Maple Grove Local News

Maple Grove Local News Legal

Maple Grove Local News

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.



woman in white cardigan enters courthouse

The judge presiding over the Feeding Our Future case is limiting convicted ringleader Aimee Bock's access to confidential case documents from jail after she allegedly directed her adult sons to send the files to reporters and elected officials.

In March 2024, a jury found Bock, the former executive director of Feeding Our Future, guilty of wire fraud and bribery. Prosecutors said she led dozens of people in a scheme to swindle taxpayers out of $250 million during the COVID-19 pandemic by falsely claiming to have served millions of meals through two government child nutrition programs.

Federal prosecutors on Tuesday asked U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel to prohibit Bock from speaking with her sons prior to her May 21 sentencing hearing, but Brasel said at a Thursday hearing that would be a step too far.

“I’m not going to preclude Ms. Bock from talking with her sons,” Brasel said. “We can come up with a remedy that doesn’t go that far.”

Bock appeared at the hearing wearing ankle chains and a neon green jail uniform. She spoke privately with her attorney but did not address the court directly.

Citing recorded calls from the Sherburne County Jail, prosecutors Matthew Murphy and Rebecca Kline said that since at least February, Bock directed Camden Bock, 20, to download case files from a Dropbox account and send them to public officials and the news media. MPR News received several batches of files from a sender who used the pseudonym “Daisy Hill.”

The prosecutors said that this was a clear violation of Brasel’s 2022 protective order that requires parties to the case to hold non-public evidence “in strict confidentiality.”

Of particular concern, Murphy told the judge, are FBI FD-302 forms sent to a reporter at the Minnesota Star Tribune that summarize law enforcement witness interviews.

Murphy conceded that he does not have a “direct line” that proves Bock sent the documents to the newspaper, but in a recorded call, Bock “references that she’s doing an interview with the same reporter who has the leaked documents. She also mentions that the reporter has hundreds of 302 reports.”

Defense attorney Kenneth Udoibok said that he also listened to the jail calls and heard Bock make an inartful attempt to clear her name.

“What I heard was my client crying out for help in the wrong ways, and concerned about her children, and wanting to reach out to any and all people,” Udoibok said.

Prosecutors noted that Bock directed her son to remove exhibit stickers and other markings to indicate that the documents came from her case files.

“The request to remove information from documents that indicates they’re part of a federal case is clear evidence of consciousness of guilt,” Brasel said. “That’s really clear from the calls and it’s really disturbing.”

Citing past incidents of witness intimidation, Brasel said that any leaks of confidential information could have a chilling effect on people who may testify in related cases.

“Ms. Bock’s case is not the end of the Feeding Our Future litigation and trials,” Brasel said. “I have upcoming trials about the same scheme.

“I’m concerned by the information that I have, because what I heard goes beyond a person who’s obviously understandably distressed and wants to convince the public of her innocence.”

Brasel ordered Bock not to access case files without her attorney present. The judge also ordered Udoibok to change Bock’s Dropbox password, ensure that all confidential documents are deleted from her sons' computers, and draft a list of all the files sent.

The judge did not postpone Bock’s sentencing hearing, but she gave prosecutors and the defense extra time to draft their arguments about how much prison time Bock should receive. Because of the fraud’s massive scale, federal sentencing guidelines allow for a life sentence.



Source link



Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields is seen with members of the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday at the Capitol. Fields represents the Louisiana congressional district at the heart of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday to severely weaken the Voting Rights Act.

Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields is seen with members of the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday at the Capitol. Fields represents the Louisiana congressional district at the heart of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Wednesday to severely weaken the Voting Rights Act.
Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields is seen with members of the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday at the Capitol. Fields represents the Louisiana congressional district at the heart of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday to severely weaken the Voting Rights Act.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP

A historic drop in representation by Black members of Congress may be on the way after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision Wednesday to further weaken the Voting Rights Act.

Now that the high court's conservative majority has reinterpreted longstanding provisions against racial discrimination under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Republican calls for new rounds of map drawing for the House of Representatives have already begun.

How much of that redistricting can be done in time for this fall's midterm election is unclear, although many states have held or are close to holding congressional primary races.

But in the long run, looking beyond this November, many redistricting experts are expecting Republican-controlled state legislatures in the South to eliminate at least some House districts with sizable racial minority populations currently represented by Black Democrats and that were likely protected under the Supreme Court's previous interpretation of Section 2 provisions.

From Louisiana and eastward to North Carolina, there are at least 15 House districts now at risk of elimination, according to an NPR analysis conducted earlier this year. (That list grows longer if taking into account newly redrawn districts in Missouri and Texas, which were not included in the analysis.)

Exactly how redistricting will play out with an eroded Voting Rights Act is hard to predict. Some Democratic-led states may jump into the fray and consider undoing certain majority-minority districts to spread out their voters and try to pick up additional seats.

And some GOP-led states may decide to keep some of those districts for partisan reasons, as they can keep large numbers of Democratic-leaning voters packed within those lines.

Losing even a handful of those districts, however, could set up the largest-ever decline in the number of Black representatives on Capitol Hill — breaking a record set around the end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction era by the Congress that began in 1877 with four fewer House districts represented by Black lawmakers than the previous session.

Black-represented districts were in the single digits or at zero for a century after the Civil War. But since the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that number has grown to 63 districts, making up around 14% of the House.

The potential drop in that figure drew a swift rebuke Wednesday from members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

"With this decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court has opened the door to a coordinated attack on Black voters across this country," Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York, chair of the caucus, said during a press conference hours after the court released its decision. "This is an outright power grab. It's about silencing Black voices, dismantling majority Black districts and rigging the maps so that politicians can choose their voters instead of the other way around."

As part of its reinterpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the court's conservative majority ruled that a Louisiana congressional district crafted to comply with Section 2 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and that Section 2 should focus on intentional racial discrimination.

Rep. Terri Sewell, a Democrat from Alabama who has led what has been an uphill push to shore up and expand the Voting Rights Act, said she plans to revise her bill again to "reflect the court cases that have tried to gut" the landmark law.

"Listen, we cannot give up," Sewell said. "We're not going to give up."

In the meantime, however, Atiba Ellis, a law professor and associate dean at Case Western Reserve University, sees the ongoing partisan gerrymandering war between Republicans and Democrats only getting worse with a further weakened Voting Rights Act.

"This could distort politics in Washington substantially by preventing communities of color from genuinely being heard," Ellis says. "I think it highly ironic that under the guise of a colorblind Constitution communities of color in a diversifying America could lose the lion's share of their voice in government."

Edited by Benjamin Swasey

Copyright 2026, NPR



Source link

Recent Reviews