LandRightsNFarming

FW: Message From Texas Attorney General

2013-06-15T23:57:00.001-04:00

From: knarrrj@ori.net
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:08:36 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Message From Texas Attorney General
To: hwmpreston@hotmail.com

Begin forwarded message:

From: everett finley <everett.finley@aol.com>

Subject: Fwd: Message From Texas Attorney General

Date: June 15, 2013 11:56:19 AM EDT

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Message From Texas Attorney General

Subject: Message From Texas Attorney General

Your Liberty -- as a United States citizen -- was weakened and threatened yesterday when the Obama Administration helped the United Nations pass the Arms Trade Treaty. Immediately after this disappointing vote, I wrote a letter to President Obama urging him not to sign the treaty. If the President signs the treaty allowing the UN to be involved in regulating firearms in the U.S., Texas will lead the charge to have the treaty overturned in court as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. I need your support. Please help us get the word out by referring 3 of your friends right now , and forwarding this email to 5 of your friends Together, we can make a difference. America is exceptional in part because our Constitution safeguards our individual liberties – including the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment. The new UN treaty threatens your rights:

* it doesn't recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms or the fundamental right to defend yourself, your family, or your property;
* it empowers a new UN bureaucracy focused on firearms restrictions that will be run by international bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people of the United States.
* it could impose firearm registration requirements that may empower international authorities to get information about American citizens and businesses.
This UN treaty does more than trample Second Amendment rights. It also threatens to erode all liberties guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution by giving the UN power to govern our lives. Please refer 3 of your friends today and forward this important message to 5 of your friends right now. Your voice must be heard on this issue. When the Constitution says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," it means no one—including the UN—can infringe upon that right. UN treaties do not trump the Constitution. And with your help, we will make that message clear to President Obama and this administration.
Sincerely,

Greg Abbott

FW: Flag this message print list & don't buy these contaminated food etc !!

2013-06-15T13:26:00.001-04:00

IMPORTANT LIST OF COMPANIES OWNED BY MONSANTO.... PRODUCING NOTHING BUT GMO JUNK!!

blessings, am:)

Coalition rallies for black farmers,remeners civil rights leader

2013-06-13T21:57:00.001-04:00

http://pbcommercial.com/sections/news/local/coalition-rallies-black-farmers-remembers-civil-rights-leader.html

\

7:54 pm - June 12, 2013 — Updated: 8:15 pm - June 12, 2013

Coalition rallies for black farmers, remembers civil rights leader

Dale Charles, state chair of the Arkansas NAACP, speaks during the rally held on the steps of Pine Bluff City Hall as part of the remembrance of the death of Civil Rights leader Medgar Evers and to garner support for the plight of black farmers Wednesday. (Special to The Commercial/William Harvey)

