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

Vol XIX

2025-03-14
Source PDF
Day Overview

March 14, 2025 was one of the most consequential trial days for assessing Bock's credibility. Government attorney Thompson concluded his cross-examination of defendant Aimee Bock by methodically documenting: (1) $878,000 in payments from her nonprofit to her boyfriend's LLC for alleged construction work, much of which was spent on luxury cars, Las Vegas trips, and jewelry; (2) a completely fictitious board of directors whose members all testified they never attended a real meeting and were surprised to learn of their roles; and (3) false statements to both the IRS and MDE asserting the board actively governed the organization. Defendant Aimee Bock then rested her case. Salim Said's defense called Mohamed Liban, a Somali social media influencer, who played roughly 25-30 video clips showing food being prepared and stacked at Safari Restaurant and other sites. On cross, the government methodically established that Liban's videos showed at most 1,200 meals in a single frame while the sites claimed 6,000-12,000 meals per day, that Liban himself received $195,000 through a shell company (Shimbirka LLC) from entities that have since pled guilty, and that his income immediately ceased when the investigation went public. A significant legal fight erupted mid-day over whether Liban and a second witness (Amino Abdi) could be cross-examined about payments they received — the court ruled such questioning is allowed under the bias rules, appointed standby defense counsel for both witnesses, and the day ended with Liban completing his testimony.

Government Strategy

The government used the resumed cross-examination of defendant Aimee Bock to systematically dismantle her credibility and establish that she personally enriched herself and her boyfriend through the fraud scheme. Prosecutor Thompson walked Bock through her payments of $878,000 from Feeding Our Future to her boyfriend's LLC (Handy Helpers), her joint participation in luxury travel and spending funded by those payments, and the fraudulent nature of her board of directors — showing the board existed on paper only. The government also introduced a text message chain proving Bock knew her boyfriend was car shopping the same day she wired him $15,000, directly contradicting her stated ignorance. For the second defense witness, Mohamed Liban, the government's cross was designed to establish that his videos proved nothing about meal count accuracy, that he was embedded financially in the fraud network through a shell company receiving $195,000 from implicated entities, and that his 'social media influencer' income dried up the moment the food program funds stopped — strongly implying he was a paid participant in the scheme.

Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel

- The Handy Helpers pattern is instructive: the government's most effective moments were documentary (text messages, bank records, IRS forms), not witness testimony. Defense counsel must assume the government has already assembled a complete paper trail connecting his client to financial self-dealing and prepare to address every document in advance on direct, rather than being reactive on cross. - The fictitious board of directors was crippling for Bock because three independent witnesses all corroborated the government's theory. Defense counsel must audit whether his client's organization had any real governance structure and, if not, consider whether to stipulate to that fact rather than let it be used to attack overall credibility. - The witness financial entanglement trap caught the Said defense completely off guard with Liban. Before calling any witness, Defense counsel must determine whether they received payments from any entity named or connected to the fraud scheme. The government had the Shimbirka bank records admitted into evidence for a month before Liban testified — they were waiting for this. Assume the government has done this analysis for every potential defense witness. - Mohamed Liban's testimony is a template for what NOT to do: calling a witness whose videos cannot substantiate the claimed volumes, who himself received $195,000 from scheme entities, and who repeatedly refused to vouch for the very numbers the defense needed him to support. The videos may still have some value for defense counsel in a different context — they at least establish food was being prepared at multiple sites — but they must be introduced through a witness who is not financially compromised. - The court's ruling on bias impeachment (allowing full financial cross of Liban/Abdi) is the most important legal ruling of this day for defense counsel's preparation. The government can and will use the financial records of any witness connected to the scheme to suggest bias or participation. Defense counsel must either avoid such witnesses entirely or front their financial connections on direct examination to neutralize the surprise.

Witnesses
Aimee Marie Bock
Defendant and Executive Director of Feeding Our Future; testified in her own defense.
Other Defense
Direct Examination

Direct examination occurred on prior days. On this day Bock was subject to resumed government cross-examination and then redirect by her own counsel. On redirect, Udoibok sought to rehabilitate her regarding the Southcross daycare licensing application, her response to MDE's serious deficiency notice, and her characterization of the Handy Helpers relationship.

