|
|
|---|
Monday, November 16, 2009
President Barack Obama has repeatedly vowed to cut wasteful government spending, and his 2010 budged released earlier this month specifically cuts $17 billion from more than 120 programs. One item included in the 2010 budget is $1.250 billion in settlement funds to bring to a closure the long-standing black farmers' lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture.The black farmers' case began in December 1996, when President Clinton, after observing a handful of black farmers demonstrating in the park across from the White House, told his Agriculture Secretary, Dan Glickman, to "keep those people out of my back yard." The following month, Glickman announced, without any evidence to back up his charges, that racial discrimination was "rampant" in the USDA.This "admission" of racism prompted the class action black farmers' lawsuit Pigford v. Glickman (a.k.a. the Pigford case), which the USDA decided to settle rather than fight. As part of the settlement, the government would pay $50,000 to any African-American who "farmed, or attempted to farm" and who alleged discrimination.No documentation or proof of discrimination was required of claimants, and the judge acknowledged that most claimants "would have recovered nothing if they were required to prove their cases by the traditional preponderance of evidence standard." The settlement was an open invitation to fraud.Indeed, numerous fraud rings were organized all over the country. It's said that most of the residents of one New York City housing project submitted claims. And in one confirmed case, the perpetrators of a fraud ring in Mississippi murdered a woman who was planning to testify against them.The USDA spent $450,000 publicizing the settlement. Advertisements were placed in 100 black-oriented papers, and 44 commercials were run on BET. The advertisements generated 139,000 inquiries, and 111,000 people requested the forms necessary to file a claim.90,000 people eventually filed claims. Since the USDA counts only 18,500 black farmers in the US, the number of people who attempted to collect was more than five times the number of black farmers in the entire country.To date, 13,000 claimants have been paid roughly $1 billion. Over 70,000 of the claims received haven't been paid because they were filed after the deadline. In a vdare essay, March explains why so many of the claimants delayed submitting their claims:
Many of these tardy filers were afraid to file because they feared the whole process was a government "trap" to jail them for fraud. Only after they saw friends and neighbors actually receiving the $50,000 for claims they knew to be phony did their greed overcome their fear—butby then the deadline had passed.President Obama has long championed these cautious swindlers.In 2007, then-Senator Obama charged that "thousands of black farmers who had valid claims were denied relief, mostly because they missed the cut-off date for claims."Now that Obama has allocated $1.25bn in the 2010 budget to settle their claims, many of these 70,000 swindlers will receive their $50,000 windfall.Most of the information in this article comes from Louis T. March's book "Harvest of Lies: The Black Farmer Lawsuit Against the U.S. Department of Agriculture." The book can be purchased from The Occidental Press.
Many of these tardy filers were afraid to file because they feared the whole process was a government "trap" to jail them for fraud. Only after they saw friends and neighbors actually receiving the $50,000 for claims they knew to be phony did their greed overcome their fear—butby then the deadline had passed.President Obama has long championed these cautious swindlers.In 2007, then-Senator Obama charged that "thousands of black farmers who had valid claims were denied relief, mostly because they missed the cut-off date for claims."Now that Obama has allocated $1.25bn in the 2010 budget to settle their claims, many of these 70,000 swindlers will receive their $50,000 windfall.Most of the information in this article comes from Louis T. March's book "Harvest of Lies: The Black Farmer Lawsuit Against the U.S. Department of Agriculture." The book can be purchased from The Occidental Press.
Q. How many minority farmers are there?
A. Minority farm operators, however defined, make up a small share of all U.S. farmers. Most minority farmers operate small farms, although most small farms are not operated by minorities. Census of agriculture data are often used to examine the characteristics of minority operators. Although other sources of data provide information on minority farmers, census data extend further into the past and provide reliable statistics for very small minorities, particularly at the State level.
Obtaining a count of minority farmers is difficult because some of the groups overlap. According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, 47,700 farm operators, or 2.5 percent of all U.S. farm operators, were nonwhite. These included 18,500 Blacks, 10,600 American Indians, 8,700 Asians or Pacific Islanders, and 9,800 “others.” About 27,700 Hispanics also farmed. Approximately 9,000 of the Hispanic operators, however, are also included in the nonwhite count, since Hispanics may be of any race.
Although women are a majority in the U.S. population, they are a minority among farm operators. Only 165,100 farm operators, or 8.6 percent of the U.S. total, were women in 1997, but their numbers are increasing. Of these, 5,100 were included in the nonwhite count and 2,500 were Hispanic. The Census Bureau counts only one primary operator per farm; it does not classify women who farm alongside their husbands as operators, unless they are the primary operators.
A. Minority farm operators, however defined, make up a small share of all U.S. farmers. Most minority farmers operate small farms, although most small farms are not operated by minorities. Census of agriculture data are often used to examine the characteristics of minority operators. Although other sources of data provide information on minority farmers, census data extend further into the past and provide reliable statistics for very small minorities, particularly at the State level.
Obtaining a count of minority farmers is difficult because some of the groups overlap. According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, 47,700 farm operators, or 2.5 percent of all U.S. farm operators, were nonwhite. These included 18,500 Blacks, 10,600 American Indians, 8,700 Asians or Pacific Islanders, and 9,800 “others.” About 27,700 Hispanics also farmed. Approximately 9,000 of the Hispanic operators, however, are also included in the nonwhite count, since Hispanics may be of any race.
Although women are a majority in the U.S. population, they are a minority among farm operators. Only 165,100 farm operators, or 8.6 percent of the U.S. total, were women in 1997, but their numbers are increasing. Of these, 5,100 were included in the nonwhite count and 2,500 were Hispanic. The Census Bureau counts only one primary operator per farm; it does not classify women who farm alongside their husbands as operators, unless they are the primary operators.
