Court filing — United States v. Bock et al. (Feeding Our Future) (Dkt. 848, D. Minn.)

Summary

The Government's Motion to Modify the Protective Order Governing Discovery and for Sanctions, filed 04/28/26 as Doc. 848 in United States v. Aimee Marie Bock, Criminal No. 22-223 (1) (NEB/DTS), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The government asks the court to modify its November 15, 2022 Protective Order as to Bock and to sanction her. It alleges that Bock directed her son from jail calls to send protected discovery to elected officials and the media, and that a Star Tribune reporter obtained law enforcement interview reports. It states that the government cannot say with certainty who gave the reports to the newspaper. It asks the court to bar access to protected materials outside her defense attorney's presence, to require surrender of copies and Dropbox access, and to bar contact with her sons until sentencing.

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. 848    Filed 04/28/26   Page 1 of 11




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
                      Criminal No. 22-223 (1) (NEB/DTS)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff,
                                                   GOVERNMENT’S MOTION
                                                   TO MODIFY THE
       v.
                                                   PROTECTIVE ORDER
                                                   GOVERNING DISCOVERY
AIMEE MARIE BOCK,
                                                   AND FOR SANCTIONS
                    Defendant.


       The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Daniel N. Rosen,

United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, and Matthew C. Murphy and

Rebecca E. Kline, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, respectfully moves the Court to modify

the Court’s November 15, 2022, Protective Order Governing Discovery as it relates to

defendant Aimee Bock. (ECF #130.) Because Bock has repeatedly engaged in conduct

that violates the Protective Order and aims to subvert the judicial process, the

government also requests that the Court sanction her by prohibiting her and any

third parties acting on her behalf from accessing or possessing materials governed by

the Protective Order outside the presence of her criminal defense attorney, and by

prohibiting contact between Bock and her sons until after sentencing.

 I.    BACKGROUND

       Aimee Bock was indicted along with 13 co-conspirators on September 13, 2022,

for her role in a massive fraudulent scheme to obtain and dole out hundreds of

millions of dollars in Federal Child Nutrition Program funds through Feeding Our

Future. On March 19, 2025, a jury convicted Bock on all counts. To date, 79


                                         1
     CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS          Doc. 848    Filed 04/28/26   Page 2 of 11




defendants have been charged in connection with the scheme, and 65 defendants,

including Bock, have been convicted following trials or guilty pleas. Unfortunately,

numerous defendants have corrupted the judicial process during the pendency of the

case, including by electronically recording court proceedings, bribing jurors, and

tampering with witnesses. It now appears that Bock is brazenly adding to this

corruption by leaking sensitive, protected materials to the media and elected officials

ahead of her May 21, 2026, sentencing. In doing so, she seeks to minimize her

leadership role in the fraud at Feeding Our Future and lay the blame for her crimes

at the feet of uncharged individuals and entities.

      In the course of the government’s investigation and subsequent prosecutions

of fraud against the Federal Child Nutrition Program, it interviewed hundreds of

witnesses, including numerous cooperating defendants and uncharged witnesses.

Those statements were memorialized in written interview reports. Federal law

enforcement officers also obtained millions of pages of documents through grand jury

subpoenas and search warrant, many of which contain sensitive financial and

personal identification information of defendants and non-defendants alike. Before

producing discovery in Bock’s case, the government moved for a Protective Order to

limit the dissemination of this sensitive information and its use for any purpose

outside of the litigation. (ECF #123.)

      On November 15, 2022, the Court granted the government’s motion and

entered a Protective Order Governing Discovery. (ECF #130.) The Protective Order

recognized that the investigative materials collected by the government included



                                           2
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 848    Filed 04/28/26   Page 3 of 11




highly sensitive information and so required that Bock, along with her co-defendants,

hold such disclosures “in strict confidentiality,” to be used solely for the purposes of

her criminal case. (Id. ¶ 2.) Bock’s use of protected discovery material for any other

purpose would be deemed a violation of the Court’s Protective Order, subjecting her

to sanctions. Following entry of the Protective Order, the government produced

terabytes of data to Bock and her counsel pursuant to the Protective Order’s terms.

