Trial II · 22cr223

Vol XI

2025-02-26
Source PDF
Day Overview

Volume XI covers the full trial day of February 26, 2025 before Judge Brasel in Minneapolis, with five witnesses for the government and no defense witnesses. The day opened with Cerresso Fort, a St. Paul boxing gym owner, who testified that his business SIR Boxing Club was enrolled by Feeding Our Future as a food site without his knowledge or consent, with 2,500 daily meals falsely claimed under his address and Aimee Bock's handwritten name on the submission documents. Jamie Phelps, a 49-year-old mechanic, testified he agreed in passing at a neighborhood bonfire to serve on a FOF board but never showed up, reviewed a budget, or signed any document — yet his forged signature appeared on state charity registration forms, tax filings, and fabricated board meeting minutes sent by Aimee Bock. Farhiyo Moalim, a bookkeeper at TFS (Total Financial Solutions owned by the Salah family), described scanning rosters and invoices brought by food-site operators who then met privately with Salim Said and Abdulkadir Salah (Fish) in the locked 'Safari room' at 2722 Park Avenue. Bank of America custodian Jessica Woodbridge established federal jurisdiction by proving a $2.47 million wire from the Afrikan Village LLC account crossed state lines through Texas servers. IRS Special Agent Joshua Parks closed the day with a devastating statistical analysis: of rosters claiming thousands of children fed at multiple sites, as few as 3 percent of names matched real students in local public schools, and names like 'Putify Nop' and 'Amen Love' appeared simultaneously at multiple sites with wildly shifting ages — conclusive evidence of fabricated rosters. Defense counsel must pay close attention to the Parks cross where Udoibok extracted that Parks only joined the investigation in February 2024, post-indictment, and cannot say whether Bock personally opened any of the emails sent to the shared claims inbox.

Government Strategy

The government used this day to build the human face of the fraud — calling a real community figure (Cerresso Fort, boxer and gym owner) whose business name and address were misused without his knowledge, and a phantom board member (Jamie Phelps, a mechanic) whose forged signature appeared on Feeding Our Future's founding and compliance documents. Against that backdrop, TFS employee Farhiyo Moalim placed Salim Said and his associates at the center of a meat-processing hub for fraudulent rosters and kickback payments, while Bank of America witness Jessica Woodbridge established federal wire fraud jurisdiction. IRS Special Agent Joshua Parks then delivered the analytical coup de grace — comparing the roster names against 193,249 real Minnesota school children and finding match rates as low as 3 percent, identifying fictitious names (Putify Nop, Amen/Praise/Blessings Love, Cerresso Fort) copied across sites, and documenting ages that randomly changed across submissions. The government's overarching narrative was that every layer of the fraud — site names, children's names, ages, board members, signatures, invoices — was fabricated, and that both defendants were knowledgeable recipients or active participants in the scheme.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The regulatory waiver argument (USDA Q19/D1-224) is potentially significant and was preserved by Udoibok at the end of the day. If the USDA issued guidance that attendance records were waived during COVID, and if rosters were voluntary under USDA rules, then a key pillar of the fraud theory collapses. Defense counsel must immediately investigate this document and find a USDA or MDE regulatory expert who can testify that roster submission was optional — or at least that the regulatory landscape was sufficiently ambiguous to negate willful knowledge of a legal duty. - Parks's statistical analysis is the most dangerous exhibit in the case for any FOF-connected defendant. Defense counsel must retain a forensic data expert to challenge the methodology before the evidence becomes settled in the jury's mind. Key attack points: (1) name-matching algorithm does not account for Somali/East African transliteration variants; (2) the 20-district comparison set does not include charter schools, Islamic private schools, or other education settings common in the target communities; (3) Parks was a post-indictment hire working backward from a pre-formed theory. - Exhibit A75 (Bock's email to MDE clarifying the SIR Boxing/Arcade distinction) is potentially the single most important exhibit for Bock's defense and was never properly introduced. Defense counsel should build an entire line of examination around it — possibly through the MDE official who received it, proving Bock proactively corrected site naming issues and distinguished between SIR Boxing and another nonprofit operating in the building. - The shared claims@feedingourfuturemn.org email inbox is a critical gap in the government's evidence against Bock. Parks admitted he cannot prove Bock opened or reviewed any specific fraudulent roster. Defense counsel must press this in every future examination of government agents and analysts — the government's theory requires Bock to have known about the fake rosters, but the shared inbox means any of multiple FOF employees could have processed claims submissions. - The Farhiyo Moalim testimony establishes a second hub of fraud (TFS / 2722 Park Ave / the 'Safari room') that is clearly connected to Said and the Salah family but largely disconnected from Bock. Defense counsel should emphasize this structural separation — the kickback payments from food sites to Salim Limited were not routed through FOF, Moalim never saw Bock at TFS or received meal counts from her, and the day-to-day fraud operation appears to have been orchestrated at the TFS building rather than at FOF's offices.

