Attention, Juan Williams – don’t presume that you speak for Eddie Slaughter when you accuse Newt Gingrich of dog whistle racism for his statements on food stamps and America’s work ethic. Readers of BigGovernment will remember Eddie Slaughter as the South Georgia farmer was gone on record talking about Pigford fraud and how his Congressman, representative Sanford Bishop tried to cover up that fraud. Mr. Slaughter had personal and political dealings with Newt Gingrich years ago that run very counter to the narrative that Juan Williams was trying to push during the recent presidential debate on Fox, as revealed in an interview I did with  Mr. Slaughter this morning.

Mr. Slaughter originally told me about his positive dealings with Gingrich about a year ago, when he both spoke at a press conference at CPAC about the Pigford settlement. Before Pigford became a vast fraud scheme benefiting attorneys and the political class, it began as a legitimate effort by a small group of black farmers to fight discrimination at the hands of the federal government. The issue for the farmers was that the statute of limitations was very short and because the civil rights office of the USDA had been shut down, there had been no real way to report any discrimination for close to 15 years. In order for the bona fide black farmers like Mr. Slaughter to file suit, they would need an extension of the statute limitations.

The black farmers approachedNewt Gingrich to get support. Now, according to the Juan Williams school of thought, Speaker Gingrich was Republican and therefore a presumed racist. Mr. Slaughter told a very different story however. When asked directly about in my interview he said, “I feel that he was more sincere than most in Washington DC.” And “I think he was more fair than most people running for office, from what know about him personally.”

(more…)

Earlier this week, BigGovernment revealed another chapter in the scandal ridden saga of Georgia Congressman Sanford Bishop. Representative Bishop has represented South Georgia’s second district for nearly 20 years. He’s an under the radar member of the Congressional Black Caucus, seemingly without the temperament or ambition to achieve the high visibility of a John Conyers or Maxine Waters. His relative anonymity has allowed him to avoid much close scrutiny but because of his active role in helping to cover up the Pigford scandal, we are keeping a close eye on him and his race for reelection in 2012. For those of you not familiar with Congressman Bishop, here’s a quick recap of some of his career low lights.

Despite the relative lack of progress and growth he’s delivered to his district, Congressman Bishop is an expert in delivering earmarks. In fiscal year 2010, he was ranked 42nd out of 435 Congressmen.  In 2008 he was ranked 28^th. He generally delivers a combination of military and agricultural pork that has given him the behind-the-scenes support of some in the political class beyond his African-American voter base.

He’s had a couple of scandals that have involved his wife Vivian Creighton-Bishop diverting money to friends and family. Vivian Bishop is the Municipal Court clerk in Columbus, Georgia. In March 2009, Frank Castiglione reported;

During an internal audit of the Junior Marshal Program at the Marshal’s Office in Columbus, it was discovered that two part-time employees had been paid over $7,000 each over a period of some months.

The employees lived in Lithonia, Georgia, well over 100 miles away from the Columbus office. In light of rumors regarding the part-timers, Marshal Greg Countryman called in the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) to launch an inquiry.

The GBI found that the part-time employees, Aayesha Reese and Stephen Reese, are the daughter and son-in-law of Municipal Court Clerk Vivian Creighton Bishop. With more digging, it was discovered that the paychecks, sent via direct deposit, had actually been diverted to Creighton-Bishop’s bank account.

This would seem to be the stuff that would end a political career, but Mr. and Mrs. Bishop appear to possess considerable skill at keeping much of the local press under their sway.

(more…)

Thomas Burrell, head of the Black Farmers Agricultural Association, Inc., is not ready to leave the Pigford settlement business without a fight.

Despite recent court setbacks, he is still threatening legal action. The fact that Burrell is calling out President Barack Obama seems to signal that Burrell feels he has to play hardball and threaten the tacit agreement that was made between candidate Obama and a number of self-styled “black leaders” about the Pigford settlement and the African-American vote several years ago.

This recent news report from Tennessee shows Burrell and local clergymen taking public aim at the President. Burrell correctly points out that the Pigford 2 settlement for black farmers has a number of restrictions on it that new settlements for women and Latino farmers do not have. The disparity is actually somewhat bizarre, and will be the topic of further reporting in the future.