1

By Michael S. Lee
Of The Commercial Staff

A coalition of groups gathered on the north steps of City Hall Wednesday to rally in support of the continuing search for justice by black farmers and black employees of the United States Department of Agriculture and to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the assassination of civil rights leader Medgar Evers.
The coalition brought together Arkansas Delta Agricultural Enterprise Cooperative Inc., the Independent Black Farmers and the USDA Coalition of Minority Employees.
Organizer Michael McCray said that Pine Bluff was chosen as the site of the rally in part because a major class-action discrimination lawsuit was brought against the USDA by local employee Beverly Burkett.
"Ms. Burkett worked for the USDA in Pine Bluff and Star City," ADAECI board member Irma Preston said. "On June 4, 2013, she was ordered to clear out her desk and to leave her office and not come back and was placed on administrative leave. This came after she filed a discrimination lawsuit against the USDA. This is an example of how the USDA retaliates against its employees. The struggle for justice is very much alive and well. Such practices shall not be tolerated."
Members of the Independent Black Farmers group came from as far away as Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma and Mississippi to get their message out.
Black farmers lawsuits
Black farmers filed suit against the USDA in the late 1990s alleging systemic discrimination based on race that in some cases led to the confiscation of farms by the federal government.
"There is a false perception out there that all of the black farmer cases against the federal government have been settled but that is not true," McCray said. "Many of them fell through the cracks and are still fighting to this day for justice."
When asked if allegations of widespread fraud within the Pigford I and Pigford II class action discrimination lawsuits filed on behalf of black farmers against the USDA were distracting from legitimate grievances, McCray said that this was true to some degree.
"There is no truth to anyone trying to discredit the legitimate complaints of many black farmers against the federal government," McCray said. "There is always some fraud in class-action suits like this and believe me, the crooks should go to jail. That also includes those within the government who have done wrong."
Muhammad Robbalaa is a farmer from southeast Oklahoma.
"When it comes to the discrimination that we are fighting against, some of us are still talking about it as a matter of civil rights but we should be calling it an issue of human rights," Robbalaa said. "Farmers were the first people that God praised. If not for the farmers, nobody would be fed. Black folks need land. Without land we are a stateless people and that makes us slaves. Farming is in our blood. Black farmers have not had any justice. We can't farm if the USDA doesn't treat us right. They have put us out of farming."
Leroy Smith is a farmer from Cary, Miss.
"I have been dealing with discrimination by the USDA since 1991," Smith said. "I am a Vietnam veteran and have served my country in the National Guard. I love this country like anyone else so why is it that I have been discriminated against simply because of the color of my skin? I never thought that I would still be having to deal with this type of thing."
Smith said that he attempted to file for a USDA farm loan in 1992 after starting a small farm the year before, and was denied after he was told the agency had no copy of his tax return.
"I tried to file again in 1993 and was denied again," Smith said. "In 1994 I filed a discrimination claim against the USDA."
Smith said that he had 1,740 acres of farm land in 1993 and ended up losing all of it due to the actions of the USDA.
"I filed for bankruptcy in 2005 and the judge discharged my debt," Smith said. "But three years later, the USDA sent me a collection letter on those debts. This was just harassment and discrimination."
Federal attention sought
Smith said that he wanted to see President Barack Obama show more leadership on the issue.
"The President says that the buck stops with him so why won't he straighten out this mess?" Smith asked. "We want the President to send someone from the White House to discuss these issues with us. Why doesn't he settle it?"
Michael Stovall from Town Creek, Ala., and Robert R. Binion from Clanton, Ala., are farmers who lost their land due to what they allege are discriminatory actions taken by the USDA.
"I was the fourth plaintiff in the first Pigford lawsuit," Binion said. "I used to have 1,000 peach trees and 30 acres of watermelon. We are independent because others have let us down. We need to come together as blacks and Muslims and any whites who agree with us to make sure that this gets settled once and for all."
Ferrell Oden of Birmingham, Ala., owned a catfish and beef cattle farm before USDA actions allegedly resulted in the loss of his business.
"I filed a discrimination suit after a two and a half year investigation," Oden said. "The settlement the USDA offered me was not a fair settlement but the judge told me and my attorney that the USDA did me a favor and that I should be thankful that I was discriminated against. When I refused the offer the USDA sent the Alabama Department of Human Services to close me down. It didn't work. The judge told me I was entitled to injunctive relief but denied it because they said I was going to enter into a financial windfall with the settling of the lawsuit. It amazed me that the judge thought this discrimination would end up being a good thing for me."
Evers remembered
Dale Charles, state chair of the Arkansas National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, spoke about the life and assassination of civil rights leader Medgar Evers in Jackson, Miss., on June 12, 1963.
"Medgar Evers served his country in the U.S. Army during World War II, yet he found upon returning home that his skin color was still a deterrent," Charles said. "He was working to achieve voter registration for African Americans at the time he was assassinated. Today we are here to pay homage to Medgar Evers as well as to the black farmers who are long overdue to get their justice in a court of law in America. We know that fight with the USDA is not easy and that is long standing. We must continue to fight and have the fortitude and courage that Medgar Evers had attempting to bring equality to all Americans."
Jaleel Muhammad of the Nation of Islam spoke of his group's support for the goals of the black farmers.

Rules for posting comments

Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum.