Witnesses
Cerresso Fort
Owner of SIR Boxing Club (St. Paul boxer/gym owner) whose business name and address were used without his knowledge as a Feeding Our Future food site, falsely claiming up to 2,500 daily meals.
Other Government
Direct Examination

Ebert established that Fort never agreed to participate in any food program, never served or authorized the service of meals at his gym, and was shocked to see SIR Boxing Club enrolled by FOF with Aimee Bock's handwritten name on the submission documents and listed as site monitor. Fort confirmed that his gym (basement of 1440 Arcade Street, Suite E, capacity roughly 25-30 people) could not physically accommodate 2,500 daily meals, and that he was not present on days like the 4th of July or Halloween when the records showed thousands of meals served.

Fort testified that he was never informed SIR Boxing Club would be used in the food program: 'Never. I have never agreed on, okayed that my business be used for anything.' — Directly undermines any defense argument that Bock had consent or authorization from a site operator. [p. 2344-2345]
MDE documents (Exhibits P6, P7, P8, P10) showed Aimee Bock's handwritten name as site sponsor and site monitor for SIR Boxing Club, and the email used was aimee@feedingourfuturemn.org. — Ties Bock personally and directly to submission of false site documentation using a real business without consent. [p. 2344-2348]
Exhibit P7 showed 2,500 meals claimed every day during the week of July 4, 2021 — a holiday when Fort said his gym was closed and he was with family. — Specific factual falsity: meals claimed on a day the site was closed and the purported site operator was elsewhere. [p. 2348]
Summary exhibit X1 showed $1.8 million paid out under 'Feeding Our Future, Arcade' — Fort received none of it. — Money flowed to someone else, establishing the theft from the program and Bock's benefit at Fort's expense. [p. 2375]
Civil rights training documents (page 9 of P6) showed Aimee Bock listed as trainer and Malcolm Watson as attendee, dated July 28, 2020 — Fort had no knowledge of any such training at his location. — Illustrates fabrication of compliance records required by MDE, with Bock's name attached. [p. 2346]
Cross-Examination

Udoibok's cross attempted to show that (1) the complex was known as 'the Arcade' not just SIR Boxing; (2) Fort admitted food was in fact being distributed to his gym members on Saturdays by someone upstairs; (3) later FOF documents labeled the site 'Arcade' not 'SIR Boxing'; and (4) Fort didn't know who the food operator upstairs was. The cross partially succeeded in creating ambiguity about whether someone else in the building was independently operating a food program, but Fort's emphatic testimony that the numbers were 'outrageous' and that he 'didn't see it' limited the damage.

