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

Vol XVIII

2025-03-13
Source PDF
Day Overview

Volume XVIII covers a single witness — defendant Aimee Bock — through continued direct examination by her attorney Kenneth Udoibok and then an extensive, hard-hitting cross-examination by AUSA Joseph Thompson. On direct, Bock walked the jury through office photos, renovation expenses paid to her romantic partner Empress Watson's company (Handy Helpers, roughly $871,500–$1 million), her internal fraud-detection practices (red folders, investigations, terminations), her sale of The Learning Journey child-care LLC to Salim Said's group for $310,000, and flat denials of every count. Cross was the dominant and most significant event of the day: Thompson methodically showed that Bock enrolled Salim Said's entities (Safari Restaurant, ASA Limited, Olive Management, Stigma-Free Willmar, Stigma-Free Mankato, Brava Restaurant) days after they were incorporated, certified meal counts of 3,000–6,000 kids per day starting from day one, signed checks totaling over $40 million to Said-affiliated sites, texted Said personally about check readiness, appealed MDE's attempted shutdowns of those same sites, and received $310,000 from Said's company the very next day after paying them $476,000 in federal funds. The most significant moment was Thompson placing side-by-side on screen the $476,000 check Bock signed to Cosmopolitan (Said's company) on August 12, 2021 and the $310,000 cashier's check from that same Cosmopolitan account payable to Bock personally the following day — framing the daycare sale as a kickback. Defense counsel should pay close attention to Bock's impeachment on the MDE discrimination speech (Gov. Ex. R39 video), her appeals of fraudulent sites, her password-protected spreadsheet tracking payments (Gov. Ex. BB53b), and her admission that she texted Said with check images and site-approval updates.

Government Strategy

The government used cross-examination of defendant Aimee Bock to systematically dismantle her direct-examination narrative that she was a diligent fraud-fighter. Prosecutor Thompson methodically traced the full lifecycle of fraudulent claims: Bock submitted site applications for newly-created shell entities affiliated with co-defendant Salim Said, certified inflated meal counts via the CLiCS system, and personally signed the reimbursement checks — netting Feeding Our Future a 10 percent administrative fee on every dollar. The government sought to establish that Bock had direct, personal knowledge of the suspicious patterns (5,000 to 6,000 meals per day from day one at brand-new sites), communicated regularly with Said about checks and site approvals, received $310,000 from Said's company the day after paying them $476,000 in federal funds — and that her claimed ignorance is implausible. The government also targeted her credibility by demonstrating that she appealed MDE's denials of fraudulent sites, held public rallies to pressure MDE, sued an MDE employee for defamation when he raised fraud concerns, and testified falsely before the jury that she had never personally accused MDE of discrimination.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The $310,000 check timing is the single most dangerous piece of evidence in this volume. Defense counsel must either (a) obtain independent valuation evidence for The Learning Journey showing $310,000 was a fair market price for the Southcross food distribution site, equipment, lease position, and goodwill — independent of any food program connection to Said — or (b) concede the coincidence and argue the government cannot prove the payment was in exchange for favorable treatment rather than a legitimate commercial transaction that happened to close at the same time as a routine reimbursement payment. - The CLiCS certification language is the legal fulcrum of the wire fraud count. Defense counsel should obtain expert testimony from a CACFP/SFSP program specialist who can testify that in the industry, sponsor certification covers classification accuracy and record-keeping availability — not independent substantiation of site-level meal counts. This is what Bock said, and it has regulatory support, but it needs an expert voice. - Bock's credibility was significantly damaged by the MDE discrimination speech contradiction and by her inconsistency on whether she 'ever looked at' meal counts. Any cooperating witness who testifies in defense counsel's trial should be subjected to the same timeline discipline Thompson used here — showing the pattern (site enrollment date, day-one meal counts, check amounts, check recipients) in a systematic, unanswerable way. - The Ikram Mohamed/Star Distribution relationship ($5 million to a close friend's family company) and the Eidleh/Hope Suppliers/Southcross relationship (Eidleh's wife as site supervisor, his company as vendor, Bock receiving the claims emails) establish that Feeding Our Future's internal controls were either non-existent or deliberately circumvented. In defense counsel's case, if his client had any connection to Feeding Our Future's administrative structure, this pattern of insider dealing will be used against them. - MDE's conduct is a legitimate defense angle that was underutilized. The evidence shows MDE: (a) failed to act on Bock's fraud reports for months; (b) moved terminated sites to other sponsors; (c) was held in contempt of court for violating site-application processing obligations; (d) accepted the October 2020 'clarification' letter allowing for-profit restaurant sites to continue operating under a nonprofit fig leaf. While Bock's own actions are the focus, the government's narrative that she was fighting oversight rather than enabling fraud is not the only plausible interpretation of the MDE dynamic.