George

You've got to be kidding me! Number 1: She has stirred up more "resentment" with her incompetence, not only with 'caucasion' officers, but with a lot of "African-American" officers. Number 2: There... Davis-Jones claims discrimination in lawsuit against city, Hollingsworth · 1 day ago

Asmara George Rekon they was waiting for da Repo Man? Car Fire · 1 day ago

Franklin E. Ruhl Some of this article reminds me of a time gone by. I was serving a tour with Marine Air Group 16, in Vietnam, when I heard of my brother being suspended from Pine Bluff High School, for no-less... Council merges nimal control into police department · 1 week ago

Franklin E. Ruhl Hard to believe, someone want's a politician to stand for what they believe in. Would they still be politicians, if they did? Not fish, but certainly 'foul' · 1 week ago

Katie I offer my Prayers for this family and this man.
Bond set for hit-and-run suspect · 1 week ago

Most Discussed

Council merges nimal control into police department 1 comment · 1 week ago

Not fish, but certainly 'foul' 1 comment · 1 week ago

Facing lopsided incarceration rates 2 comments · 2 weeks ago

Bond set for hit-and-run suspect 1 comment · 1 week ago

PBNB changes name to Relyance Bank 1 comment · 1 week ago

Affiliates

White Hall Progress

SEA Life Magazine

Connect

About us

Contacts

Feedback

Submit story

Letter to the Editor

FAQs

Services

Subscription Rates

Manage subscription

eNewsletter Sign Up

Solutions

Advertise with us

Place a classified ad

Legal Notices

Social

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Copyright © Stephens Media LLC 2013. All rights reserved. • Privacy Policy

--

Thanks!

Linda Epstein

Black Farmers & USDA Whistleblowers Descend on Arkansas

2013-06-12T09:20:00.001-04:00

Black Farmers & USDA Whistleblowers Descend on Arkansas

FW: Arkansas Press Release

2013-06-11T00:38:00.001-04:00

Subj: Arkansas Press Release

Black Farmers & USDA Whistleblowers

Descend on Arkansas

(Pine Bluff, AR) Independent Black Framers and the USDA Coalition of Minority Employees are continuing their national action with a Rally and Press Conference in Downtown Pine Bluff, Arkansas. They are gathering to commemorate the 50^th Anniversary of the Assassination of Medger Evers a famed civil rights leader and to bring attention to the struggle for civil rights which continues today.
President Bill Clinton laid a reef on the grave of the slain civil rights hero last week. This week hundreds of NAACP chapters across the country are hosting events to commemorate his life and the struggle for civil rights. Medger Evers gave his life pursuing freedom and justice.
The civil rights icon was murdered on June 12, 1963 in the driveway outside his home in Jackson, Mississippi for organizing voter registration drives. 50 years after his death, the struggle for civil rights continues. Black farmers face the loss of their heritage and land at the hands of USDA.

Invited Speakers:
§ Secretary Tom Vilsack, U.S. Department of Agriculture (requested)
§ Mayor Debbie Hollingsworth (requested)
§ County Judge Dutch King (requested)
§ Ex-Mayor Carl Redus (requested)
§ Dale Charles, State Chair Arkansas NAACP
§ Benard Simelton, State Chair of the Alabama NAACP
§ Lawrence Lucas, President of the USDA Coalition of Minority Employees
§ Michael Stoval, Independent Black Farmer
§ Olly Neal, Judge (retired)
§ Jimmy Wilson, Attorney
§ Timothy Pigford, Black Farmers Lead Plaintiff
§ Ermer Preston, ADAECI

Women and Black people face racism and discrimination that still permeates this federal agency despite numerous efforts to eliminate it. We will gather at the George Howard Jr., Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Pine Bluff because this will soon be the scene for another historic case of discrimination and retaliation in the matter of Beverly Burkett vs USDA.
NAACP members and Independent Black Farmers from Arkansas, Alabama, Louisianan, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas and New Mexico, and USDA Minority Employees will gather to support Ms. Burkett, a Female Black farmer and USDA Employee.