However, Burrell’s refusal to go down quietly on the issue signals a potential problem for Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign strategy that would be missed by many observers who don’t understand the connection between Obama and Pigford.

(more…)

The Political Class has honed a dangerous skill, building the perfect undetectable fraud machine. Americans need to learn to spot these scams for their own protection and realize that the perpetrators can come from either political party and often work in cahoots with attorneys or big business.

Think about three seemingly unconnected news stories, all examples of costly or dangerously indictable fraud machines…

• The economic collapse of 2008 was caused in part by relaxed mortgage rules that allowed borrowers to get a home loan without a down payment or even proof of income in some cases.
• In the Pigford settlement, claimants were able to get $50,000 checks by asserting without proof that they had “attempted to farm.”
• In a move strongly supported by the NAACP and other liberal advocacy groups, the Obama Department of Justice just stopped South Carolina’s plan to put in place some minimal ID requirements for voting. Currently voters in a number of states don’t need to show any photo ID or other identity checks in order to cast a ballot.

All three stories are examples of systems that have been intentionally set up with such low standards that they invite fraud. But ingeniously, they have also been set up in a such a way that makes them almost critic-proof because the lack of standards makes detection of fraud nearly impossible. When the system is questioned, the defenders, creators and beneficiaries then point to the lack of “proof” of fraud as a reason to keep the status. Thus, a self-perpetuating fraud scheme is kept alive as long as possible.

Make no mistake, these scams are costly….

(more…)

From Western Farm Press:

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack

Racism is dead at USDA. Discrimination has gone the way of the dodo. Since 2009, when Secretary Vilsack called for a new era in civil rights, racism and discrimination have been banished to the scrapheap of USDA history.

And what a costly scrapheap — more akin to gold than garbage. A rough tally of USDA discrimination settlements: $1.15 billion for black farmers; $760 million for Indian farmers; and $1.3 billion for Hispanic and women farmers combined. If legislative and man-hour costs are tacked on, that towering scrapheap reaches well over the $3 billion mark. Settlements? Makes you wonder what the high-water mark was for the plaintiffs’ lawyers if they ‘settled’ for $3 billion.

As the green is doled out to a conga line of aggrieved farmers, ‘The Last Plantation’ atmosphere is apparently no more at USDA; buried in an act of monetary absolution. A contrite USDA wishes to be absolved of past sins. But sins require sinners. Where are they? Has USDA fired anyone? Have the guilty been named? Years and years of bias reportedly inflicted on over 100,000 U.S. famers — and no perpetrator to show for it? USDA admits guilt to the tune of billions in discrimination claims — and no heads roll? (more…)

From The Commercial Appeal:

Thomas Burrell

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has agreed to a settlement involving a class of at least 40,000 black farmers who claim they were discriminated against by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and who missed the deadline for an earlier settlement.

U.S. Dist. Judge Paul L. Friedman certified a class of plaintiffs aggregated in 23 separate complaints, including one made by the Memphis-based Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Inc., and its president, Thomas Burrell.

Burrell testified against the proposed settlement in a “fairness” hearing on Sept. 1, arguing that potential claimants should be able to access the much more liberal benefits of the earlier, 1999 settlement known as Pigford I. More than $1 billion has been paid out to more than 22,000 claimants in the first settlement.

Burrell said this morning that he plans to appeal Friedman’s ruling on due process and equal protection grounds. He maintains that a 1998 law signed by President Bill Clinton holds open the door to claims the previous settlement labeled too late and that prospective claimants aren’t limited to the cause of action Congress created for late filers in 2008 or to the $1.15 billion Congress appropriated in 2010, which he said is inadequate. (more…)

From the Department of Justice:

Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack released the following statements on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approval of the historic Pigford II settlement:

“This settlement allows the Department of Agriculture and African-American farmers to focus on the future, and brings us one step closer to giving these farmers a chance to have their claims heard,” said Attorney General Holder. “Accomplishing this settlement has been a top priority of this Administration and I am pleased that the court has approved it.”