Fort admitted food was given out on Saturdays to kids from his gym — 'they will leave, and they will go upstairs and get, and get food.' He described it as 'apples, fruit and different things.' — Defense will argue some legitimate food distribution occurred at the location, undercutting government's implied position that zero food was served. [p. 2354-2355]
Exhibits P7, P8, and P10 listed the site as 'Arcade,' not 'SIR Boxing,' and Fort confirmed his name was not on those documents. — Opens door to argument that a different entity in the building was operating the food program, and Bock may have updated the site name appropriately. [p. 2368-2371]
Fort: 'I don't know what was going on. I don't know. I can't speak on that' regarding deliveries. — Fort has significant limits to his personal knowledge — he doesn't know what was happening upstairs, who was operating, or how food was distributed beyond his gym door. [p. 2355]
Vulnerabilities Fort's most significant vulnerability is his own admission that food was actually being distributed at the Arcade complex on Saturdays — he saw kids leave with food, and individuals brought food outside. He does not know who operated the food program upstairs, whether meals were delivered offsite, or what the numbers were. His knowledge is limited to his Suite E basement and the parking lot. The government's 2,500/day number comes from FOF paperwork, not from Fort's observations. Fort also acknowledged that 'the Arcade' was how people referred to the complex, and that later documents used 'Arcade' as the site name rather than SIR Boxing. The defense argument in Exhibit A75 (an email from Bock to MDE clarifying that SIR Boxing was never a FOF site and that a different nonprofit operated there) was excluded for Fort but represents a potentially important piece of exculpatory evidence that a competent defense team should have introduced through a different witness.
For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should explore Exhibit A75 (Bock's email to MDE clarifying the SIR Boxing/Arcade distinction) through an MDE witness or Bock herself. The defense should also call or subpoena whoever was actually running the food distribution upstairs at the Arcade — if a separate nonprofit was legitimately operating there, the government's use of Fort as a 'victim' witness loses most of its force. Cross should focus on: (1) Fort doesn't know the numbers served, only that some food was distributed; (2) the site name was changed to 'Arcade' in MDE records, suggesting Bock corrected the initial labeling error; (3) $1.8 million went somewhere — the defense should trace where and whether it matches a legitimate operator at that location.
Jamie Phelps
A 49-year-old mechanic from St. Paul who was listed as Board Treasurer of Feeding Our Future on state registration forms, tax filings, board meeting minutes, and compliance quizzes — none of which he signed or attended.
Other Government
Direct Examination

Bobier established that Phelps had minimal contact with Aimee Bock (roughly 4-5 conversations at neighborhood bonfires and a local pub), agreed once in passing to serve on a board without understanding the nature of the organization, and was never again contacted about it. Yet his name and forged signature appeared repeatedly on state charity filings (Exhibit A5), tax forms (Exhibit A77 showing Bock's $120,000+ salary), board meeting minutes (Exhibit A80 showing him 'present' and 'approving budgets' at meetings he never attended), and compliance training quizzes. Phelps testified he was angry to see his name on these documents and only learned of his purported role when he returned from Mexico in 2022 to find media coverage linking him to $250 million in fraud.

Phelps: 'I said yes' to board membership in one conversation at a bonfire, without any follow-up, and 'I have never worked with Feeding Our Future with anything.' — Establishes that Bock recruited phantom board members — people with no relevant qualifications who provided no oversight — to satisfy nonprofit governance requirements. [p. 2395-2399]
Exhibit A5 (state charity registration) contained Phelps's name as Treasurer with a signature he denied: 'That is not my signature. I did not sign this document. I never gave anyone permission to sign it for me.' — Evidence of document forgery by or at the direction of Bock — a standalone serious crime and indicative of consciousness of guilt. [p. 2404-2405]
Exhibit A80 (board meeting minutes) showed Phelps marked as 'present' and 'approved budget' at multiple meetings from November 2018 through 2020, all fabricated: 'I have never been to a board meeting.' — Demonstrates systematic fabrication of governance records submitted to regulators — not just a paperwork error but a sustained pattern of fraud. [p. 2415-2419]
Board co-members Ben Stayberg (bartender) and John Senkler (bartender) also had no nonprofit or financial qualifications: Phelps said he 'wouldn't trust [Senkler] with my piggy bank.' — Corroborates pattern that FOF's entire board was a fiction — selected from social acquaintances with no oversight capacity. [p. 2400-2401]
Exhibit A76 (October 2021 email from Bock) listed Phelps as volunteering 5 hours per week — false. Exhibit A29 (June 2020) said 1-2 hours per month — also false. — Bock repeatedly and knowingly submitted false compliance information to regulators over multiple years, reinforcing willfulness. [p. 2408-2409]
Cross-Examination

Udoibok's cross was very brief — only three questions. He established that Phelps was not accused of receiving money from FOF, not accused of signing any document that gave FOF money, and that Phelps knew Coley Flynn (Bock's associate) better than Bock. The cross made no real dent in the testimony.