▸
Udoibok elicited that Bock had Facebook Messenger call logs with board president Ben Stayberg in 2021 after the serious deficiency notice was issued. — Partial rehabilitation for the claim that some communication with the nominal board occurred, though it does not establish actual governance. [p. 4307]
▸
Bock testified she sold the Southcross child care business for $310,000 in August 2021 ($75,000 for equipment, $235,000 goodwill) and that all required furniture and equipment was in place at the time of sale. — Defense narrative that the daycare was real and operational up to the sale; government immediately undermined this on recross by noting the FBI found nothing there in January 2022. [p. 4320-4321]
▸
Bock testified the MDE serious deficiency was resolved and closed by June 2021 after her response. — Supports defense theory that Feeding Our Future was operating lawfully and cooperating with regulators. [p. 4322-4323]
Cross-Examination

Thompson's resumed cross was devastating on multiple fronts. He methodically established that Bock paid $878,000 to her boyfriend's LLC (Handy Helpers) with no legitimate contracting process, that she personally benefited from the spending, that her board of directors was fictitious, and that she made false representations to the IRS and MDE. The cross was highly effective — Bock's repeated deflections ('I didn't know what account he used,' 'they were informal conversations') were implausible against the documentary record.

▸
Bock sent $878,000 from Feeding Our Future to her boyfriend Empress Watson's LLC (Handy Helpers), which was funded exclusively by Feeding Our Future. Watson spent the money on Lamborghini rentals ($2,035-$2,297 per day), a Rolls-Royce rental, Louis Vuitton ($3,505), Gucci ($6,700), and $50,000 in travel during COVID. — Establishes the core self-dealing and fraudulent enrichment narrative; Bock was a direct beneficiary of the spending as Watson's live-in partner. [p. 4239-4257]
▸
Text message (Gov. Ex. BB41h) from Bock to Watson on January 10, 2022 — the same day she wired him $15,000 — states 'Happy car shopping. I hope you find one you like.' Watson used the money to purchase a Mercedes-Benz that afternoon. — Directly contradicts Bock's claim she did not know Watson was purchasing a car when she wired the funds. Proves contemporaneous knowledge. [p. 4261-4263]
▸
In a text the same evening, Bock wrote to Watson: 'The reality is I honestly believe you love the life I can afford you.' And: 'Instead, we pay your friends to do what exactly?' — Bock's own words describe the arrangement as personal enrichment, not a business contract; her use of 'we pay' ties her directly to the payment decisions. [p. 4265]
▸
All three named board members (Ben Stayberg, John Senkler, Jamie Phelps) testified they never attended a board meeting. Stayberg learned he was board president when a New York Times reporter knocked on his door. Bock never sent any of them a single email in 35,000 archived emails. — Establishes the board was a legal fiction used to deceive MDE, the IRS, and the Minnesota AG's office. Eliminates any claim of board oversight of the Handy Helpers contract. [p. 4268-4282]
▸
Bock signed and submitted IRS Form 990 (Gov. Ex. A77) stating the board 'meets regularly,' that financial statements were presented to the board for review and approval, and that board members averaged 5 hours per week — all of which she conceded were untrue. — Potential false statement to the IRS; shows willingness to lie to regulators, corroborating the government's broader fraud theory. [p. 4285-4290]
▸
Bock submitted a Financial Management Policy to MDE (Gov. Ex. R5) in April 2021 representing the board was actively overseeing financial management and that a conflict of interest policy was in place — both false. — Directly ties Bock's misrepresentations to her efforts to maintain Feeding Our Future's position in the Federal Child Nutrition Program while the Handy Helpers conflict of interest existed. [p. 4293-4300]
▸
On recross, Thompson established that the Southcross site continued to operate as a food site under Feeding Our Future's sponsorship into December 2021, claiming 2,500 meals per day, and that Bock signed the reimbursement claims. — Destroys Bock's attempt to distance herself from the Southcross site operations after the sale; she remained the sponsor and signed the claim submissions. [p. 4333-4334]
Vulnerabilities Bock's most serious vulnerability is the text message chain (BB41h) proving she knew Watson was car shopping the day she wired him $15,000. Her explanations for the Handy Helpers payments became increasingly implausible — she claimed she couldn't find anyone else willing to do construction for $10,000 a week during COVID. The board of directors evidence is devastating: three witnesses all directly contradicted her, no emails existed, and signatures on official minutes were not those of the named board members. Her claim that board meetings were 'informal conversations' is inconsistent with submitting formal minutes to regulators certifying the board was actively governing. She also signed checks from the Handy Helpers account (her own testimony) — undermining her claim she had no access to or involvement in the account.
For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should examine the construction work itself — was there actual renovation done at Feeding Our Future offices? If 28 offices were renovated as claimed, obtaining photos, contractor records, or independent evidence could partially rehabilitate the Handy Helpers payments even if the amounts were excessive. The board issue is probably unwinnable, but defense counsel could argue any regulatory misrepresentations were negligent rather than intentional. The text message evidence is the most dangerous single piece — Defense counsel needs to be prepared to address any similar text chains for his client. Defense counsel should also note that Bock's recross conceded almost everything the government argued on this day, and the jury was watching.
Mohamed Liban
Social media influencer in the Somali community; called by Defendant Said to authenticate videos showing food preparation at Safari Restaurant and other sites during 2020-2021.
Other Defense
Direct Examination

