Government's Motion in Limine — United States of America v. Aimee Marie Bock, Doc. 413

Summary

The Government's Motion in Limine to Preclude Introduction of Hearsay Materials and to Preclude Defense from Attempting to Introduce Exhibits Through Government Witnesses in the Presence of the Jury, filed 01/10/25 as Doc. 413 in United States v. Aimee Marie Bock et al., Criminal No. 22-223 (NEB/DTS), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The government argues that more than 800 potential exhibits on Bock's list, such as meal counts, invoices and site monitoring forms, are hearsay, are not business records under Rule 803(6), and lack foundation. It asks that any foundation discussion with a government witness who is unfamiliar with an exhibit take place outside the jury's presence. The motion is dated January 10, 2025.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS       Doc. 413    Filed 01/10/25   Page 1 of 5




                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
                        Criminal No. 22-223 (NEB/DTS)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff,              GOVERNMENT’S MOTION
                                            IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
      v.                                    INTRODUCTION OF HEARSAY
                                            MATERIALS AND TO PRECLUDE
1. AIMEE MARIE BOCK,                        DEFENSE FROM ATTEMPTING TO
3. SALIM SAID,                              INTRODUCE EXHIBITS THROUGH
4. ABDULKADIR NUR SALAH,                    GOVERNMENT WITNESSES IN
   and                                      THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY
6. ABDI NUR SALAH,

                    Defendants.


      The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Andrew M. Luger,

United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, and Joseph H. Thompson,

Harry M. Jacobs, Matthew S. Ebert, and Daniel W. Bobier, Assistant United States

Attorneys, respectfully submits the following motion in limine to preclude the defense

from attempting to introduce hearsay materials and, through government witnesses

and in the presence of the jury, defense exhibits that lack proper foundation and

authentication.

I.    BACKGROUND

      The indictment alleges that the defendants carried out a massive fraudulent

scheme to obtain federal child nutrition program funds. As part of that scheme, sites

operating under the sponsorship of Feeding Our Future fraudulently claimed to be

serving meals to thousands of children a day at an array of federal child nutrition

program sites around the state. In support of these claims, the sites created and
     CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 413    Filed 01/10/25   Page 2 of 5




submitted fraudulent meal counts, invoices, and attendance rosters. Despite knowing

these claims were fraudulent, defendant Bock and other Feeding Our Future

employees submitted the claims to the Minnesota Department of Education and then

disbursed the fraudulently obtained federal child nutrition program funds to the

individuals and entities involved in the fraudulent scheme.

      Bock and other Feeding Our Future employees solicited and received kickbacks

and bribes. In exchange for those payments, they provided “VIP treatment” for those

individuals, their entities, and their fraudulent claims. Bock and Feeding Our Future

submitting such fraudulent claims to MDE. They also created their own fake

paperwork purporting to document Feeding Our Future employees visiting and

monitoring sites under its sponsorship. But this paperwork, like the meal counts and

rosters submitted by the fraudulent sites, was fraudulent and created to support the

fraudulent claims.

      Moreover, during much of the course of the fraudulent scheme, Bock and

Feeding Our Future pursued active litigation against the Minnesota Department of

Education. As alleged in the indictment, in the summer and fall of 2020, MDE became

increasingly concerned about the number of sites being opened under the sponsorship

of Feeding Our Future as well as the massive amount of federal child nutrition

program reimbursements being claimed by those sites. When MDE began to

scrutinize Feeding Our Future submissions and sites under its sponsorship, Feeding

Our Future responded by suing MDE. On November 20, 2020, Feeding Our Future

filed a lawsuit against MDE in Ramsey County District Court. Among other things,



                                         2
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 413    Filed 01/10/25   Page 3 of 5




Feeding Our Future’s lawsuit claimed that MDE violated the Minnesota Human

Rights Act by discriminating against and refusing to do business with Feeding Our

Future and the community it served on the basis of their “race, national origin, color,

and religion.” The lawsuit claimed that because of MDE’s discrimination, “thousands

of qualified children in low-income and minority communities are going without

desperately needed federal food programs,” including “low-income and minority

children that have been disproportionately impacted by a global pandemic and

widespread social unrest.”

