Trial II · 22cr223

Vol III

2025-02-11

Day Overview

Volume III covers the entirety of Wednesday, February 11, 2025. The day opened with cross-examination of MDE supervisor Emily Honer, which consumed the morning and much of the afternoon, with both defense teams probing MDE's oversight failures, its approval of inflated meal counts, and COVID waiver complexity. Honer's redirect was damaging: she disclosed that after being forced to lift a stop-pay on claims she believed were fraudulent, she called the FBI. Benjamin Stayberg, a bartender who barely knew Bock, testified he never served on the Feeding Our Future board despite appearing in fabricated board minutes and training documents with forged signatures—a direct strike at the legitimacy of the nonprofit's governance documents submitted to regulators. Cooperating witness Lul Ali, owner of Lido Restaurant in Faribault, provided emotionally charged testimony that she and her husband were instructed by Abdikerm Eidleh and Aimee Bock via video calls to claim serving 1,000 to 1,600 meals per day when they never did, and that she paid $30,000 in cash per month in kickbacks; she and her husband received nearly $5 million and bought two houses. Kevin Erdman of Associated Bank closed the day by describing how the bank's internal BSA compliance process independently flagged and shut down the Safari Restaurant accounts when large federal deposits were not matched by food-supply expenditures. Defense counsel should pay close attention to the gaps in Lul Ali's ability to corroborate direct contact with Bock (she never called Bock herself, all FaceTime was on Eidleh's phone) and to MDE's own approval of 5,000-meal-per-day applications.

Government Strategy

The government spent this day completing its presentation through Emily Honer (MDE) by buttressing the narrative that Feeding Our Future and Aimee Bock exploited COVID-era waivers, submitted fraudulent meal claims far exceeding any plausible capacity, and received enormous sums while paying kickbacks to facilitators. With Benjamin Stayberg, the government demonstrated that Bock fabricated a board of directors using real people who had no knowledge of or role in the organization, establishing the fraudulent corporate structure of Feeding Our Future. With cooperating witness Lul Ali, the government built its most potent direct evidence: a site operator who pled guilty, described receiving instructions from Bock via FaceTime to falsely inflate meal counts, and admitted paying $30,000 monthly in cash kickbacks directed to Bock and Eidleh. With Kevin Erdman of Associated Bank, the government showed that an independent financial institution detected the suspicious money flows—large deposits from federal reimbursements with no corresponding food-supply expenditures—and closed the Safari Restaurant accounts in October 2020.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- THE EIDLEH PROBLEM: Virtually all direct evidence linking Bock to actual site-level fraud runs through Abdikerm Eidleh, who appears to have fled the United States. Ali never spoke to Bock directly—all communication was on Eidleh's phone. The government's entire kickback theory depends on Eidleh's role as intermediary. Defense counsel should investigate Eidleh's location, any cooperation status, and whether phone records actually confirm regular calls between Eidleh and Bock during the cash-collection visits. If those records are sparse or absent, the government's corroboration problem is significant. - MDE'S OWN APPROVALS AS A CORE DEFENSE: MDE approved 5,000 meals per day after human review (Gov. Ex. V1). MDE's automated system approved claims for 3,500+ per day without any human review. MDE bypassed its own edit-checks via internal CLiCS notes for COVID waivers. MDE was forced by a court to lift its stop-pay. These facts, presented coherently, support a good-faith reliance defense: Bock operated under approvals MDE itself granted, and MDE's own conduct was at least as contributory to the problem as Bock's. - AVOID THE RACE THEME IN CROSS OF MDE WITNESSES: The Udoibok team suffered a serious blow when Honer, a Native American, gave an emotional account of experiencing racism herself in response to questions that implied MDE was racially motivated. Defense counsel should find a different framing for the legitimate point that MDE treated FOF sites differently—focus on the regulatory/procedural arguments rather than racial animus. - FOCUS CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THE APPROVED APPLICATION VERSUS ACTUAL CLAIMS GAP: MDE approved specific meal counts and then allowed the CLiCS system to process claims far above those approved counts without any human review. The government is prosecuting the high numbers as fraud while simultaneously having approved them administratively. This structural contradiction in the government's case should be a centerpiece of defense counsel's defense. - OBTAIN COMPLETE FINANCIAL RECORDS ACROSS ALL INSTITUTIONS: Erdman's testimony is based solely on Associated Bank records. His conclusion that food purchases were absent is limited to one institution. If defense counsel's client operated sites, comprehensive records from all financial institutions—including food vendors, Sysco/US Foods invoices, SNAP-eligible food purchases—could directly rebut the 'no food was bought' narrative that underlies the government's case.