Who:           Independent Black Farmers &
                                                            USDA Coalition of Minority Employees

What:                Medgar Evers Memorial

Rally & Press Conference

When:               12:00—1:00 PM

June 12, 2013

Where:           Pine Bluff City Hall next door to the

George Howard Jr., Federal Building

and U.S. Courthouse

100 East Eighth Street

Pine Bluff, AR 71601

We are inviting the general public and entire Arkansas Delegation to commemorate the memory of Medgar Evers and to support Independent Black Farmers and USDA Minority Employees in their struggle for freedom and justice.

Check out AOL Image Search result for "http://thefightback.org/wp-content/upl

2013-06-07T23:10:00.001-04:00

Click here: AOL Image Search result for "http://thefightback.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/farmers_thumb.jpg"

Whistleblowers seek federal protection

2013-06-07T23:07:00.001-04:00

Whistleblowers seek federal protection

DISTRIBUTION/INFORMATION: RESIDENTIAL RACIAL SEGREGATION

2013-06-06T10:14:00.001-04:00

Click here: RESIDENTIAL RACIAL SEGREGATION

The Scott County Heritage Center and Museum

2013-06-04T22:12:00.001-04:00

The Scott County Heritage Center and Museum

Fwd: No more blank checks for endless wars

2013-06-04T16:49:00.001-04:00

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rep. Barbara Lee via CREDO Action <act@credoaction.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:19 AM
Subject: No more blank checks for endless wars
To: Melissa Seaver <landrightsnfarming.seamom89@gmail.com>

The email below is from Congresswoman Barbara Lee, a fearless progressive with an unparalelled record of doing what is right under the toughest of circumstances. She was the ONLY member of Congress to vote against giving George W. Bush a blank check for war in the wake of 9/11. She started a petition on org.credoaction.com, where activists can launch their own campaigns for progressive change. We strongly urge you to sign Representative Lee's petition to repeal the overly broad resolution Congress passed in 2001 that gave President George Bush a blank check to wage war anywhere at any time, and that is still in effect today.

Tell Congress: Repeal the blank check for perpetual war

Dear Melissa,

I started my own campaign on CREDO's new site that allows activists to start their own petitions.

My petition, which is to Congress, asks the following:

Support HR 198 - Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force - legislation that will reexamine and ultimately repeal the flawed blank check authorization to the president to wage war, anywhere at any time.

Now is the time for the U.S. Congress to repeal the overly broad 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

On September 14, 2001, I was the sole member of either house of Congress to vote against the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. That misguided resolution is a blank check for war. It has been used to justify activities, such as warrantless surveillance, indefinite detention and the lethal use of drones, that fly in the face of our constitutional values. I am convinced that military engagement with no end in sight actually undermines our long-term national security.

This is not who we Americans think we are or who we want to be. This is why I have introduced legislation - HR 198 - that will reexamine and ultimately repeal the flawed blank-check Congressional authorization for the president to wage war anywhere at any time.

My bill already has more than a dozen congressional co-sponsors. But a public show of support for this effort is critical now as Congress is getting ready to consider whether to continue the blank check for the executive branch to wage endless war. That's why I'm asking you to sign on as a citizen co-sponsor.

Click here to learn more and add your name to my petition to Congress, to ask them to repeal the blank-check authorization of war by supporting HR 198.

Thank you for your support.

Rep. Barbara Lee

org.credoaction.com helps activists like you make progressive change and fight regressive policies by creating online petitions. Click here to start a petition today.

This petition was created on org.credoaction.com, a new people-powered platform that allows activists to start and run CREDO-style campaigns.

