Home / Trial II / Witnesses / Vol XVI
Trial II · 22cr223

Vol XVI

2025-03-07
Source PDF
Day Overview

Volume XVI opened with the continuation of forensic accountant Sonja Jansma's direct examination, covering the money-laundering purchase of two commercial properties — a $2.78M Minneapolis mansion (2722 Park Avenue) and a $2.6M Columbus, Ohio culinary institute (2435 Stelzer Road) — both funded entirely by child nutrition program proceeds funneled through entities controlled by Salim Said and partners. The government then shifted to Aimee Bock, using bank records and email notifications to show she personally signed checks and authorized wire transfers totaling ~$878,000 from Feeding Our Future to Handy Helpers LLC (her boyfriend Empress Watson's company), which was spent on exotic car rentals, designer goods, and personal expenses — plus an additional ~$124,000 in direct payroll payments to Watson for a grand total exceeding $1 million. After cross-examinations by both defense teams, the government formally rested; both defendants moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29, which the court denied. The day concluded with defendant Aimee Bock taking the stand in her own defense, beginning direct examination covering her background, the founding of Feeding Our Future, its nonprofit status, organizational structure, and claims-processing workflow — with the court sustaining multiple government hearsay objections to defense exhibits and limiting use of a demonstrative chart.

Government Strategy

On this day the government completed its case by finishing Sonja Jansma's direct examination with the final two money-laundering counts: the $2.78 million cash purchase of 2722 Park Avenue in Minneapolis and the $2.6 million purchase of a Columbus, Ohio property (2435 Stelzer Road), both traced 100% to Federal Child Nutrition Program funds through a network of shell entities tied to Salim Said and co-conspirators. The government then pivoted to Aimee Bock, using Jansma to document that Bock personally transferred nearly $900,000 in program funds from Feeding Our Future to her live-in boyfriend Empress Watson's LLC (Handy Helpers), and that the money was spent on Las Vegas trips, Lamborghini and Rolls Royce rentals, Louis Vuitton merchandise, jewelry, a Tesla, a Porsche, and a Mercedes-Benz — capped by the dramatic total that Bock directed over $1 million in child nutrition funds to Watson. The government rested after establishing this vivid lavish-spending narrative, seeking to convict on both fraud and money-laundering theories.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The government's most powerful evidence in this trial is the personal-benefit money trail: Bock personally signed checks and authorized wires to her boyfriend totaling over $1M in child nutrition funds, spent on Lamborghinis, Rolls Royces, Louis Vuitton, and jewelry documented in her own phone photos. If your client faces similar personal-benefit allegations, the defense theory must directly explain those facts — delegation and organizational structure arguments will not be enough. - The two commercial property purchases (Minneapolis and Columbus, both 2021) are potent because they required coordinated action across multiple entities and multiple defendants — the government's chart evidence (U19, U20) makes the flow visually compelling. Challenge the tracing methodology by identifying any non-program funds deposited into the intermediate accounts; even small amounts of legitimate funds undercut the '100%' language. - The Rule 29 arguments previewed by Montez are legally significant and worth preserving on appeal: (1) no direct evidence Said personally agreed to commit fraud before entering the program; (2) no direct evidence Said knew meal counts were fraudulent (no meal sheets signed by Said); (3) under Snyder, bribery requires a prior agreement — no evidence Said met Eidleh and agreed to kickbacks in April 2020. These are preserved appellate issues even though the court denied the motions. - Avoid the trap Udoibok fell into: do not re-walk the direct examination on cross. Jansma is a credentialed forensic accountant with 25 years of experience who knows her charts cold. Focus cross on methodology gaps (cash untraceable, co-mingling, no investigation of services provided), not on re-confirming what she said on direct. - Pre-certify all business records under FRE 902(11) before trial — the court in this trial repeatedly excluded FOF internal documents as not qualifying under the business records exception due to untrustworthiness. If you want to show FOF had genuine operations, bring the accountants, former staff, or MDE officials as live witnesses rather than relying on the defendant to authenticate her own documents.