Witnesses

Emily Honer

Director of Nutrition Program Services at Minnesota Department of Education; primary MDE administrator who oversaw sponsor and site applications for CACFP and SFSP programs during the relevant period.

MDE Government

Direct Examination

Honer testified on direct (prior volume) about MDE's administration of CACFP and SFSP, MDE's growing concerns about Feeding Our Future's implausibly large meal counts, the stop-pay MDE placed on claims, and that she ultimately called the FBI when she was forced to lift that stop-pay without her concerns being resolved.

▸

After MDE was forced to lift the stop pay due to a court hearing and USDA guidance, 'I called the FBI.' — Establishes MDE as the source of the criminal referral. Shows the government's case originated from a regulatory dispute, not surveillance or independent detection. Defense may argue MDE had institutional bias after being sued by Bock. [p. 535]

▸

Feeding Our Future and sites under its sponsorship obtained nearly $200 million in Federal Child Nutrition Program funds in 2021, and Feeding Our Future retained up to 15 percent—roughly $20-plus million. — The government's central financial motive argument. Establishes the scale of the alleged scheme and Bock's personal financial incentive as sponsor. [p. 547]

▸

The sponsoring authority certification on every CLiCS claim states: 'I understand that this information is being given in connection with the receipt of federal funds... deliberate misrepresentation may subject me to prosecution under applicable state and federal criminal statutes.' — Government's notice and scienter argument—Bock certified every claim knowing criminal liability attached to false submissions. [p. 531]

▸

MDE approved a Safari Restaurant application estimating 5,000 meals per day for morning snack and lunch, approved by a human being. — Critical for defense: MDE itself approved the very numbers it now claims were implausible. Undermines the government narrative that 5,000 meals per day was obviously fraudulent. [p. 506]

▸

The internal CLiCS note shows MDE staff (KP/Kendra Pace) placed a notation 'In order to bypass claim edits for COVID-19 waivers of noncongregate and child care, site listed as nonprofit until June 30, 2020.' — Shows MDE itself manipulated its own system to accommodate COVID waivers—defense can argue it was MDE, not Feeding Our Future, that created ambiguity in how sites were classified and approved. [p. 500]

▸

Honer acknowledged that Bock filed a lawsuit against MDE alleging racial discrimination after MDE questioned Feeding Our Future's site applications. — Opens a contested narrative that MDE's scrutiny of FOF sites was racially motivated, which Bock used as a defense during the program itself. On redirect, Honer (a Native American) emotionally denied racism, which may have rehabilitated her credibility. [p. 545]

Cross-Examination

Udoibok's cross was wide-ranging but uneven. He scored points on MDE's approval of massive meal counts, the computer-automated claim approval process, MDE's lack of obligation to do site visits, and COVID waiver complexity. Colich's cross was briefer, focusing on the incomprehensibility of regulations for non-experts and the COVID noncongregate waiver's impact. However, both defense counsel failed to press some key lines of attack, and Honer's redirect (calling the FBI, Bock's racism lawsuit tactic) left a damaging impression.