	Share on Facebook Post to your wall
	Tweet this Post to Twitter

To change your email or mailing address, please click here: https://act.credoaction.com/me/update/?t=13&akid=8062.4818454.x90cps

To remove yourself from this list, please visit our subscription management page at: http://act.credoaction.com/cms/unsubscribe/unsubscribe/?t=15&akid=8062.4818454.x90cps

FW: Arkansas Rally Flyer

2013-05-31T22:22:00.001-04:00

From: LawrLCL@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 14:45:27 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Arkansas Rally Flyer
To: angusfarms@hotmail.com

From: LawrLCL@aol.com
To: lesa@snowcrest.net, lawrlcl@aol.com, stovallsfarm@yahoo.com, rncott1@aol.com, lepstein8@gmail.com, floinc3@bellsouth.net, cowtownfoundation@gmail.com, myee@csupomona.edu, lucybinion@yahoo.com, bsimelton@aol.com, leroy2leroysmithjrworld@hotmail.com, TILLERY@AOL.COM, angusfarms@hotmail.com, featherhvn@yahoo.com, robert.epstein@ams.usda.gov, robert@donnelly-house.net, jmcfarland@fs.fed.us, dhall02@fs.fed.us, elopez02@fs.fed.us, evercruysse@fs.fed.us, klevitoff@frontiernet.net
Sent: 5/30/2013 10:30:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Fwd: Arkansas Rally Flyer

From: mccray.michael@gmail.com
To: LawrLCL@aol.com
Sent: 5/30/2013 9:08:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Arkansas Rally Flyer

Lucas,

Per your request.

FW: Action Page: Require GMO Food Content Disclosure

2013-05-31T13:47:00.001-04:00

> Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 23:36:19 -0800
> From: theteam@peaceteam.net
> Subject: Action Page: Require GMO Food Content Disclosure
> To: angusfarms@hotmail.com
>
>
> Dear Friends and Activists:
>
> If there were rat poison as an ingredient in a food product, do we
> have a right to know that? Not according to the GMO (genetically
> modified organism) industry. And yet the results of the first long
> term study of the effects of a GMO diet on laboratory rats were that
> most of the rats died. In other words, GMOs are LITERAL rat poison.
>
> Require GMO Labeling Action Page:
> http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1117.php
>
> Some have tried to nitpick this first study for its methodology, but
> it cannot be denied that there is something going on here that we
> need to be informed about. And at a minimum consumers should be
> empowered to make their own choices about whether to consume GMO
> products, instead of sneaking it into our food supply blind.
>
> Millions of people marched in protest this last weekend all over the
> world about the mad corporate rush to permanently pollute our food
> supply with genes for strange new poisons. Congress must listen to
> us, and not just the self-serving special interest poison companies,
> not only allow, but require, labeling of GMO content.
>
> And to help spread the truth about GMOs, were have created a dramatic
> new "GMOs are Poison" bumper sticker. After you submit the action
> page above you will be taken to a page where you can request one, and
> there is no charge, not even shipping, unless you choose to make a
> contribution to support our work. You can also request one directly
> from this page.
>
> GMOs are Poison bumper stickers:
> http://www.peaceteam.net/all_bumper_stickers.php
>
> Of course, if you can make a donation of any amount, that is what
> makes it possible for us to send free stickers to anyone who cannot
> make a contribution right now.
>
> Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
> to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.
> Contributions to The People's Email Network are not tax-deductible
> for federal income tax purposes.
>
> If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
> http://www.peaceteam.net/in.htm
>
> Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function
> at http://www.usalone.net/out.htm
>
> usalone499b:16161
>

FW: Fwd from: [WethePeople_Shareholders] Re: New file uploaded to WethePeople_Shareholders

2013-05-29T01:27:00.001-04:00

Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 16:37:17 -0400
Subject: Fwd from: [WethePeople_Shareholders] Re: New file uploaded to WethePeople_Shareholders
To:

FYI:

==========forward===========
http://www.newyorkcommitteemen.org/

Anonymous
May 27, 2013 at 6:43 AM

For all peeps who are interested in - 8.5 hours of radio recording >

"EPISODE 24 - The Common Law Grand Jury pt1" to "EPISODE 27 - The Common Law Grand Jury pt4" >>

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=124689&cmd=tc

(very interesting stuff!)

