LandRightsNFarming

FW: Olusina Adebayo, Research Paper, University of the District of Columbia

2013-05-24T12:15:00.001-04:00

Olusina Adebayo, Research Presentation, University of the District of Columbia
April 29, 2013,

Olusina Adebayo

Intergovernmental Relations

Dr. Ray Oman

The natural resources that are harvested, mined or extracted are the agriculture that are used to stimulate economy and create commerce. Agriculture is fuel for the economy and commerce. These two departments have a very dynamic relationship as well. Both departments, although involved in the public sector, play huge roles in the private sector. Although the Department of Agriculture is supposed to serve the people, more often than not, it tends to serve the interest of big business. Agribusiness works in conjunction with agriculture to turn a profit as opposed to safe guarding the nations food supply. According to the North Dakota State University (NDSU) College of Agriculture, Food Systems and Natural Resources Information page, "The agribusiness industry accounts for nearly one-fifth of the US gross national product and employs close to one-fourth of the US labor force". As a result of the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) corporate Agribusiness preference, the USDA has come in conflict with subsistence and small-scale farmers. The mission statement as supplied by the USDA website, states; "We provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management"[1]. The USDA vision statement posted on their website proclaims; "To expand economic opportunity through innovation, helping rural America to thrive; to promote agriculture production sustainability that better nourishes Americans while also helping feed others throughout the world; and to preserve and conserve our Nation's natural resources through restored forests, improved watersheds, and healthy private working lands".[2]

            Although the USDA is supposed to protect and defend the food supply of the United States, in fact, the USDA acts as an un-official wing for corporate Agribusiness and profit over public health. What is Agriculture? Agriculture is the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the resulting products. The United States produces over 200 billion dollars a year in food commodities:

In agriculture, agribusiness is a generic term that can be applied to businesses involved in some or all of the following agriculturally related production systems: crop production, including farming and contract farming, seed supply, agrochemical, farm machinery, wholesale and distribution, processing, marketing, and retail sales. Though all of these elements of agriculture production and distribution may be included in the definition of agribusiness, "agribusiness" as an idea most often emphasizes the "interdependence" of these various sectors within the production chain and is often inked to the corporations or firm's which own multiple parts of that production system[3]

            A clear example of this hypocritical relationship is evidenced in the Pigford v. Glickman case.   Timothy Pigford filed the lawsuit in concert with 400 other black farmers. They claimed that the USDA was not providing services as it pertains to economic assistance:

The lawsuit was filed in 1997 by Timothy Pigford, who was joined by 400 additional African-American farmer plaintiffs. Dan Glickman, the Secretary of Agriculture, was the nominal defendant. The allegations were that the USDA treated black farmers unfairly when deciding to allocate price support loans, disaster payments, "farm ownership" loans, and operating loans, and that the USDA had failed to process subsequent complaints about racial discrimination [4]

    This case was originally a state and local issue. Timothy Pigford, a farmer from North Carolina, grew corn and soybeans on 75 leased acres of land in Southeastern North Carolina. Pigford applied for a $150,000 loan from the USDA so that he could buy land for his own farm. Instead of receiving the loan for farm ownership, Pigford was rewarded with an operating loan for seeds, fertilizer and supplies. Pigford was ultimately denied a loan for farm ownership. In 1984, Pigford testified before Congress that he was denied loans based on racial discrimination.

            In my paper, I will examine the relationship between the Departments of Agriculture and the case of Pigford v. Glickman. I will illustrate how conflict stated and what were the implications of the case. I will also detail the conflict between commercial farmers and the Department of Agriculture.I had the opportunity to interview Lawrence Lucas , President of the USDA Coalition of Minority Employees, and gathered information on the evolution of the case.In addition I will examine how issues such as Pigford v. Glickman are essentially local issues that escalate to national or Federal issues based on failures by local officials.



USDA

The United States Department of Agriculture was established to provide leadership on food, agricultural, and environmental issues by developing agricultural markets, fighting hunger and malnutrition, conserving natural resources, and ensuring standards of food quality through safeguards and inspections. The department was created by act that was installed on May 15^th 1862:

There shall be at the seat of government a Department of Agriculture, the general design and duties of which shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture, rural development, aquaculture, and human nutrition, in the most general and comprehensive sense of those terms, and to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants[5]

The USDA has many subsidiaries and subdivisions as evidenced in the chart below:

[6]

The case of Pigford v. Glickman concerns the responsibility of the USDA to assist commercial farmers. These offices fall under the Rural Development umbrella. The auxiliary offices are as follows; Rural Business-Cooperative Program, Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans, Business Enterprise, Business Opportunities, Cooperative Development, Cooperative Opportunities and Problems Research, Cooperative Program, Economic Development, and Intermediary Relending. The Rural Business-Cooperative Program has the responsibility of assisting commercial farmers in remote locations to access funds to facilitate development of land; "To meet business credit needs in underserved areas, USDA rural development business programs are usually leveraged with commercial, cooperative, or other private sector lenders". [7] The Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans Program is responsible for loaning farmers the money to purchase machinery that cultivates the land for harvest; "This program generates jobs and stimulates rural economies by providing financial backing for rural businesses. Loan proceeds may be used for working capital, machinery and equipment, buildings and real estate, and certain types of debt refinancing. The Business Enterprise was created to assist rural operations in the public sector:

These grants help public bodies, nonprofit corporations, and federally recognized Indian tribal groups finance and facilitate development of small and emerging private business enterprises located in rural areas. Grant funds can pay for the acquisition and development of land and the construction of buildings, plants, equipment, access streets, and roads, parking areas, utility and service extensions, refinancing, and fees for professional services, as well as technical assistance and related training, startup costs and working capital, financial assistance to a third party, production of television programs to rural residents, and rural distance learning networks[8]

The Business Opportunities division was created to assist in training farmers and exploring various economic enterprises in rural communities; "This program promotes sustainable economic development in rural communities with exceptional needs. Funds are provided for technical assistance, training, and planning activities that improve economic conditions. Applicants must be located in rural areas". [9] Renewable Energy and Efficiency Loans and Grants are dispersed to farmers who are exploring options in alternative forms of energy; "This program encourages agricultural producers and small rural businesses to develop renewable and energy-efficient systems". [10] The Cooperative Development organization succors farmers with partnerships to grow business:

These grants finance establishment and operation of centers for cooperative development. The primary purpose of this program is to enhance the economic condition of rural areas through the development of new cooperatives and improving operations of existing cooperatives and encourage the development of value-added ventures[11]

The Office of Economic Development facilitates creation of jobs at rural farm sites. The US Government Manual on the Department of Agriculture states:

These loans and grants finance economic development and job creation projects based on sound economic plans in rural areas. Loans and grants are available to any eligible USDA electric or telecommunication borrower to assist in developing rural areas from an economic standpoint, to generate new job opportunities, and to help retain existing employment. Loans at zero interest ate made primarily to finance business startup ventures and business startup ventures and business expansion projects. Grants are made to eligible telephone and electric utilities to establish revolving loan programs operated at the local level. The revolving loan program provides capital to nonprofit entities and municipal organizations to finance business or community facilities that promote job creation in rural areas, for facilities that extend or improve medical care to rural residents, and for facilities that promote education and training to enhance marketable job skill for rural residents[12]

            The program for Intermediate Relending was created to allocate funds to a third party for the purpose of funding farm development; "These loans finance business facilities and community development projects in rural areas. The Service lends these funds to intermediaries, which in turn provide loans to recipients who are developing business facilities or community development projects". [13]

Timothy Pigford

In the case of Pigford v. Glickman, The USDA's willingness to assist Mr. Pigford and another 13,000 other farmers was called into question. Pigford, and 400 other plaintiffs, issued a grievance that stated that they were not receiving the assistance promised to rural farmers to support them in developing and cultivating their land. These farmers believed that they were not rewarded monetary assistance because they were of African descent. The Genesis of the legislation that was passed by these black farmers starts on the state level with Mr. Pigford in North Carolina; "At issue is the class-action Pigford lawsuit, named after Timothy Pigford, a black farmer from North Carolina who was among the original plaintiffs. Thousands of farmers sued USDA claiming they had for years been denied government loans and other assistance that routinely went to whites".[14] According to the USDA Farm Service Agency, all farmers applying for a loan must first submit an application to their local or state level USDA service center; "We encourage you to contact your local office or USDA Service Center to learn more about our programs and the information you will need for a complete application".[15]