▸

MDE approved a site application for Safari estimating 300 meals per day, yet the CLiCS system later approved claims for 1,179 (April 2020), 2,928 (May 2020), and 3,589 (June 2020) average daily attendance. — Defense argument: MDE's own automated system approved claims well above the approved application limit without human review, showing systemic failure rather than sponsor fraud. [p. 482-487]

▸

Claims are approved by the CLiCS computer system, not a human being: 'That is correct.' MDE does not have staff that approve individual claims. — Undermines the government's argument that Bock deceived MDE reviewers. If no human reviewed the claims, there was no human deceived in the claims-submission process. [p. 482]

▸

MDE approved 5,000 meals per day for Safari under the SFSP program application, and that approval was made by a human being. — Government-approved the very meal volumes it later called impossible. Opens a defense that Bock relied on MDE's own approval. [p. 506]

▸

Honer conceded that MDE has no regulatory obligation to conduct site inspections upon initial application—'I do not believe so.' — Weakens the government's implicit claim that Bock should have known MDE would uncover the fraud through inspections. MDE's own laxity is part of the causation. [p. 464]

▸

Honer admitted that when Bock provided clarification that FOF employees would staff the restaurant sites (Gov. Ex. F7), 'that clarification did not allow us to stop those sites any longer, as what was being provided to us by the sponsor was in line with what could be operated.' — MDE itself found Bock's representations sufficient to continue program participation. Defense can argue Bock acted in good faith based on MDE acceptance. [p. 533]

▸

Udoibok elicited that Bock's lawsuit alleged that 'the only difference between Feeding Our Future sites and the majority of other sites was on account of race and national origin.' — Preserves the discrimination defense narrative for defense counsel's use, even if Honer's emotional redirect partially defused it at trial. [p. 548]

▸

A USDA email (Def. Ex. 764) that Honer sent requesting clarification on for-profit participation was blocked from evidence as hearsay. The court ruled neither the business records exception nor party-opponent exception applied. — Defense lost a document that could have shown MDE itself was unsure whether for-profits could participate—supporting a good-faith reliance argument by Bock. This exclusion should be challenged or worked around in defense counsel's trial. [p. 447-449]

Vulnerabilities Honer's core vulnerability is MDE's own conduct: it approved implausible meal counts through an automated system it knew did not have human review, approved 5,000-meal-per-day applications for a small restaurant, lacked any obligation to visit sites before approval, inserted internal notes to 'bypass claim edits' for COVID waivers, and was ultimately sued for racial discrimination by Bock before calling the FBI. She testified she had 'concerns' about Safari but approved it anyway because she lacked 'evidence'—yet the same standard she now applies retrospectively was never communicated to Bock at the time. Her admission that she called the FBI only after being forced by a court to lift a stop-pay is a double-edged sword: it shows she believed fraud was occurring, but it also shows MDE was weaponized only after losing a regulatory battle. Her racism charge history (she was named in the Bock lawsuit) makes her a biased witness whose cooperation with the FBI could be cast as retaliation.

For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should focus cross on: (1) the specific written communications MDE sent to Bock before the FBI referral that were ambiguous or permissive; (2) the full list of sites MDE approved with meal counts in the thousands—showing Bock's sites were treated identically to others; (3) whether MDE provided any training to sponsors on what 'unrealistic' meal counts looked like; (4) the prior civil lawsuit outcome and whether MDE changed its conduct after the lawsuit; (5) whether USDA's Midwest Regional Office ever formally rejected or audited Feeding Our Future's claims during the program period. The excluded USDA email (D1-764) may be reachable under a different evidentiary theory in defense counsel's trial.

Benjamin Stayberg

Bartender from St. Paul who knew Aimee Bock as a bar customer; appeared in Feeding Our Future's corporate documents as board president and board chair with forged signatures, without his knowledge or consent.

Other Government

Direct Examination

The government established that Stayberg was listed as board president on the Feeding Our Future org chart (Gov. Ex. A3) and appeared in fabricated board meeting minutes (Gov. Ex. A80) with forged signatures certifying multiple meetings he never attended, including meetings with Aimee Bock, Jamie Phelps, John Senkler, and Ikram Mohamed. He also appeared in board training quiz documents (Gov. Ex. A2) with a forged signature. He learned of this only when the New York Times published his name and he was subsequently served a subpoena.

