Vol XXVII PM
The PM session of May 31, 2024 (pages 6493–6606) contains two defense closing arguments. Ed Sapone argued for Abdimajid Nur, delivering a structured 'top ten reasons to doubt' framework that attacked the investigation's failure to conduct physical surveillance, interview witnesses contemporaneously, use cell site records or LPR, or search sites in 2021 — arguing the government built a case backward from financial records while ignoring exculpatory food delivery evidence. Steve Schleicher argued for Said Shafii Farah, focusing on the absence of any evidence tying Said to claim submission, roster creation, or site supervision; the false characterization of Bushra Wholesalers as a shell company in the government's opening statement; the forensic accountant's methodological flaws; and the willful blindness instruction's inapplicability. The most significant moment is Sapone's explicit call-out: 'Where is Kara Lomen? This is a gaping hole in this prosecution' — arguing that the sponsors, not the defendants, controlled CLiCS access and MDE submissions, and that the absence of sponsor testimony is an unremedied defect. Schleicher's argument reveals that Agent Kary admitted he lacked probable cause to search Said Farah's email, and that the government's forensic accountant (Roase) admitted she did not search the Bushra Wholesalers warehouse and excluded Bushra's food invoices from her analysis. Defense counsel should pay close attention to both the Kara Lomen/sponsor accountability gap and the methodological critique of Pauline Roase's financial analysis.
No government action in this session — the PM session of May 31, 2024 was devoted exclusively to defense closing arguments for two defendants, Abdimajid Nur and Said Shafii Farah. The government had already delivered its closing argument in the missing AM session (Vol XXVII AM, pages 6353–6492). The government's closing themes, as reconstructed from defense responses in this transcript, centered on: (1) high meal count numbers as inherently suspicious, (2) spending on luxury goods (Maldives honeymoon, jewelry, cars) as evidence of fraud proceeds, (3) the clicker demonstration to show implausible meal counting speed, (4) photos of the Maldives as recency-effect imagery, (5) round meal count numbers as indicating fabrication, and (6) the 'easy trick' email between Abdi Nur and Hayat Nur as evidence of fraudulent scheme design. The government also relied heavily on cooperating witness Hadith Ahmed to establish the conspiracy and bribery elements.
- The Kara Lomen/CLiCS gap is the most important structural argument in this case. Sponsors alone had CLiCS access, submitted claims to MDE, received reimbursements, and retained administrative fees (10–15% per meal). Kara Lomen — Executive Director of Partners in Nutrition, a private sponsor, NOT an MDE employee — sent the 'turn off the errors so you can enter the meal counts' text, was never charged, never interviewed by the FBI, and never testified. Defense counsel must force this accountability question in his trial: Why was the person with direct system access never questioned? If the government calls MDE witnesses who describe regulatory violations, cross on whether they ever contacted Kara Lomen or Partners in Nutrition before paying claims. - The Bushra Wholesalers 'shell company' false statement in the government's opening is a powerful theme to exploit. Government witnesses (Kary and Roase) both admitted Bushra was not a shell company by any recognized definition. If the government makes a similar mischaracterization in opening in defense counsel's trial, preserve it and hammer it in cross of the relevant agents. - Pauline Roase's financial analysis is deeply vulnerable. She admitted: no books and records reviewed, no income tax examination, no GAAP methodology, no EBITA calculation, no credit agreement analysis, and deliberate exclusion of major vendor invoices (Manmabuyu, $463,000; Diis Transportation) on the basis of 'didn't need to look.' If Roase testifies in defense counsel's trial, challenge her as an expert under Daubert and exploit every methodological admission from Trial 1 cross-examination. The 'she added the wrong numbers' formulation (Schleicher, page 6603) is the correct framing. - The COVID-19 waiver/non-congregate service argument was underexploited in closing. Defense attorneys referenced the pandemic as context for chaos and imperfect records but did not specifically invoke USDA's nationwide waivers permitting non-congregate pickup, suspending on-site monitoring, and authorizing parental pickup without children present. When the government argues no children were observed eating at sites or sites appeared empty on inspection, Defense counsel should be prepared to argue specifically that these waivers eliminated the physical presence requirement — any inspection-based argument fails as a matter of law for the waiver period. - Hadith Ahmed's credibility was thoroughly attacked by multiple defense attorneys. His '85 I don't recalls on cross vs. perfect memory on direct' metric is a useful pattern to document and use if he appears again. His testimony that he never received a check from Said Farah and never met Said Farah before the search warrants is particularly powerful impeachment against the bribery theory. For bribery charges, the 'agent at time of payment' element is an exploitable gap when payments post-date termination.