Texas, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia and Louisiana

This issue of discrimination in funding for black farmers was particularly germane as it applies to black farmers in North Carolina. According to the USDA one out of every nine black farmers, at the time of the Pigford case, was from North Carolina:

The Pigford decision is one of triumph and tragedy... One out of every nine black farmers lives—or lived, until recently—in North Carolina, including one named Tim Pigford. Like many black farmers, Tim Pigford thought he was going to get a farm ownership loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but he didn't. When he protested to the House Agriculture Committee, he suddenly lost the operating loans he had had access to as a tenant farmer. Then the Farmers Home Administration (part of the Department of Agriculture) foreclosed on his home[16]

Although Pigford's situation may be an isolated one on the micro scale, the macro vantage point displays what can be described as a systemic evaporation of the prominence of the black farmer:

By depriving Pigford of critical loan funds, Pigford lost his farm, but he wasn't alone. Since the turn of the century, the number of black-owned farms has dropped from something around 1,000,000 around the turn of the century to approximately 18,000, proportionally a decrease from 14 percent to around 1 percent of farms[17]

            This depravity in farms owned by African Americans is not just limited to North Carolina. According to the 2007 census of Agriculture, over 74% (24,466) of African-American farmers in the United States reside in Texas, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Virginia and Louisiana. In 2007 the census also shows 348 (757 in 2002) African-American farmers received Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) loans amounting to a total of $9.9 million. This averaged $28,408 per participating African-American farmer, about 32% of the national average ($87,917). Average CCC loan value to white farmers was $88,379. In 2007, the Federal government dispensed half the amount of monetary support for black farmers than it did to white farmers; "Other federal farm payments to African-Americanoperated farms averaged $4,260, half the nationalaverage government farm payment of $9,518. About 31%of all African-American farmers received some

Government payment compared to 50% of white farmers".[18]

The Class Action Suit



The multitude of black farmers that shared similar stories to that of Timothy Pigford allowed the black farmers to file a class action lawsuit. In November of 2008, 2,000 black farmers requested blanket mediation:

Following the August 1997 filing for class action status, the attorneys for the black farmers requested blanket mediation to cover all of the then-estimated 2,000 farmers who may have suffered from discrimination by the USDA. In mid-November 1997, the government agreed to mediation and to explore a settlement in Pigford. The following month, the parties agreed to stay the case for six months while mediation was pursued and settlement discussions took place. Although the USDA had acknowledged past discrimination, the Justice Department opposed blanket mediation, arguing that each case had to be investigated separately[19]

The USDA not only claimed that each case must be reconnoitered on a case-by-case basis, but, the claims were hoary and the USDA was protected by the statute of limitations:

When it became apparent that the USDA would not be able to resolve the significant backlog of individual complaints from minority farmers, and that the government would not yield on its objections to class relief, plaintiffs' counsel requested that the stay be lifted and a trial date be set. On March 16, 1998, the court lifted the stay and set a trial date of February 1, 1999. On October 9, 1998, the court issued a ruling certifying as a class black farmers who filed discrimination complaints against the USDA between January 1983 and February 21, 1997.2 In his ruling, Judge Friedman concluded that the class action vehicle was "the most appropriate mechanism for resolving the issue of liability" in the case.3 A complicating factor throughout the period, however, was a two-year statute of limitations in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), the basis for the suit. Congress, accordingly, passed a measure in the FY1999 omnibus funding law that waived the statute of limitations on civil rights cases for complaints made against the USDA between 1981 and December 31, 1996[20]

The plaintiff and the defendant would eventually settle outside of court. The Pigford case was coalescedwith the case of another black farmer,Brewington v. Glickman, for the purpose of creating a consent decree to pay the plaintiffs:

As the court date approached, the parties reached a settlement agreement and filed motionsconsolidating the Pigford and Brewington cases, redefining the certified class and requestingpreliminary approval of a proposed consent decree. On April 14, 1999, the court approved theconsent decree, setting forth a revised settlement agreement of all claims raised by the classmembers.5 Review of the claims began almost immediately, and the initial disbursement ofchecks to qualifying farmers began on November 9, 1999[21]

In addition to compensating the black farmers for their mistreatment, the consent decree also established a paradigm that details who is eligible for payment by the federal government:

Under the consent decree, an eligible recipient is an African American who (1) farmed or attempted to farm between January 1981 and December 31, 1996, (2) applied to USDA for farm credit or program benefits and believes that he or she was discriminated against by the USDA on the basis of race, and (3) made a complaint against the USDA on or before July 1, 1997. The consent decree set up a system for notice, claims submission, consideration, and review that involved a facilitator, arbitrator, adjudicator, and monitor, all with assigned responsibilities. The funds to pay the costs of the settlement (including legal fees) come from the Judgment Fund operated by the Department of the Treasury, not from USDA accounts or appropriations[22]

            The Pigford consent decree gives black farmers the option to choose two different reimbursement methods:

The Pigford consent decree basically establishes a two-track dispute resolution mechanism for those seeking relief. The most widely used option—Track A—provides a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability. Track A claimants had to present substantial evidence (i.e., a reasonable basis for finding that discrimination

happened) that

            • Claimant owned or leased, or attempted to own or lease, farmland;

• Claimant applied for a specific credit transaction at a USDA county office during the applicable period;

• The loan was denied, provided late, approved for a lesser amount than requested, encumbered by restrictive conditions, or USDA failed to provide appropriate loan service, and such treatment was less favorable than that accorded specifically identified, similarly situated white farmers; and

• The USDA's treatment of the loan application led to economic damage to the class member[23]

Track B gives farmers the option of being rewarded a larger stipend if, they provide evidence of a particularly egregious infraction:

Alternatively, class participants could seek a larger, tailored payment by showing evidence of greater damages under a Track B claim. Track B claimants had to prove their claims and actual damages by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., it is more likely than not that their claim is valid). The documentation to support such a claim and the amount of relief are reviewed by a third party arbitrator, who makes a binding decision. The consent decree also provided injunctive relief, primarily in the form of priority consideration for loans and purchases, and technical assistance in filling out forms.7 Finally, plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw from the class and pursue their individual cases in federal court or through the USDA administrative process[24]

The USDA has disbursed over one billion dollars in Track A reimbursement as evidenced by the chart below:

[25]

Backlash

            The decision to award the black farmers with compensation for acts of discrimination was not met without counterattack. There were several other groups that had issues with the Pigford settlement. The former associate general counsel, J. Michael Kelly, believes that giving retribution to such a large constituency leaves plenty of room for error:

What is more, some protested, the template for the deal — the $50,000 payouts to black farmers — had proved a magnet for fraud. "I think a lot of people were disappointed," said J. Michael Kelly, who retired last year as the Agriculture Department's associate general counsel. "You can't spend a lot of years trying to defend those cases honestly, then have the tables turned on you and not question the wisdom of settling them in a broad sweep."[26]

The settlement was also protested by other factions that believed that they were equally mistreated, or, discriminated against. As a result, the other remonstrated groups were included when the case was revisited and amended to include them; "In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion".[27] This reorganization of to include other assemblages has led to more skepticism:

From the start, the claims process prompted allegations of widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged people to lie: because relatively few records remained to verify accusations, claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm. Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination. Yet those concerns were played down as the compensation effort grew. Though the government has started requiring more evidence to support some claims, even now people who say they were unfairly denied loans can collect up to $50,000 with little documentation[28]

False claims ran rampant, particularly, in impoverished rural areas. There were even incidences reported of local and state employees being implicated in fraudulence:

But Mr. Cross, the Pine Bluff lawyer, has his suspicions. "It got out of control," said Mr. Cross, adding that he had filed about 1,500 claims, including Mr. Wright's and the apparent duplicates. He estimated that up to 15 percent of Arkansas claims were fraudulent. Claimants described how, at packed meetings, lawyers' aides would fill out forms for them on the spot, sometimes supplying answers "to keep the line moving," as one put it. Even his own staff was complicit, Mr. Cross said; he discovered that four employees had been slipping unverified claims into stacks of papers that he signed. He did not inform the court monitor, he said, because "the damage was done[29]

These claims of impropriety were countered by rebuttals from the Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund. To the belief that the settlement led to fraud: "False. Claimants and the attorneys had to sign the claim form under penalty of perjury. The claims facilitator screened out frivolous claims by underage individuals. While few documents existed, every claim was subject to scrutiny be a team of USDA officials. The claims were decided by experienced neutrals and, in the end, 30% of all claims were denied".[30]To the claim that lawyers filled out forms at the cite where stipends were rewarded, the Cooperative proclaims; "This never happened at the 250+ meetings conducted by class counsel. They were instructed not to sign claim forms under penalty of perjury unless they believed that the individual had a valid claim. On average, they turned away 25% of the claimants and were criticized by many who believed that the claim process was too rigorous".[31] The Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund also denies that compensation was granted without justification, stating:

That is incorrect. Each claim in Pigford I, to be successful, had to establish sufficient facts by the claimants own declaration (which is proof in court like any testimony) that he or she suffered discrimination, including the names of white farmers who got the specific farm loan benefit he or she was denied. Then, USDA could, and in many cases did, submit evidence that it believed contradicted the claimants declaration. All this evidence was evaluated by a trained adjudicator. This process simply cannot be described as one in which the farmer can win without any proof of bias[32]

Lawrence Lucas

For the purpose of this research Lawrence Lucas, President of the USDA Coalition Of Minority Employees, was interviewed. Mr. Lucas was a political appointee of Jimmy Carters administration and an employee of the USDA:

Lawrence C. Lucas came to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1977 as a political appointee during President Jimmy Carter's Administration; after spending five years in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as a photogrammetric instructor, representing the U.S, Agency for International Development and the Department of Defense. He holds the distinction of being the first African American Instructor at the Ethiopian Mapping and Geography Institute. A native Washingtonian, he earned both a Masters of Science Degree in Adult Education, (Administration) from the University of the District of Columbia, and a Masters Degree in Public Administration, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

During his tenure at USDA, Lucas served as speech writer for former Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland and other members of the subcabinet. He retired from USDA in 1996, after 37 years of service and became a staunch civil rights advocates. Lucas has served as president of The U.S. Department of Agriculture Coalition of Minority Employees (The Coalition) since 1994, transforming it into one of the most provocative, creative, and diverse civil rights employee organizations in the history of USDA. Lucas pioneered a communication program that has benefitted minority farmers and USDA employees and lectured at numerous prestigious institutions (i.e., Tuskegee University, Iowa State University, California Poly Technical University, Pomona, and others), regarding government accountability, civil and human rights, workforce diversity and recruitment and outreach to under served minority communities. His outspoken support of federal civil rights enforcement has captured the attention of the White House, Members of Congress, and the Media[33]

Interview

What was your role while employed by the USDA?

"I came to the USDA, and you'll see that in a bit more detail when you look at the bio on the website, as a political employee with the Carter administration. And I was a speechwriter. And at the end of the administration, I went back, because I was a government employee before that, and what I did was, I returned to regular government service and served out the rest of my career and retired from the USDA working in public affairs in 1995…early 1996. Before that I was born and raised in Washington, DC, went to Federal City College and Howard University, got a Masters Degree in Adult education administration. And eventually after that graduating in June, I went to the University of Southern California and I acquired a Masters Degree in Public Administration. I ended up at USDA. I graduated in 1974 from the University of Southern California. And in 1973 I graduated with my Masters from the University of The District of Columbia".

How did you find out about the black farmers situation?

"Because I had been working at USDA and 1994 during the…my guess would be the first black Secretary of Agriculture in history from Mississippi, he was a congressman under the Clinton Administration, was selected as a cabin member and made secretary of Agriculture, in our effort, knowing about the continued discrimination against employees as well as minority farmers, mainly our focus was black farmers, we controlled an organization called the USDA Coalition of Minority Employees and only employee members. And as we went forward, we continued to look at complaints and I met John Boyd, President of the National Black Farmers Association, I was giving a speech to the NRCS black employee organization at JC Smith College in North Carolina and John Boyd met me down there. I told him to meet me down there and he had been trying to talk to me but we had been passing each other….that I would sit down while we were in North Carolina and talk to him about this issue in more detail about the black farmers. I sat down and talked to him in a restaurant, and we started talking to about 9 o'clock, and the restaurant owner allowed us to stay until the restaurant was closed, and we talked to about 12-1 o'clock in the morning. I was shocked at the depth of the discrimination against black farmers and it wasn't just centrally located in Virginia, where he was from, it was regional, all around the country but, specifically against black farmers and denied programs and other resources by the USDA. I did the history, and started reading in more detail about how deep it was, but John Boyd explained that to me , along with two other black farmers, one of the black farmers names was Leonard Brown, and Leonard Brown is dead today, not seeing the effort of the National Black Farmers association and many black farmers groups and individuals around the country had surfaced, so that night was very….it actually brought tears to my eyes, to know and hear what he was saying and I promised them from that day forward; I apologize for not making myself available, and I promised them that I will join this fight and stay in this fight as long as my life would allow me and my job responsibilities will allow me to do so. So that was a turning point. And the rest is history because John Boyd went on along with black farmers, Gary Grant and James Myart and Phil Haynie, from Virginia, and Eddie Slaughter from Georgia, Michael Stovall from Alabama, Leroy Smith from Mississippi, its just so many farmers around the country. Some of these farmers are still fighting this problem today. So that's how   I became involved and from that meeting I've participated in every major hearing, on black farmer issues, and many of them, not all of them, but I have also pushed for hearings and I have spoken on Capital Hill. I have spoken at universities and colleges around the country, Virginia, North Carolina, Tuskegee University, (inaudible) Virginia Tech, (inaudible) in Philadelphia about this continued abuse going on with USDA. And from that discussion and all those demonstrations we had, John Boyd bringing the Mule to Washington and walking on Capitol Hill, riding his mule all the way from Virginia, and the effort of the organization of black farmers, made up of not just John Boyd, but and amalgamation of a group of determined black people, to fight of the vestiges of the slave mentality. And to be more accurate the plantation, the organization that the USDA is called, and its called that for a reason, which is the last plantation and is the last plantation for not only black farmers and minority farmers, but for the employees that work there. And that exists not only under past administrations but it exists in administrations today, even though we have a black president, the discrimination against minority employees, women employees, the abuse against them and still against the black farmers today is remarkably the same and the civil rights today under this administration is worse than the civil rights of republican administrations and other democratic administrations. President Clinton called his people in and they met with the farmers and they corrected the problem. He took Dan Glickman there and they did a remarkable job with all what they did in the late 90's up to 1980, when things changed all of that has been erased since the fouling and the settlement of Pigford was done, if I'm not mistaken, in 1987. We had the Pigford Settlement. Since the settlement you have discrimination that has existed and still has not resolved itself under this administration".

What are the challenges that black farmers have faced on the state and local level?