▸

Stayberg: 'No. I serve drinks.' Asked whether he had extensive knowledge of food sourcing and food costs as the board minutes claimed—he denied it and said he was a bartender. — Establishes that the board of directors was a fiction. Feeding Our Future submitted fabricated governance documents to MDE to satisfy nonprofit legitimacy requirements. [p. 565]

▸

Stayberg testified that the signatures appearing on board minutes certifying their accuracy on multiple dates (November 2018, January 2019, July 2019, March 2020, July 2020) were 'not my signature. Not my handwriting.' — Establishes document fabrication. The government can argue Bock (or someone acting at her direction) forged these documents to maintain the nonprofit's regulatory standing with MDE. [p. 569-571]

▸

Stayberg recalled that Bock asked him at Bennett's bar to 'sign my name to like a support' for 'a new deal she was starting'—he understood it as a petition, not as joining a board of directors. — Provides a narrow possible defense opening: if Stayberg's original signature was obtained under the pretext of a 'petition,' subsequent forged board minutes may be someone else's work, not necessarily Bock personally. However, the government attributes all of this to Bock. [p. 558]

Cross-Examination

Udoibok's cross was brief and focused on whether Stayberg could identify who specifically created the forged documents or signatures. Stayberg acknowledged he did not know who wrote his name on the documents and could not recognize Bock's handwriting. Colich declined to cross-examine. The cross did not meaningfully undercut the government's evidence.

▸

Stayberg could not identify who specifically forged his name and signature on the board minutes: 'I have no idea who did it, but I know it wasn't me.' — Creates a small gap—the government did not elicit a direct admission that Bock personally forged the documents, only that forged documents were found in Feeding Our Future's files. Defense counsel could potentially argue another actor created false governance documents. [p. 577]

Vulnerabilities Stayberg is a sympathetic, credible witness for the government—he had no motive to lie and was clearly harmed by being publicly named in the fraud scandal. His weakness is that he cannot identify who specifically forged his signatures. The board minutes were certified and submitted by Aimee Bock (per the documents), but his testimony only establishes that someone forged the signatures—not that Bock personally did so. Additionally, he does acknowledge Bock asked him to 'sign something' at the bar, which could mean his original signature was obtained voluntarily for some other purpose, with subsequent documents forged without his involvement.

For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should investigate whether there is any handwriting expert analysis linking the forged signatures to Bock specifically. If not, the government may be relying on the inference that Bock controlled the entity and therefore is responsible. Defense counsel could explore whether other Feeding Our Future employees (Ikram Mohamed, compliance manager Rhyddid Watkins) had access to and control over governance documents. The question of who actually prepared, filed, and stored these documents with MDE may be answerable through discovery.

Lul Ali

Owner of Lido Restaurant in Faribault, MN; also served as vendor for her husband's nonprofit SAFE; pled guilty to fraud charges and agreed to cooperate; testifies about fabricating meal counts at the direction of Abdikerm Eidleh and Aimee Bock, and paying $30,000/month in cash kickbacks.

Cooperating Witness Government

Direct Examination

Ali testified that a man named Shafi recruited her into the Feeding Our Future program at her small nine-table restaurant in 2020, then handed her off to Abdikerm Eidleh. Eidleh taught her how to complete fabricated meal count sheets using a hand-clicker, told her to claim 1,000 meals per day (later raised to 1,300 and then 1,600), and collected $30,000 per month in cash kickbacks. Ali testified that after each cash collection, Eidleh would FaceTime Aimee Bock from his phone, Bock would confirm receipt of funds, and encourage Ali to open additional facilities. She and her husband received nearly $5 million from the program and purchased two houses.

▸

Ali testified that Eidleh and Bock told her to claim 1,000 to 1,600 meals per day when her small nine-table restaurant could never have served that many: 'No. Never in my life.' — Direct admission from a site operator that meal counts were fabricated and that the instruction came from above—from Feeding Our Future's leadership. [p. 593-608]

▸

Ali: 'Everything is lie. They know that. She know me. Aimee and he know. They teaching us to do it.' — Directly implicates Bock in knowing the meal counts were false and directing the scheme. This is the government's central cooperator testimony. [p. 608]

▸

$30,000 per month in cash was paid to Eidleh after each reimbursement check, with Eidleh then conducting a FaceTime call with Bock to confirm receipt. 'That miss— if you don't pay you don't enjoy the program. That's the part of the deal.' — Establishes a kickback mechanism from sites to Bock through Eidleh. If believed, this is the government's strongest evidence of Bock's personal enrichment from fraud. [p. 598-599]

