STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF DAKOTA FIRSTJUDICIAL DISTRICT

Case Type: Other Civil

In the Matter of the Voluntary Dissolution of Court File No. 19HA-CV-22-657

Feeding Our Future

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION’S CLAIM

INTRODUCTION

1. On January 20, 2022, the United States Attorney’s Office unsealed multiple search

warrants and their accompanying sworn affidavits signed by special agent Travis Wilmer of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (“FBI Affidavits”). 1 See Declaration of Kristine Nogosek

(“Nogosek Decl.”), Exs. 1-3. The FBI Affidavits show that Feeding Our Future (“FOF”) and its

Executive Director, Aimee Bock (“Bock”), are at the center of a massive fraud scheme to steal

millions of dollars of federal food aid. The FBI Affidavits publicize the fact that “almost none” of

the more than $200 million that FOF received went to feed hungry and at-risk kids in Minnesota

and was instead spent on purchases of luxury items and kickbacks to Bock.

2. On September 20, 2022, the United States Attorney’s Office unsealed six

indictments and three Criminal Information Complaints (the “Indictments”), including the

indictment of Bock, outlining FOF’s and Bock’s central role in the massive scheme to steal $250

million of federal food aid intended to feed hungry children. See Nogosek Decl., Exs. 6-14. The

Indictments describe FOF’s and Bock’s “pay-to-play scheme” where FOF and Bock required

fraudulent sites under its sponsorship to provide kickbacks to FOF’s employees, including Bock

1
Additional information outlining FOF’s massive fraud scheme became public on April 21, 2022
and May 25, 2022 with the unsealing of two Criminal Complaints and their supporting Affidavits
from special agent Travis Wilmer. See Nogosek Decl., Exs. 4-5
1
and her co-conspirator Abdikerm Abdelahi Eidleh. In total, 48 individuals related to FOF’s fraud

were criminally charged on September 20, 2022. The Indictments show that FOF, Bock, and their

co-conspirators stole hundreds of millions of dollars of food aid from Minnesota’s hungry and

vulnerable children.

3. In the midst of its multi-million-dollar fraud, FOF abused the judicial process in an

attempt to keep the Minnesota Department of Education (“MDE”)—FOF’s state regulator—from

uncovering its fraud. In total, MDE spent $583,915.11 of state taxpayer dollars defending itself

against FOF’s baseless legal attacks. 2

4. With this Claim, MDE seeks to recover its costs and fees of over half a million

dollars from FOF. The FBI Affidavits and the Indictments outline FOF’s and Bock’s fraudulent

acts of stealing millions of dollars that were intended for hungry children. In the course of FOF’s

fraud, the organization also dragged MDE through the mud, bringing frivolous legal challenges

and costing the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs and attorney fees. FOF sought

to distract the courts from its ongoing fraud and sought to punish MDE for making every attempt

to end FOF’s theft. Once the FBI Affidavits became public, FOF immediately dropped its sham

lawsuit. MDE seeks to recover all fees and costs expended to defend itself against FOF’s baseless

legal attacks.

2
To protect the ongoing federal investigation, MDE can only refer in this claim to publicly-
available information. MDE reserves the right to supplement this claim as more information is
uncovered in the federal investigation. MDE also reserves the right to supplement this claim if
FOF’s actions cause MDE to incur additional damages. In filing this claim, MDE is not waiving
any of its rights to seek damages from other individuals or entities, nor is it waiving any right to
seek damages through other legal means, including but not limited to an award of restitution in the
criminal proceedings against Bock and her co-conspirators.
2
 RELEVANT FACTS

5. MDE is the state agency in Minnesota assigned to administer two federally-funded

food programs intended to feed hungry at-risk children: the Child and Adult Care Food Program

(“CACFP”) and the Summer Food Service Program (“SFSP”). These food programs are governed

by 7 C.F.R. § 226 and § 225, respectively.