      Feeding Our Future’s legal battle with MDE continued into 2021. In the spring

of 2021, during this litigation, MDE began requiring entities participating in the

federal child nutrition program to submit more documentation supporting their

claims, including meal counts, invoices, and attendance rosters.

II.   THE DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ADMIT FAKE DOCUMENTS
      CREATED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE FRAUD SCHEME

      Defendant Bock has provided an exhibit list that identifies more than 800

potential exhibits, most of which appear to be fake or fraudulent documents created

by individuals involved in the fraud scheme. 1 Bock’s list includes meal counts,

invoices, claims submissions, meal delivery authorization forms, photographs, videos,

audio recordings, and site monitoring forms created and submitted in support of

fraudulent claims.



1 Although the Court’s pretrial order required the parties to exchange exhibit lists

and make exhibits available by January 6, neither Bock nor Abdulkadir Salah has
yet made their exhibits available to the government. Defendant Salim Said has not
provided a list nor any exhibits.


                                          3
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS       Doc. 413    Filed 01/10/25   Page 4 of 5




      A. These Documents Are Hearsay

      The government moves to preclude the admission of these documents on the

grounds that they contain inadmissible hearsay. As an initial matter, insofar as Bock

intends to admit these exhibits to show that meals were actually provided at the sites

or that Feeding Our Future employees actually supervised and monitored the

distribution of food at those sites, they are inadmissible hearsay (or even hearsay

imbedded within hearsay). Federal Rule of Evidence 802 bars the admission of out-

of-court statements offered as proof of the matter asserted. Here, the defendants

should be precluded from admitting the documentation they created to support their

fraudulent claims as proof that their claims were not fraudulent.

      Nor are these documents admissible by the defense under the business records

exception to the prohibition against hearsay found in Rule 803(6). These documents

were not kept in the ordinary course of business—a requirement for the exception’s

application—but instead were created on an ad hoc basis by various sites or vendors

to support fraudulent claims and/or were created in preparation for litigation with

MDE. These documents also flunk Rule 803(6)’s requirements because, as materials

manufactured to support the scheme, the “method or circumstances of [their]

preparation” indicates a lack of trustworthiness. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6).

      B. These Documents Lack Foundation Absent Supporting Testimony
         from a Witness Who Can Vouch for Their Authenticity

      Even setting aside that these materials are inadmissible hearsay, they also

lack proper foundation. The defense should be precluded from introducing

documentation created in support of their fraudulent claims without establishing


                                          4
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 413    Filed 01/10/25    Page 5 of 5




proper foundation and authentication through testimony from a witness with

knowledge that the item is what it is claimed to be.

      In particular, the defense should be precluded from showing such exhibits to

government witnesses in the presence of the jury when the witness cannot lay a

foundation nor establish authenticity because the witness did not create, has not

reviewed, and has no familiarity with the exhibit. The typical line of questioning to

lay foundation (which often details the contents of the document, photograph, or

video) is highly prejudicial if the exhibit ultimately is not admitted into evidence. In

the trial of a related case in 2024, this happened on several occasions. Such

questioning should not be permitted as a back-door method of exposing inadmissible

and untrustworthy documents and evidence to the jury.

      To the extent the defense believes a government witness can lay a proper

foundation for authenticity and relevance of an exhibit that the witness is unfamiliar

with and has not previously reviewed, such colloquy should take place outside of the

presence of the jury.

Dated: January 10, 2025                        Respectfully Submitted,

                                               ANDREW M. LUGER
                                               United States Attorney

                                               /s/Joseph H. Thompson

                                        BY:    JOSEPH H. THOMPSON
                                               HARRY M. JACOBS
                                               MATTHEW S. EBERT
                                               DANIEL W. BOBIER
                                               Assistant United States Attorneys




                                           5


File and source

File

413.pdf

Size

129,190 bytes

SHA-256

4fc0937482588cc9b3215ece8f42f3a4716398b398cd30d943adddffabeb7b00

Our copy

413.pdf

Original

archive.org