Witnesses
Sonja Jansma
Forensic accountant (25 years of public accounting experience) called to trace the flow of Federal Child Nutrition Program funds through the defendants' financial networks and document money-laundering purchases.
IRS/Forensic Government
Direct Examination

Jansma completed her direct by walking through two money-laundering counts: (1) the July 2021 cash purchase of 2722 Park Avenue, Minneapolis ($2.78M), funded entirely by food-program proceeds flowing through Salim Said, Abdulkadir Salah, Ahmed Ghedi, and Ahmed Omar-Hashim; and (2) the August 2021 purchase of the Columbus, Ohio culinary institute ($2.6M) by Afrikan Village LLC, also 100% from child nutrition funds. She then documented that Aimee Bock personally signed checks and authorized wire transfers of approximately $878,000 from Feeding Our Future to her boyfriend Empress Watson's LLC, Handy Helpers, with proceeds spent on Lamborghini/Rolls Royce rentals, Louis Vuitton goods, jewelry, a Tesla, a Porsche, and a Mercedes-Benz — producing a summary exhibit (X100) showing Bock channeled over $1,003,043 in child nutrition funds to Watson.

▸
Jansma testified that 100% of the $2.78M used to purchase 2722 Park Avenue came from Federal Child Nutrition Program funds — equivalent to approximately 800,000 meals. — Cornerstone money-laundering count against Said; establishes intentional diversion of program funds into real estate. [p. 3553]
▸
Jansma traced the $2.6M Columbus, Ohio property purchase through Afrikan Village LLC to child nutrition funds at a rate of roughly one-third each from Abdulkadir Salah (3017 LLC), Salim Said (Salim Limited LLC), and Abdirahman Ahmed — 100% from program proceeds. — Second property money-laundering count; shows coordinated acquisition across multiple states. [p. 3576]
▸
Tunyar Trading and Horseed Management, purported food vendors that received millions from Stigma-Free International, were 'newly formed entities' that 'didn't buy food,' had no warehouse and no office. — Establishes shell-vendor structure at the heart of the Said group's fraud. [p. 3558]
▸
Round-number, large-dollar checks between entities caught Jansma's eye as a forensic accountant: 'That's not something you would typically see in a business that's purchasing goods.' — Expert opinion that transaction patterns are hallmarks of fraud, not legitimate commerce. [p. 3557]
▸
Aimee Bock personally signed every check and authorized every wire transfer from Feeding Our Future to Handy Helpers, and received email confirmation notifications of each transaction. — Directly ties Bock to the $878K flow of funds to her boyfriend's company; undercuts any 'I didn't know' defense. [p. 3591]
▸
Handy Helpers funds were used to rent a green Lamborghini Aventador ($2,297 for 24 hours) and black Lamborghini Urus ($1,800) in Las Vegas, January 2021 — photos from Bock's phone confirmed she was present. — Vivid spending evidence designed to show the jury that child nutrition money funded luxury lifestyle, not legitimate services. [p. 3605]
▸
On January 10, 2022 — the same day Bock wired $15,000 from Feeding Our Future to Handy Helpers — Empress Watson purchased a 2018 Mercedes-Benz GLE ($70,000) with a $10,000 cashier's check; the car was found with dealer plates still on it in Bock's garage 12 days later. — Timeline directly links Bock's transfer to the car purchase, supporting the money-laundering charge. [p. 3621]
▸
Summary exhibit X100 showed Aimee Bock paid her live-in boyfriend Empress Watson a total of $1,003,043 in Federal Child Nutrition Program funds — $878,503 to Handy Helpers and $124,530 in direct payroll from Feeding Our Future. — Single most damaging number against Bock; admitted without objection during redirect. [p. 3674]
Cross-Examination

Mr. Udoibok's cross focused on establishing that Aimee Bock was not a signatory on the Handy Helpers Wells Fargo account (Empress Watson was the sole signatory and controller), that all spending from the account was done by Watson, that Bock was not a registered member of Handy Helpers LLC, and that the investigation did not determine what legitimate services Watson provided to Feeding Our Future. Mr. Montez's cross was brief — he confirmed the distinction between Cosmopolitan Business Solutions (Safari Restaurant) and Cosmopolitan Business Properties, and established that both entities used to purchase real property had Salim Said as an owner. Udoibok's cross was largely ineffective: the judge told him at sidebar that the jury understood the points and he was just re-doing the direct, and Jansma effectively deflected the attacks on redirect.

