I’ve often said that the Pigford scandal isn’t a partisan issue. This is about fraud and corruption and while there are many Democrats involved, one of the biggest promoters of Pigford has been Republican Senator Chuck Grassley. Grassley was the Senate sponsor of the Pigford Claims Recovery Act that extended Pigford to another 70,000+ claimants.

Even more troubling than Senator Grassley’s support of the Pigford Legislation, however, has been his explicit support of “Dr.” John Boyd.

Boyd is head of the National Black Farmers Assocuation, a group that he runs out of his house in Virginia. Boyd claims to represent ‘the farmers’ but in fact, he’s personally profited from the Pigford settlement to the tune of over $1,000,000. Boyd aggressively plays the race card against his critics, including Andrew Breitbart and this site.

In 2009, attorney Rose Sanders – a major advocate of Pigford, mind you –  said this about “Dr.” John Boyd…

Less than two years ago, I attended meetings by John Boyd where he and his attorneys were soliciting contracts from hundreds of eligible and ineligible claimants before the Pigford II legislation was passed in Congress. These contracts obligated citizens to pay 1/3 of their recovery to John Boyd’s attorneys plus expenses. Expenses had to be paid even if the claimant was unsuccessful. I objected to these outrageous contracts.

For more on Boyd, you can watch this clip from Pigford Blues about Boyd’s Institute and Doctorate and you can also read this post that shows how Boyd manipulates the press.

I contacted the office of Republican Senator Chuck Grassley today about his support for John Boyd. Here’s the response I got from Grassley’s press secretary, Beth Levine.

Senator Grassley’s support for Pigford II isn’t about John Boyd, it’s about the thousands of black farmers who were unable to have their cases heard before a neutral arbiter. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the courts and the Congress have all said that these farmers deserve to have their cases heard based on the merits. Pigford II simply enables the farmers, or those who attempted to farm, to plead their case in front of a neutral party and be judged on the merits. The law was also specifically written with extra protections to help ensure that fraud is kept out of the program. Those changes have been made to the settlement agreement that will enhance the Department’s ability to fight fraud including requiring adjudicators to be a truly neutral party; allowing that neutral adjudicator to ask the claimant for additional documentation if he or she suspects any fraud; requiring the claimants’ attorneys to certify that there is evidentiary support for the claims; and requiring the Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the Department’s internal controls and audit the process in adjudicating the claims. (emphasis mine.)

This is all standard runaround that Pigford II somehow has higher standards – and it’s not true.

(more…)

As the Pigford investigation continues, it is important to note that we have demonstrated in our Pigford Report that there is massive fraud in the Pigford I settlement, but you have yet to hear a pro-Pigford politician admit to that fact.  To this day, President Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack maintains there are, at most, 10 cases of fraud. Big Government showed two videos of black farmers alleging that Congressman Sanford Bishop not only knew about the fraud in Pigford I, but also instructed the black farmers who brought the information to light to keep quiet as long as “the money was flowing.”

It’s important to note that Eddie Slaughter is not just a black farmer, he is the Vice President of one of the largest black farmer advocacy groups in America, the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association.

After seeing the BigGovernment.com interview, Congressman Bishop, clearly upset with the video revelation, made the following admission to his local paper, the Albany Herald yesterday:

“Yes, I am aware that there is fraud in the program, that’s why anti-fraud provisions were written into the settlement,” Bishop said Thursday morning “My job was to help secure funding for constituents who had been discriminated against by the USDA. It’s not my job to monitor fraud in the program. I can’t assume responsibility for fraud. You can’t lay that at my feet.”

“This is ridiculous. It’s not my job to determine who is a qualified claimant or not, or who gets paid or who doesn’t get paid.”

“I’ve worked with Eddie Slaughter for more than 15 years.”

We now have an admission from a prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and a co-sponsor of Pigford legislation, that he was not only told by a black farmer that the Pigford I payout process was “rife with fraud,” but also that as a member of Congress there was nothing he could do about it. (more…)

NOTE : Compare Rep. Sanford Bishop’s (D-Ga) statements in this article (published at 6pm) with what he said in this Albany Herald article that was published at 11:30am. In the earlier article Bishop says he was aware of the fraud and it wasn’t his job to police it. By the time he talked to the Atlanta reporter later in the day, he suddenly has no idea at all what the farmers are talking about and insults them by implying that they were drunkards.

From Bob Keefe at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

WASHINGTON — Democratic U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop called Internet insinuations that he was somehow involved in fraud surrounding last year’s settlement between the government and African-American farmers “one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.”

Videos featuring two Georgia farmers that are being circulated on the Web by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart hint that Bishop, of Albany, may have known about possible fraud in last year’s so-called “Pigford” settlement between the government and black farmers who claimed that a Department of Agriculture farm loan program discriminated against them.

“I don’t know what they were imbibing,” Bishop said of the two farmers after watching the videos. “I’m just perplexed and shocked.” (more…)

**UPDATED**

The videos that Big Government broke yesterday showing farmers Eddie Slaughter and Willie Head saying that congressman Sanford Bishop knew about fraud in the Pigford Settlement appear to have broken Congressman Bishop. An angry Bishop called the local paper in Albany, Georgia and far from denying the claims that he know about fraud and did nothing about it, he readily admits it.