Phelps confirmed no one accused him of receiving money from FOF or signing documents that gave FOF money. — Marginal — defense signaled Phelps is not the target but did not challenge the core testimony about forged signatures. [p. 2422]
Vulnerabilities Phelps is a very strong witness for the government with limited vulnerability. His emotional testimony ('pretty angry... I'm in federal court for something I know nothing about') is genuine and persuasive. The only weakness is that his initial 'yes' to board membership at a bonfire, while informal, is an actual agreement — Udoibok could argue Bock reasonably relied on that consent in filing the initial paperwork. However, the sustained forgery across years of documents (2018 board minutes through 2021 emails) far exceeds any reliance argument. His inability to identify the signature as his — or even recognize it as similar to his — is particularly damaging because it rules out authorized signing by an agent.
For Defense Counsel defense counsel's best angle is to challenge whether the forged signatures were Bock's work personally or done by an FOF employee or accountant without her specific direction. The Hussein Hashi tax preparer email (A77) shows at least one intermediary involved. If Bock delegated compliance paperwork to staff who filled in names from an early roster, and Bock never personally forged signatures, there may be a gap in the willfulness proof. The defense should subpoena all FOF staff who handled compliance filings to determine who physically completed these forms.
Farhiyo Moalim
Bookkeeper/payroll clerk at Total Financial Solutions (TFS), an accounting firm owned by the Salah family adjacent to Safari Restaurant, who scanned hundreds of food program rosters and invoices brought by food site operators who then met privately with Salim Said and Abdulkadir Salah.
Other Government Government
Direct Examination

Thompson established that Moalim worked at TFS starting fall 2020, processing payroll for Salim Said-connected food sites including Safari Restaurant, ASA Limited, Olive Management, Horseed Management, and Brava Restaurant. Operators of these sites would arrive at TFS at month-end, hand her paper rosters and invoices to scan (which she then emailed to the site's claims address), and then meet privately with Said and Abdulkadir Salah in a locked room she called the 'Safari room' at 2722 Park Avenue. She scanned rosters showing uniformly round, impossibly large meal counts (3,000/day, 6,000/day) and invoices in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moalim identified Said in court. On redirect, Thompson showed her records of six-figure checks written from food site accounts to Salim Said's LLC (Salim Limited) — Horseed Management paid $155,000 on Feb. 8, 2021; Olive Management paid $229,000 on Feb. 22, 2021; Brava Restaurant paid $42,000 on Feb. 17, 2021.

Moalim identified the 'Safari room' at 2722 Park Ave as a private meeting room used exclusively by Said and Abdulkadir Salah where food site operators would meet after dropping off rosters: 'Nobody knows what goes in there... nobody's allowed to go in there.' — Establishes a secret coordination hub — physical evidence of a conspiracy hub where claims were organized and kickbacks arranged. [p. 2444-2445]
Moalim scanned invoices for Safari Restaurant for $554,000 and meal counts showing 3,500 meals/day for Olive Management, 6,000 meals/day for Safari, 2,000 meals/day for ASA — all described as typical: 'Yes. Big numbers like that. Consistent numbers.' — Corroborates that the impossible numbers were a known and routine pattern within TFS, not isolated errors. [p. 2447-2448]
On redirect: food site operators (Horseed Management, Olive Management, Brava Restaurant) brought checks payable to Salim Said's LLC (Salim Limited) when they came to TFS — $155,000, $229,000, $42,000 respectively. — Direct evidence of kickback payments from food sites to Said — the money trail connecting fraudulent reimbursements to Said's personal enrichment. [p. 2514-2516]
Moalim on seeing the investigation documents: 'That's why they're here... all the big checks, all the identical-looking meal counts, the secret meetings in the Safari room.' — Witness retrospectively confirmed her own understanding that what she observed was fraudulent. [p. 2501-2502]
Cross-Examination