"There faced with the same problems they were faced with at the advent of Pigford. The same thing that they are experiencing now, they experienced with the advent of Pigford. That settlement commenced negotiations in 1998, and in October of 1999 some fourteen months later, the case was filed. What they experienced was that when they went into the county offices, (inaudible) America, they were treated differently than their counterparts, obviously white farmers. They were refused loans, they were refused conservation and construction loans. They were refused access to the same programs that benefited white farmers. That is still going on today. Their was a Pigford I and there is now a Pigford II, where many of the farmers after the settled the claim and it was all settled, many of the farmers in Pigford I were not contacted, so therefore we got a bill passed to make sure that those farmers that were left out in Pigford and not informed were in Pigford II, which is closing down this May. In other words it has ended. So what you got is the same problems that you had with black farmers are the same problems that you have today. The worst part of that is this; you have a civil rights office at USDA, headed by Dr. Joe Leonard and the secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, whose the same Secretary of Agriculture who fired Shirley Sherrod, for the wrong and no reason, is still not giving farmers the chances they should get. Even in the case of Pigford I and Pigford II they are not holding people accountable. They have given out billions of dollars of tax payers money and to this day there are very few people held accountable, not only for discriminating against thousands of black farmers, but also hundreds if not thousands of employees. So you have a situation where if you don't have any transparency, where employees can get in and black farmers can get in to file their complaints, then you don't have any justice in the processing of those complaints, which continues to be a problem today, and then you turn around and you don't hold those people accountable, number three, you have chaos. I think that's one of the three reasons why we need another black farmers movement similar to that one started by John Boyd, now you have a group of Independent Black Farmers, which started out of Alabama, by a Ferrell Oden and Mr. Michael Stovall, now has started a new movement and that movement has been demonstrating and it is demanding the justice from this administration with the processing and the handling of their complaints and the resolution of their complaints. That's what you have and that is a major problem".

What are the challenges that black farmers on a national level?

"What they face is a government in America that still feels as though black people should still be treated differently form white people. Not only is that a challenge at the grassroots level in the states in the counties where it all begins, but you have a USDA that is not administering the programs in a fair and just way to make sure when a farmer walks into one of these offices that they are treated with justice, dignity and respect and that if they have been turned down they can file a complaint with the USDA Office of Civil Rights, headed up by Joe Leonard, Assistant Secretary, and you have a Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, who is not holding Joe Leonard's people accountable so therefore the cases are not being processed fairly. Cases that are being filed are going beyond the statue of limitations. In other words you have tow years to get your cases filed, so they sit there and let these cases go by the way side because they don't process them. So then the statute of limitation passes by and they end up dismissing the case because they didn't process it. They did the same thing in the case of Pigford. Ever since 1988, during the Reagan administration, they closed the office down; they didn't have a civil rights office processing any complaints. That was proven. Also proven was the fact that the USDA was guilty of discrimination. In other words these farmers didn't get paid for nothing. They got paid because someone did something wrong either at the field level or the USDA offices and county committees that dole out the money in rural America. In 1920 we had just short of one million farmers. Now the census tells us in 1992 that we have only 19,000 farmers. Now how can you have a change like that without something that took those farmers off the land? The USDA has failed black farmers. They even have the letters of farmers that were filing complaints sitting in Safeway carts, they were sitting in windows, in an office, and they were sitting on the floor in an office, stacked up. Cases that were filed for years had never been processed. That's why you have a Pigford".

Conclusion

            The Discrepancy between black farmers and the USDA, on both the state/ local level and federal level, still continues. At the crux of their issues is race and money. Social and Socio economic issues have plagued the United States since its inception. Most of the farmers involved in this case are from impoverished rural areas and belong to a part of society that has little to no cache.   The black farmers are what some would consider the voiceless and invisible members of American society. Hopefully, these members of society will cease to be marginalized.

Works Cited

·         Usda.gov

·         Desmond; Siebert, John W. (2009). "Toward Better Defining the Field of Agribusiness Management". International Food and Agribusiness Management Review12

·         Timothy Pigford, et al., v. Dan Glickman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 97-1978 (PLF). Paul L. Friedman, U.S. District Judge

·         7 U.S.C. 2201

·         http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=USDA_ORG_CHART

·         US Government Manual: Department of Agriculture, p. 98, 99

·         http://www.blackfarmers.org/html/050609.html

·         http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=fmlp&topic=bfl

·         http://www.dailyyonder.com/print/1098

·         Cowan, Tadlock. The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a

Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers. April 21 2010. P.1

·         LaFraniere, Sharon. U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/farm-loan-bias-claims-often-unsupported-cost-us-millions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Gray, Heather. "Sharon LaFraniere got it Wrong!"

Response to the coverage of the Pigford Settlement in the

·         April 26, New York Times. 29, April 2013

[1] Usda.gov

[2] ibid.

[3]Desmond; Siebert, John W. (2009). "Toward Better Defining the Field of Agribusiness Management". International Food and Agribusiness Management Review12

[4]Timothy Pigford, et al., v. Dan Glickman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, US District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 97-1978 (PLF). Paul L. Friedman, U.S. District Judge

[5] 7 U.S.C. 2201

[6]http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=USDA_ORG_CHART

[7] US Government Manual: Department of Agriculture, p. 98

[8] ibid.

[9] Ibid., p. 99

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14]http://www.blackfarmers.org/html/050609.html

[15]http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=fmlp&topic=bfl

[16]http://www.dailyyonder.com/print/1098

[17] Ibid.

[18] Cowan, Tadlock. The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a

Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers. April 21 2010. P.1

[19] Ibid. p.2

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid. p.3

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid. p.6

[26] LaFraniere, Sharon. U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/farm-loan-bias-claims-often-unsupported-cost-us-millions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[27] LaFraniere, Sharon. U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/us/farm-loan-bias-claims-often-unsupported-cost-us-millions.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Gray, Heather. "Sharon LaFraniere got it Wrong!"

Response to the coverage of the Pigford Settlement in the

April 26, New York Times. 29, April 2013

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] USDA Coalition of Minority Employees http://www.agcoalition.org/Templates/biography.html

--

COMPANY NAME: LION AIR HOLDINGS

ADDRESS: 1776 EYE STREET, WASHINGTON, DC 20006

OFFICER: OLUSINA ADEBAYO, MANAGER INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS

TELEPHONE: 202 904 6778 (US)
   0703 336 8740 (ABROAD)
EMAIL: OLUSINAADEBAYO@GMAIL.COM

RE: A few black Capitol cops protest agency bias

2013-05-24T09:54:00.001-04:00

A few black Capitol cops protest agency bias

Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post - Members and supporters of the United States Capitol Black Police Association exercise their First Amendment rights and demonstrate against treatment of African American officers and employees by the United States Capitol Police. Planners of the event said it would draw 50-200 people, but fewer than a dozen showed up.

46
Share to Facebook
Share on Twitter
Add to PersonalPost
Save to Kindle
Share via Email
Print Article
More

Does this sound too familiar?

A few black Capitol cops protest agency bias

By Joe Davidson,
Joe Davidson
May 22, 2013 01:14 AM EDT
The Washington Post
Published: May 21 E-mail the writer

Suppose you gave a demonstration and nobody came — at least, almost nobody.
The United States Capitol Black Police Association expected 50 to 200 people to protest what it has described as an unfair, discriminatory and hostile work environment.

Joe Davidson
Joe Davidson writes the Federal Diary, a column about the federal workplace that celebrated its 80th birthday in November 2012. Davidson previously was an assistant city editor at The Washington Post and a Washington and foreign correspondent with The Wall Street Journal, where he covered federal agencies and political campaigns.