Witnesses
Aimee Marie Bock
Defendant and founder/executive director of Feeding Our Future; the central figure whose conduct is at the core of all charges.
Other Defense
Direct Examination

Defense counsel Udoibok used the resumed direct to humanize Bock and preemptively address damaging evidence. Bock described legitimate office renovations, her internal fraud-detection system (red folders, investigations, terminations), the $310,000 sale of The Learning Journey as a legitimate business transaction, and gave flat denials on all counts — conspiracy, wire fraud, bribery, and the alleged $1.5 million cash demand.

▸
Bock testified that renovation costs paid to Handy Helpers (owned by her romantic partner Empress Watson) totaled between $900,000 and $1 million over 2019–2022, and that Watson was also on the Feeding Our Future payroll for workers' comp purposes. — Defense framing of the Watson payments as legitimate business. However, the dual payroll + renovation arrangement could be used to suggest a pattern of self-dealing with intimate associates — the same pattern the government attributes to the $310,000 sale. [p. 3971]
▸
Bock testified she caught fraud, used red folders to flag investigated claims, terminated vendors including Hadith Ahmed after learning of bribery, and reported fraud to MDE and the Attorney General. — Core of the innocence narrative — she was a watchdog, not a participant. The government's cross systematically undermined each element of this claim. [p. 3972]
▸
Bock denied accepting any bribe, stated the $310,000 was a legitimate sale of The Learning Journey LLC (incorporated September 2019, equipment assembled, lease at 1506 Southcross Drive, Burnsville), and denied the allegation that she demanded $1.5 million in cash from any site. — The daycare-sale defense is the centerpiece of her innocence on the bribery count. Any incoming defense attorney must be prepared to defend this transaction against the government's timeline evidence pairing the $476,000 check the day before. [p. 3990]
▸
On the wire fraud count Bock testified: 'All the emails I sent were based on the information and knowledge that I had. I never, never would submit anything' false. — Her certification language is later pinned by Thompson to the CLiCS form (Gov. Ex. V38) which says she takes 'full responsibility' for ensuring claims 'accurately represent' meals served — directly contradicting the 'I just entered numbers' defense. [p. 3992]
Cross-Examination

Thompson's cross was one of the most thorough and damaging examinations in the transcript record. He established an irrefutable documentary chain showing Bock personally submitted site applications for Salim Said-affiliated entities within days of their incorporation, certified tens of millions in fraudulent claims, signed all reimbursement checks, communicated with Said about approvals and check readiness, appealed MDE's attempts to shut down fraudulent sites, and received $310,000 from Said the day after paying his company $476,000. He also impeached her on her earlier denial that she had personally accused MDE of discrimination by playing a video clip (Gov. Ex. R39) of her speech doing exactly that.