Pigford v. Glickman was a class action lawsuit against the United States Department of Agriculture (the "USDA"), alleging racial discrimination in its allocation of farm loans and assistance between 1983 and 1997. The lawsuit ended with a settlement in which the U.S. government agreed to pay African American farmers US$50,000 each if they had attempted to get USDA help but failed. To date, almost US$1 billion has been paid or credited to the farmers under the settlement's consent decree.
Contents[hide]
1 Case history
2 Payouts
3 Subsequent events
4 See also
5 References
//
[edit] Case history
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 completely failed to process subsequent complaints about racial discrimination.[1]
After the lawsuit was filed, Pigford requested blanket mediation to cover what was thought to be about 2,000 farmers who may have been discriminated against, but the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the mediation, saying that each case had to be investigated separately. As the case moved toward trial, the presiding judge certified as a class all black farmers who filed discrimination complaints against the USDA between 1983 and 1997.
The plaintiffs settled with the government in 1999. Under the consent decree, all African American farmers would be paid a "virtually automatic" US$50,000 plus granted certain loan forgiveness and tax offsets, if they could present substantial evidence that they had been discriminated against on the basis of race. To do so, they needed to show that they had applied to the USDA for farm credit or benefits, had to have made a complaint before 1997, and had to show that the USDA had treated them less favorably than the USDA had treated similarly-situated white farmers. This process was called "Track A".[2]
Alternatively, affected farmers could follow the "Track B" process, seeking a larger payment by presenting a greater amount of evidence — the legal standard in this case was to have a preponderance of evidence along with evidence of greater damages.
[edit] Payouts
Originally, claimants were to have filed within 180 days of the consent decree. Late claims were accepted for an additional year afterwards, if they could show extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from filing on time.
Far beyond the anticipated 2,000 affected farmers, 22,505 "Track A" applications were heard and decided upon, of which 13,348 (59%) were approved. US$995 million had been disbursed or credited to the "Track A" applicants as of January 2009[update], including US$760 million disbursed as US$50,000 cash awards.[3] Fewer than 200 farmers opted for the "Track B" process.
Beyond those applications that were heard and decided upon, about 70,000 petitions were filed late and were not allowed to proceed. Some have argued that the notice program was defective, and others blamed the farmers' attorneys for "the inadequate notice and overall mismanagement of the settlement agreement". A provision in the 2008 farm bill essentially allowed a re-hearing in civil court for any claimant whose claim had been denied without a decision that had been based on its merits.
[edit] Subsequent events
In 2004, the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association filed a US$20.5 billion class action lawsuit against the USDA for the same practices, alleging racially discriminatory practices between 1997 and 2004. The lawsuit was dismissed when the BFAA failed to show it had standing to bring the suit.
[edit] See also
List of class action lawsuits
[edit] References
^ 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.
^ "The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers", Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [1].
^ "The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers", p. 5. Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [2].
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman"
Contents[hide]
1 Case history
2 Payouts
3 Subsequent events
4 See also
5 References
//
[edit] Case history
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 completely failed to process subsequent complaints about racial discrimination.[1]
After the lawsuit was filed, Pigford requested blanket mediation to cover what was thought to be about 2,000 farmers who may have been discriminated against, but the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the mediation, saying that each case had to be investigated separately. As the case moved toward trial, the presiding judge certified as a class all black farmers who filed discrimination complaints against the USDA between 1983 and 1997.
The plaintiffs settled with the government in 1999. Under the consent decree, all African American farmers would be paid a "virtually automatic" US$50,000 plus granted certain loan forgiveness and tax offsets, if they could present substantial evidence that they had been discriminated against on the basis of race. To do so, they needed to show that they had applied to the USDA for farm credit or benefits, had to have made a complaint before 1997, and had to show that the USDA had treated them less favorably than the USDA had treated similarly-situated white farmers. This process was called "Track A".[2]
Alternatively, affected farmers could follow the "Track B" process, seeking a larger payment by presenting a greater amount of evidence — the legal standard in this case was to have a preponderance of evidence along with evidence of greater damages.
[edit] Payouts
Originally, claimants were to have filed within 180 days of the consent decree. Late claims were accepted for an additional year afterwards, if they could show extraordinary circumstances that prevented them from filing on time.
Far beyond the anticipated 2,000 affected farmers, 22,505 "Track A" applications were heard and decided upon, of which 13,348 (59%) were approved. US$995 million had been disbursed or credited to the "Track A" applicants as of January 2009[update], including US$760 million disbursed as US$50,000 cash awards.[3] Fewer than 200 farmers opted for the "Track B" process.
Beyond those applications that were heard and decided upon, about 70,000 petitions were filed late and were not allowed to proceed. Some have argued that the notice program was defective, and others blamed the farmers' attorneys for "the inadequate notice and overall mismanagement of the settlement agreement". A provision in the 2008 farm bill essentially allowed a re-hearing in civil court for any claimant whose claim had been denied without a decision that had been based on its merits.
[edit] Subsequent events
In 2004, the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association filed a US$20.5 billion class action lawsuit against the USDA for the same practices, alleging racially discriminatory practices between 1997 and 2004. The lawsuit was dismissed when the BFAA failed to show it had standing to bring the suit.
[edit] See also
List of class action lawsuits
[edit] References
^ 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.
^ "The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers", Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [1].
^ "The Pigford Case: USDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers", p. 5. Tadlock Cowan, Congressional Research Service, January 13, 2009. Fetched February 9, 2009 from [2].
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigford_v._Glickman"
0 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