Thirty minutes after the appointed time, fewer than a dozen protesters stood under a tree outside the Capitol, looking like tourists seeking shade.
"Fear of retaliation" was the reason so few participated, according to Sharon Malloy, vice president of the association.
Perhaps.
Fear of retaliation against employees is real in the federal government, but would that alone account for such a poor turnout?
"We talked to well over 100 people and got a commitment," she said. "They said they would come, and then they didn't show up. I wish I could shake the fear out of them."
Despite the showing, the issues are serious for those who took the time to attend the demonstration, such as it was.
Malloy loved being a cop. She recalls "the officers, the public, the mission. The people motivated me to come to work."
But she also remembers feeling like the system was stacked against her and other African American officers. Malloy, who resigned in 2007 after 25 years of service, became one of the first black female lieutenants on the force in 2004. It was just last year that the first black females became captains.
The fact that it took 176 years, from 1828 when Congress created the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP), for a black woman to reach lieutenant is just one example of the racist environment African American officers say they have faced on the force.
Derrick W. Macon, a Capitol Police sergeant, was among the protesters. His complaints include being hit with a disciplinary letter for unnecessary celebration — raising his arms and saying "Thank you, Jesus" — at his promotion ceremony.
Malloy had an armful of statements with a list of complaints against the police force. Among them:
●There is "pervasive, hostile, and discriminatory treatment committed against African American officers and employees by the United States Capitol Police."
●A 12-year-old lawsuit by black police officers "alleged and identified a plethora of illegal acts, to include, but not limited to; irregularities and inequalities in the promotional process, discrimination in assignments, hostile work environment, unfair discipline and overt racism."
●There is a "continued hostile environment" as evidenced by "comments made by white officers of the United States Capitol Police" including racist references to President Obama and victims of Hurricane Katrina. "In most organizations, this would be unacceptable. Unfortunately this type of behavior is status quo with the United States Capitol Police."
Shennell Antrobus, a USCP spokesman, had this response: "As America's Police Department, we strive to employ and retain a highly skilled workforce as diverse as the public we serve. To achieve this goal, the USCP places the highest premium on individual capabilities and qualifications and ensures all employment actions are administered without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, disability, or military status, in accordance with all applicable Federal laws. Chief [Kim] Dine, who took over in December, has a long and proven history of outreach and working with minorities."
In March, the department issued a statement "reiterating its affirmation of equal employment opportunity and diversity," Antrobus added. The statement said the agency was "steadfast in our efforts to ensure that a discrimination-free and harassment-free environment exists at all levels of the Department."
Joseph D. Gebhardt, whose law firm represents the officers, said that although the lawsuit is 12 years old, his clients believe "that racial inequality is continuing."
What they want, he added, are "systemic improvements so that the promotion process is more transparent and more fair" and a way "to ensure that the assignments of officers are done in an equitable manner." They also want back pay for missed promotions.
How much money? "We don't know for sure," Gebhardt said, but predicted that a settlement could "run into the millions. Maybe that's what's causing problems in getting to the settlement table."
The long fight might be taking its toll.
Looking at the few protesters, Macon said, "a lot of them are just burned out."

Twitter: @JoeDavidsonWP
Previous columns by Joe Davidson are available at wapo.st/JoeDavidson.

What are Roundup Ready & Bt Pesticide GMO crops? You need to know!

2013-05-23T21:29:00.003-04:00

What are Roundup Ready & Bt Pesticide GMO crops? You need to know!

2013-05-23T21:29:00.001-04:00

Black Farmers: An Update 05/04 by New Orleans Wake Up | Blog Talk Radio

2013-05-22T12:25:00.001-04:00

Black Farmers: An Update 05/04 by New Orleans Wake Up | Blog Talk Radio

Upstate School's Science Quiz Gets Blasted on the Internet

2013-05-21T11:54:00.001-04:00

Upstate School's Science Quiz Gets Blasted on the Internet

FW: Monsanto to Stomp Out States' Rights to Label GMOs?

2013-05-20T19:08:00.001-04:00

Subj: Re: Monsanto to Stomp Out States' Rights to Label GMOs?

So what is new. That is because the big boys r In the white house

Is this email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser.

[Unable to display image]

Subscribe & Read Past Issues | OCA Homepage | Donate

ESSAY OF THE WEEK

Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on States' Rights
Could Monsanto slip an amendment or rider into the 2013 Farm Bill that would wipe out any state GMO labeling law? Word on the street is that the world's biggest Biotech bully is contemplating just such a move. The word from millions of consumers? Any member of Congress who even thinks about supporting Monsanto's efforts to stomp on states' rights to label GMOs should start packing their bags today.
The House Ag Committee has already passed an amendment that policy analysts say, if included in the final Farm Bill, would take away states' rights to enact GMO labeling laws. Will the King Amendment, offered by pro-Big Ag Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), survive the Senate? We don't know yet. But we do know this: Monsanto is running scared in the face of efforts in more than 30 states to require mandatory GMO labeling. Their next best line of defense is to take that right away from states – and consumers.
Read the essay

Read the press release

ACTION ALERT

Congress Beware: If You Support a Monsanto Attack on State Labeling Laws, We'll Throw You Out!
TAKE ACTION: Tell Your Congress Member: Your Job Is on the Line if You Support a Monsanto Attack on States' Right to Know!

First it was the Monsanto Protection Act, which gave biotech companies immunity from federal courts and paved the way for Monsanto to plant illegally approved, potentially dangerous genetically engineered crops. Now, an increasingly desperate Monsanto is eyeing an attack on states' rights to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Last year, 73 U.S. Senators voted against a proposed amendment to the agriculture bill, put forth by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The Sanders amendment would have guaranteed states the right to require labels on genetically engineered food products. We know who those senators are. And we know which representatives supported the King Amendment this week, passed out of the House Ag Committee, which if it passes, will take away states' rights to label GMOs. Today, officially, we're putting them, and every other member of Congress, on notice: Vote to take away states' rights to label GMOs, and we'll vote you out of office. And if you represent one of the 11 states that allow recalls of federal elected officials? Let the recalls begin.

TAKE ACTION: Tell Your Congress Member: Your Job Is on the Line if You Support a Monsanto Attack on States' Right to Know!

ACTION ALERT

Unbelievable: EPA Approves Higher Levels of Roundup's Glyphosate
TAKE ACTION: Tell the EPA to Lower the Allowed Limits for Monsanto's Roundup!

In study after study, scientists warn of the foolhardiness of unleashing into the environment tons of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup pesticide. Yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has just raised the allowable limits for glyphosate residue in human food and animal feed.
Glyphosate has been linked to everything from Parkinson's Disease and Autism, to cancer, infertility and allergies. It begs the question. Whose environment is the EPA trying to protect? Yours? Or Monsanto's? The EPA's ruling is "final." But the agency is still accepting comments. Let's tell our so-called protectors that we want lower, not higher, limits on glyphosate residue.
TAKE ACTION: Tell the EPA to Lower the Allowed Limits for Monsanto's Roundup!

SUPPORT THE OCA & OCF

Deadline Extended: Help Us Plant Hope, and We'll Help You Plant Your Garden
Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds Co. has sent us a variety of non-GMO, heirloom specialty seeds. We're passing them along to donors, while supplies last. We have lots of varieties to give away, including Purple of Sicily Cauliflower, Blue Podded Garden Peas, Stuttgarter Onions, Southern Giant Curled Mustard, Amish Deer Tongue Lettuce, Detroit Dark Red Beets, Atomic Red Carrots, Early Purple Vienna Kohlrabi and Persian Carpet Zinnias. To name a few.
Help us plant hope, and we'll help you plant your garden. Make a donation of $50 or more and we'll send you four packages of seeds. Be sure to write "seeds" in the comment field with your online donation (or on the memo line of your check). Thank you!

Donate to the Organic Consumers Fund (non-tax-deductible, but necessary for our legislative efforts in Washington, Vermont and other states)
If you need your donation to be tax-deductible, you can donate to the Organic Consumers Association (tax-deductible, helps support our work on behalf of organic standards, fair trade and public education)

NEW REPORT

A Side of Leukemia with Your GMO Corn?
The Bt (Bacillus Thuringensis) toxin in Monsanto's genetically modified corn and soy has been linked to organ failure in humans. It has turned up in the bloodstreams of pregnant women and their fetuses. Now, a study published in the Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases suggests that some forms of the Bt toxin may also contribute to certain blood cancers, such as leukemia.
The study's authors conclude: "Taking into account the increased risk of human and animal exposures to significant levels of these toxins, especially through diet, our results suggest that further studies are required . . . before concluding that these microbiological control agents are safe for mammals." Talk about a ship that's already sailed.
Learn more
Read the study (PDF)

Take That, Monsanto and Mark Lynas
Remember Mark Lynas, the repentant journalist-masquerading-as-scientist who made headlines earlier this year? For telling the world that, gosh, he'd been wrong all those years about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being bad for our health and environment? That we should pay no attention to all the new studies highlighting the dangers of GMOs, and instead embrace biotechnology as the solution to world hunger?
Well, Lynas has met his match. Thierry Vrain (pictured), retired former pro-GMO scientist (as in, actual scientist) for Agriculture Canada, now says that a growing body of scientific research showing that diets containing engineered corn or soy cause serious health problems in laboratory mice and rats should give us pause. Says Vrain: "I refute the claims of the biotechnology companies that their engineered crops yield more, that they require less pesticide applications, that they have no impact on the environment and of course that they are safe to eat." Seems the science – and now the scientists – are on our side.
Read the article

ACTION ALERT UPDATE

Win Some, Lose Some
First, the good news. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has come to its senses. Temporarily at least. The BLM postponed auctions in California that would have opened up more public lands for fracking. The auctions, involving nearly 3,300 acres of prime public lands, were planned for later this month. But thanks in part to the nearly 60,000 of you who signed our petition to the BLM, the auctions are on hold. It also didn't hurt that a federal judge ruled last month that the BLM had violated a key environmental law by previously auctioning the drilling rights for lands near the Salinas River Valley before reviewing the potential impacts on water, wildlife and air quality.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that where oil and gas companies are already fracking, farms are being destroyed. Do we really want to destroy prime farmland in California? Let's keep the pressure on the BLM to stop fracking on California's public lands. If you haven't yet signed our petition, please sign today. If you have signed, please forward to five friends who haven't. Thank you!