Greetings from Germany

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:14 PM
Subject: Fw: [WethePeople_Shareholders] Re: New file uploaded to WethePeople_Shareholders
To:

--- On Mon, 5/27/13, haroldhayden wrote:

From: haroldhayden
Subject: [WethePeople_Shareholders] Re: New file uploaded to WethePeople_Shareholders
To: WethePeople_Shareholders@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Date: Monday, May 27, 2013, 10:10 AM

Have you seen this?
Sunday, May 26, 2013
_Supreme Court Validates People's Rights to Establish Common Law Grand
Jury_

Click to listen
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=738152&cmd=apop

Grand Jury How? to and Why? & In a stunning 6 to 3 decision Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, confirmed that the American grand jury is neither part of the judicial, executive nor legislative branches of government, but instead belongs to the people. It is in effect a fourth branch of government "governed" and administered to directly by and on behalf of the American people, and its authority emanates from the Bill of Rights.
This is the solution to taking back our government county by county . . . state by state!

Judge Scalia decision: United States vs. Williams

What Power Does the Common-Law Grand Jury Hold?

"The grand jury is an English institution, brought to this country by the early colonists and incorporated in the Constitution by the Founders. ... "to provide a fair method for instituting criminal proceedings against
persons believed to have committed crimes." [Costello v. United States, 350 U.S.
359 (1956),]

16 Page Pdf File how to set up a Constitutional Grand Jury

http://newyorkcommitteemen.org/judicial/jury/documents/How%20to%20save%20the
%20Republic.pdf

http://www.newyorkcommitteemen.org/
Save this to your favorites and download the documents.

Saturday, May 11, 2013
INITIATION FOR THE ORDERS OF WE THE PEOPLE

We THE People

And as Interim President, 12 May 2013

Initiate the orders of We THE People

We THE People who are the Civilian Authority with superior lawfull position over the U.S. Corporation and U.S. Military acting under the Original Jurisdiction of the United States Constitution 1789, Bill of Rights 1791 with
the original 13th Amendment="which removes persons who has an entitlement from holding public office" as the United States of America, Republican form of Government, standing as the true form of Government is proud to announce the following effective IMMEDIATELY.:

As Interim President=Commander in Chief of the Republic it is the duty of this de jure office to ensure the orders issued to the United States
Military , Secretary of the Treasury, Provost Marshall and its Public Servants are carried out within the proper time as required by We THE People of The United States of America.

This announcement is for We THE People of the United States of America and
our Friends World Wide and

To Chief of Staff of Joint Chiefs, Field Generals, Admirals, Office of General Council for Pentagon, Secretary of the Navy, Trustees of the Constitution and Office of the Inspector General, Provost Marshal, Flag Officers and
Secretary of the People's Treasury;

This announcement and order is to the Secretary of the Peoples Treasury Mr. Jack Lew, the Flag Officers assigned to The Secretary of the Treasury Mr. Jack Lew and the Provost Marshall,

You are hereby ordered to use any force including EXTREME PREJUDICE toward
any and all public officers including any and all people in the U.S. Corporation=Internal Governmental Departments=Agencies, Individual Corporations=Organizations, and any other Entity=sentient beings WHOM are
delaying=derailing= holding up=stopping any other delaying manipulation tactic on the
execution of the following announcements and orders:

1. The Flag Officers assigned to The Secretary of the Peoples Treasury Mr. Jack Lew and Provost Marshall is ordered to commandeer all main stream television and radio broadcasting companies and start the announcements that
have been prerecorded to inform the Nation:

a. The Republic being re-set, shutdown of the US Corporation (founded in 1871),

b. The shutdown of the Federal Reserve (99 Year Contract Ended),

i. All Debt caused from the US Corporation and / or Federal Reserve is not the responsibility of We THE People of the United States of America

ii. The collector of this debt shall look to and upon US Corporation and its CEO / Presidents, their staff including Legislative and Judicial holders plus the Executives of the Federal Reverse to repay ALL DEBT from their wealth which they stole from the We THE People

iii. Furthermore, the US Corporation Past and Present President, Vice President, staff, Legislative and Judicial are classified as Corporate Contractors or Actors who do not have the lawfull standing for the positions they
currently occupy. Therefore, they are trespassing upon We THE People's rights and liberties and are subject to our Constitutional Laws for Fraud, Treason, Misrepresentation, Embezzlement of our Currency, Unlawfull taxation and more. All damages shall be paid to We THE People by Seizing their assets and freezing their funds on-shore and off-shore bank account, safe deposit boxes, Precious Metals stashes, any storage, and depositing all recovered items back into the Peoples Treasury.