***

From the Albany Herald in Albany, Georgia:

An internet video surfaced Tuesday in which a black farmer, Eddie Slaughter of Buena Vista, accuses Rep. Sanford Bishop Jr., D-Albany, of being aware of fraud in the $1 billion Pigford farm discrimination settlement. That prompted a sharp and angry reaction from the congressman.

“Yes, I am aware that there is fraud in the program, that’s why anti-fraud provisions were written into the settlement,” Bishop said Thursday morning “My job was to help secure funding for constituents who had been discriminated against by the USDA. It’s not my job to monitor fraud in the program. I can’t assume responsibility for fraud. You can’t lay that at my feet.

“This is ridiculous. It’s not my job to determine who is a qualified claimant or not, or who gets paid or who doesn’t get paid.”

(more…)

Too many elected officials are far too comfortable spending taxpayer dollars without knowing where that money will actually end up. This was proven once again by the Senate’s vote to fund the Pigford Settlements, even though serious claims of fraud exist.

In September, I joined my colleagues Congressmen Steve King (IA-05) and Bob Goodlatte (VA-06) to call for a full investigation into the Pigford Settlement Case. As a constant advocate for careful use of taxpayer dollars, I was concerned when I learned that this Settlement has 94,000 claims of discrimination, even though only approximately 33,000 black farmers exist in the United States.

(more…)

Mississippi native J. Dudley Butler is a notorious plaintiff’s attorney who has filed numerous lawsuits against poultry companies alleging unfair marketing and procurement practices.

Before his nomination by President Obama as Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) – an agency charged with monitoring the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat and other ag products and ensuring healthy competition — he was an attorney in the Butler Farm and Ranch Law Group in Canton, Mississippi and well-known to the meat and poultry industry.  He was one of the “Johnnie Cochrans” of ag law:  “Got a chicken? Got a case.”

His appointment as GIPSA Administrator was hailed by the populist group R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America), where he was previously a member, and by the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), which he helped to found.  While Butler’s legal efforts to bring Packers and Stockyards Act cases against poultry companies failed, his nomination as GIPSA administrator made R-CALF and friends realize they had hit pay-dirt:  The friendly lawyer who donated a saddle to their 2009 Convention fundraising auction now might be able to alter the very rules that had been an obstacle to success in court.

Attorney and fellow OCM Member Dave Domina also saw the potential for sealing legal victories:   “This is a narrow moment in history when a difference can be made.”

Butler saw language in the 2008 Farm Bill that mandated GIPSA rulemaking on “undue preferences” as the train to which he could hitch a giant regulatory caboose.  Instead of restricting himself to what Congress mandated, the proposal he shepherded to the Federal Register in June 2010 included language to reduce the legal obstacles he had encountered in court.  Under such a scenario, the private practice to which we might return could be far more victorious in court – and far more lucrative.

(more…)

Sometimes being in the baby poo business means you just can’t win.

If your disposable diapers take too much room in landfills, environmentalists boycott you.  If you update old diapers, a handful of parents complain about the new.  If a baby gets a diaper rash, trial lawyers target you.

Then they all come together in a perfect storm of consumer indignation and sue the disposable pants off you.

Parents have loved disposables since 1961, and market competition kept improvements like self-sticking tape, elastic waistbands, skin protectants and anti-microbial agents coming regularly.  New fibers made diapers lighter, more absorbent and landfill-friendlier.  Potty training?  Disposable training pants.

As parents (figuratively) rejoiced in their disposables, they held no interest for trial lawyers — until Pampers introduced new “Dry Max” Cruisers.

Goods manufacturers anticipate complaints after any product change or improvement.  When Pampers introduced new Cruisers in Fall 2008 with no accompanying marketing campaign, complaint levels remained static.  But after converting its packaging and announcing the change in late 2009, objections flew immediately.

In late November, Twitter and Facebook pages were created by a mom complaining the new diapers weren’t as good as the old, and Pampers should have instituted a more vigorous campaign to announce the change.  The “Bring back the old Cruisers” campaign was born.

The mom complained in the same vein until February 9, 2010 when she posted, “do you think pampers (sic) violated consumer rights when they switched diapers without fair advertising or marketing?  Is (Pampers) guilty of this?”

Then on April 7, the first diaper rash reference magically appeared.  Both sites eventually lurched into an aggressive discussion of serious rashes allegedly caused by the new Dry Max Cruisers.  Facebook members were advised “not to talk about how much we like other Pampers products” and admonished to only upload photos through site administrators.

(more…)

Two ongoing trends I chronicled during 2009 highlight an ironic situation: Leftists remain tough on their domestic political opponents, while lax when it comes to our real common enemies.

As we recently saw with the Christmas airplane-bombing attempt, leftists seem bent on treating terrorists with kid gloves, insisting they receive rights normally reserved for U.S. citizens (even when this means failing to extract timely information that might save lives).

Conversely, leftists play “hardball” when their opponents are not terrorists or criminals, but instead, American businesses and industries.   One such example is the left’s battle against Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used for more than a half century to make plastics more durable.

Though clearly less consequential than the war on terror, the Left’s war on BPA serves as a microcosm of the larger attempt to use “junk science” and litigation to redistribute wealth from job-producing American industries into the hands of trial lawyers and liberal special interest groups.

In this regard, the Left’s attempts are reminiscent of their past battle against the insecticide DDT. In the 1960s, many developing nation’s had nearly wiped out malaria, but it came back after DDT was banned.  It did not matter that DDT was harmless to humans – and actually saved lives — the Left attacked it, ultimately causing 50 million preventable deaths.

(more…)