Udoibok's brief cross established that Moalim never received a meal count from Bock, never wrote Bock a check, and never visited the FOF building. Colich's cross for Said was more extensive, trying to establish that Moalim only processed payroll under direction, didn't know what the operators discussed in the Safari room, and that approval for paperwork came from her boss Salah, not from Said directly.

Moalim: 'No' to receiving any meal count from Bock, and 'Not that I know' to writing Bock a check, and 'No' to ever visiting FOF. — Distances Bock from the TFS-based kickback operation — useful for Bock's defense but actually confirms Said's centrality. [p. 2502]
Colich cross: Moalim confirmed Salah (her direct boss) directed her on checks, and that each company's owners could contact her for payroll. She did not know the content of Safari room meetings. — Said's defense may argue Salah (not Said) controlled TFS operations, but Moalim directly identified Said as 'Blackie' who was at the office 'almost every day.' [p. 2508-2509]
Vulnerabilities Moalim is a limited English speaker who was not sophisticated enough to understand the fraud at the time — she processed paperwork mechanically. Her testimony connecting Said to the Safari room meetings and to the kickback checks is powerful but indirect (she didn't witness what was discussed). Colich may argue that Salah controlled TFS and Said was merely a co-owner of Safari who happened to be present. Moalim also cannot explain the full financial flows or identify who directed the fraudulent rosters. Her credibility could be attacked on the basis that she worked for the Salah family and could have knowledge of their misconduct that she is minimizing.
For Defense Counsel For the Said defense, Defense counsel should focus on whether Moalim can actually distinguish between Salah and Said's respective roles in the Safari room. She said meetings were with 'Fish and Blackie,' but she doesn't know their content. The checks to 'Salim Limited' need to be traced — what services were ostensibly invoiced? If Said had a legitimate consulting or management role with these food sites, the payments may be defensible. Also explore whether TFS bookkeeping practices were directed solely by Salah (the boss) and Said was merely a co-owner of the building, not the accounting operation.
Jessica Woodbridge
Vice President at Bank of America (Dallas, Texas) called solely to establish federal jurisdiction by confirming that a $2.47 million wire from Afrikan Village LLC's account traveled through Bank of America servers in Richardson, Texas, establishing interstate wire fraud.
Other Government Government
Direct Examination

Woodbridge briefly confirmed that Bank of America's wire transfer servers were located in Virginia, Texas, and Missouri during 2020-2022, and that a specific $2.47 million wire (Exhibit Z57, Count 57) was initiated at a Bank of America branch in Worthington, Ohio, traveled through the Richardson, Texas, server, and was received by Stewart Title Company at U.S. Bank — establishing interstate wire fraud jurisdiction.

Wire Z57 (Count 57): $2,471,112.41 sent from Afrikan Village LLC account (sole signatory Abdirahman Ahmed) through Texas BofA server to Stewart Title Company — a real estate transaction. — Establishes federal jurisdiction for Count 57 and shows fraud proceeds funding a real estate purchase. [p. 2520-2523]
Cross-Examination

No cross from either defense counsel.