Now for the bad news. Our petition to save the honeybees from yet another bee-killing pesticide didn't fare so well. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved sulfoxaflor, a pesticide the agency admits is toxic to bees. The bee population has already been decimated by a host of neonicotinoid pesticides, which work in much the same way as sulfoxaflor. That's bad news for food crops. According to a United Nations report, of the 100 crop species that supply 90 percent of the world's food, bees pollinate more than 70 percent.
But don't worry. The EPA is requiring anyone using sulfoxaflor to notify "known" beekeepers within one mile of the treatment area 48 hours before they spray the pesticide. So the beekeepers can move their hives. The "known" beekeepers, that is. Can anyone say "loophole?"

LITTLE BYTES

Essential Reading for the Week
Join the March Against Monsanto May 25, 2013!

Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf

Eating As Though the Environment Mattered

400 Parts Per Million: Climate Milestone is a Moment of Symbolic Significance on Road of Idiocy

Tenn. Governor Haslam Vetoes 'Ag Gag' Anti-Whistleblower Bill

How a Legal Loophole Allows Untested Pesticides in Everything From Cosmetics to Clothing

MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSORS

Have You Tested Your Vitamin D Level Lately?
Research shows that Vitamin D is critical for your health. But if you're like most people, you probably don't get enough. Want to know for sure? The Vitamin D home test kit is an easy-to-use prick test. You return it by regular mail, and your results are mailed back to you.

All proceeds from sales of the test kit will go to the GrassrootsHealth D Action Study. The D*Action project has been initiated by GrassrootsHealth, a public health promotion organization, along with 42 leading vitamin D researchers. The project aims to demonstrate how health can be achieved right now with what's known about vitamin D, through a combination of vitamin D measurement and health outcome tracking.

Learn more about Vitamin D

Learn more about the study

follow on Twitter | friend on Facebook | OCA on Pinterest | Donate

Please forward this publication to family and friends, place it on web sites,
print it, duplicate it and post it freely. Knowledge is power!

Organic Bytes is a publication of Organic Consumers Association

6771 South Silver Hill Drive - Finland, MN 55603 - Phone: 218-226-4164 - Fax: 218-353-7652

You are subscribed as:

Halifax, NC 27887

Subscribe - Past Issues - PDFs | Manage Your Subscription | Unsubscribe

Treasury Officials Told Of IRS Probe In June 2012

2013-05-17T23:36:00.001-04:00

Treasury Officials Told Of IRS Probe In June 2012

Holder Melts Down - landrightsnfarming.seamom89@gmail.com - Gmail

2013-05-17T23:23:00.001-04:00

Holder Melts Down - landrightsnfarming.seamom89@gmail.com - Gmail

FW: This video is a tear jerker (have tissue at the ready)

2013-05-17T23:16:00.001-04:00

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

Today's video is a gentle reminder about the one thing that can transform any situation in literally 30 seconds or less: COMPASSION.

What a little third grader says to his teacher instantly bypasses the head and goes straight to the heart of any issue, no matter what. You can re-energize your personal relationships by remembering to put into practice the message of this classic, time honored story.

Each time I watch it I feel inspired to make an even bigger difference by remembering to put compassion first. I hope you will too!

Make sure to turn up your speakers before you watch it, and according to Sam Brandt (a longtime Life Secrets reader) ... "You should warn people to get their hankies ready before they click play!"

So, you've been warned - Don't forget to share this video with others...They'll thank you for it!

Watch - Make a Difference >>

Walter Wood writes ... "I am a 6 ft. 2in., 250-pound construction worker and this short, but profound, film actually brought tears to my eyes. It made me realize that I must be more mindful when I'm training my apprentices."

Be compassionate,

Doug Westmoreland Co-Founder
LifeSecretsOnline.com

We created LifeSecretsOnline.com to be your daily dose for Personal Growth. We promise to deliver the best material possible and hope you find it useful.

This newsletter is funded by our sponsors so you never have to pay - please give them your support!

Doug Westmoreland

Please feel free to share this newsletter with your friends, family and co-workers. You have permission to use this content in your newsletter as long as you do not edit the content and you leave the links intact. Life Secrets

CONSUMER NOTICE/AFFILIATE DISCLAIMER: You should assume that the sender of this email has an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the providers of goods and services mentioned in this message and may be compensated when you purchase from a provider. You should always perform due diligence before buying goods or services from anyone via the Internet or offline. Testimonials may not be typical results.

You are receiving this mailing because you signed up as a member of Life Secrets.
Please DO NOT reply to this email. If you have comments or questions, contact us.

NOTE: If you received this email from a friend and want to join our newsletter please click here.

Remove Me From Newsletter (Unsbscribe)| Update Subscription| Add us to your Safe Senders

Remove from Newsletter

3378 Castlewood Blvd Highland Village, Texas 75077 United States 877-554-6426

New York Farm Bureau: Resources - New York, Farms

2013-05-17T10:41:00.001-04:00

New York Farm Bureau: Resources - New York, Farms

Statement by Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation, Regarding House Agriculture Committee Approval of Bipartisan Farm Bill - The Voice of Agriculture - American Farm Bureau

2013-05-17T10:39:00.001-04:00

Statement by Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation, Regarding House Agriculture Committee Approval of Bipartisan Farm Bill - The Voice of Agriculture - American Farm Bureau

Take Action - American Farmland Trust

2013-05-17T10:35:00.001-04:00

Take Action - American Farmland Trust

Check out Petition | President Obama Sign Executive Order: Mandate Discipline

2013-05-16T19:15:00.001-04:00

Click here: Petition | President Obama Sign Executive Order: Mandate Discipline For Public Officials Who Break Civil Rights La

Network of Black Farm Organizations responds to New York Times article critical of Pigford lawsuit and other USDA discrimination settlements

2013-05-16T01:19:00.001-04:00

Network of Black Farm Organizations responds to New York Times article critical of Pigford lawsuit and other USDA discrimination settlements

Fwd: Press Release: 11th Anniversary of No FEAR

2013-05-15T20:36:00.001-04:00

NO FEAR COALITION

PRESS RELEASE

The 11^th Anniversary of the No FEAR Act: the first civil rights and whistleblower law of the 21 Century

May 15,2013 marks the 11^th anniversary of the signing of the No FEAR Act, the first civil rights and whistleblower law of the 21^st century. Thousands of federal employees and allies worked tirelessly to move congress and the White House to pass legislation to protect civil rights victims and courageous whistleblowers. The struggle to pass the No FEAR Act was difficult and fraught with dangers. Many federal employees who supported the No FEAR Act were terminated from federal service, careers were destroyed and deaths were reported related to unrelenting managerial stress and abuse. However, through valour and courage, federal government employees refused to stop marching and exposing government abuse. After two years of disciplined struggle on May 15^th, 2002, the president signed the No FEAR Act.