Montez used Liban to play approximately 25-30 short video clips showing food being prepared, packaged in trays, and stacked at Safari Restaurant and other sites across Minnesota during 2020-2021. Liban described the restaurant's layout, the volume of food being prepared, his role taking social media videos on 3-4 days per week, and the heavy traffic outside the restaurant during food distribution. He testified he also visited and filmed sites in St. Paul, St. Cloud, Willmar, Rochester, and Mankato.

▸
In one video, Liban and Montez used a calculator to estimate 1,225 meals visible in a single frame — five meals per tray, stacked seven high, five rows by seven columns — with Liban adding there were six more warmers in the back with additional trays. — The defense's best attempt to show volume consistent with the meal claims; Thompson immediately challenged this as the maximum shown by any video, while the sites claimed 6,000-12,000 meals per day. [p. 4388-4389]
▸
Liban testified the distribution 'looked like a Super Bowl event' and 'like Vikings stadium,' with cars lined up bumper to bumper requiring four police officers to manage traffic. — Vivid characterization the defense intended to rebut government witnesses who testified the volume was impossible; on cross Thompson established none of this appeared in the actual videos. [p. 4391-4392, 4404-4405]
▸
Liban testified he visited multiple sites — St. Paul (2), St. Cloud (2), Willmar, Rochester, Mankato — and took videos at all of them, which were admitted into evidence (D3-216, 217, 219, 221, 226, 228). — Extends the defense narrative beyond Safari to other program sites, trying to show food was actually being served across the program. [p. 4397-4399]
Cross-Examination

Thompson's cross was precise and effective. He established: (1) no children appeared in any of the videos; (2) the maximum food shown in any single frame was approximately 1,200 meals against claims of 6,000-12,000 per day; (3) Liban himself received $195,000 through his shell company Shimbirka LLC from entities that have since pled guilty; (4) Liban would not attest that any of the meal count numbers were accurate; and (5) his entire income stream ended the day the investigation went public. The cross significantly undermined the videos' evidentiary value.