6. FOF was a sponsor under CACFP and SFSP until MDE terminated its sponsorships

and cut off its payments on January 20, 2022, when the FBI Affidavits became public. The FBI

Affidavits and Indictments describe the extent of the fraud, millions of stolen federal food aid that

was laundered through shell companies before being used to buy jewelry, luxury vehicles, lake

front properties, a one-million dollar home in Plymouth, a $500,000 apartment in Kenya, trips, and

other lavish items.

7. Beginning in October 2020, MDE attempted to regulate FOF’s operations. In

response, FOF sued MDE on November 20, 2020 in a brazen move to force MDE to back down

and ease regulatory oversight of FOF. 3 The FBI Affidavits and Indictments make clear what MDE

suspected for a long time – that FOF’s lawsuit against MDE was a sham, filed to permit FOF to

continue perpetuating fraud and stealing millions of dollars of federal food aid intended to go to

Minnesota’s needy children.

8. Even after being sued, MDE continued its efforts to regulate FOF’s operations

through a series of regulatory actions. These actions included: (i) declaring FOF seriously deficient

in its operations of SFSP and CACFP for, among other things, non-conformance with the federal

3
Feeding Our Future v. Minnesota Department of Education, et al., Ramsey County District Court
No. 62-CV-20-5492. In the Complaint filed on November 20, 2020, FOF challenged MDE’s
regulatory actions taken in October 2020 to close down FOF sites operating out of for-profit
restaurants and sought to compel MDE to expedite FOF’s applications to operate additional food
sites.
3
performance standards, failing to maintain its 501(c)(3) nonprofit status with the IRS, and failing

to timely complete annual audits of its finances; (ii) proposing to terminate FOF’s sponsorship for

failing to correct its serious deficiencies; (iii) denying a total of 83 SFSP site applications; (iv)

denying 144 CACFP site applications; and (v) issuing a “stop pay” to suspend payment to FOF

until MDE could validate the claims. As discussed in more detail below, FOF resisted and

challenged each regulatory action MDE took. FOF even challenged two of MDE’s regulatory

actions all the way to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. 4

9. In the Spring of 2020, FOF applied to MDE to become a sponsor in the SFSP.5

Prior to its application, the IRS had revoked FOF’s 501(c)(3) status because FOF failed to file

annual series-990 returns with the IRS for three consecutive years. In signing its SFSP sponsor

agreement in May of 2020, FOF lied to MDE and stated that it was in good standing as a 501(c)(3)

nonprofit organization. FOF knew, however, that the IRS had revoked its nonprofit status and

knew that without its nonprofit status FOF was ineligible to participate as a sponsor under SFSP

and CACFP. 6 The IRS did not reinstate FOF’s 501(c)(3) status until December 1, 2020.

10. When FOF sued MDE on November 20, 2020, it was not eligible to sponsor any

sites because the IRS had revoked FOF’s 501(c)(3) status. FOF nonetheless sought damages

against MDE for its actions related to FOF’s sites, including several sites identified in the FBI

Affidavits and Indictments as being part of the widespread fraud scheme to steal hundreds of

4
See Feeding Our Future v. Minnesota Department of Education, Court of Appeals No. A21-
0945; Feeding Our Future v. Minnesota Department of Education, Court of Appeals No. A21-
0980.
5
Prior to this time, FOF operated as a sponsor of CACFP.
6
MDE was unaware of the revocation of FOF’s nonprofit status because the IRS was slow in
updating its website due to COVID.

4
millions of dollars. 7 FOF also sought damages arising out of MDE’s early termination of sites

operated by FOF at for-profit restaurant sites in the Spring and Summer of 2020. Two of these for-

profit restaurant sites—Safari Restaurant and S&S Catering—are also identified as fraudulent sites

in the FBI Affidavits and Indictments.

