|
|
I
confess that I also was horrified at what I saw as the clumsiness and
stupidity of Breitbart in ‘doctoring’ a tape to make a supposedly
innocent woman look guilty. But now I discover I have been as guilty of
haste to judgment of Breitbart as the Dept. of Agriculture was of Ms.
Sherrod.
Only now am I realizing the real purpose for Breitbart’s release of
that tape snippet. It was to allow him to cunningly trick the media
into exposing one of the most shocking examples of corruption in the
federal government – a little known legal case called “Pigford v.
Glickman”.
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/27/pigford-v-glickman-86000-claims-from-39697-total-farmers/?singlepage=true
But then on February 23 of this year, something shocking happened in
relation to that original judgment. In total silence, the USDA agreed
to release more funds to “Pigford”. The amount was a staggering $1.25
billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs – 400 black
farmers – had now swollen in a class action suit to include a total of
86,000 black farmers throughout America.
There was only one teensy problem. The United States of America doesn’t
have 86,000 black farmers. According to accurate and totally verified
census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is
only 39,697. Oops.
Well, gosh – how on earth did 39,697 explode into 86,000 claims? And
how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion? Well, folks, you’ll just
have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her
position in 1997 at the “Rural Development Leadership Network” but
whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13
million) from that action – Shirley Sherrod. Oops again.
Yes, folks. It appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed
herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the
United States – a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at
the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more
interesting. [FreeRepublic]
|
” |
I haven't had time to check all this out, but it's out there.
|
*Le sigh*
ReplyDeletemove along, nothing to see here.
Read it last week. Sounds about right.
ReplyDeleteCasca
Breitbart just kicked over a rock in Washington. In Washington, beneath every rock is a great fraud.
ReplyDeleteToo late. Sherrod has her victim card and halo, bestowed by the MSM. She's untouchable now.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the DOJ gets interested, Obama will have Holder kill it just like the Black Panther case.
You people must be those Bible and gun clinging racists I've heard so much about. :P
ReplyDeleteI dug into this and found:
ReplyDeleteThe class action suit, Pigford (farmer) vs. Glickman (Sec. Agriculture, Clinton) and now Pigford vs. Vilsack (Sec Agricuture, Uhbama) has been going on since 1997. There has been a consent decree where parties agree to settlement, and a Monitor appointed to administer the settlement.
The following info is from The Office of The Monitor
http://www.pigfordmonitor.org/
and data from farm census of 1997
There are, IMHO, merits to the plaintiffs' argument that they were discriminated against, and I believe there are also blacks playing the race card.
The plaintiffs maintain they were discriminated against by the Dept. Ag. in not processing or ignoring their requests for loans. Rural black landowners have been screwed over in land dealings since Reconstruction and Jim Crow.
Then again, where in the Constitution does it say the Fed Govt is in the loan business? Anyhow, to some extent, the complaint is valid.
The mediator is a black man. Only 13% of the population is black, and the mediator just happens to be a black man. Yeah. Like Jesse Jackson is a just a black man.
I smell a race card.
The case, filed in 1997, recognized 22,721 plaintiffs. According to the 1997 national farm census, there were only 18,451 black farmers in the USA. I cannot believe every single black farmer and then some more in the USA applied for loans, and then was discriminated against. ref - Monitor's statistics: http://www.pigfordmonitor.org/stats/
I smell a race card.
In subsequent hearings, the definitions of the class were modified from:
black farmers who farmed and were discriminated against,
to: Order of January 5, 1999
All African American farmers who
(1) farmed, or attempted to farm, between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996;
(2) applied to the United States Department of Agriculture.
IOW, if you were black and tried to grow a potted tomato plant on your back porch, Uncle Sam owes you money. My guess is that is how the class got to be bigger than the census number.
I smell a race card.
"The Consent Decree accomplishes its purposes primarily through a two-track dispute resolution mechanism that provides those class members with little or no documentary evidence with a virtually automatic cash payment of $50,000, and forgiveness of debt owed to the USDA (Track A), while those who believe they can prove their cases with documentary or other evidence by a preponderance of the evidence -- the traditional burden of proof in civil litigation -- have no cap on the amount they may recover (Track B)." ref: orders, p25 http://www.pigfordmonitor.org/orders/19990414op.pdf
Forgiveness of debt? Why? And the $50,000 payment is tax paid by the Fed Govt.
Race Card!
In summary,
It seems to me that the the guy who wrote your article exaggerated and twisted facts.
Black farmers were discriminated against, but I suspect most of them probably because they were not really farmers with a demonstrated expertise in farming.
I found no record of Uhbama being involved in or reopening the issue.
The government largely paid off a race card clamor, waiving usual rules of evidence of damages, statutes of limitations, and reporting requirements because the plaintiffs were black.
Forgiving the "farmers'" debt was absolutely a race card move.
The whole thing stinks on both sides.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick
Million man math.
ReplyDeleteJavert