▸
None of the videos shown at trial depicted a single child or anything resembling the 'Vikings stadium' atmosphere Liban described. When pressed, Liban said people did not want to be videotaped and that he focused on filming food. — Directly undermines the videos' probative value — they show food preparation but nothing about distribution scale or recipients, which is what the fraud charges turn on. [p. 4404-4406]
▸
Liban created Shimbirka LLC in February 2021, opened a bank account March 17, 2021, and within 48 hours received $3,000 checks from Horseed Management, Tunyar Trading, ASA Limited, Cosmopolitan Business Solutions (Safari), and Olive Management — each from an entity involved in the scheme. He received $195,000 total in nine months, essentially all from scheme-related entities. (Gov. Ex. W146, X36) — Establishes Liban as a financial participant in the scheme, not a neutral observer. His credibility as a defense witness is severely damaged by his financial entanglement with entities whose owners have pled guilty. [p. 4411-4424]
▸
Liban repeatedly refused to attest that the meal count numbers at Safari, Willmar, Mankato, St. Cloud, or Brava Restaurant were accurate, saying only that he could prove food existed but that numbers were a 'question for management.' He confirmed he never saw 3,000 meals distributed at any single site on any given day. — This is the death blow to the defense's use of the videos: Liban himself, the videos' author, would not vouch for the accuracy of the claimed meal counts. The defense witness undercut the defense. [p. 4407-4427]
▸
After the food program investigation went public in January 2022, no more money flowed into Shimbirka LLC, the account was overdrawn and closed by May 2022, and Liban became an Uber driver. At the time of trial both of his accounts were overdrawn. — The correlation between the scheme's end and his income's end strongly implies his payments were scheme-derived rather than legitimate advertising fees. [p. 4432-4434]
Vulnerabilities Liban is extremely vulnerable on his financial relationship with the scheme. Receiving $195,000 through a purpose-built shell company from entities that have pled guilty is powerful impeachment. His repeated refusal to vouch for the meal count numbers makes him nearly useless as a defense witness — he authenticated the videos but disclaimed any knowledge of whether the program was operating honestly. His testimony that Abdulkadir Salah (Safari's manager and a co-defendant) told him to create an LLC to receive payments is a significant admission that the payments were structured to create distance. His claim he paid 'about 90,000' to collaborators was unsubstantiated and not corroborated by any outgoing payments from the Shimbirka account that Thompson could have challenged.
For Defense Counsel Defense counsel should obtain and carefully review all the videos introduced by the Said defense (D3-135 series). While Liban was not an effective witness, the videos themselves may still have some value in showing that food preparation was occurring — they just cannot prove meal count accuracy. If defense counsel's client is connected to different sites, he should assess whether any video evidence from those specific sites is available. The key lesson from Liban's testimony is that the defense should not call witnesses who are themselves financially embedded in scheme-related entities without being prepared for devastating financial cross-examination. Defense counsel should be wary of the same dynamic with any potential witnesses who received money from the named entities.
Key Evidence
Type Exhibit Description Page Challenge Opportunity
Document Gov. Ex. BB41h Text message chain between Bock and her boyfriend Empress Watson on January 10, 2022 — the same day Bock wired Watson $15,000 from Feeding Our Future. Bock's messages include 'Paid you 26,000 since Friday,' a complaint about construction mistakes at her home, and 'Happy car shopping. I hope you find one you like.' Watson purchased a Mercedes-Benz using a $10,000 cashier's check from Handy Helpers that afternoon. [p. 4261-4265]
Financial Record Gov. Ex. W46 Wells Fargo bank records for Handy Helpers LLC. Shows the account opened March 12, 2020 with a $25 deposit, funded exclusively by Feeding Our Future wires and checks. Documents $878,000 in total inflows and spending on Lamborghini rentals, Louis Vuitton ($3,505), Gucci ($6,700), car purchases, travel, and carpet installation at Bock's home. [p. 4235, 4250, 4254-4256]
Data/Summary Gov. Ex. X24 Summary chart of all money sent from Feeding Our Future to Handy Helpers LLC — $878,000 total. Itemizes spending categories including over $70,000 in car expenses, $50,000 in travel, $20,000 at Dick's Sporting Goods, and spending at Wedding Day Diamonds. [p. 4239-4240, 4257]
Document Gov. Ex. A77 IRS Form 990 for Feeding Our Future (tax years 2019 and 2020) prepared by Hashi CPA and signed by Bock. States the board 'meets regularly,' board members averaged 5 hours per week, financial statements were presented to the board prior to filing, and a conflict of interest policy was instituted and monitored. [p. 4285-4290]
Document Gov. Ex. R5 Email from Bock to MDE on April 30, 2021, attaching a Financial Management Policy representing that Feeding Our Future's board of directors formulated financial policies, reviewed operations, delegated financial oversight to the treasurer, and had adopted a conflict of interest policy. [p. 4293-4300]
Document Gov. Ex. A80 Board of directors meeting minutes for Feeding Our Future. Multiple sets purportedly documenting formal meetings with roll calls, agendas, and votes. Bock admitted she typed the content, acknowledged the listed meetings never actually occurred as described, and could not explain whose handwriting appeared as board members' signatures. [p. 4272-4282]
Financial Record Gov. Ex. W146 Bank records for Shimbirka LLC, opened by Mohamed Liban on March 17, 2021. Shows $195,000 deposited in nine months from Horseed Management, Tunyar Trading, ASA Limited, Cosmopolitan Business Solutions (Safari), Olive Management, Salim Limited, Brava Restaurant, and Calikamin Enterprises — all scheme-implicated entities. Account was overdrawn and closed May 2022. [p. 4343-4347, 4411-4434]
Data/Summary Gov. Ex. X36 Sources and uses chart for Shimbirka LLC showing all inflows and outflows during its nine-month existence. Demonstrates that essentially all $195,000 came from fraud-scheme entities and that the account was used to fund Liban's personal expenses including two vehicle purchases. [p. 4345-4346, 4423-4424]
Document Def. Ex. D3-135 through D3-247 (series) Approximately 25-30 short video clips taken by Mohamed Liban at Safari Restaurant and other food distribution sites during 2020-2021. Show food being cooked, portioned into trays, stacked on tables, and food distribution lines outside Safari. Admitted without objection. [p. 4384-4401]
Legal Rulings & Objections
⚖
Court ruled that the government may cross-examine defense witnesses Mohamed Liban and Amino Abdi about payments they received from scheme-related entities as proper bias impeachment under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Court declined to limit cross to whether payments occurred (as defense requested under U.S. v. Dennis, 625 F.2d 782), allowing questions about the amount and source of payments but stating it would not allow a 'mini-trial' on whether payments were legitimate. — Any defense witness who received money from entities connected to the fraud scheme can be fully cross-examined about those financial ties. Defense counsel must vet all potential witnesses for financial connections to scheme-related entities before calling them. This ruling effectively neutralized Mohamed Liban and likely deterred Amino Abdi from testifying. [p. 4335-4355]
⚖
Court granted a continuance for the Liban/Abdi witness issue, stating defense was entitled to present their case in the order they chose and that the witnesses needed time to consult with appointed counsel regarding their Fifth Amendment rights. Court appointed Federal Defender's Office attorney DeVore to advise Liban. — Judge Brasel showed some sympathy for the procedural difficulty the government's last-minute disclosure caused, but found no legal prejudice requiring exclusion of the impeachment. [p. 4335-4356]
⚖
During Bock's cross, the Court sustained a sidebar objection and admonished Thompson to 'ask questions, no comment' after Thompson made several editorial remarks ('It is a mystery to me,' 'It sounds like a real hardship job'). — Judge Brasel will regulate prosecutorial commentary; defense attorneys should note this as a potential objection tool when Thompson makes argumentative statements. [p. 4276-4277, 4246-4247]
⚖
Court overruled defense objection to Thompson's cross-examination of Liban about meal counts and site operations, holding that Montez 'opened the door' by eliciting testimony about the volume of food at sites beyond Safari Restaurant. — When calling a witness to testify about conditions at multiple program sites, defense counsel should anticipate cross-examination about all those sites' operations. [p. 4417-4418]
⚖
Court sustained one objection to Thompson asking Liban about a trip to Kenya ('outside the scope'), but overruled the objection on whether Liban was out of the country part of 2021. — Modest limitation on the government's cross scope, but effectively minimal — the court allowed most of Thompson's financial cross. [p. 4431-4432]
Prior Defense Performance