▸
Bock admitted she submitted site applications for Safari Restaurant (Apr 13, 2020), ASA Limited (Sep 4, 2020 — four days after incorporation), Olive Management (Sep 8–9, 2020 — one day after incorporation), Brava Restaurant (Sep 8, 2020), Stigma-Free Willmar and Mankato (Oct 19, 2020), and Waite Park (Dec 30, 2020), and that within weeks each was claiming 3,000–6,000 meals per day. — Establishes Bock's personal, direct role in enrolling every one of Said's fraudulent sites. No 'rogue employees' defense is available here — her handwriting and signature are on the enrollment forms. [p. 4009]
▸
Bock confirmed she certified Safari's July 2020 claim for 154,000 lunches and 154,000 morning snacks in CLiCS, signing the certification: 'I hereby take full responsibility for ensuring that this claim accurately represents the number of meals/milks served... that deliberate misrepresentation may subject me to prosecution.' She did this for every single claim submitted by Feeding Our Future. — Destroys the 'I just transferred numbers' defense. The certification language squarely places legal responsibility on Bock for the accuracy of each fraudulent claim. [p. 4003]
▸
Bock admitted that on May 19, 2021 she texted photos of three checks to Salim Said: two to Stigma-Free International for $1.124 million and $1.123 million, and one to Brava Restaurant for $1.5 million — and acknowledged she notified Said when sites were approved for the summer program, informing him they could bill up to 2,000 kids per day. — Directly connects Said to control over all these nominally independent sites. Bock's awareness of his 'affiliation' and her conduct in notifying him of approvals and check readiness supports the conspiracy charge. [p. 4069]
▸
Bock admitted that on August 12, 2021 she paid Cosmopolitan Business Solutions (Safari Restaurant) $476,000 for claims attributed to the Arcade/SIR Boxing site — a site for which there is no Safari invoice on file — and that the very next day, August 13, 2021, Cosmopolitan wrote her a cashier's check for $310,000 as payment for The Learning Journey. — This is the government's strongest evidence of a kickback: within a 24-hour window, Bock paid Said's company $476,000 and received $310,000 back. No daycare license, no operating children, no customers. The 'legitimate sale' defense requires the jury to believe in the coincidence of timing. [p. 4189]
▸
Bock admitted she filed appeals on behalf of Lido Restaurant, S&S Catering, Brava Cafe, Safari Restaurant, Great Lakes, and other sites MDE denied for the summer program in June 2021 — sites she now acknowledges were fraudulent — and that she texted Said to tell him Safari was denied and her attorney was working on the appeal that night. — Fundamentally undercuts her claim of being a fraud-fighter. She actively fought to keep known or suspected fraudulent sites in the program. The text to Said (Gov. Ex. BB30b) tying her directly to the appeal effort is particularly damaging. [p. 4144]
▸
Thompson played Gov. Ex. R39, a video clip of Bock publicly accusing MDE of discrimination — directly impeaching her testimony from the prior day that she had never personally accused MDE of discrimination. — Credibility impeachment on a topic she denied under oath. The admission that she said one thing to the jury and did another in a public speech goes to her overall truthfulness as a witness. [p. 4211]
▸
Bock admitted she paid Ikram Mohamed's family company, Star Distribution, nearly $5 million (Gov. Ex. X56), and that she personally texted Mohamed on August 13, 2021 asking 'who do you want your checks written to?' — receiving the answer 'Star Distribution.' Mohamed was both a paid Feeding Our Future consultant and the de facto owner of the vendor supplying Mohamed's own family's sites. — Establishes a second self-dealing relationship parallel to the Said arrangement: a close associate simultaneously serving as Feeding Our Future consultant while receiving millions through vendor and site revenue. Pattern evidence of intentional fraud infrastructure. [p. 4172]
▸
Bock admitted that Feeding Our Future's sites on Lake Street (21 sites over 1.8 miles) claimed to have distributed 1.7 million meals in March 2021 — approximately 55,000 meals per day — equivalent to feeding 10–15 percent of the entire population of Minneapolis every single day. — Powerful statistical impossibility evidence. Even if every explanation Bock offers is credited, the numbers are arithmetically absurd. This will be central to the government's closing argument. [p. 4130]
Vulnerabilities Bock is a highly intelligent, well-prepared witness who fights every question and rarely gives a clean answer — which creates its own credibility problem with juries. Her core vulnerabilities are: (1) The $310,000 check timing — she cannot explain why Said's company paid her $310,000 the day after she paid them $476,000, for a daycare that had no license, no children, and no revenue; (2) Her CLiCS certifications — the 'full responsibility' language is unambiguous and she signed it thousands of times; (3) The appeals she filed on behalf of sites she now says were fraudulent — particularly her text to Said on the night of the denials; (4) The MDE discrimination speech contradiction — she denied it under oath then had to walk it back when the video emerged; (5) Her characterization of Eidleh's fraud as the cause of what happened at Southcross — she now says