particularly prejudicial testimony. [p. 4080-4083]
⚖
Government Exhibits H-73h through H-73m (Abdiaziz-Mohamed Ismail WhatsApp excerpts including the 'I picked up 536,000 from Kara' text) admitted conditionally over Ian Birrell's conditional objection. — The conditional admission preserves the right to challenge these exhibits' admissibility at the time they are formally offered. The condition for final admission was not specified on the record — future defense should identify what condition must be satisfied and whether it has been met. [p. 4085]
⚖
Government Exhibit H-59 (75-page Abdiaziz-Said Farah WhatsApp thread) admitted conditionally — Schleicher noted 'no objection to the conditional receipt.' — Same as above — conditional admission preserves admissibility challenge. The entire 75-page thread is now before the jury pending final admission. [p. 4122]
⚖
Government Exhibits H-52a through H-52zz (Abdiaziz Farah-Ahmednaji Maalim Aftin Kenya WhatsApp messages) admitted conditionally over Ian Birrell's conditional objection. — Large volume of Kenya-related financial communications now before the jury conditionally — the Kenya real estate and money transfer evidence is in evidence pending final admission. [p. 5843]
⚖
Multiple leading/speculative objections by Sapone, Ian Birrell, Cotter, and Schleicher during Pitzen direct examination — some sustained, many apparently not specifically ruled on in the portions read. The court sustained Schleicher's objection at p. 4080 (Thompson's argumentative question comparing text messages to other evidence) and sustained the speculation objection at p. 4052 (Sapone, regarding Pitzen's speculation about who would get paid). — The pattern of leading questions by Thompson during Pitzen's direct represents potential appellate error if the questions elicited prejudicial facts that could not have been established otherwise. Defense should document each sustained leading objection and the testimony that followed. [p. 4052, 4080-4083]
Prior Defense Performance

Prior defense counsel achieved some meaningful points despite a challenging day. Ian Birrell's cross of Amenta and Rieta efficiently established that the financial witnesses made no judgment about the legitimacy of the transfers. Brandt's cross of Morris was the best defense work of the day — eliciting that IP addresses were missing from the exhibits, that Google server locations in neighboring states were unknown, and that no read receipts were available. Mohring's attempt to introduce additional defense emails through Morris was a creative strategy that ultimately failed on scope grounds, but the government's resulting stipulation offer to authenticate any search-warrant emails is potentially valuable for future use. However, the defense largely allowed Pitzen's extensive direct examination to proceed unchallenged, and several significant opportunities were missed or deferred: (1) No objection was made to the characterization of 'Partners in Nutrition' / 'Partners in Quality Care' as merely a check-distribution mechanism — establishing that it was a private sponsor with its own regulatory obligations would reframe Farah's check-collection behavior; (2) No objection was made to site photos taken in 2024 without foundation about what the sites looked like in 2020-2021; (3) No pandemic waiver defense was invoked during the Pitzen testimony, even when the witness himself acknowledged Farah sent 'a Partners in Quality Care permission slip for home meal delivery during COVID-19'; (4) The standing-objection request, while ultimately denied, may have signaled to the court and government that defense would be passive in objecting to individual questions — a posture the defense would want to recalibrate for cross; (5) The conditional admissions of the major WhatsApp threads were accepted without objection — the conditions for final admission were not specified on the record.