“Since my first day at USDA, I made it a priority to treat all Americans with respect and dignity and to ensure equal access to our programs.  Court approval of the Pigford settlement is another important step to ensure some level of justice for black farmers and ranchers who faced discrimination when trying to obtain services from USDA,” said Secretary Vilsack. “President Obama, Attorney General Holder and I are thrilled by the court’s approval so we can continue turning the page on this sad chapter in USDA history. In the months and years ahead, we will not stop working to move the Department into a new era as a model employer and premier service provider for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.” (more…)

WASHINGTON (AP) – A federal judge has given final approval to a $1.2 billion government settlement with black farmers who claim they were unfairly denied loans and other assistance from the Agriculture Department over many years.

Federal judge Paul Friedman approved the settlement late Thursday. He said it will likely take about a year for neutral parties to review claims and then all of the settlements will be paid out at once.

This is the second round of settlements in the 1999 case known as the Pigford case, after the original plaintiff, North Carolina farmer Timothy Pigford. The settlement is directed at farmers who were denied payments in the first round because they missed deadlines for filing. (more…)

From AgWeek:

WASHINGTON — Despite his earlier statements that the Obama administration would let Congress write the next farm bill, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack commented Oct. 3 and 4 on several sections of the bill…

…Vilsack said in the interview he is reluctant to cut the food stamp program, saying that its budget authority already was reduced to pay for teacher salaries and to make settlements for farmers who had sued USDA for discrimination in the Pigford II case.

(more…)

One of the key attorneys in the Pigford “black farmers” lawsuit has confirmed, on camera, what we at Big Government have argued for months: that the $2.7 billion Pigford settlement has been corrupted by fraud on a massive scale.

On September 23, 2011, at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., attorney Faya Rose Toure (a.k.a. Rose Sanders) described a conspiracy to defraud the federal government, involving claimants, attorneys, and members of the clergy.

The original Pigford plaintiffs were black farmers who sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture for racial discrimination.

Sanders related how class-action lawyers later recruited claimants by sending representatives to black churches, where they allegedly told congregants that they were eligible for “reparations,” even if they had never farmed.

Sanders’s claims were at least partially corroborated at the press conference by Gary Grant, President of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, who indicated that he knew of the involvement of preachers in Pigford-related fraud.

What Sanders reveals in the clip below ought to be enough to cause the supervising judge, Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, to suspend the settlement process.

It ought to be enough to prompt the FBI to re-open investigations into the lawyers and organizations involved.

It ought to be enough to encourage Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to fire up his magic investigation machine, and start issuing subpoenas–not just regarding the Pigford settlement, but also the Obama-created settlements for women, Native American, and Hispanic/Latino famers who are alleging discrimination.

Watch the clip, then I’ll take you through some of the points that Pigford attorney Sanders is making.

And so after all of that, they are now accusing the farmers of fraud. There is a problem. There are people who are out there hustling, and taking advantage of black farmers. And some of them are our people. They are the ones that are misleading the people, making them believe they are in the lawsuit, making them believe they are eligible. I actually went to a meeting in Alabama, where these white lawyers from Texas had hired–you were there [“Yes, maʼam. And they're still calling me and trying to get me to fraud.”]–hired black people, hired black people to go into all these black churches and they literally told black people: “Oh, you didn’t have to farm. It doesn’t matter if your grandfather never farmed. If you ever thought about farming, youʼre eligible for this lawsuit.” So these people are thinking this is more of a like reparations-type lawsuit. They donʼt know any better. So when they sign up, they just donʼt know. But the government is determined to prosecute [them], and to limit this process, and that is something I think we need to be outraged about. I think we need to somehow get to the NAACP, and I have talked to the NAACP–we’ve got to have a coalition. We–frankly speaking, we’ve got to get away from some of our differences, because our needs are greater than our differences…

Let’s start at the beginning. (more…)

At the National Press Club in Washington DC in September 2011, Ridgely Muhammad, Minister of Agriculture for the Nation of Islam, was a featured speaker on a panel discussing the Pigford black farmer settlement.
(more…)

Last week, in Washington, DC, I attended what is is expected to be the last hearing on the Pigford settlement–Judge Paul Friedman, presiding.