▸

Ali and her husband's site SAFE claimed to feed 2,500 children per day, seven days a week, with Ali as vendor: 'No.' — asked whether they actually served that many children in Faribault. — Extends the fraud narrative from Lido to the SAFE organization, showing the scheme was expanded at Bock and Eidleh's direction to multiply the fraudulent revenue streams. [p. 623]

▸

Ali and her husband received nearly $5 million from Feeding Our Future in 2020 and 2021, and used it to buy two houses and a car. — Establishes the financial scale of Ali's fraud and, by extension, the overall scale of the scheme. [p. 624]

Cross-Examination

Udoibok's cross was hampered by the language barrier but surfaced critical points: Ali never directly contacted Bock—all alleged communication was through Eidleh's phone; there is no phone record linking Ali to Bock; Eidleh left the United States in 2021 and has not contacted Ali since; Ali admitted she was 'scared and nervous' when initially interviewed and was not fully forthcoming the first day; and she acknowledged she submitted the fraudulent meal counts knowingly and voluntarily because 'I need the money.' The cross exposed that Bock's involvement was entirely filtered through Eidleh, whose credibility and location are in question.

▸

'You never communicated with her [Bock]?' — 'I never communicated with her. Absolutely.' Ali confirmed she never called Bock on her own phone, never had Bock's number, and all FaceTime was on Eidleh's device. — There are no direct communications between Ali and Bock on any device. The government's link between Bock and the kickback scheme runs entirely through Eidleh, who is now believed to be outside the United States. [p. 633]

▸

Udoibok implied that the government has Bock's phone and there is no record of communication with Ali. Thompson objected 'Facts not in evidence' and the court sustained—but the implication was made before the jury. — If true, the absence of direct communications between Bock and Ali on any device would substantially undercut Ali's testimony about Bock's direct role. [p. 647]

▸

Ali admitted she did not tell the truth when first interviewed by agents: 'That day, no.' She was 'scared, nervous' and said 'I don't want to talk about a lot. I'm looking [for a] lawyer.' — She initially withheld information from investigators, which is a credibility vulnerability. She eventually cooperated, but the initial non-disclosure can be used to challenge reliability. [p. 629]

▸

Eidleh left the United States in 2021; Ali has not communicated with him since and does not know exactly when he left. — Eidleh, the primary person Ali actually interacted with, is unavailable for cross-examination and potentially beyond U.S. jurisdiction. This raises Confrontation Clause considerations and means the jury cannot evaluate his credibility. [p. 648]

Vulnerabilities Ali is a sympathetic figure who cries on the stand, expresses remorse, and frames herself as a naive community member who was exploited by sophisticated schemers. However: (1) she admits she knew from the beginning the meal counts were lies and did it for money; (2) she never directly communicated with Bock—all alleged Bock involvement is mediated through Eidleh, who is not available; (3) there are no direct phone or FaceTime records linking Ali to Bock; (4) she initially misled investigators; (5) she is testifying under a cooperation agreement hoping for a reduced sentence; (6) her English-language comprehension difficulties create questions about whether she fully understood all questions and answers; (7) her characterization of Bock as the mastermind comes not from her direct interaction with Bock but from her interpretation of what Eidleh told her and what she 'saw' on Eidleh's FaceTime screen.

For Defense Counsel Defense counsel must aggressively pursue Eidleh's communications with Bock on Feeding Our Future's end—does the government have records of Eidleh calling Bock after each cash collection, as Ali described? If Eidleh's phone records do not confirm these calls, the testimony falls apart. Defense counsel should also explore: (1) whether Ali's plea agreement required her to implicate Bock specifically; (2) the full financial records showing what Eidleh did with the $30,000 cash—did any of it reach Bock; (3) whether Eidleh, if he returns or cooperates, tells a different story; (4) whether other Faribault-area participants in the program can corroborate or contradict Ali's account. The language barrier during cross-examination was also underexploited—a professional interpreter-assisted cross in defense counsel's case would be important.