▸
Udoibok established that Aimee Bock was not a signatory on the Handy Helpers bank account (W46) and that all spending transactions from that account were performed by Empress Watson. — Only meaningful concession — could support an argument that Watson controlled the account and Bock lacked knowledge of specific expenditures. [p. 3635]
▸
Jansma conceded she did not know what legitimate services, if any, Empress Watson performed for Feeding Our Future in exchange for the payments: 'No, there were no receipts or invoices that we were able to locate that supported that information.' — Opens a small door for the defense to argue Watson was a genuine contractor, though it is narrow given the volume of personal spending. [p. 3643]
▸
When asked who the Wedding Day Diamond jewelry was purchased for, Jansma admitted: 'No, I don't know who was wearing the jewelry' — having quipped she 'hoped' it was Bock. — Minor credibility point showing the witness assumed facts not in evidence; could be used to challenge her objectivity. [p. 3632]
▸
On recross, Udoibok asked whether Watson performed no function for Feeding Our Future; Jansma answered: 'I do not know what he did in the office.' — Preserves ambiguity about Watson's role, though the aggregate $1M+ in payments far exceeds any plausible contractor compensation. [p. 3675]
Vulnerabilities Jansma's analysis, while thorough, is purely financial — she did not investigate whether Watson performed any actual services, and she acknowledged the cash withdrawals (~$212K) are untraceable, which means she cannot account for all the money. Her comment about the jewelry being 'for Bock and not a different female' was an assumption that Udoibok highlighted, showing she occasionally slides from analysis into advocacy. Her tracing methodology for the property purchases relies on the assumption that all money in these accounts came from the fraud, but she acknowledged some co-mingling. The 'round number' transaction opinion is a soft expert opinion that could be challenged — round numbers are common in inter-company transfers for legitimate business reasons. Her knowledge about what actually happened at the sites is secondhand.
For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should press Jansma on: (1) whether the payroll/contractor payments to Watson could represent legitimate services — she admitted she didn't investigate this; (2) the tracing methodology used for the property purchases to determine whether any legitimate funds were co-mingled; (3) the cash withdrawal gap (~$212K) — she cannot say how it was spent, which is an incomplete picture; (4) whether Bock had any knowledge of specific expenditures from the Handy Helpers account she did not control; (5) her 'round number' opinion as a legal conclusion dressed as expert observation.
Aimee Bock
Defendant, founder and Executive Director of Feeding Our Future, testifying in her own defense about the legitimate founding and operations of the nonprofit.
Defense Defense
Direct Examination

Bock began her direct by establishing her background (elementary education degree, 10+ years in nonprofits, prior food program work at Providers Choice and Partners in Nutrition), the legitimate founding of Feeding Our Future as a 501(c)(3) in 2016-2017 (operational 2018), its IRS determination letter, its genuine organizational structure with management staff, board members, and claims-processing systems (CenterPilot, Monday.com). She attempted to introduce several defense exhibits — a Feeding Our Future job description (D1-665), an accounting services contract with Powered Books (D1-902, admitted), and a Jitasa accounting agreement (D1-904, excluded) — and used a demonstrative chart of the claims workflow (D1-1003, admitted as demonstrative only). The testimony was repeatedly interrupted by sustained government hearsay objections and judicial admonitions about the demonstrative chart.

▸
Bock testified she held degrees in elementary education, had worked in child care and nonprofits for 10-11 years, and had direct prior experience with food program sponsors before founding Feeding Our Future — establishing legitimate professional expertise. — Attempts to rebut the government's narrative that FOF was a fraud vehicle from inception; shows she had genuine sector knowledge. [p. 3689]
▸
Bock testified that Abdikerm Eidleh — the program support manager listed on the FOF organizational chart — was 'a horrible person' and 'a former consultant,' distancing herself from him. — Signals her trial narrative will blame Eidleh and others for misconduct she did not control; potentially a cooperating witness issue to probe. [p. 3699]
▸
Bock testified that a compliance specialist position was denied by MDE 'because it would be an attorney helping us,' suggesting MDE blocked internal compliance safeguards. — Potentially useful to show FOF was hamstrung in its compliance capacity — but could also show MDE was watching FOF closely. [p. 3701]
▸
Bock testified that claims processing was handled by staff (not her personally) through CenterPilot software with 'edit checks' and then through the Monday.com tracking system — she did not have the daily password for the claims email. — Core delegation defense: she was running a large organization, not personally reviewing every claim. [p. 3727]
Cross-Examination

Cross-examination of Bock had not yet begun as of the end of this volume — the day ended with Udoibok conducting direct, and the court broke for the weekend (Monday-Tuesday recess, resuming Wednesday). No cross has occurred in this volume.