Judge Friedman has been in charge of the scandal-infested case since it was conceived during the Clinton Administration. He has overseen a process that has funneled billions of dollars to lawyers, bureaucrats and fraudsters who have never farmed a day in their lives, leaving behind many black farmers who suffered actual racial discrimination by the USDA.

Pigford is an interesting bit of legal chicanery. It works on two different levels: one a false cover story, the other the behind-the-scenes legal reality.

In order for Pigford to proceed, there needs to be a public perception that Pigford is helping poor black farmers. That is the constant public drumbeat, and it works because it plays on people’s natural sympathy with the plight of those black farmers who were, in fact, hurt by the government.

Then there’s the actual legal mechanism, including the “attempted to farm” bamboozle, through which people who were never actually farmers have come forward to claim $50,000 payouts as part of an expanded class of beneficiaries that Friedman certified. (more…)

In the months of stories we’ve done on the Pigford settlement, people often leave comments that say “Hey, I have a houseplant — can I get $50,000, too?!?”

Since you asked — yes, you can. You don’t even need the plant.

Just visit FarmerClaims.gov and go to the bottom of the home page. You’ll find a link to a Summary of the Claims Process that brings up a PDF.  At the top of page 2, it explains what you need to provide for proof if you’re claiming that you made a ‘bona-fide’ attempt to apply but were actively discouraged.

This short video I made lets people know how easy it is to collect.

What does this mean practically?

(more…)

I know you need some Pigford to keep you going through the weekend, so here’s a couple of stray thoughts…

1) An Appeal By Any Other Name

This is from Paul Friedman’s decision on the Pigford settlement…

“…there is no right to appeal those decisions, except that the Monitor shall direct the arbitrator or adjudicator to reexamine the claim if he determines that a “clear and manifest error has occurred” that is “likely to result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.”  Consent Decree at ¶¶ 9(a)(v), 9(b)(v), 10(i), 12(b)(iii)

Well, something must have changed because 10% of the decisions in Pigford were not only appealed but were actually overturned, according to the government’s own official numbers.  There’s a chart showing ‘reexamination results.’ Check it out — thousands of results changed. How is that not an ‘appeal’?

I want to make it clear that I’m not opposed to these appeals. Some of them actually were the only way that bona fide farmers actually got anything  from the settlement. But – something clearly happened and it’s different than Friedman’s decision.

What I think this does show is the whole process was screwed up and needs investigation. But you knew that already, right?

(more…)

I’m looking for some advice. It’s about money.

I don’t need to tell you that times are tough. It seems like half the experts think we are about to plunge into the second part of a double-dip recession and the other half think that we’re there already. Like a lot of people, the week to week struggle is tiring me out and it’s not just about me, either. I have a wife and kids to think about, too.

I won’t lie; the idea of getting $50,000 tax-free sounds pretty good to me.

I know exactly how I can get it, too. It wouldn’t take more than a few hours of work. All I need to do is fill out some forms and talk about the time that my sweet, dearly departed mother tried to get a farm loan from the USDA.

You may be thinking that it sounds too good to be true.

Trust me, it’s not. This is the real deal. I’ve been working on a documentary about the USDA’s “black farmers” settlement for months now. I’ve interviewed dozens of people and it’s very clear that you can collect a $50,000 check if you know how to fill out the paperwork correctly. And I know how to fill that paperwork out.

Basically, you tell the USDA that you or a relative attempted to farm during a certain period of time but that you or the relative were a victim of discrimination and the USDA didn’t even give out the loan paperwork. No proof one way or another. The claim is judged by an “adjudicator” who looks at your paperwork and if it seems specific, detailed and believable, they approve the claim and you collect a $50,000 check tax-free.

In the Pigford black farmers settlement, over 15,000 people collected these checks and I’ve been told by a number of people that over 80% of them collected on this “attempted to farm” standard. If you’re still skeptical, here’s the official government accounting. The U.S. government paid out over billion dollars in claims and most of it didn’t go to farmers.

(more…)

Rep. Issa; I’ve shot about 30 hours of video so far for the documentary Pigford Blues. And since you’ve voted to keep funding Pigford and there’s still no investigation, you have questions to answer–perhaps as much as President Obama does right now.