Vulnerabilities Woodbridge's testimony is narrow and purely jurisdictional. She has no knowledge of the underlying transactions or the identity of the defendants. The only challenge would be to contest whether the wire was truly 'interstate' if the server routing can be disputed, but this is a highly technical and unlikely avenue.
For Defense Counsel No meaningful cross-examination opportunity. Defense counsel should accept this foundation and focus energy elsewhere.
Joshua Parks
IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent who joined the case in February 2024 and conducted a comprehensive analysis comparing food program rosters against enrollment records of 193,249 real Minnesota school children across 20 districts, finding match rates as low as 3 percent and documenting systematic fabrication of names and ages.
IRS/Forensic Government
Direct Examination

Parks presented the most analytically devastating testimony of the day. He compiled summary exhibits (LL2-LL10) showing that rosters submitted by multiple Feeding Our Future-sponsored sites had child name match rates of roughly 3 percent against real school enrollment records, that the same fictitious names appeared simultaneously across multiple sites with randomly shifting ages (e.g., a child aging from 16 to 14 to 11 to 7 in four months), that fabricated names including 'Putify Nop,' 'Amen Love,' 'Praise Love,' 'Blessings Love,' and 'Cerresso Fort' (the actual adult boxer) appeared in rosters, and that age-generating formulas were embedded in the Excel spreadsheets producing the rosters. He established that both Bock and Said received email rosters directly, and that rosters were found at FOF's office, at the Safari Park Avenue location, and in emails between defendants.

Of 2,043 names on ASA Limited rosters sent to Aimee Bock (September) and Salim Said (October 2021), only 65 names — about 3 percent — matched real children in the St. Paul school district. — Statistically annihilates the possibility that the rosters represented legitimate child attendance. [p. 2546-2548]
A single individual's age changed from 16 (in a roster sent from Ahmed to Said) to 14 (submitted to FOF) to 11 (in FOF files) to 7 (in Safari Park Avenue physical files) across four months — all for the same purported child. — Proves the rosters were generated by formula, not by recording real children — the age-shifting is mechanically impossible otherwise. [p. 2582-2583]
Names 'Amen Love,' 'Praise Love,' and 'Blessings Love' appeared simultaneously at Stigma-Free St. Paul, Southcross (Burnsville), and Willmar in December 2021, with different ages each time. None found in 193,249 school records. — A single set of fabricated names being reused across multiple geographically distinct sites proves coordination and systematic fraud. [p. 2588-2591]
The name 'Cerresso Fort' — the actual adult boxing gym owner who testified earlier that day — appeared multiple times in Stigma-Free Mankato rosters as a supposed child, aged as young as 2 years old. — Especially powerful because the jury heard Fort testify earlier in the same day, making the absurdity of the fabrication visceral and human. [p. 2594-2596]
Multiple duplicate names ('Putify Nop,' appearing twice on the same Southcross list) and copy-pasted rosters with age-generating Excel formulas: Parks confirmed 'Many, many more names very, very similar to this that are copied across different sites at the same time.' — Establishes a production process — spreadsheet-generated rosters were manufactured in bulk, not individually reported. [p. 2585-2591]
Cross-Examination

Udoibok's cross focused on three areas: (1) Parks joined the investigation in February 2024, post-indictment, undermining his neutrality; (2) Parks could not say whether Bock personally opened the emails sent to the shared claims@feedingourfuturemn.org inbox; (3) Parks did not know whether rosters were required by regulation, leading to a sidebar and end-of-day ruling that Parks was not the right witness on the regulatory question. The cross was partially effective on the Bock-specific knowledge points.