The No FEAR Act was triggered by a lawsuit brought by Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo (Coleman-Adebayo v. Carol M Browner) an 18 year employee at the US EPA, who blew the whistle on discrimination inside the Agency as well on a US multinational corporation that endangered South African vanadium mine workers. Dr. Coleman-Adebayo's memoir: No FEAR: A Whistleblower's Triumph over Corruption and Retaliation at the EPA provides an account of the passage of the No FEAR Act.

While tens of thousands of workers have benefited from the No FEAR Act much work remains to protect employees in the federal workplace.

In April 2011, Washington Post columnist Joe Davidson reported, "If the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Civil Rights were a chunk of ground, it would be declared a disaster area." He then cited the Deloitte Consulting firm's highly critical report that "paints a picture of a woefully incompetent and dysfunctional civil rights operation....," and further that, "It appeared to place too much emphasis on minor responsibilities, like executing heritage events, and not enough on the critical discrimination cases affecting employees and disadvantaged communities."

Many human and civil rights groups are calling for Congress to pass additional legislation to protect employees, such as, No FEAR 2.

Please visit my website at: www.marshacoleman-adebayo.com

Author: No FEAR: A Whistleblower's Triumph over Corruption and Retaliation at the EPA

A Message to the USDA: Continue to Respect Black Farmers - The Dallas Weekly: Opinion

2013-05-15T17:34:00.001-04:00

A Message to the USDA: Continue to Respect Black Farmers - The Dallas Weekly: Opinion

2013-05-15T17:31:00.001-04:00

A Message to the USDA: Continue to Respect Black Farmers - The Dallas Weekly: Opinion

FW: GARY GRANT'S COMMENTS ON THE PIGFORD II SETTLEMENT....OBAMA

2013-05-15T08:42:00.001-04:00

The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, BFAA

Welcome! You have found the official home of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association based in Tillery, North Carolina. Please take the time to look around and drop us a note. Click here to visit President Gary Grant's blog on matters of black land loss and racial injustice. We are committed to securing justice for small farmers and combating environmental injustice facing rural people around the world. Yours for peace. -- Gary R. Grant.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact the BFAA office in Tillery, NC.

Under Cloak of Darkness, Pigford II is Signed by Obama

December 10, 2010

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Gary R. Grant, President at (252) 826-2800

UNDER THE CLOAK OF DARKNESS, PIGFORD II IS SIGNED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA

Tillery, NC

Under the cloak of darkness in the South Court Auditorium of the White House, December 8, 2010, the first Black president of the United States signed into law H. R. 4783 which may be the very instrument that will once and for all seal the fate in exterminating Black farmers in America. Against a back drop of the American flag, with several government officials standing behind him and approximately 100 on lookers, including elected officials, Black farmers and Native Americans from several states enjoined in the Cobell Settlement case, the general mood in the room was one of "elation and excitement."

As I personally witnessed this historic occasion, feeling extremely emotional about how overwhelmed my parents, the late Matthew and Florenza Moore Grant (deceased 2001 six months apart), would be to know that their years of civil rights struggles helped lead to the reality of an elected African American president, I thought too, of the horror of the hardships and heart break of my late parents, who filed their discrimination suit against their USDA local office more than 30 years ago, yet have never received their compensation for their settlement through the Administrative Process (1996), and other Black farmers who have died never having had closure to their discrimination claims against the USDA. I also thought about my late brother Richard D. Grant (deceased 2004), a farmer and Viet Nam Veteran who died way to early from the stress of twenty-five plus years of struggle to get justice for discrimination against him.

There can be no doubt about President Obama's commitment to complete this historic legislation, since he was the Senator who introduced a bill when he was the only black Senator in the U. S. Senate. After his statement to the group and signing the bill, President Obama seemed more eager to shake the hands of the legislative members present than those hard working, suffering farmers and advocates for Pigford and seemed to lack a warm connection to the lowly farmer. Perhaps he should take Shirley Sherrod up on her invitation, and I offer the same, come out to rural America and meet some real struggling citizens.

Since I have been privileged to meet with two other presidents on this issue, the noted difference is that President Clinton took the time to pose with each Black farmer as he entered the room. President Bush did not rush from the room after addressing the "black leaders" and allowed time for photographs to be taken, including candid shots.

And certainly, Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS), John Lewis (D-GA) Maxine Waters (D-CA), and many others must be given credit for their many years of hard work and standing firmly behind the scenes working to make both Pigford I and now Pigford II possible.

Entering the White House on Wednesday, December 8, 2010 was reminiscent of my first opportunity to meet a sitting president, Bill Clinton, on a cold and frigid December (1997) night that I also term "under the cloak of darkness," when a meeting with Black farmers had to be changed to an integrated meeting with "small family farmers" so that the tenor of the meeting would be "politically correct," even though it was only just Black farmers who had filed a class action against the USDA in August of 1997.

Or the fact that President George Bush met with some three hundred "Black leaders" and held a private meeting with a couple of Republican Black farmers from Georgia who had supported the ouster of a great Black representative, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (GA), as some source of political commensurate payment for the struggle of Black farmers.

Seemingly forgotten in the process are those Black farmers who are in the Administrative Process or have outstanding court claims, like my parents, not to mention those who filed Civil Rights claims during the "Bush years" who are now threatened with loss of their claims because of the Statutes of Limitations being used against them since the Bush Administration did pretty much as the Reagan Administration by stripping the office of Civil Rights and not following up on filed claims.

Interestingly and conspicuously forgotten on this occasion was Tim Pigford for whom the class action is named, although Elouise Cobell, a Blackfoot nation member, and former USDA Secretary Dan Glickman were present.

So all in all, we close a chapter, but the story is far from being completed as the evil and recalcitrant agents of the government never lost their employment, and are now preparing for rich retirements with many benefits from having stolen the land, the livelihood, the health and for causing all manner of family destruction in the lives of so many Black farmers.

To add insult to injury, to have two current Republican U S Congressional Representatives to refer to the Pigford lawsuit as "fraud" and as a form of "reparations" while they insist on a windfall of unjust tax cuts for the wealthiest two per cent boggles the senses and reminds us once again that there is little honor bestowed on an elected Black President, and that racism threatens and is still sustainable for future generations of black and other children of color, and will be staggeringly costly for all Americans.

Want to help or learn more? Just contact the BFAA office at bfaausnow@aol.com or tillery@aol.com or visit the BFAA web site, www.bfaa-us.org. Please consider making a donation to assist our efforts to keep you updated and speak the truth. PayPal is available at the web site.

melissa has shared a Huffington Post article with you

2013-05-14T12:14:00.001-04:00

Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 22:34:22 -0400
Subject: melissa has shared a Huffington Post article with you

Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html

Sent by melissa

Critics call USDA Discrimination Settlement a Scam

2013-05-14T10:36:00.001-04:00

This Propaganda is to void the truth about the USDA and it's Bad Dealings with the American Farmer's
confirmation can be attained by the Young Executives Report read into Congressional Record June 1972
a/k/a: The Plan To Liquidate The American Farmer...

Whiteout Press

Voters Guide to Political Parties in America

Includes description, contact info, website, logo and more

May 8, 2013

Share

Critics call USDA Discrimination Settlement a Scam
May 8, 2013. Washington. In 1996, the US federal government admitted that its USDA loan department had been discriminating against black farmers since Ronald Reagan took office as President in 1981. When the Clinton administration agreed to compensate the wronged farmers, it was estimated that there were 91 black claimants who would each receive $50,000. Billions of dollars and 17 years later, the settlement is bordering on a racist embezzlement scam.

Pres. Obama and USDA Sec. Vilsack are on the defensive over billions in fraudulent settlement payments.

The settlement
In 1999, three years after federal officials confirmed that racial discrimination took place within the US Dept of Agriculture, President Clinton agreed to pay thousands of potential victims a maximum of $50,000 each. At the time, the victims were limited to black farmers primarily located in America's old south. They argued that for decades, blacks were unjustly denied farm loans or were approved for lower amounts than they qualified for. They also showed that in some cases, the terms and conditions were much harsher than similar loans for white farmers.