The government’s productions included hundreds of sensitive witness interview

reports.

II.    BOCK VIOLATED THE PROTECTIVE ORDER

       On April 2, 2026, the government learned that a member of the Minnesota

State House of Representatives had received two emails from an individual named

“Daisy Hill” using a Proton Mail email address, claiming that “Tim Walz, Keith

Ellison, and the Minnesota Department of Education intentionally set Feeding Our

Future and Aimee Bock up as a scapegoat.” The emails attached numerous

documents governed by the Protective Order, including entries from Aimee Bock’s

Feeding Our Future Monday.com account and emails from Aimee Bock’s Feeding Our

Future email account.

       Then, on April 21, 2026, the government learned that a reporter for the

Minnesota Star Tribune had contacted a lawyer representing a cooperating witness

in the Feeding Our Future case. The reporter stated to the lawyer that they had

obtained copies of reports of two of the witnesses’ law enforcement interviews and

intended to quote extensively from them in an upcoming article about the conduct of

certain uncharged individuals. On April 24, 2026, the government learned from

                                           3
     CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS         Doc. 848    Filed 04/28/26    Page 4 of 11




another lawyer that this same reporter had claimed to have over one hundred law

enforcement interview reports (specifically, FBI FD-302 reports) that they would be

quoting from in their upcoming article. Given the nature of the documents, they could

only have come from the government’s discovery disclosures, in violation of the

Court’s Protective Order.

      The government subsequently investigated who was responsible for

disseminating the protected interview reports to the Star Tribune reporter. Although

the government has not been able to ascertain with certainty who provided the

interview reports to the Star Tribune, it seems apparent that Bock, or an individual

acting on her behalf, is responsible for this corruption of the judicial process. It also

is apparent that Bock repeatedly and shamelessly violated the Court’s Protective

Order by directing her adult son to disseminate protected material from the

government’s disclosures to elected officials and members of the media.

      According to recorded calls from Sherburne County Jail, since at least

February 2026, Bock has been directing her college-age son, Camden Bock, to

download large volumes of materials related to her federal prosecution from her

Dropbox account 1 and send them to elected officials and members of the media. Her

purpose for doing so can best be described as a public relations campaign— to seek to

minimize her starring role in pilfering the Federal Child Nutrition Program while

casting the “real” blame for the rampant fraud on the Walz administration, state

administrators, and uncharged individuals.


1 Dropbox is a cloud-based file storage application.



                                           4
     CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 848    Filed 04/28/26   Page 5 of 11




      For example, during a recorded jail call on March 16, 2026, Bock instructed

Camden on how to navigate her Dropbox account and asked him to download

numerous documents that she believed showed that she tried to combat fraud at

Feeding Our Future. Significantly, these were the same documents that were later

sent to a member of the Minnesota legislature from the “Daisy Hill” Proton Mail

account. Bock also dictated to Camden what she said would be the body of the email:

“Ellison’s office intentionally set Bock/FOF up to be a scapegoat.” She told Camden

to remove the trial exhibit stickers, and other markings indicating the documents

came from her federal criminal case, before emailing them from a newly created

Proton Mail account to “all republicans and the media.” Bock then told Camden they

would send out batches of additional documents every few days for the next week or

two. On March 27, 2026, Bock told Camden to send the files to “Republicans in DC,”

especially the “guy who told Ellison he should be in jail” and the “right wing people

that [President] Trump follows.”

      On March 28, 2026, Bock directed Camden to “create a folder of stuff that we’re

gonna send out” and a folder “of the stuff that’s been sent.” That way, she explained,

they could easily resend all the documents to others who might request it. She then

asked Camden to log into her Dropbox account to download more files, including her

Monday.com notes. She again instructed him to remove any exhibit stickers before

sending the materials. In a call later that day with an unidentified female, Bock

claimed that she hadn’t “snitch[ed] on nobody” during the four years her case was

pending, “but we’re blowing shit up now. Now we’re leaking all kinds of documents.”