c. The shutdown of the Internal Revenue Service=IRS (taxation was repealed by Congress in 1939 and has been in operation fraudulently and while working for foreign agents it has fraudulently told the American people that is a department of the Treasury)

d. To Immediately begin broadcasting the educational=truth of this nation's true history

2. The Secretary of the Peoples Treasury Mr. Jack Lew is established and operating under the Republican form of Government as the true Treasury

3. The Secretary of the Peoples Treasury Mr. Jack Lew will

a. Conduct a forensic audit of the IRS, freeze all assets, shut down all IRS operations and return all stolen funds to We THE People of The United States of America by depositing the returned funds in the Peoples United States Treasury.

b. All bankruptcies of the United States to date are terminated.

c. All debt tied to the social security numbers shall be set to zero.

i. Due to corrupt and unlawful banking practices and corrupt and unlawful government activities ALL injured parties shall be notified immediately
following these actions and public announcements on all major media outlets
shall commence immediately.

d. Remove=Terminate all unlawful taxation on all privately held property=land=labor.

e. Remove=Terminate all private personal income tax and private business taxation.

f. The return all government agencies CAFR=off book accounts and all court CRIS account funds to the Peoples United States Treasury.

i. CAFR=Consolidated Annual Financial Report

ii. CRIS=Court Registry Investment System

g. Restore financial privacy to all private sentient beings.

h. Introduce the United States Treasury currency (UST) backed by Gold and other Precise metals replacing the Federal Reserve Note effective IMMEDIATELY.

i. Release the 1.5 Trillion dollars of the Wanta-Regan-Mitterrand Protocols into the United States Treasury for We THE People

j. Announce the largest banks in United Sates of America are now Basel 3 Banking Regulations complaint along with several hundred mid-size banking institutions.

i. Basel 3 - A comprehensive set of reform measures designed to improve the regulation, supervision and risk management within the banking sector.

ii. Basel 3 - Largely in response to the credit crisis, banks are required to maintain proper leverage ratios and meet certain capital requirements protecting the end customer.

4. The "Fines & Penalties", Foreign Currency Revaluation, Prosperity Packages, the Global Settlements Program, Prosperity Packages, Native American Claims, Humanitarian funds are to be paid out simultaneously effective
IMMEDIATELY.

5. The Secretary of the Peoples Treasury Mr. Jack Lew will oversee the delivery Sunday 12 May 2013 to all recipients of the Farm Claims=Fines and Penalties=Farm Claims Class Action Law Suit Settlement=Bank Claims=Resolution
Trust proceeds to the people;

a. The Farm Claims shall be moved to the Royal Bank of Canada for complete delivery=disbursement effective IMMEDIATELY.

b. The Farm Claims Lawsuit shall be unsealed and made part of the public record with=by publication, posting on the internet which is freely accessible to the public at large and=or full disclosure to all claim participants. The executive order that has kept this information hidden was done with the intent to defraud the people and has delayed the execution and delivery of the settlement.

c. These claims shall be delivered using any of the following methods of delivery or all of them together; National Guard, County Sheriffs, Bonded Couriers, Registered Mail, and the Organized and Unorganized State Militias.

d. There shall be NO taxation, NO fees, NO NDAs, NO hidden=misleading language, NO terms or condition or forms that create a contract causing loss of value through BANK FRAUD=MANIPULATION against the private citizen's.

6. The Secretary of the Peoples Treasury Mr. Jack Lew shall conduct the release of the foreign currency exchange to all tier three foreign currency holders known as the "U.S. Treasury Hold" on the participating banks Sunday 12 May 2013 and

a. To communicate on all main stream media channels that the global re-set has occurred every hour for the next seventy- two (72) hours.

b. All banks are to make the hours of operation from 07:00 AM to 24:00 PM daily for the next ninety (90) days.

c. All tier three foreign currency holders shall be given VIP=Group rates with NO taxation, NO fees, NO NDAs, NO hidden=misleading language, NO terms or condition or forms that create a contract causing loss of value through
BANK FRAUD=MANIPULATION against the private citizen's when they exchange their currency.