11. FOF continued its fraud upon the Court when it filed a Motion for an Emergency

Temporary Restraining Order and Injunction on November 23, 2020. Not only was FOF ineligible

to sponsor SFSP or CACFP sites because if its revoked 501(c)(3) status, but in its motion, it asked

the Court for emergency relief against MDE for sites named in the FBI Affidavits and Indictments

as being part of the scheme that stole hundreds of millions of dollars of federal food aid. 8

12. Through this sham motion, FOF obtained an Order requiring MDE to process its

applications within a reasonable time frame. FOF used this falsely-obtained Order as leverage to

try to force MDE to process its applications quicker. When MDE did not do so, FOF filed a motion

for contempt and asked the court to sanction MDE. On June 24, 2021, the Court held MDE in

contempt and sanctioned MDE in the amount of $35,750 and awarded FOF $11,750 in attorneys’

fees based on the falsely-obtained Order.

13. MDE was sanctioned, in part, for not processing applications quickly enough for,

among others, sites operated by ThinkTechAct. The FBI Affidavits and Indictments detail how

ThinkTechAct’s owners, through a series of shell companies—Empire Cuisine & Market, LLC

and Empire Enterprises, LLC—"fraudulently obtained and misappropriated Federal Child

Nutrition Program funds” in excess of $21 million.

7
These include sites operated by ThinkTechAct, ASA Limited, Brava Restaurant, Stigma Free,
Olive Management, Advance Youth Athletic Development, and Youth Inventors Lab.
8
These include sites operated by Safari Restaurant, S&S Catering, ASA Limited, Brava
Restaurant, Stigma Free, and Olive Management.
5
 14. In July 2021, FOF filed a second motion to hold MDE in contempt of Court—this

time arguing that MDE was prohibiting FOF from submitting new site applications to MDE. In

support of its second motion for contempt, Bock filed a sworn declaration in which she represented

to the Court that one of the sites MDE would not accept an application for was FOF–Taylor and

that the FOF–Taylor site had already spent $1,120,897.20 to feed needy children. The FBI

Affidavits make public that the FOF–Taylor site was a fraudulent site that did not serve meals to

children. 9

15. Throughout FOF’s sham lawsuit, whenever MDE took any regulatory action

whatsoever, FOF reliably followed with some combination of new claims, greater damages,

frivolous motion practice, or additional discovery. One such example is the stop pay MDE issued

in April of 2021. MDE issued the stop pay in connection with MDE’s determination that FOF was

seriously deficient in its operation as a sponsor of CACFP and SFSP. The purpose of the stop pay

was to stop MDE from paying FOF’s claims until MDE could validate them through a “claim

validation process”. In response, FOF filed another motion with the Court to enjoin MDE from

stopping payment. 10

16. In April 2021, the Court told MDE that it lacked regulatory authority to stop

payments to FOF. Despite this, MDE continued to demand that FOF follow the claim validation

process—a procedure that required FOF to provide MDE with documents to substantiate its claims

for payment. FOF refused and asserted in the lawsuit that MDE imposed the validation process on

FOF as part of MDE’s pattern of discrimination against FOF. The FBI Affidavits and Indictments

9
The Court denied FOF’s second sanction motion on July 15, 2021 as premature.
10
Also, in response to the stop pay and claim validation process, FOF filed a motion with the Court
asking the Court to allow it to amend its Complaint to add claims against MDE for theft,
conversion, and abuse of process. The Court denied FOF’s motion to amend.
6
make clear why FOF refused to provide MDE with documents—FOF was in fact knowingly

submitting false and fraudulent claims for payments totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

17. FOF routinely accused MDE of being racist and discriminatory in legal proceedings

(both orally and in writing). It also made this accusation outside of court by spreading that

pernicious lie in the communities it was pretending to serve. The effect of these lies was plainly

demonstrated when FOF held a rally outside MDE headquarters in June of 2021 at which people

criticized MDE’s regulation of FOF. 11 FOF and others also contacted elected officials to try to

pressure MDE to soften its regulatory actions against FOF. FOF tried to turn the community, the

court, and elected officials against MDE as cover for its own fraud and to direct attention away

from itself.