In this segment, Thomas Burrell, the head of the Black Farmers Agricultural Association, explains the low bar for proof in the Pigford settlement — using the excuse that no records were kept, simply saying you attempted to farm means the claimants and their lawyers win. Guess who loses, Rep. Issa?

Georgia farmer Lucious Abrams knows about Pigford fraud. He’s heard lawyers like Pigford’s mastermind Al Pires tell people that all they had to do was say the USDA threw their applications in the trash can  — a claim impossible to prove or disprove – and they could collect a $50,000 check. And thousands surely did.

Of course, Pires and the lawyers would get THEIR cut, too. And they aren’t the ones at risk of a perjury conviction. The lawyers made $40 million of your tax money, according settlement attorney Othello Cross. The total cost of these fraud filled fake famers settlements is in the billions.

And who had the toughest time collecting? The real farmers who were the victim of the government in the first place; men like Lucious Abrams.

As you can see here, Abrams is ready, willing and able to expose Al Pires. The only question is whether Darrell Issa is ready to listen. After all, Issa voted to keep Pigford funding.

(more…)

Congressman Issa,

Back on January 3rd of this year, you said the following in a video interview about the Pigford II settlement.

I have to use every asset I can get including all the other committees to do what they can. So, Pigford, we’ll participate but we’ll make sure other committees do their work.

Now we’re well into the heat of the summer with several major deadlines for Pigford II looming and the American people have yet to see an investigation into the scandal.

Congressman Issa, I’ll be direct — the issue that is most troubling to many people is that you recently voted to keep Pigford funding. I have no idea why you would cast a vote against representative Steve King (R-IA) and his efforts to stop both the fraudulent nature of the settlement and the legislative chicanery that created it. I have seen no explanation forthcoming and frankly I’m not imaginative enough to be able to come up with one that makes sense.

The burden of proof is now on you to show that you will actually ‘use every asset’ to get an investigation into Pigford II started in all due haste, despite casting a vote to continue its funding. In other words, Congressman Issa — you now own responsibility for the billion dollar plus political payback Pigford II settlement.

(more…)

The Pigford “Black Farmers” settlement isn’t just a massive fraud that funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to people who never farmed a day in their life. No, the perversion of Pigford goes far beyond that because the way the settlement is structured it’s actually more difficult for legitimate farmers to collect than it is for an “attempted to farmer”.

Got that? Adding insult to injury, bona fide farmers are less likely to collect a $50,000 check then someone who meets the incredibly low standard by claiming that they attempted to farm.

This is one of the reasons that so many legitimate, hard-working farmers oppose the Pigford settlement and another reason that Congressman Darrell Issa needs to hear from you right now. Remember, Issa voted to keep funds flowing to Pigford when Representative Steve King (R-IA) tried to stop them a couple of weeks ago. And Rep. Issa is the person who should be pushing for investigations. Issa’s Washington phone number is 202-225-3906.

(more…)

As I’ve written about before, when Iowa Congressman Steve King recently tried to stop funding for the fraud infested Pigford settlement he was opposed by a number of his fellow Republicans.  At least one of them —  Florida’s Allen West — has admitted that his vote was “a mistake” while others such as California’s Darrell Issa have so far remained silent.

Now Missouri Congressman Billy Long has gone on the record with one of his constituents about why he wanted to continue funding a bill that doesn’t actually help the black farmers that it was designed to aid in the first place.

Here’s what he said in a recent letter…

Thank you for contacting me regarding Roll Call Vote number 444, which addressed the Pigford discrimination case at the United States Department of Agriculture; I appreciate hearing from you.

As you know, the amendment offered by Congressman Steve King (R-IA) would have prohibited funding for payments relating to the final settlement of claims from the Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, also known as the Pigford case.  I voted against this amendment, along with several other Republicans, because stopping payments could increase the risk for additional litigation.  I firmly believe I must take every step I can to curb costly litigation, which hurts businesses and job creation in this country.  I also believe I must take every step to slow out-of-control government spending at every turn.

A fear of “additional litigation” is a horrible reason to support Pigford. In fact, one of the main reasons that it’s important to stop Pigford II as soon as possible is because of the additional litigation that it supports.

(more…)