| Type | Exhibit | Description | Page | Challenge Opportunity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document | M series (M-13z, M-48, all M exhibits) | Defense exhibits introduced to show millions of dollars in food expenditures — bank records, food purchase receipts, invoices from Sysco, Costco, Omaar Tuna, U.S. Halal, Afro Produce, Sam's Club, and other real food suppliers. Sapone urged the jury to review these exhibits to confirm that the scale of food spending is inconsistent with a cover story. | [p. 6528–6530] | Government argued food was purchased 'just to make it look good' — defense responded this is implausible at millions-of-dollars scale. Defense counsel should ensure these exhibits are catalogued and that the dollar figures are explicitly argued to the jury. |
| Document | Exhibit L-12 | Email received by Said Shafii Farah on January 23, 2022 — three days after execution of the search warrant — with rosters attached. Charged as a substantive wire fraud count (Count 12) against Said Farah. | [p. 6591–6592] | Schleicher argued this count is facially defective: Said received but did not cause to be received the email, the email was sent after claims had stopped, and no evidence of use or reliance. Defense counsel should scrutinize whether passive receipt of an email suffices for wire fraud actus reus — likely preserved for appeal. |
| Financial Record | Exhibit M-10 | Pauline Roase's financial analysis showing Bushra Wholesalers spent approximately $622,000 on food. Defense noted this analysis excluded Manmabuyu invoices (approximately $463,000) and Diis Transportation invoices, on the ground the analyst 'didn't need to look' at them. | [p. 6584–6586] | Roase admitted she made no profitability calculation, excluded major vendor invoices from her analysis, and never searched the Bushra warehouse. Defense counsel should challenge Roase as an expert if she is called in his trial: she admitted to the SEC shell company definition test, and she conceded Bushra was not a shell company. Her methodology does not meet Daubert standards. |
| Document | Exhibit O-106 | Personal check from Said Shafii Farah with 'loan' written in the memo line, dated February 2022 — after search warrant execution. Introduced by government as alleged bribe payment to Hadith Ahmed through the Mizal Consulting connection. | [p. 6593–6598] | The bribery element requires Hadith Ahmed to have been an 'agent' of Feeding Our Future at the time of the alleged bribes. Defense established Hadith was fired by approximately June 20, 2021, while two of the checks (Counts 18 and 19) are dated September 9 and October 11, 2021 — after his termination. Agent status at time of payment is a required element and appears unproven as to at least two substantive counts. |
| Document | Rosters with 'Unique Problem,' 'Friday Donations,' 'Serious Problem,' 'Getsaname Hester' entries | Meal rosters submitted to MDE containing entries the government characterized as fake names. Presented during trial as evidence of intentional fraud. | [p. 6526–6527, 6541] | Defense argued these were volunteer notations on paper that were inadvertently included, not intentional fraud markers. No one would submit a roster labeled 'Unique Problem' with intent to defraud. Defense counsel should note: for SFSP open sites, rosters were not required at all, making the entire roster argument a regulatory mischaracterization — the government's fraud theory depends on rosters being a required claim element, but they were not for open sites. |
| Other | CLiCS system access | CLiCS (Claims/reporting system) was the platform through which sponsors submitted meal counts to MDE for reimbursement. Only sponsors had direct access to CLiCS. | [p. 6534–6535] | This is the single most powerful structural argument in the transcript: the fraud theory requires someone to have submitted false claims to MDE. The defendants did not have CLiCS access. The sponsors who did have CLiCS access were never called as witnesses. Kara Lomen — Executive Director of Partners in Nutrition, a private sponsor organization, NOT an MDE employee — who sent the 'turn off the errors' text message, was never charged, never interviewed by the FBI, and never testified. Defense counsel must press this accountability gap in his trial. |
Both Sapone and Schleicher gave strong, strategically distinct closing arguments. Sapone's 'top ten reasons to doubt' framework was methodical and memorable, with the Kara Lomen/CLiCS call-out being the single most powerful moment in the entire session — a direct attack on the structural gap in the government's case that no sponsor was ever held accountable or called to testify. Sapone effectively humanized Abdimajid Nur as a 20-year-old Army veteran working his first real job, and dismantled the government's lifestyle-as-fraud argument (honeymoon, jewelry, cars) by reframing each item. His critique of the investigation — no physical surveillance, no LPR, no cell site records, no contemporaneous witness interviews, no site visits in 2021 — was devastating and grounded in the record. Schleicher's argument was more legally precise and systematically dismantled each count against Said Farah, exploiting the most underappreciated fact in the case: that the government's opening statement falsely called Bushra Wholesalers a shell company, and the government's own witnesses refuted that characterization. Schleicher's identification of the Bushra warehouse search omission as confirmation bias, and his exploitation of Agent Kary's admission that he lacked probable cause to search Said's email account, were effective. Both attorneys effectively argued that Pauline Roase's financial analysis was methodologically defective. However, neither attorney had the benefit of directly cross-examining Kara Lomen — the sponsors remained conspicuously absent from the trial. The defense did not appear to have pressed the COVID-19 waiver framework as thoroughly as possible; references to the pandemic were made in terms of chaos and imperfect record-keeping, but the specific USDA waiver authorizations that permitted non-congregate pickup service (and thus eliminated the physical presence argument) were not argued with specificity. This is an opening Defense counsel can exploit.