she had no idea, but his wife was the site supervisor and his company was the vendor, and Bock personally received the Southcross claims emails; (6) The Ikram Mohamed relationship — she paid a close friend's company nearly $5 million while that friend simultaneously worked as a Feeding Our Future consultant; (7) She admits she looked at meal counts 'sometimes' after earlier testimony suggested she never did. Future defense can exploit: (a) the government's inability to show direct communication between Bock and Said about fraudulent activities (as opposed to check logistics); (b) her legitimate fraud-reporting history (Hadith Ahmed termination, Anab Awad referral); (c) MDE's own failure to act on her fraud reports; (d) the ambiguity in the CLiCS certification language about what 'full responsibility' actually certifies.
For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should consider: (1) Challenging whether the CLiCS certification language, properly interpreted under program regulations, actually certifies the accuracy of meal counts versus only the reimbursement category classification — Bock's consistent explanation has some regulatory support; (2) Developing testimony or expert evidence about the pandemic context and the loosened regulations under which 5,000-meals-per-day sites were, at the time, not per se suspicious; (3) Exploring whether any site operators or cooperating witnesses contradict the government's claim that Bock was a knowing participant vs. a negligent sponsor; (4) Examining whether the $310,000 daycare sale can be supported by independent valuation evidence — the equipment, goodwill, lease position, and government-subsidized food distribution revenue stream at Southcross gave it real value; (5) Focusing on the lack of direct evidence that Bock knew the meal counts were fabricated, as opposed to being negligent in not checking them; (6) The MDE discrimination speech and rally — there is a legitimate argument that she was fighting what she genuinely believed was regulatory overreach, not protecting fraudulent sites; (7) Exploiting the gap between Eidleh's internal fraud (which victimized Feeding Our Future) and Bock's alleged knowing participation.
Key Evidence
Type Exhibit Description Page Challenge Opportunity
Document Gov. Ex. V38 The CLiCS system screenshot showing the Safari Restaurant claim submission and the full certification text that Bock signed for every claim, including 'I hereby take full responsibility for ensuring that this claim accurately represents the number of meals/milks served' and the criminal prosecution warning. [p. 4003] Defense can argue the certification language, per USDA/MDE guidance, certifies classification accuracy and availability of records — not independent verification of underlying site counts. Bock made this argument repeatedly. An expert on CACFP/SFSP program regulations might support this interpretation.
Financial Record Gov. Ex. W8 (pp. 91, 664) Bank records showing: (1) $476,000 check from Feeding Our Future to Cosmopolitan Business Solutions (Safari) on August 12, 2021, attributed on Bock's password-protected spreadsheet to the Arcade/SIR Boxing site; (2) $310,000 cashier's check from the same Cosmopolitan account payable to Aimee Bock on August 13, 2021. [p. 4189] Defense must show the Southcross site had independent value (equipment, lease, food program revenue stream) justifying $310,000. The government must also prove there was no legitimate invoice from Cosmopolitan as vendor for the Arcade site — if any such invoice exists, it somewhat normalizes the August 12 payment.
Document Gov. Ex. BB53b Password-protected Excel spreadsheet (password: 1729CCBOCK$) titled 'Fiscal Year 21 Payment Distribution,' found in Bock's bedroom, tracking how all reimbursement payments were split and directed — showing payments to Cosmopolitan Business Solutions and Star Distribution on August 12, 2021. [p. 4184] Defense can argue this is evidence of compliance, not criminality — a sponsor is required to track payments. The fact that the spreadsheet is detailed and organized suggests a legitimate bookkeeping function.
Document Gov. Ex. BB30a, BB30b, BB30c, BB30d Text messages between Bock and Salim Said (stored in her phone as 'Safari'): images of Stigma-Free and Brava Restaurant checks totaling over $3.7 million sent to Said on May 19, 2021; notification to Said that Safari was denied and attorney working on appeal; June 18, 2021 text updating Said on approval of Brava, ASA, and Olive for summer program at 2,000/day; November 2, 2021 text from Said asking for checks for ASA, Olive, Stigma-Free, and Brava. [p. 4069] These texts show logistics coordination, not necessarily knowledge of fraud. A defense attorney could argue Bock was dealing with what appeared to be an unusually engaged program participant, not a co-conspirator.
Document Gov. Ex. R25, R27, R28, R29 Internal Feeding Our Future email (R25) listing 'Denied Summer Sites' with Bock instructing staff that 'the attorney is working on the appeal tonight'; formal notices of appeal filed on behalf of Lido Restaurant (R28), S&S Catering (R29), and Brava Cafe (R27) — all sites now acknowledged as fraudulent. [p. 4138] Bock's explanation that sponsors are contractually obligated to appeal on behalf of sites has some merit and should be tested against the actual Feeding Our Future sponsorship agreement language.