18. In addition to taking regulatory actions to slow FOF, MDE also contacted multiple

federal partners about the concerns it had with FOF’s operation of the USDA program. MDE has

continued to work in partnership with and assist with the FBI’s investigation. MDE’s cooperation

led to the Federal investigation into FOF’s operations, and but for MDE, the fraud may have gone

on even longer.

19. The FBI was not the first federal agency MDE contacted about its concerns with

FOF’s rapid growth—by 2021 FOF received approximately $197 million in federal aid, up from

approximately $42 million in 2020 and $3.4 million in 2019. After MDE questioned FOF about

its inexplicable growth and failed to get satisfactory answers, because MDE lacked investigatory

authority, MDE began repeatedly contacting the United States Department of Agriculture

(“USDA”) Midwest Regional Office in 2020, and later the USDA Office of the Inspector General,

11
See Minnesota nonprofits say Department of Education standing in way of meals for students,
available at: https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/minnesota-nonprofits-say-department-of-
education-standing-in-way-of-meals-for-students/.
7
regarding its concern about FOF’s inexplicable growth. It was not until MDE reached out to the

FBI in April 2021 that MDE’s concerns were taken seriously.

20. As part of its effort to cooperate with and assist in the federal investigation, MDE

did not assert certain defenses in the lawsuit and curtailed its discovery requests so as not to tip

FOF off to existence of the federal investigation. MDE did so at great risk to itself.

21. Not only did FOF use the litigation as a cover for its fraud, but it also used the

litigation to try to extract significant damages from MDE, including damages for sites identified

as being fraudulent in the FBI Affidavits and Indictments—sites such ThinkTechAct, ASA

Limited, Brava Restaurant, Stigma Free, Advance Youth Athletic Development, and Youth

Inventors Lab.

22. Just eight days before the federal investigation into FOF became public, FOF

informed MDE that it would seek damages in the sham lawsuit in the $50 to $60 million dollar

range and that if MDE wanted to settle the case it would need to be prepared to pay FOF “over

seven figures”.

23. Within hours of the FBI executing the search warrants on January 20, 2022, FOF

asked to dismiss its sham lawsuit. Once the federal investigation became public, FOF knew that it

could no longer use the sham litigation as part of the plan to keep its fraud secret from MDE and

the public.

CLAIM

24. FOF’s sham lawsuit and its baseless challenges to MDE’s regulatory actions caused

MDE to incur substantial damages. These damages include attorneys’ fees, court filing fees,

transcript fees, discovery costs, and the falsely obtained award of sanctions. Through its bad-faith

8
and malicious litigation, frivolous motion practice, and vexatious discovery practices, FOF caused

MDE damages of $583,915.11. This amount is broken down as follows:

Attorney fees to the Attorney General’s Office: $318,049.20

Attorney fees to outside document review company: $132,621.00

E-discovery fees: 12 $ 79,666.40

Transcript Fees: $ 5,478.51

Court Filing Fees: $ 600.00

Sanctions: $ 47,500.00

25. FOF stole from Minnesota’s children. FOF kept its fraud secret for as long as it did

by abusing the judicial system to punish MDE for its regulatory oversight of FOF. MDE is entitled

to recover from FOF the sum of $583,915.11, which represents the public funds MDE spent

defending itself against FOF’s baseless legal actions.

12
The e-discovery fees were paid by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office to host large
amounts of data in its e-discovery platform for the discovery phase of the sham lawsuit.

9
Dated: September 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

KEITH ELLISON
Attorney General
State of Minnesota

/s/ Kristine K. Nogosek

KRISTINE K. NOGOSEK
Assistant Attorney General
Atty. Reg. No. 0304803

445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400

St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2131
(651) 757-1372 (Voice)
(651) 297-8265 (Fax)
kristine.nogosek@ag.state.mn.us

ATTORNEYS FOR CLAIMANT

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION

10