USDA's Pigford fraud

Race hustlers are shaking down taxpayers for payoffs, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is falling for the scam. The controversy involves a discrimination claim against the USDA for allegedly denying loans because of race. A federal judge approved payments of $50,000 or more based on low levels of proof. This encouraged a mad scramble for cash based on false claims.

The “Pigford Settlement,” an agreement that came out of the original 1997 lawsuit by Timothy Pigford and 400 southern black farmers, resulted from some apparently legitimate instances of discrimination. However, plaintiffs’ lawyers got involved, and the number of supposedly aggrieved farmers grew exponentially. Eventually, more than 94,000 claims were filed even though the U.S. Census Bureau never counted more than 33,000 black farmers in America during the years in question.

I wrote to the USDA to ask 3 questions about this farce. Here's a paragraph from the letter I received in reply:

"Because the USDA is not involved in the claims process, this office does not maintain the data necessary to respond to your three inquiries. However, the Administration takes any evidence of fraud very seriously. Fraud diverts money from those who deserve it, and takes money from the taxpayers. Of 22,721 claims that were filed in Pigford 1, thousands were denied. Even in Track A, which was the lower of the two proof thresholds, a little over 30% of claims were denied. So the fact that a bad claim comes in the door does not mean that it will get paid. For specific answers to your questions you may wish to contact the Pigford Monitor. The Monitor may be reached at:

Ms. Randi Roth Monitor P.O. Box 64511 St. Paul, Minnesota 55164-0511 Telephone: (877)924-7483"

The Monitor has a website....www.pigfordmonitor.org. There's a chart with a bunch of numbers that don't make much sense to me. Maybe it's because I've been working on taxes all evening. I'm sure somebody here will understand it.

I've been debating about writing to Ms Roth to ask for an explanation of it all but I'm not sure my mind is ready, willing, and/or able to decipher the double talk I anticipate.

Yes, please do write to Randi Roth. She is on record in a newspaper article: “Roth says she views her mission as making sure that the claimants get all of the relief they are entitled under the Consent decree.” In 2001, she told the Delta Farm Press: “It’s important to me NOT to be part of fraud investigations. We just look at each case and see if it should win or lose under the standards.”

As an officer of the court, it SHOULD be her job to root out fraud, but she seems to be more interested in facilitating it, which I guarantee is what one would if find if one could penetrate the court’s “privacy” and secrecy. She has used her power to order re-adjudication of losing cases to pay thousands of people whose claimed were initially denied for very sounds reasons. In fact, she gives them the chance to completely change and re-argue their cases after they find out what the deficiencies were, which is not supposed to be allowed under the settlement.

33,000 entitled to payments.
94,000 filing claims

Sounds to me like 61,000 Negroes need to be prosecuted for fraud.

I see the sun burning itself out before that happens.

The “Pigford Settlement,” an agreement that came out of the original 1997 lawsuit by Timothy Pigford and 400 southern black farmers, resulted from some apparently legitimate instances of discrimination.

I wonder how many "some" is. Two? Two hundred?

My best guess is that most who claimed discrimination had poor credit. Just because someone is black doesnt mean a rejection is about race.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.