Kevin Erdman

Corporate Bank Secrecy Act Officer at Associated Bank for 12 years; testified about the bank's BSA compliance process that led to closure of Safari Restaurant (Cosmopolitan Business Solutions LLC), Salim Limited LLC, and ASA Limited LLC accounts in October 2020.

Other Government Government

Direct Examination

Erdman explained the Bank Secrecy Act compliance framework, including customer identification, anticipated activity baseline, and monitoring for suspicious transactions. He testified that an internal referral was generated when a bank officer learned that Safari Restaurant claimed to be feeding 5,000-6,000 children per day. His team investigated the accounts and found that large federal reimbursement deposits were not matched by corresponding food-supply expenditures, but instead flowed to account owners via large withdrawals. The bank closed all three related accounts (Safari Restaurant, Salim Limited LLC, ASA Limited LLC) after determining the activity was outside its risk tolerance.

▸

Associated Bank's investigation found 'we did not see the funds or use of funds used to pay food suppliers'—instead there were 'large dollar withdrawals and transfers to the signers and owners of the accounts.' — Independent third-party financial corroboration that the money was not spent on food. Supports the government's theory that the reimbursements were fraudulently obtained and converted. [p. 665]

▸

The bank closed Safari Restaurant's accounts by October 2020 after its remedial action committee determined the activity was outside its risk appetite. — Establishes an independent institutional alarm bell in fall 2020, contemporaneous with MDE's concerns. Shows the fraud was detectable to third parties based on financial patterns alone. [p. 667]

▸

The trigger for the investigation was a bank officer learning during account opening that the restaurant claimed a contract to feed 5,000-6,000 children per day. — The government uses this to show that even a front-line bank employee recognized this claim was implausible for a restaurant account. Defense hearsay objection was overruled as it went to notice, not truth. [p. 664]

Cross-Examination

Udoibok elicited one key concession: Aimee Bock had no account with Associated Bank. He also obtained an admission that the bank's analysis was limited to its own records and could not see expenditures at other financial institutions. Montez (for Said) established that a bank's risk determination does not equal a finding of fraud. Both crosses were brief and efficient.

▸

Erdman confirmed Aimee Bock had no account with Associated Bank: 'She did not.' — Bock was not a signatory on or connected to the Safari/ASA accounts that Associated Bank closed. The suspicious accounts belonged to Salim Said and related entities, not Bock directly. [p. 668]

▸

Erdman acknowledged: 'It is possible for a customer to open accounts at multiple financial institutions'—meaning the absence of food-supply payments in the Associated Bank accounts does not prove no food was purchased. — Creates reasonable doubt argument: the bank could not see what was happening at other banks or with cash transactions. Its conclusion of suspicious activity was based on incomplete information. [p. 668]

▸

Montez elicited: 'Sometimes risk can lead to fraud, but not always; is that true?' — 'That is correct.' — Establishes that the bank's risk determination is not a legal finding of fraud and should not be treated as evidence that fraud actually occurred. [p. 669]

Vulnerabilities Erdman is a professional, neutral-seeming corporate compliance officer with no apparent bias. His primary vulnerability is that his analysis was limited to Associated Bank's records—he cannot testify about what was spent at other institutions or in cash. The bank closed accounts based on its own internal risk tolerance, not on a determination of fraud. Additionally, he could not identify the specific account that first triggered the investigation without the documents in front of him. His testimony does not establish that no food was purchased—only that food purchase payments did not appear in these particular accounts.

For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should obtain comprehensive bank records for all entities associated with the restaurant(s) at issue in his client's case across all financial institutions. If Salim Said or the relevant site operators can show food purchases at other banks, Erdman's testimony is substantially undermined. Additionally, the government's hearsay objection to the 5,000-6,000 children claim being offered for notice was correctly preserved—Defense counsel should be prepared to contest the admissibility of this in his trial.