                                          5
     CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 848    Filed 04/28/26   Page 6 of 11




      In a recorded call on March 30, 2026, Bock asked Camden whether he got “any

of those emails sent?” Camden replied that he had sent “three so far” but because the

files are so big he could only send “like one every eight hours.” Bock suggested that

he try to zip the files before sending. On April 1, 2026, Bock told Camden that they

had to “get some more stuff out.” Camden replied that he already had sent six emails

and that one local television reporter had replied, “thank you.”

      Bock told Camden that the Star Tribune wanted to interview her. She stated

that she didn’t want to “talk too much about it because obviously they listen to my

phone calls, but there’s a shit ton of people who are working together to get this

moving in the right direction.” Bock ended the call by telling Camden to “send out the

next round and then let me know when . . .you’re free to download some more of that

stuff.” Later that same day, Bock told her other son, Cale, that a Star Tribune

reporter was writing a “whole story on [an uncharged individual] and why she never

got indicted, including all the evidence that exists against her.” Two days later, on

April 3, 2026, Bock told Cale that Camden had “been sending some stuff out, like to

expose the truth.” She explained that Camden used a Proton Mail account with a

“fake name” so they “wouldn’t know it was [] him.”

      On April 9, 2026, Bock told Camden about an interview she did with the Star

Tribune reporter. She said that she answered all the reporter’s questions and told

him that she had “all the documents to back up every single thing I say.” According

to Bock, the Star Tribune reporter intended to publish the story after the parties had

filed their sentencing position papers, as that would juxtapose how the government



                                          6
     CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 848    Filed 04/28/26   Page 7 of 11




wants [Bock to get] this much time [while] this [other] lady didn’t even get charged.”

Camden voiced concerns that by talking to the media, Bock might get a longer

sentence in her federal case. Bock brushed off his concerns, saying, “they want to

sentence me to life anyway.”

      The next day, April 10, 2026, Bock told Camden that she was sending him two

new email addresses to which he was to “forward everything you’ve sent out.”

Camden replied that yet another reporter had responded to his email and indicated

he would “look at everything this weekend.”

      On April 13, 2026, Bock told Camden that she wanted to “start with the stuff

for Star Tribune.” She explained that she was going to “have [Camden] download

some more stuff then we’re going to send it.” She again helped Camden navigate to

her Dropbox, directed him to a folder entitled “Federal Case,” and asked him to email

selected documents to the Star Tribune reporter. The next day, Bock informed her

son Cale that the Star Tribune reporter had over three hundred of the government’s

interview reports from its investigation.

      In a recorded jail call on April 16, 2026, Camden told Bock he sent her a “to-

do-list” of the items the “Star guy” wanted. Camden thought he had found some of

the items “on a black media folder,” including a document with the evidence sticker

B11. Bock responded that they should “knock that out quick” and suggested they “try

to do the Star Tribune stuff tonight.” Camden started reading through the “to-do list”

from the “Star guy” item by item, including requests for an April 2021 email “from

[K.J.] to FBI, which originated from [J.R’s] personal email account with a voicemail



                                            7
       CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS       Doc. 848    Filed 04/28/26   Page 8 of 11




attachment” and a February 2021 email from C.T. to the Minnesota Department of

Education. Bock instructed Camden on how to locate the requested documents within

her Dropbox.

        Finally, in an April 19, 2026, call with an unidentified female, Bock said that

someone had given the Star Tribune reporter “every interview the FBI did with

people.” She added that her criminal defense attorney, Kenneth Udoibok, and the

editor of the Star Tribune were making plans as to when to publish the article to

garner the most strategic advantage.

III.    ARGUMENT

        Based on the foregoing, Bock has flagrantly, knowingly, and willfully violated

the Court’s Protective Order by disseminating protected government discovery

materials for purposes other than her federal criminal case. She is using these

protected materials solely for the improper purpose of waging a public relations

campaign in advance of sentencing, rehashing her failed, self-serving, trial defense

that she attempted to combat fraud but was thwarted by state administrators. Sadly,

but unsurprisingly, she is using her own son to violate the Court’s order and corrupt

the legal process.

