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.
Friedman has been made aware of the massive problems with Pigford. Many of the (real) black farmers have repeatedly told him, for over a decade, that they hate the Pigford settlement. And be sure–they HATE this settlement. But his opinions have ignored that reality, and have helped Pigford’s political patrons keep up appearances.
Interestingly, Friedman was also the presiding judge in President Clinton’s Chinagate scandal–and let Maria Hsia avoid jail time for breaking campaign finance laws.
At the time, Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch commented:
“Judge Friedman, who was appointed by Clinton-Gore, should have recused himself from this case–which directly implicated his political benefactors. His sentence of Hsia is an unjust slap on the wrist and, frankly, is evidence that Judge Friedman was assigned Hsias case in the first place to ensure the likelihood of a certain result.”
The Pigford case is rife with similar potential conflicts of interest. And the public is unaware, because the mainstream media’s coverage of this story is close to criminally negligent. (For an example, take a glance at this CNN story, which could have been written by a PR flak working for infamous rural hustler “Dr.” John Boyd. In fact, with all the fluffing CNN has given to “Dr.”Boyd over the years, they should consider themselves his PR firm.)
So, after working on the Pigford story for nearly a year, I wanted to see one of Friedman’s hearings for myself.
I expected to be totally disgusted by the legal sausage making, and I wasn’t disappointed.
One of the things on the agenda, for example, was the Pigford lawyers’ requested $90 million payout. The taxpayers are on the hook for that, too. It was Shark City in the courtroom; I counted no fewer than 47 attorneys in the audience.
Almost all the major characters in the Pigford soap opera were there, as well. I sat fifteen feet from the oddly haired Pigford mastermind, attorney Al Pires, who was sitting with “Dr.” Boyd.
Boyd himself was in full self-serving community organizer mode; he had bussed in a group of “supporters.” I know they were supporters, because Boyd had given them all t-shirts that he’d had made with a picture of himself and a caption on the top that read: “I Support John Boyd.” Subtle, right? Not “I Support The Farmers,” but Boyd. It’s a minor miracle that there was enough space in the courtroom for Boyd’s bloated ego.
Judge Friedman said that anyone who had comments about the Pigford settlement could walk right up to the microphone and put a statement on record. Boyd brought in a couple of ringers, who delivered near-incoherent praise of all things Boyd.
Then Boyd himself delivered a rambling, ranting sermon, claiming that since he’d been the subject of stories on “right wing blogs”, he had received forty death threats. Boyd also said that someone had shown up as this house in the middle of the night wearing a hood and had put a shotgun in his mouth.
Oddly, Boyd said that despite these many threats, and the graphic assault with a shotgun, he had chosen not to involve the authorities.
At one point, Boyd turned around to some of the lawyers seated behind him and spat, “You owe me an apology!” because they apparently hadn’t paid him proper homage in a previous hearing. Judge Friedman made no comments about Boyd’s lack of self-control and courtroom decorum.
As for the numerous fraud accusations in Pigford, Boyd barked, “You know what’s fraud? Sharecroppng is fraud! Slavery is fraud!”
(Note to “Dr.” Boyd. Neither one of those is fraud. Making false claims about having tried to secure a loan with the USDA in order to get a $50,000 check is fraud. And slavery is actually a lot worse than fraud. Just saying.)
Also in attendance at the hearing was Tom Burrell, head of the Black Farmers & Agriculturalists Association, who is the man we’ve exposed as traveling the country to explain to audiences how to commit undetectable fraud in Pigford.
Months ago, both Andrew Breitbart and I made numerous phone calls to Judge Friedman to let him know about the undercover video and audio we had of Tom Burrell giving step-by-step instructions to a church full of people about how to commit Pigford fraud. We both assumed that Friedman would want that evidence, not just as the presiding judge but also as an officer of the court. I personally spoke to Friedman’s assistant three times, and was told that she had given my message to Friedman. We never received any response from Friedman.
Instead, Friedman gave Burrell a special speaking slot to get his views on the record.
In contrast to Boyd and Burrell, there were some farmers who told sad stories about how that they had not, in fact, been helped by the original Pigford settlement and wondered why Pigford II was going to pay a possible extra 100,000 claimants.
Yet Friedman actually described claims of fraud in Pigford as “overblown,” without formally considering the evidence in our possession. The initial statements made by class counsel and lawyers from President Obama’s Department of Justice and USDA also made absolutely no mention of fraud whatsoever.
Nor was there was talk of the supposed “anti-fraud protections” supposedly built into Pigford II. In fact, aside from one passing reference to “the public’s money,” there was no discussion of the interests of the taxpayers, and there was absolutely nobody representing their interests.
I also learned something stunning: that in order to expedite the process of getting $50,000 checks out to claimants (conveniently before the next presidential election), the Obama administration made an agreement with class counsel not to challenge a single claim.
That speaks volumes about the political agenda behind these payments, as well as Obama’s strategy to rubber stamp claims before the public figures out that they’ve been snookered on a grand scale.
Watching the circus unfold in Judge Friedman’s courtroom, I decided that I would stand up and talk about the proof of fraud that I’d discovered during the months of interviews I’ve done with people connected to Pigford.
No sooner had I started to spell my name for the court reporter than I heard a commotion behind me. It was “Dr.” John Boyd standing up in the audience and saying: “I object, your Honor.” Apparently, the fake Doctor also thinks he’s a lawyer, who can object to me being able to speak in court.
The worst part was that it worked. As soon as Boyd objected, Judge Friedman cut me off and asked who I was. I said I was a writer and filmmaker, and he told me: “We don’t need to hear from the press here.”
Boyd’s audience plants burst into applause because I wasn’t going to be allowed to speak. Judge Friedman said nothing to discourage their outburst. “Dr.” Boyd and his mob were allowed do anything they wanted, but the person who contacted Friedman’s office to report fraud wasn’t allowed to finish spelling his name.
When I mentioned to Judge Friedman that I had spent nine months working on the Pigford story, and that I had conducted extensive interviews with most of the key players, Friedman snapped sarcastically at me, “Good. Then you can write about it.”
Oh, don’t you worry, Judge. I can write about it. And I’m just getting warmed up.
Comment count on this article reflects comments made on Breitbart.com and Facebook. Visit Breitbart's Facebook Page.