Soon thereafter, a number of other groups came forward to demand financial compensation for the same discrimination. Hispanics sued, followed by Native Americans and women, to be included in the settlements or be awarded their own monetary reward for damages due to the USDA's systemic racial bias. But after years of court battles, including a ruling by the US Supreme Court, the victims' class was limited to an estimated 91 black farmers.
Obama administration ignores courts
As detailed in a shocking report by the New York Times two weeks ago, records show that immediately after the Supreme Court's ruling, the Obama White House, the Justice Department and the Agriculture Department hatched a plan to award financial payments to any and all women or non-white farmers who came forward claiming discrimination. The previously undisclosed documents show the administration put aside $1.33 billion for payments, far more than the court ordered $5 million.
The newspaper's investigation shows that the settlement program sculpted inside the White House is now rife with corruption and saturated with racism and sexism, exactly the crimes the lawsuits and subsequent monetary awards were intended to punish.
'An examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees,' the Times writes, 'In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion.'
Free money, no documentation needed
Since little official paperwork remains of loan applications from the 1980's and 1990's, the Agriculture Department began processing and approving discrimination claims from black farmers with little or no documentation. From the start, the settlement program was criticized for being wrought with corruption. Seeing an opportunity for enrichment, and offended at being left out of the class action, powerful Hispanic politicians began pressuring the White House for inclusion in the payments.
In 2009, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) wrote a letter to President Obama threatening to take the fight to the court of public opinion if Latinos weren't included in the discrimination payments. Sensing a PR nightmare, President Obama and newly appointed Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack quietly agreed to spread the wealth to the rest of the minority community. As internal documents show, it wasn't because there was evidence that Hispanic farmers were discriminated against, but because it would be a valuable political move.
As a March 2010 memo authored by Secretary Vilsack explains, expanding the settlement class would be, 'a way to neutralize the argument that the government favors black farmers over Hispanic, Native American or women farmers." By the time the Obama administration was finished expanding the list of victims, it included everyone but white and Asian males.

Examples of fraud
Additional records detailed by the NY Times show that internal government auditors who inspected some of the payments to victims found widespread fraud and repeated examples of awards to individuals who were obviously not farmers at the time the discrimination took place. Some were found to have lived in urban cities their entire lives. Other claimants are so young, they would have been toddlers at the time. And stacks of other claims were shown to be filled out by the same individual, with the same handwriting and even using the same wording to describe the various individual experiences.
Another example of blatant and widespread fraud against the taxpayers was found in the number of claims being filed from certain parts of the Deep South. The critical report found, 'In 16 zip codes in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and North Carolina, the number of successful claimants exceeded the total number of farms operated by people of any race in 1997, the year the lawsuit was filed. Those applicants received nearly $100 million.'
Detailing hundreds of millions of dollars in overpayments, the federal government's own records show that the USDA discrimination settlements are a virtual give-away program for anyone who has the courage to file a fraudulent claim. Citing the monetary award for the Native Americans' 2010 group settlement of $760 million, critics insisted that amount was far too high considering the small number of possible Native American victims.
The fears of taxpayer watchdogs proved justified. Records show that even with little or no documentation required, only $300 million in claims were made by, and awarded to, Native American farmers. So, rather than return the unused money to the taxpayers, $400 million was awarded to various non-profit Native American organizations.
Black farmers aren't taking the accusations of fraud lightly. The largest association of black farmers in the US was quick to respond. "The New York Times article is a lame shot at those who cannot defend themselves," National Black Farmers Association President John Boyd Jr. argued, "Insinuating that the black farmers' case seeded, encouraged, or inspired fraud is a low blow."
Probably without realizing it, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack shed more light on the alleged corruption than he was aware when asked for a comment on the controversy recently. The USDA Secretary explained, "There are a lot of agendas here, and you are opening up a Pandora's box."
Read the full New York Times report.
Visit the USDA's website dedicated to the discrimination settlement.

FW: melissa has shared a Huffington Post article with you

2013-05-14T03:44:00.001-04:00

Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 22:34:22 -0400
Subject: melissa has shared a Huffington Post article with you
From: angusfarms@hotmail.com
To: angusfarms@hotmail.com

Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/ap-phone-records-government-intrusion-unprecedented_n_3268569.html

Sent by melissa

Foreclosure victims shortchanged in mortgage settlement

2013-05-10T22:13:00.001-04:00

Foreclosure victims shortchanged in mortgage settlement

Check out: A racist hatchet job on Black farmers’ lawsuit | Florida Courier

2013-05-10T00:40:00.001-04:00

Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 23:37:34 -0400
Subject: Check out A racist hatchet job on Black farmers' lawsuit | Florida Courier

Click here: A racist hatchet job on Black farmers' lawsuit | Florida Courier

Fwd: NYT half-baked investigation of black farmer's hatchet job

2013-05-09T20:41:00.001-04:00

guest post:
From: m davis
Date: Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:14 PM
Subject: NYT half-baked investigation of black farmer's hatchet job

 http://beforeitsnews.com/agriculture/2013/05/nyts-half-baked-investigation-of-black-farmers-settlement-another-racist-msm-hatched-job-2448496.html

LandRightsNFarming

FW: Olusina Adebayo, Research Paper, University of the District of Columbia

RE: A few black Capitol cops protest agency bias

Does this sound too familiar?

A few black Capitol cops protest agency bias

By Joe Davidson, Joe Davidson May 22, 2013 01:14 AM EDTThe Washington Post Published: May 21 E-mail the writer

What are Roundup Ready & Bt Pesticide GMO crops? You need to know!

What are Roundup Ready & Bt Pesticide GMO crops? You need to know!

Black Farmers: An Update 05/04 by New Orleans Wake Up | Blog Talk Radio

Upstate School's Science Quiz Gets Blasted on the Internet

FW: Monsanto to Stomp Out States' Rights to Label GMOs?

ESSAY OF THE WEEK

Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on States' Rights

ACTION ALERT

Congress Beware: If You Support a Monsanto Attack on State Labeling Laws, We'll Throw You Out!

ACTION ALERT

Unbelievable: EPA Approves Higher Levels of Roundup's Glyphosate

SUPPORT THE OCA & OCF

Deadline Extended: Help Us Plant Hope, and We'll Help You Plant Your Garden

NEW REPORT

A Side of Leukemia with Your GMO Corn?

Take That, Monsanto and Mark Lynas

ACTION ALERT UPDATE

Win Some, Lose Some

LITTLE BYTES

Essential Reading for the Week

MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSORS

Have You Tested Your Vitamin D Level Lately?

Treasury Officials Told Of IRS Probe In June 2012

Holder Melts Down - landrightsnfarming.seamom89@gmail.com - Gmail

FW: This video is a tear jerker (have tissue at the ready)

New York Farm Bureau: Resources - New York, Farms

Statement by Bob Stallman, President, American Farm Bureau Federation, Regarding House Agriculture Committee Approval of Bipartisan Farm Bill - The Voice of Agriculture - American Farm Bureau

Take Action - American Farmland Trust

Check out Petition | President Obama Sign Executive Order: Mandate Discipline

Network of Black Farm Organizations responds to New York Times article critical of Pigford lawsuit and other USDA discrimination settlements

Fwd: Press Release: 11th Anniversary of No FEAR

A Message to the USDA: Continue to Respect Black Farmers - The Dallas Weekly: Opinion

A Message to the USDA: Continue to Respect Black Farmers - The Dallas Weekly: Opinion

FW: GARY GRANT'S COMMENTS ON THE PIGFORD II SETTLEMENT....OBAMA

The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, BFAA

Under Cloak of Darkness, Pigford II is Signed by Obama

melissa has shared a Huffington Post article with you

Critics call USDA Discrimination Settlement a Scam

May 8, 2013

Critics call USDA Discrimination Settlement a Scam

FW: melissa has shared a Huffington Post article with you

Foreclosure victims shortchanged in mortgage settlement

Check out: A racist hatchet job on Black farmers’ lawsuit | Florida Courier

Fwd: NYT half-baked investigation of black farmer's hatchet job

By Joe Davidson,
Joe Davidson
May 22, 2013 01:14 AM EDT
The Washington Post
Published: May 21 E-mail the writer