Vulnerabilities Bock is highly vulnerable on the Handy Helpers payments — she personally signed the checks and authorized the wires, received email confirmations, and the money went to her boyfriend's company for his personal benefit. Her testimony that she 'did not have the password' for the claims email is weak given her admission that she could reset any FOF email as an administrator. The government will cross her hard on the $1M+ to Watson, the Las Vegas trips, the luxury cars, and the jewelry found in her home. Her characterization of Eidleh as 'a horrible person' may backfire — it looks like blame-shifting, and Eidleh has already been portrayed as someone she hired and supervised. Board members have testified they were nominal/sham, which directly contradicts her narrative of a properly governed nonprofit.
For Defense Counsel Defense counsel must consider whether calling Bock is wise in his own trial, given the extraordinary personal-benefit evidence. If Bock testifies, the key themes are: (1) genuine nonprofit founding and operations — substantiate this with independent witnesses; (2) delegation of claims processing and site monitoring to Eidleh and staff; (3) Watson's legitimate services to FOF (if any can be documented); (4) that the Handy Helpers payments, though improper, were not connected to the underlying meal count fraud; (5) MDE's role in approving sites and the argument that approved applications cannot constitute fraud.
Key Evidence
Type Exhibit Description Page Challenge Opportunity
Financial Record Gov. Ex. U19 Fund-flow chart created by Jansma tracing 100% of the $2.78M used to purchase 2722 Park Avenue, Minneapolis, from Federal Child Nutrition Program funds through Salim Said, Abdulkadir Salah, Ahmed Ghedi, and Ahmed Omar-Hashim. [p. 3553] Tracing methodology assumes all funds in intermediate accounts came from the program; any legitimate co-mingled funds would undercut the '100%' claim. Defense should request the underlying account data and trace for non-program deposits.
Financial Record Gov. Ex. U20 Fund-flow chart tracing 100% of the $2.6M used to purchase the Columbus, Ohio culinary institute (Afrikan Village LLC) to Federal Child Nutrition Program funds split roughly equally among Salim Said, Abdulkadir Salah, and Abdirahman Ahmed. [p. 3575] Same methodology issues as U19. Additionally, Jansma admitted she was 'not sure' whether the property was active as a culinary school when purchased — a potentially legitimate commercial purpose.
Document Gov. Ex. T32 Ohio Secretary of State filing for Afrikan Village LLC, registered May 18, 2021, by Abdirahman Ahmed, with stated purpose 'Connecting community to economic promise.' [p. 3570] Entity registration alone does not prove fraudulent intent; the stated purpose is benign.
Document Gov. Exs. FF8, FF9, FF16, FF17, FF22, FF24, FF30 Folders of meal counts recovered during the January 20, 2022 search of 2722 Park Avenue, covering ASA Limited, Olive Management (St. Cloud), Stigma-Free Mankato, Stigma-Free Willmar, Horseed Management, and Brava Restaurant — all showing approximately 2,000-3,000 meals served daily. [p. 3563] Mere possession of records at an address does not prove fabrication; the records could have been stored there for legitimate administrative reasons. Chain of custody and authenticity should be examined.
Financial Record Gov. Ex. X24 Sources and uses chart for the Handy Helpers LLC bank account (Wells Fargo W46): ~$878,503 in from Feeding Our Future, with outflows including $212K in cash withdrawals, $169K to Watson personal accounts, $71K in vehicle expenses, $50K travel, $20K entertainment/recreation. [p. 3587] The chart was created by government witnesses; defense should challenge categorization methodology and any allocation of legitimate business expenses. The $212K in cash is unaccounted for — could include legitimate costs.
Financial Record Gov. Ex. X100 Summary exhibit showing the total amount of Federal Child Nutrition Program funds Aimee Bock paid to Empress Watson: $1,003,043 (comprising $878,503 to Handy Helpers and $124,530 in direct Feeding Our Future payroll). [p. 3675] The payroll component ($124,530) requires showing the payroll was fraudulent — Watson was on FOF payroll at $33-$44/hour, and Jansma admitted she didn't know what he did in the office. The $878K Handy Helpers component depends on characterizing the payments as fraudulent rather than legitimate contractor fees.
Document Gov. Exs. S46, S47 ADP payroll tax authorization documents for Handy Helpers LLC listing Aimee Bock as contact and member, addressed to Bock's personal residence. [p. 3590] Signing an ADP payroll power of attorney as 'member' for tax-filing purposes does not necessarily mean she controlled the spending; Watson was the sole bank signatory.
Document Gov. Exs. BB50, BB51 Photos recovered from Aimee Bock's phone showing Watson posing with the green Lamborghini and Rolls Royce in Las Vegas, holding Louis Vuitton bags, and standing at the Las Vegas airport with Bock. [p. 3609] Going on a trip with a boyfriend does not prove knowledge that the funding source was fraudulent; Bock could argue she believed Watson was legitimately compensated by FOF.
Document Gov. Ex. BB15 Purchase agreement for a 2018 Mercedes-Benz GLE ($70,000) purchased by Empress Watson on January 10, 2022, with a $10,000 cashier's check funded by a same-day $15,000 wire from Feeding Our Future to Handy Helpers. [p. 3622] The car was in Watson's name and Bock was not the purchaser; the same-day timing is circumstantial (Bock could have been making a scheduled payment unrelated to the car).
Document Def. Ex. D1-902 Service agreement between Feeding Our Future and Powered Books Accounting Services (admitted), establishing that FOF had a legitimate bookkeeping relationship beginning January 2020. [p. 3717] Government could argue the accounting relationship was part of the cover for the fraud scheme.
Legal Rulings & Objections
⚖
Court sustained government hearsay objections to Def. Ex. D1-665 (Bock's FOF job description) twice, ruling it was not a legitimate business record under FRE 803(6) because it was not kept in the regular course of a regularly conducted business activity, and there were indicia of untrustworthiness under 6(e). — defense counsel's team should pre-certify any FOF internal documents under FRE 902(11) before trial or present them through a live business-records custodian; relying on the defendant to self-authenticate FOF documents will fail if the government contests legitimacy. [p. 3713]
⚖
Court sustained hearsay objection to Def. Ex. D1-904 (Jitasa accounting firm service agreement), same ruling — not a qualifying business record, lack of trustworthiness. — Same as above. Also consider whether a representative from Jitasa or Powered Books could be called to lay foundation for these records. [p. 3721]
⚖
Court ruled that Def. Ex. D1-1003 (Bock's claims-workflow demonstrative chart) could be used as a demonstrative only — not admitted as substantive evidence and will not go to the jury — and that it could not be used to lead Bock through her testimony. — Defense must have Bock testify organically about the claims process and only then use the chart to illustrate what she has already said; the chart cannot substitute for or lead testimony. [p. 3725]
⚖
Court denied Rule 29 motions for judgment of acquittal by both Udoibok (for Bock) and Montez (for Said), finding sufficient evidence to sustain conviction on all counts after considering all government evidence and applicable law. — The government's case survived the sufficiency threshold on all counts including conspiracy, wire fraud, programs bribery, and money laundering. Montez's argument that there was no direct evidence Said knew the money was fraudulently obtained, and no agreement with Eidleh before entering the program, were rejected — these are still viable arguments for closing but not for acquittal. [p. 3685]
⚖
Court overruled Montez's objection 'outside the scope' during Thompson's redirect of Jansma regarding how the Federal Child Nutrition Program is supposed to work and whether it is intended to be lucrative. — The court will allow the government to elicit expert/lay opinion on program purpose and norms during redirect; defense should be prepared to counter with its own witnesses or cross-examination on this point. [p. 3904]
⚖
At sidebar during Udoibok's cross of Jansma, the judge told him directly that he was 'simply redoing the direct' and that the jury was 'confused as to what's happening,' admonishing him to move on. — The judge is managing defense cross actively. Defense counsel should prepare targeted, efficient cross-examinations with clear objectives, not comprehensive re-walks of direct testimony. [p. 3654]
Prior Defense Performance