Key Evidence

Type	Exhibit	Description	Page	Challenge Opportunity
Document	Gov. Ex. A3	Feeding Our Future organizational chart listing Benjamin Stayberg as board president, John Senkler as board secretary, and Jamie Phelps as board treasurer.	[p. 557]	The org chart does not itself prove who created it or when. No handwriting analysis was introduced. The defense could argue an employee other than Bock created the document.
Document	Gov. Ex. A2	Folder of Feeding Our Future board training documents from fiscal year 2019, including household income quizzes, claims for reimbursement quiz, meal counts quiz, and procurement quiz—all bearing what purport to be Benjamin Stayberg's signature.	[p. 561-564]	No forensic document examiner testified to authenticate the forgeries or link them to Bock. The government relies on Stayberg's denial. A document examiner comparing signatures to Bock's known handwriting was not introduced.
Document	Gov. Ex. A80	Feeding Our Future board meeting minutes across multiple dates (November 2018, January 2019, July 2019, March 2020, July 2020), listing Stayberg as attending and bearing his forged signature as certifying accuracy.	[p. 564-571]	The minutes state they are 'certified by Aimee Bock' but that may refer to a different administrative certification, not that Bock forged Stayberg's signature. The forgeries could have been made by other Feeding Our Future staff.
Document	Gov. Ex. V3	CLiCS claim submission forms for Safari Restaurant under Feeding Our Future sponsorship, showing average daily attendance of 1,179 (April 2020), 2,928 (May 2020), and 3,589 (June 2020).	[p. 481-487]	Claims were approved by MDE's automated computer system—no human at MDE reviewed or questioned them at the time of submission. The approval mechanism itself created no human safeguard.
Document	Gov. Ex. V2	CACFP site application for Safari Restaurant as a distribution site, approved by MDE, showing licensed/approved capacity of 300 meals and a COVID waiver notation by MDE staff.	[p. 488-502]	The application was approved by MDE; internal CLiCS notes show MDE itself bypassed normal edit checks due to COVID waivers. Defense argues Feeding Our Future relied on MDE approval.
Document	Gov. Ex. V1	SFSP site application for Safari Restaurant for June-July 2020, approved by MDE, showing estimated total children served of 5,000 for morning snack and 5,000 for lunch, approved by a human being at MDE.	[p. 502-510]	The most powerful defense exhibit in the volume: MDE approved 5,000 meals per day after human review, which directly contradicts the government's narrative that these numbers were obviously fraudulent.
Document	Gov. Ex. F7	Written clarification from Aimee Bock to MDE in October 2020 stating that Feeding Our Future's trained staff and volunteers would be staffing the restaurant sites, including Safari, ASA Limited, Brava, and Lido.	[p. 533]	MDE itself found this clarification sufficient to continue the program without stopping payments. This undermines the argument that Bock's response was deceptive—MDE accepted it.
Document	Gov. Exs. Q40-Q46	Series of emails from Lul Ali (lidorestaurants20@gmail.com) to Abdikerm Eidleh at Feeding Our Future, attaching meal count sheets for July 2020 through April 2021, showing identical daily counts of 900-1,000 (later rising to 1,300 and 1,600).	[p. 605-619]	The emails were sent by Ali to Eidleh, not to Bock directly. Ali testified on cross that she never directly communicated with Bock. The chain between these documents and Bock runs through Eidleh, who is unavailable.
Document	Gov. Ex. Y2	Photo of Abdikerm Eidleh, identified by Ali.	[p. 598]	Eidleh's absence from trial and apparent flight from the jurisdiction suggests he may have information that conflicts with both Ali's and the government's narrative. His unavailability may be exploitable.
Document	Gov. Exs. W3, W23, W13	Associated Bank signature cards for: (1) Cosmopolitan Business Solutions LLC d/b/a Safari Restaurant (account opened July 2010, Salim Said became sole signatory in June 2019); (2) Salim Limited LLC (opened August 1, 2020, Salim Said owner); (3) ASA Limited LLC (opened September 9, 2020, signatories Abdihakim Ahmed, Salim Said, Ahmed Ghedi).	[p. 658-662]	These exhibits are the basis for the bank investigation that is largely relevant to Salim Said (Defendant 3), not Aimee Bock (Defendant 1). Bock had no account at Associated Bank.