Parks: 'I don't have evidence if she [Bock] opened the document or received this email' regarding specific emails to claims@feedingourfuturemn.org. 'I understand Ms. Bock has access to that shared... account.' — Critical gap for Bock's defense — Parks cannot prove Bock personally reviewed any specific fraudulent roster. Her knowledge of the fraud must be proven circumstantially. [p. 2598-2599]
Parks joined the investigation in February 2024, after the indictment, and did his roster analysis from November 2024 through trial week. Udoibok: 'Your investigation was not, you weren't doing it as a neutral.' Parks: 'I came in with an open mind.' — Opens a bias argument — Parks is a late-joining analyst hired to build a case already charged, not a neutral investigator. His methodology can be challenged. [p. 2600-2601]
Parks: 'I don't know' whether rosters were required as a condition of the food program. Judge ruled Parks was not the right witness on the regulatory waiver issue (USDA Q19 document Exhibit D1-224), which Udoibok argued waived attendance record requirements. — The defense preserved a regulatory argument — if rosters were not required, their submission cannot support a fraud theory (no legal duty to submit accurate records). This needs a proper regulatory witness. [p. 2602-2609]
Vulnerabilities Parks is analytically credible but has several exploitable weaknesses. First, he joined post-indictment and his methodology was developed for trial, not as independent investigation. Second, his school-record comparison has a fundamental limitation — he used 20 districts, not all Minnesota districts, and many children in immigrant communities may attend schools in smaller districts or be homeschooled, affecting the baseline. Third, his match-rate analysis assumes the school districts provided complete data for the relevant demographic — if they did not, match rates could improve. Fourth, he cannot testify about what Bock personally knew or saw. Fifth, the regulatory question (whether rosters were legally required) remains unresolved and could significantly undercut the government's theory if properly litigated.
For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should hire an expert statistician or data analyst to challenge Parks's methodology: (1) What is the false-negative rate in his name-matching algorithm? Spelling variations, transliterations of Somali/East African names, and data entry errors could artificially suppress matches. (2) Were the 20 school districts representative of the communities actually served by these food sites? The government's sites were in Somali-American communities — children in those communities may attend charter schools, private Islamic schools, or be homeschooled in numbers that would not appear in the public school records. (3) The regulatory waiver argument (D1-224, USDA Q19) should be developed through an MDE or USDA regulatory expert — if rosters were optional, their inaccuracy is not fraud. (4) For Bock specifically, the shared email inbox argument is powerful — press any future government analyst on whether there is individualized proof Bock saw, processed, or approved specific fraudulent rosters.
Key Evidence
Type Exhibit Description Page Challenge Opportunity
Document Gov. Ex. P6 Feeding Our Future file labeled 'Permanent File' containing MDE site application, meal count forms, civil rights training records, and compliance documents for SIR Boxing Club — with Aimee Bock's handwritten name as site sponsor and site monitor. [p. 2344-2350] The defense argued (via sidebar with Exhibit A75) that Bock later emailed MDE clarifying that SIR Boxing was never a FOF site and a different nonprofit operated there — this exculpatory email was not admitted through Fort but should be pursued.
Data/Summary Gov. Ex. LL2 Agent Parks's summary chart showing enrollment figures for 193,249 students across 20 Minnesota school districts — the baseline used to compare fraudulent roster names. [p. 2529-2532] Only 20 districts used; does not account for charter schools, private schools, homeschools, or districts outside the 20 selected. The selection methodology should be challenged.
Data/Summary Gov. Ex. LL3 Parks's summary chart of 20 email messages containing rosters for 10+ Feeding Our Future-sponsored food sites, showing sender/recipient, number of roster names, and percentage matching real school enrollment records. [p. 2542-2546] The name-matching algorithm and its error rate are not disclosed; spelling variation in Somali/East African names could artificially suppress match rates.
Data/Summary Gov. Ex. LL10 Parks-created summary exhibit tracking three distinctive names — Amen Love, Praise Love, Blessings Love — across multiple food sites (Stigma-Free St. Paul, Southcross Burnsville, Willmar) with different ages at each site in the same month. [p. 2587-2591] Defense can argue these names were entered by site operators independently and Feeding Our Future merely transmitted what it received, without verifying. Parks himself acknowledged FOF received these as submissions.
Financial Record Gov. Ex. Z57 Bank of America wire transfer record for $2,471,112.41 from Afrikan Village LLC (Abdirahman Ahmed, sole signatory) to Stewart Title Company via Richardson, Texas, servers — establishing Count 57. [p. 2519-2523] The wire's connection to food program fraud proceeds must be established through separate financial tracing — Woodbridge only proved the wire occurred, not that the funds were fraudulently obtained.
Document Gov. Ex. A5, A29, A76, A77, A80 Feeding Our Future state charity registration, board member emails, tax filings, and board meeting minutes submitted by Bock listing Jamie Phelps as Treasurer and board member — all containing forged signatures and false representations about his participation. [p. 2402-2419] The defense may argue Bock relied on an FOF employee or accountant (e.g., Hussein Hashi, the tax preparer) to complete paperwork, and that she did not personally forge signatures. Bobier countered this is a statement of a party opponent and notice evidence.
Document Gov. Ex. N4, N10, N14, N15, N41 Emails and scanned documents showing Farhiyo Moalim at TFS scanning food program rosters and invoices (Safari Restaurant, ASA Limited, Olive Management) with impossibly uniform large meal counts. [p. 2438-2454] These show Moalim scanned documents on instruction — they do not independently prove Said directed the fraudulent content, only that he co-owned the building where processing occurred.
Legal Rulings & Objections
Court sustained government objection to Udoibok's question asking whether Feeding Our Future was 'requiring rosters as a means of making certain that sites comply with the number of children they would have fed' — ruled argumentative speculation through Parks. — Defense cannot use Parks to introduce its 'rosters were internal compliance tools, not required by USDA' theory. Must find the right regulatory witness. [p. 2602]
End-of-day ruling (jury excused at 4:46 p.m.): Court ruled Parks was 'not the right witness to testify about what the regulations required with respect to rosters.' Udoibok was permitted to ask Parks if he is 'familiar with the USDA regulations as to the requirements of rosters' but not to introduce the USDA Q19 document (D1-224) through him. Court noted another witness may properly testify on regulations. — Defense preserved the regulatory waiver argument and must now identify and call an appropriate regulatory expert (USDA or MDE official) to establish that rosters were not required, potentially defeating part of the fraud theory. [p. 2604-2609]
Court overruled government objection to Udoibok's question about COVID attendance waivers during 2020-2022 being directed to Parks — Parks admitted he 'heard of waivers.' — Parks's acknowledgment of waivers, however limited, gives the defense a toehold to argue the regulatory landscape was ambiguous during the pandemic. [p. 2601]
Court overruled Udoibok's hearsay objections to Bock's emails (Exhibits A29, A76) admitted as statements of a party opponent under FRE 801(d)(2). — Government can freely introduce Bock's own written representations (including false board member hours) without hearsay barriers — this is standard but significant. [p. 2406-2409]
During recross of Fort, Court sustained government objections and ruled Udoibok could not use Fort to introduce A75's content (Bock's email to MDE about the SIR Boxing name change) — Fort lacked personal knowledge. — Exhibit A75 remains potentially powerful exculpatory evidence for Bock but needs to be introduced through a proper foundation witness (MDE official or Bock herself). [p. 2382-2386]
Prior Defense Performance