Udoibok's cross of Jansma was strategically weak. His core theory — that Bock did not control the Handy Helpers account and Watson was the one spending — was valid but he hammered it so repetitively and ineffectively that the judge intervened at sidebar to tell him to stop. His most valuable concessions (Watson was sole signatory; Watson made all expenditures; no evidence of what Watson did for FOF) were buried under redundant exhibit-by-exhibit re-walks. He missed major opportunities: he never confronted Jansma on the tracing methodology for the two property purchases, never challenged the '100%' sourcing claim by asking about any legitimate co-mingled funds, never explored whether Watson's payroll at $33-$44/hour for 40 hours/week could represent legitimate compensation, and did not ask Jansma whether she interviewed anyone at FOF to understand what Watson actually did. The $1M+ summary exhibit (X100) was admitted without objection on redirect — a significant failure, as at minimum Udoibok should have objected to its demonstrative use and the calculation methodology. Montez's cross was brief but appropriately targeted — he clarified the entity distinction (Cosmopolitan Business Solutions vs. Properties) without damaging his client further. On Bock's direct, Udoibok was repeatedly thwarted by the court for trying to use the demonstrative chart as a script and by the government's hearsay objections to FOF internal documents. He should have pre-arranged FRE 902(11) certifications for business records and lined up accounting firm representatives. The decision to put Bock on the stand is extremely high-risk given the $1M+ transfer evidence directly tied to her personally.