Udoibok's cross-examination of Bock on redirect was competent but largely ineffective. He attempted rehabilitation through the Southcross daycare licensing documentation, showing genuine paperwork filed with DHS before the fraud period — but Thompson destroyed this on recross in about two minutes by confirming no children were ever served and the site became a food distribution site. Udoibok's strongest moment was getting Bock to confirm she had phone logs showing contact with Stayberg. His closing questions about Handy Helpers ('Did he do a good job? Can he do anything he wants with his money?') were legally sound but felt hollow against the weight of the cross-examination evidence. Udoibok missed an opportunity to rehabilitate Bock on the board issue more substantively — he could have explored her claim that 'informal' governance was standard for small nonprofits, or introduced expert testimony on nonprofit governance norms. He also did not challenge the 35,000-email search methodology or whether the FBI/government actually reviewed all communications (e.g., phone calls, Facebook Messenger) rather than just email. Montez's direct of Liban was visually creative — the calculator moment was memorable — but was built on a foundation that the government had already largely destroyed via admitted financial exhibits. Montez failed to anticipate that Liban would become a liability on cross by repeatedly declining to vouch for the meal counts. The decision to call Liban without addressing his $195,000 in payments on direct was a major tactical error; it allowed Thompson to present the Shimbirka evidence as a dramatic revelation rather than something the defense had accounted for.