Document Gov. Ex. R39 Video clip from the internet (originally posted on Xogmaal Media) showing Bock publicly accusing MDE of discrimination at what appears to be the spring 2021 stop-pay victory rally — directly contradicting her sworn testimony the previous day. [p. 4211] Defense should request the full 54-minute video and argue the clip lacks context. Completeness argument under FRE 106 may be available. Authenticity chain from internet posting is thin.
Document Gov. Ex. R2 MDE's March 31, 2021 Notice of Serious Deficiency to Feeding Our Future, placing all pending claims on stop pay and requiring submission of corrective action plan and meal validation documentation before any new payments. [p. 4218] Defense can argue this letter was itself improper — Bock's position that MDE lacked authority to impose this requirement beyond what the regulations allowed is not frivolous, and she did win a contempt ruling against MDE.
Document Gov. Ex. B4, C1-C2, E1-E3, G3, H1, I1, L2 Site application packets (in Bock's handwriting, signed by Bock) for Safari (Apr 13, 2020), ASA Limited (Sep 4, 2020), Olive Management (Sep 8-9, 2020), Stigma-Free Willmar and Mankato (Oct 19, 2020), Stigma-Free Waite Park (Dec 30, 2020), and Brava Restaurant (Sep 8, 2020) — all affiliated with Salim Said, all enrolled within days of entity formation, all immediately claiming maximum meal counts. [p. 4009] Bock's explanation that she filled out cover sheets and pre-dated agreements but did not prepare underlying documents has some support. The 'Change Salim to ASA' notation was not in her handwriting. Defense should investigate who actually prepared the underlying forms.
Financial Record Gov. Ex. X2 and related Summary exhibit showing total payments from Feeding Our Future to Said-affiliated sites: Safari Restaurant $12M, Brava Restaurant $5.6M, ASA Limited $5.3M, Stigma-Free Willmar $5.3M, Olive Management $5.2M, Stigma-Free Mankato $5.2M, Stigma-Free Waite Park $1.4M, Stigma-Free St. Cloud $1.3M. [p. 4094] These payments represent the total universe. Defense can challenge whether every dollar reflects fraud (some sites may have served real meals) and whether all sites were truly 'Salim Said's' rather than independently operating entities who paid Safari to cater.
Document Gov. Ex. BB32i Text exchange between Bock and Ikram Mohamed on August 24, 2021 — the same day Hanna Marekegn filed a complaint with MDE alleging Bock solicited a kickback — in which Bock discusses 'blowing up' Brava Cafe's fraud, mentions 'Blackie has shit to take me down,' and expresses excitement about exposing the fraud. [p. 4158] The texts are susceptible to innocent interpretation — Bock genuinely was investigating Brava Cafe fraud and legitimately concerned about being falsely accused. The 'Blackie hates white people' comment appears to be attributed to Empress Watson's reporting, not direct knowledge.
Legal Rulings & Objections
⚖
The Court overruled defense objection to Thompson's question about how Bock felt seeing her son listed in the government's financial exhibit, where Thompson had characterized the charges as 'money going to Ms. Bock.' Udoibok objected that this misstated the charge. — The Court gave the government latitude to pursue the son's wages through Bock's account as circumstantial financial evidence. Defense should monitor whether the government attempts to characterize the son's $2,800 in wages as fraud proceeds in closing. [p. 3977]
⚖
The Court sustained the government's objection to defense counsel's question asking whether Bock 'sent any communication to MDE or anyone, any governmental authority, MDE, intending to mislead or cause fraud,' finding it mischaracterized the wire fraud count. — Defense counsel's attempt to frame wire fraud narrowly as requiring intent to mislead MDE was rejected. The charge is broader. Incoming defense counsel should carefully review the wire fraud jury instruction and not rely on the 'intending to mislead the government' framing. [p. 3991]
⚖
The Court sustained a defense foundation objection to Gov. Ex. Q99a (Marekegn's complaint to MDE alleging Bock solicited a kickback) when Thompson moved to admit it through Bock who denied knowing about it. — The government was unable to get Marekegn's MDE complaint in through Bock. If the government tries to admit it through another route, defense should be prepared to argue hearsay and relevance. However, the underlying facts (Marekegn's kickback allegation) were aired extensively in cross. [p. 4157]
⚖
The Court admitted Gov. Ex. R39 (video clip of Bock's public speech accusing MDE of discrimination) over defense objections of authentication, completeness, and relevance. The Court ordered the government to produce the full 54-minute video to defense counsel. — Defense received the full video and may use any portion under completeness principles, though the Court reserved ruling on admissibility of the balance. Defense should consider whether to play more of the speech to provide context in redirect or closing. [p. 4210]
⚖
The Court overruled a defense badgering objection when Thompson repeatedly pressed Bock for yes-or-no answers on check payment details. — The Court gave the government significant latitude to control the pace of cross-examination. Defense counsel should prepare their client for this in any future trial — a witness who volunteers explanations instead of answering yes/no comes across as evasive. [p. 4023]
Prior Defense Performance

