By Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min Muhammad

On July 16, 2001 The Farmer Newsletter labeled Al Pires the "‘Snake’ in the Reparations’
Grass" and presented a video tape by that same name to substantiate such an appellation. That
article started off by saying, "History rewards all research". We now say that time proves
all allegations. The "snake" exposed on July of 2001 has summarily been run over by
"truth" as of August of 2002. Now it remains to be seem if the "snake" can
recover and sneak back in the "grass". Will his friends come to the rescue? Will the
"snake" implicate others or go down by himself?

His friends have already attempted a rescue and Al Pires has already attempted to implicate
others to shift blame. His friends came to the rescue on the request of Judge Friedman in May and
June of 2001. Judge Friedman first admonished Pires for "negligent handling of the case"
which "borders on legal malpractice", then he asked Robert Weiner to issue an emergency
call to D.C. lawyers and major law firms to "pick up the slack by pursuing a significant number
of the claims on a pro bono basis."

Pires has also shifted blame from himself and his law firm to a set of smaller Black law firms
who he initially brought into the case in a subordinate role to help sell the decree to Black
farmers. J.L. Chestnut and his firm were not a member of "class counsel" until April 19,
2001 just before the court on April 27th accused Al Pires of conduct bordering on malpractice. Since
according to Rose Sanders, Chestnut and Sanders had no part in decision making of class counsel
until then, were they brought in specifically to share the blame of malpractice with Al Pires and
his law firm?

Black farmers continued to protest the consent decree and finally approached the court to dismiss
Al Pires as class counsel. Al Pires then responded to the motion to dismiss him by again implicating
Rose Sanders and J.L Chestnut in lead counsel’s failure to meet critical deadlines. However, on
August 9, 2002 Rose Sanders of Chestnut, Sanders, Sanders, Pettaway, Campbell, & Albright
requested the court to file a "Response to the Response of Colon, Frantz, Phelan and Pires’
Motion to Remove Lead Class Counsel and Request for Emergency Hearing".

In her response she stated, "Mr. Pires has knowingly misstated the truth. The law firm of
Chestnut, Sanders, Sanders, Pettaway, Campbell & Albright never missed a deadline in a Track B
case." She goes on to state that, "We have been challenged by the dual standards employed
by Mr. Pires, some arbitrators, and others in this historic litigations." Further, "Mr.
Pires has made decisions and agreements with the government without consulting the undersigned
attorney (Rose Sanders) and Mr. Chestnut."

So it seems that the Black law firms got a taste of institutional racism in the justice system
the way the Black farmers had suffered for years with the USDA. It also seems that these Black firms
were betrayed by Al Pires, the same as Black farmers were betrayed. But now we must ask the even
tougher questions concerning the integrity of the federal court itself and specifically, Judge Paul
Friedman. For this judge knew that the farmers did not want this consent decree, yet he signed it.

Over 300 farmers came to the Fairness Hearing in March of 1999 to voice very specific objections
to the consent decree. Judge Friedman even agreed with the changes that the farmers demanded,
however Al Pires did not want to change one line. Judge Friedman signed this decree knowing that it
was defective and said in the decree itself that Black farmers would probably never get justice in a
court of law and that it was their sticking together and pricking the conscious of Congress that got
them this far. It seems that the "court" that he was referring to was his own.

Black farmers in desperation not only filed legal papers against Al Pires but took over a USDA
office in Brownsville, Tenn. on July 1, 2002 for continuing discrimination by the same USDA
personnel implicated in the law suit. This activity forced the press to finally recognize the cries
of the Black farmers. An August 13, 2002 article by the Washington Post pointed out issues that
Black farmers had complained about since 1999. For instance in this settlement their was no
"pot of cash for plaintiffs to divide, as is the norm in class-action cases. In fact, no one
won any money automatically. Each farmer still had to prove he had been personally discriminated
against." But these farmers were forced to prove discrimination without access to white farmers’
records who got loans when they did not.

According to this article, "Friedman repeatedly extended deadlines for farmers, but his
patience evaporated when Pires once told him, after missing another court-imposed deadline, that he
had never intended to meet it… Some farmers are now circulating a mock "Wanted" poster,
describing Pires as a "snake in the reparations grass."

The question now becomes should "snake" be plural and include the federal court? How
can we consider Judge Friedman innocent when it took him a year to put a monitor in place? The
consent decree was signed in April of 1999. Yet Randi Roth was not selected and put in as monitor
until April of 2000 after over 40% of the claimants had been denied. These claimants were then
expected to prepare their appeals to a non-existent monitor and then there appeals were subsequently
thrown out because they were not filed in time.

Now this same Al Pires is brokering a reparations deal on behalf of Black people in general with
the federal court. I wonder if Friedman will be the presiding Judge. The farmers had hoped that the
pronunciation of "Friedman" as "Freed-man" was in accord with what they might
receive in his court instead of being "fried".

The real surprise over these four years is not how "snakes" operate, but the resilience
in the fortitude of the bitten. The "system" did not expect these poor farmers to continue
the struggle on both the legal and public opinion arenas. Truth may now finally become the
"crusher" instead of being crushed to the ground.

Go to www.MuhammadFarms.com and click on "The Farmer
Newsletter" to read past articles on the struggle of Black farmers and get a chronological
background on events leading us to this juncture and these hard questions. Maybe a congressional
hearing is in order to determine the depths of this conspiracy to deny Black farmers justice and
seize their land.