Legal Rulings & Objections

⚖

Defense Exhibit 764 (Honer's email to USDA seeking clarification on for-profit participation) excluded as hearsay. Court rejected business records exception and party-opponent exception, ruling USDA email content was offered for truth of the matter asserted. — The defense lost a potentially powerful document showing MDE's own uncertainty about for-profit eligibility rules. For defense counsel's trial, consider whether USDA guidance documents (policy memos, formal clarifications) might be introduced through a different route—e.g., subpoenaing a USDA witness who can authenticate and testify to them directly, or using them under the official records/public records exception. [p. 447-449]

⚖

Defense Exhibit D1-606 (Honer's email to Bock taking 'no position' on fraud) excluded as hearsay. Court ruled it was offered for truth of the matter asserted. — The government noted on sidebar that continued cross on this topic would open the door to redirect testimony about House of Refuge/Sharon Ross kickback allegations—evidence that Bock terminated a site for not paying kickbacks to FOF. Defense wisely backed off. This sidebar warning should alert defense counsel to a sensitive area where cross-examination of Honer could backfire. [p. 466-468]

⚖

Lul Ali's testimony about Shafi's statements ('you make more than that,' 'more than thousand meal per day') was admitted over hearsay objection as coconspirator statements under the procedure the court established at the beginning of trial. — The court has a standing procedure for conditionally admitting coconspirator statements during trial. Defense counsel needs to ensure his client's case has a robust pretrial motion establishing the boundaries of this procedure, particularly regarding statements by Eidleh, Shafi, and others not charged as defendants. [p. 593]

⚖

Kevin Erdman's testimony about being told the restaurant fed 5,000-6,000 children per day was admitted over Colich's hearsay objection. Court ruled the statement was offered not for truth but for notice—i.e., what information caused the bank to investigate. — The 'offered for notice, not truth' exception is being applied broadly. Defense counsel should be prepared to contest this in his trial if the government attempts to introduce similar out-of-court statements under this theory. [p. 664]

⚖

Court overruled objection to Thompson's redirect about Bock's lawsuit accusing MDE of racism, and overruled renewed objection allowing Honer to testify about experiencing racism herself as a Native American tribal member. — The defense's use of race as a theme in cross-examination opened the door to highly sympathetic redirect from Honer. Defense counsel must be careful about injecting race into cross-examination of MDE witnesses without a well-developed strategy for controlling the redirect. [p. 545-546]

⚖

Discussion at morning break: Government disclosed plan to call Special Agent Jared Kary in two separate phases—initial testimony later in the week, with a recall for additional topics at a later trial date. Defense did not object but reserved rights regarding specific testimony content. — Kary will be a significant government witness called in multiple stages. Defense teams need to track what he testifies about in the first appearance to shape cross-examination and preserve objections for the recall. [p. 494-495]

Prior Defense Performance

Udoibok's cross of Honer was the most substantive work of the day and produced real value: extracting admissions that MDE approved 5,000-meal-per-day applications after human review, that CLiCS automatically approved claims without human oversight, that MDE had no obligation to do site inspections, that MDE was forced by a court to lift the stop-pay, and that MDE itself used COVID waivers to bypass its own system edit-checks. However, Udoibok left significant opportunities unexploited: (1) He failed to build a coherent narrative from these concessions, leaving their cumulative impact diffuse; (2) He did not effectively use the COVID waiver complexity to establish that even MDE was confused about the rules; (3) He attempted to introduce two key defense exhibits (D1-764 and D1-606) without adequate advance evidentiary planning, having both excluded; (4) His injection of racial bias as a theme in cross-examination backfired disastrously, triggering Honer's emotionally powerful redirect about her own Native American heritage and experience with racism; (5) His cross of Stayberg was brief but did produce the useful concession that no one can identify who forged the signatures. On Ali, the cross was hampered by the language barrier but surfaced the critical absence of direct communications between Ali and Bock—however, Udoibok failed to press this with specific phone-record questions or to effectively develop the Eidleh-as-sole-link theme. Colich's cross of both Honer and Ali was brief and largely non-damaging, with Colich's Honer cross actually helping the defense by developing the COVID complexity theme. Colich's Erdman cross was efficient (two questions, one useful concession). Overall, the prior defense team did reasonable work on cross-examination but left the jury without a coherent alternative narrative, and the racial bias gambit was a costly mistake.