Defense counsel Udoibok structured the direct examination well — he used photos and documents to humanize Bock and pre-addressed the most damaging areas (Empress Watson payments, 'we may have become the mob' text, son's wages, $310,000 sale, flat denials on all counts). However, the direct created several problems that cross exposed mercilessly: (1) Udoibok elicited that Bock 'caught' fraud and 'terminated' sites — giving Thompson the opening to show that the 'terminations' were actually MDE-initiated denials that Bock fought against; (2) Bock's testimony that she 'never looked at meal counts' was contradicted by her own admissions on cross, damaging her credibility on the stand in real time; (3) The direct did not adequately prepare Bock for the CLiCS certification language — her explanation on cross ('I certified the category, not the accuracy') was textually strained and she struggled to articulate it consistently. On cross, Udoibok objected only occasionally (badgering, mischaracterizes charge, hearsay, foundation) and generally lost. The badgering objections were overruled and may have actually made Bock look like she needed protection from legitimate questions. Missed opportunities on cross: (a) Udoibok did not object when Thompson said the daycare 'had some toys and some IKEA furniture' — a characterization Bock pushed back on but without evidentiary support in the record; (b) Defense did not move to exclude the MDE discrimination video based on late production (it was found 'recently' on the internet during trial) — a potentially viable objection; (c) No follow-up questions were asked about what specific MDE regulations governed sponsor certification obligations, which might have supported Bock's narrow interpretation of her CLiCS duties. Overall: the cross was a bruising day for the defense, and Bock's combative, explanatory testimony style likely hurt rather than helped her credibility with the jury.