- Posts: 4563
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/asse ... S20430.pdfNmysys wrote: 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”?.
Check it yourself at: http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/ ... -claims-fr om-39697-total-farmers/?singlepage=true
In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997.
The case was entitled “Pigford v. Glickman” and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims.
But then on February 23, 2010, 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.
Not surprising - the numbers of farmers grew. The 2007 census won't count farmers who had been forced out of business long before then, but had existed during the period over which this claim covered (1983-1997). While it's obvious that there will be a significant number of fraudulent claims filed, what's important is that each claim must file substantial evidence in order to receive compensation - you can't just show up, say you farmed, and get a hand-out. Read this for more in-depth info:There was only one teensy problem: The United States of America doesn’t have 86,000 black farmers!
According to accurate and totally verifiable Official USDA 2007 Census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Hmmm... by the Official USDA 1992 Census data the US had only 18,816 black farmers !!
It's 86,000, not 866,000.Well, gosh how on earth did 39,697 explode into the fraudulent 866,000 claims?
That's 50,000 per claimant, not 50,000 total. $50,000 x 39,697 = $1,984,850,000. Only 59% of the original, filed-by-deadline claims were paid out, but also note that $50,000 wasn't just $50,000: it also included Debt Relief, IRS Payments for Track A Claimants + IRS payments for Debt Relief. See Table 1And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion?
It wasn't her family, it was the collective that she helped found. She and her husband received only $150,000 each out of the $13M.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.
In 1969, Sherrod and her husband were among the U.S. civil rights and land collective activists co-founding New Communities, a collective farm in Southwest Georgia[61][65][66] modeled on kibbutzim in Israel.[67][63] The project soon encountered difficulties in the opposition of area white farmers, who accused participants of being communists,[63] and also from segregationist Democratic Governor Lester Maddox, who prevented development funds for the project from entering the state.[67] A drought in the 1970s and inability to get government loans led to the project's ultimate demise in 1985.[63] A federal law passed in 2008 to allow up to 70,000 more claimants to qualify,[63] which included New Communities, the communal farm in which Sherrod and her husband had partnered. In 2009, chief arbitrator Michael Lewis ruled that the USDA had discriminated against New Communities by denying a loan to the operation and extending more favorable terms to white farmers.[61] New Communities received a $12.8 million settlement that included $8.2 million in compensation for loss of farm land, $4.2 million for loss of income and $150,000 each to Sherrod and her husband for "mental anguish".[67][69]
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/ ... l-farmers/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.
Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in this race fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of “Pigford v. Glickman” in 1999 only applied to a total of about 16,000 black farmers.
But.... in 2008, a junior US Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Hussein Obama.
I think there's way too much credit being given to Breitbart. He had no intentions other than to aggrandize.Because this law was passed in dead silence and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide depression to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim.
But Breitbart knew. And two weeks ago on Monday, July 22, 2010, he cleverly laid a trap which Sherrod and Obama + his cronies stumbled head first into which has now resulted in the entire world discovering the existence of this corrupt financial judgment.
As for Ms. Sherrod? Well, she’s discovering too late that her cry of “racism” to the media which was intended to throw the spotlight on Breitbart has instead thrown that spotlight on herself â€" and the huge corruption.
Sherrod has vanished from public view. Her “pigs”, it seems, have come home to roost.
Oink!
But the perpetrator of that law passed in dead silence leading to unlawful claims & corruption..... is still trying to fool all of US.
Google and read for yourself "Pigford vs. Glickman"
Now why would he say that if he truly intended to bring corruption supposedly led by Sherrod and the president to light?Initially, Breitbart offered no apologies to Sherrod, saying that she still harbored racist sentiments.[44] On July 20, 2010, in an interview with CNN's John King, Andrew Breitbart responded to questions regarding his intentions of releasing the video saying that:[45]
This was not about Shirley Sherrod. It's about the NAACP. This was about the NAACP attacking the Tea Party and this [the video of Ms. Sherrod] is showing racism at an NAACP event. I did not ask for Shirley Sherrod to be fired. I did not ask for any repercussions for Shirley Sherrod. They were the ones that took the initiative to get rid of her.[45]
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.