        That she has done so knowingly and willfully is evidenced by her explicit

instructions to her son to remove all markings that would identify the leaked

documents as originating from her federal court file, and to send them using a Proton

Mail account set up under a fake name. She openly admitted that she was aware her

conduct could result in additional penalties, but that she simply did not care due to

the high sentencing exposure she already faces due to her conviction at trial.

                                           8
     CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 848    Filed 04/28/26   Page 9 of 11




         The fact of Bock’s sentencing exposure and the Court’s pending sentencing

determination is no reason to allow her flagrant disregard of the Court’s orders to go

unsanctioned. Additional defendants in the broader Feeding Our Future fraud

scheme, including one co-defendant with whom Bock was indicted, remain pending

trial. The government’s investigation and prosecutions remain ongoing. Bock’s

leaking of protected material into the public domain is directly and highly harmful

not only to the government’s prosecution, but also to the safety of those witnesses

who have chosen to come forward and speak to law enforcement. Protective orders

are entered to prevent exactly this type of conduct, and Bock should be sanctioned

accordingly for her manipulation of the criminal justice process.

         Although the government cannot say with absolute certainty whether Bock is

the person directly responsible for leaking cooperating witness statements to the Star

Tribune, it is clear she was leaking other protected documents to members of the

media at the same time the Star Tribune received the reports. It is also clear that

Bock believes the Star Tribune reporter is writing an article that will favorably color

her role in the fraud—indeed, she claimed her attorney was strategizing with the

editor to ensure the article is published when it will be most beneficial to Bock—such

that she was highly incentivized to provide the reports. Moreover, the nature of the

Star Tribune’s planned story, focusing on uncharged individuals, would be more

favorable to Bock than any other charged defendant, given her particular role in the

fraud.




                                          9
    CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS        Doc. 848    Filed 04/28/26   Page 10 of 11




      Regrettably, this is not the first instance of defendants in this fraud scheme

engaging in obstructive conduct designed to subvert the judicial process. In each

instance, the government has detected the subversive conduct and sought sanctions

of varied measures from the Court. In each instance, the Court has expressed zero

tolerance for the conduct and sanctioned the offending defendant accordingly. The

Court should do the same here. Because Bock is apparently undeterred by the fact

that she is still pending sentencing, the Court should significantly curb her ongoing

access to the government’s discovery materials.

      The government therefore respectfully requests that the Court modify its

November 15, 2022, Protective Order to enjoin Bock, her sons, or any other third

parties acting on her behalf, other than her criminal defense attorney, from

possessing or having access to any of the protected materials, outside of the presence

of her criminal defense attorney. The government requests that the modified order

require Bock to (a) relinquish control of and access to her Dropbox account, either by

deleting the account or removing her access to it, and (b) surrender to the United

States all physical and electronic copies of protected material in her possession,

custody, or control. This should include, but not be limited to, her son Camden’s

computer. Finally, the government suggests that Bock’s sanctions include an order

prohibiting her from any form of contact with her sons, Cale and Camden Bock, in

advance of sentencing, given the lengths to which she has utilized them to engage in

her manipulative conduct. The Court has exercised its right to sanction prior

instances of egregious defense conduct in this case and should do so again here.



                                         10
      CASE 0:22-cr-00223-NEB-DTS      Doc. 848   Filed 04/28/26   Page 11 of 11




IV.    CONCLUSION

       For the reasons set forth above, the government moves the Court to modify the

Protective Order and to sanction Aimee Bock for her violations of the Protective

Order.



Date: April 28, 2026                          Respectfully submitted,

                                              DANIEL N. ROSEN
                                              United States Attorney


                                        BY: /s/ Matthew C. Murphy
                                            MATTHEW C. MURPHY
                                            REBECCA E. KLINE
                                            Assistant U.S. Attorneys




                                         11


File and source

File

848.pdf

Size

128,660 bytes

SHA-256

7f9c708ec7fbee266a5b68f56a0fe19405bb1fe935b368b1046c8419cd8089e3

Our copy

848.pdf

Original

archive.org