Udoibok's performance was mixed. His cross of Fort was creative in extracting that food was actually distributed at the Arcade complex, that later documents called the site 'Arcade' not 'SIR Boxing,' and that Fort had limited personal knowledge of what happened upstairs — but he failed to land Exhibit A75 (the Bock MDE email) which was his most important piece. He also let the emotional redirect (Ebert rehabilitating Fort's connection to his gym and his outrage at seeing his name misused) undo much of the cross's work. His cross of Phelps was ineffectively brief — three questions — when there were several productive angles available (e.g., exploring whether Bock's staff completed the paperwork, or whether the initial verbal agreement created any legal board membership). His approach to Parks was substantively the strongest — he extracted the critical 'I have no evidence she opened the email' admission and preserved the regulatory waiver argument — but he lost control at the end with the waiver question and was unable to develop the USDA Q19 argument before the judge shut it down. Udoibok repeatedly telegraphed his legal arguments through questions rather than letting witnesses answer, drawing multiple 'argumentative' and 'calls for speculation' sustained objections. He did not object to the government's leading style or to Parks's sweeping conclusory statements ('The names are fake. The ages are fake. The rosters are fake.'). Colich's cross of Moalim for Said was longer but similarly unfocused — he attempted prior-statement impeachment questions that were properly objected to as improper under the rules, and ended without a clear narrative that would help Said. Neither defense attorney called any witnesses or introduced any exhibits on this day.