7. The Secretary of the Peoples Treasury Mr. Jack Lew will release the Global Settlements Program, Prosperity Packages, Native American Claims, and all other programs and claims of a similar nature on 12 May 2013.

It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed by the Political Will of the People~

Date:

Autograph:

Appellation:

Interim President

The United States of America

Reference: Contempt of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence circa
1776 and 2012, Orders #1-10

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WethePeople_Shareholders/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WethePeople_Shareholders/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
WethePeople_Shareholders-digest@yahoogroups.com
WethePeople_Shareholders-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WethePeople_Shareholders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Black Farmers Follow “Justice” to Capitol Hill

2013-05-27T14:35:00.001-04:00

Black Farmers Follow “Justice” to Capitol Hill

Protesters across globe rally against Monsanto

2013-05-26T19:25:00.001-04:00

Protesters across globe rally against Monsanto

Check out Did Democrats Betray Poor African Americans by Cutting Benefits on

2013-05-26T10:22:00.001-04:00

Click here: Did Democrats Betray Poor African Americans by Cutting Benefits on the Farm Bill? | Your Black World

Check out Pigford case lawyers hire lobbyists - Byron Tau - POLITICO.com

2013-05-26T10:21:00.001-04:00

Click here: Pigford case lawyers hire lobbyists - Byron Tau - POLITICO.com

Report: Obama admin. fought to keep Rosen warrant secret

2013-05-25T22:16:00.001-04:00

Report: Obama admin. fought to keep Rosen warrant secret

Pigford case lawyers hire lobbyists - Byron Tau - POLITICO.com

2013-05-25T22:14:00.001-04:00

Pigford case lawyers hire lobbyists - Byron Tau - POLITICO.com

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

2013-05-25T06:03:00.001-04:00

good morning bob. i wish you and family well.

we are still in the struggle for justice at usda. we will be in pine bluff arkansas on June 12th, in front of the federal building, talking about discrimination against usda employees and minority farmers, especially, Black farmers. i wish you could come and speak and give your encouragement. michael mccray and beverly burkett are taking the lead in arkansas. you may know of both of them. we are expecting a crowd of more than 100 people.

please read the below research paper done on usda discrimination, Black farmers and usda employees.

i can be contacted at 856/ 910-2399

respectfully,

lawrence lucas, 19 year president

usda coalition of minority employees

www.agcoalition.org

landrighsnfarming.seamom89.farming@blogger.com

washington, arkansas, and alabama is where the next focus/demontrations will be. moving forward.

lucas

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

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

LandRightsNFarming

FW: Message From Texas Attorney General

FW: Flag this message print list & don't buy these contaminated food etc !!

Coalition rallies for black farmers,remeners civil rights leader

Coalition rallies for black farmers, remembers civil rights leader

Rules for posting comments

Most Discussed

Affiliates

Connect

Services

Solutions

Social

Black Farmers & USDA Whistleblowers Descend on Arkansas

FW: Arkansas Press Release

Check out AOL Image Search result for "http://thefightback.org/wp-content/upl

Whistleblowers seek federal protection

DISTRIBUTION/INFORMATION: RESIDENTIAL RACIAL SEGREGATION

The Scott County Heritage Center and Museum

Fwd: No more blank checks for endless wars

FW: Arkansas Rally Flyer

FW: Action Page: Require GMO Food Content Disclosure

FW: Fwd from: [WethePeople_Shareholders] Re: New file uploaded to WethePeople_Shareholders

Black Farmers Follow “Justice” to Capitol Hill

Protesters across globe rally against Monsanto

Check out Did Democrats Betray Poor African Americans by Cutting Benefits on

Check out Pigford case lawyers hire lobbyists - Byron Tau - POLITICO.com

Report: Obama admin. fought to keep Rosen warrant secret

Pigford case lawyers hire lobbyists - Byron Tau - POLITICO.com

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

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

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