Patterico's Pontifications

4/25/2011

Pigford Fraud: Can I get A Legal Opinion?

Filed under: General — Stranahan @ 5:58 am

[Guest post by Lee Stranahan]

I spent hours transcribing this 10 minute section of a meeting led by Tom Burrell, head of the Black Farmers Agricultural Association earlier this year and I have a question for Patrick, Aaron and any of the other legal minds out there – is what Burrell is doing here illegal? It is suborning perjury? I’m really curious…

 

- Lee Stranahan

122 Comments

  1. This post proves that you are a hardcore reich wing extremist, and probably racist.

    Comment by JD (306f5d) — 4/25/2011 @ 6:46 am

  2. Your comment proves you didn’t watch the video.

    Comment by Lee Stranahan (708cc3) — 4/25/2011 @ 6:53 am

  3. Oops. We have not become acquainted yet. Assume /sarc tags. I was mocking the troll from last night, and the likes of big median and the other ones that stop by on these threads. I enjoy your not-racist work.

    Comment by JD (822109) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:00 am

  4. JD, you are a no good piece of crap for wanting blacks to remain enslaved and taken advantage of. It appears to suits your fukd up mindset for blacks to be taken advantage of by other blacks, while people in power leech off their souls. YOU, WHETHER BLACK OR WHITE ARE A RACIST! You racist pathetic coward! You deeing this as just a RIGHT/LEFT ISSUE SHOWS YOUR IGNORANCE! So JD, thank you for showing us YOUR support of seeing blacks disemphranchised. And thank you for what you do Lee, keep ip the good work, fuk the h8rs!

    Comment by Shaughn (89833e) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:01 am

  5. We reichwingnutz don’t want you to have healthcare either.

    Comment by JD (0d2ffc) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:02 am

  6. Oops guess we have not either. Okay, that comment isrant for the troll then JD. I thought that was your belief. So sick of ppl missing point on Pigford and callin ppl racists who arent. I thought you were one of em.

    Comment by Shaughn (89833e) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:04 am

  7. Lee, JD is being sarcastic. His shtick is to make absurd claims someone is racist.

    You definitely need someone’s opinion other than mine, but I know that it’s perjury to lie in writing (or orally) if it affects a legal result, such as getting money from the government.

    So anytime you lie on a form that produces a legal result, that’s perjury.

    http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/perjury.htm

    And I’m sure most people know that if you get someone else to commit perjury, that’s “subornation of perjury“.

    The meeting is a little loud and boisterous, and I think that means Burrell will claim they were kidding around. Or perhaps he’ll say he thought they were in error when they gave the wrong error, and he was correcting them. However, I think it is impossible to overcome Lee’s point about praying over your answer. He’s clearly noting there is a moral problem.

    Lee, great job. I’ve been interested in Pigford, and the people trying to obtain relief since 2004, when the House Judiciary Committee had some hearings on it I … made coffee for (but it was good coffee at least).

    At the time, my impression was I was amazed and sad so many people had gotten screwed. I still feel that way, only it’s a lot more complex to see who exactly did the screwing.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:08 am

  8. And look who just showed up in the recent comments …

    Comment by JD (6e25b4) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:14 am

  9. Lee I think he was being sarcastic.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:16 am

  10. I guess the more helpful aspect of discussion Lee is wanting is that area between actually getting someone to commit perjury, specifically and with provably effect, and telling a mass of people to commit perjury, where you don’t really know which one of them lied.

    The federal statute I linked above says “whoever procures”. That sounds like “to actually bring about” to me, but that is certainly not clear.

    So do you have to prove he actually brought about some perjury?

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:23 am

  11. I think he was smart enough in his commentary to make sure that it was plausibly clear that the advice he was giving was the 4 answers to the questions that would produce the $50,000, but left it in the hands of the applicants to decide for themselves how they would answer the questions when they filled out the application.

    I think a closer case could be make for conspiracy to defraud the US, which requires an express OR IMPLIED agreement to commit a particular offense, with an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. It would be interesting to know how Burrell benefits financially — if he does — from these meetings. If he has a partner in the effort to stage these meetings, you might be able to build a plausible case that he and his partner are conspiring to defraud the US in order to gain financially from the fraudulent acts of others.

    Comment by shipwreckedcrew (436eab) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:27 am

  12. I thought it was pretty funny seeing the two different responses above to what each commenter thought was a real far-left knee-jerk “racist!” claim.

    Lee, as I gave up blog-commentin’ for Lent, haven’t had a chance to add another “welcome to Patterico” to the others’ nice words for you. Have been enjoying your educational posts since you came here (and have been following the Pigford story since Breitbart broke it)…Your posts, as well as things like your level headed reply to JD here, are making us like and respect you better all the time. Keep up the good work.

    Comment by no one you know (325a59) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:36 am

  13. I’d love to hear the pastor of that church attempt to rationalize what took place there. I’m sure he tried it, somehow. I suspect it went along these lines…

    “The congress voted in the Pigford settlement as a way to give African Americans the reparations that are due to them. They would have done it directly, but the country is still too racist for that to get through Congress. So really, the government *wants* you to lie on these forms in order to give you the money they already owe you. It’s supposed to pay you back for being discriminated against, right? And you were all discriminated against, right?”

    I’m saddened that I am able to imagine this rationalization so easily. But after so many years of hearing such poor excuses for moral reasoning, it becomes like a second language.

    Comment by Gesundheit (aab7c6) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:37 am

  14. JD was being sarcastic no one you know.

    And yes leftys are allies with islam because of its fascistic nature.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:50 am

  15. SWC, I’d also like something clearly showing how Boyd of Burrell are personally profiting somehow, but I’m not sure we’ll get that.

    BTW, this is a good link to the rest of Lee’s coverage. It’s not all at this blog.

    I think we have to take a moment to think about race hustlers generally. Was Al Sharpton directly profiting from the prosecution of Brawley’s non assailants? I don’t think so. Instead, they used the controversy to claim a leadership role, and profited in a less direct fashion.

    Boyd is particularly obvious. He wants to be the leader of the ‘black farmers’ and he wants to be part of ‘landmark civil rights legislation’. He attends Obama’s signings.

    either way, it seems really clear to me that they are coaching answers to forms, and that they clearly know those answers are not genuine. Part of their con is convincing people to overcome the dishonesty.

    I wonder if it’s actually easier to do that in a church. It conveys this notion of respectability and community. The perjurer gets a social justice excuse for his personal greed.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:59 am

  16. ugh. Boyd or Burrell rather than “of”.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:00 am

  17. These marxists along with their fascist allies love to lie persecute and destroy.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:01 am

  18. noyk is very aware Mr. JD is being sarcastic Mr. Biden you should read her comment again

    Comment by happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:03 am

  19. Oh ok.

    If Che Guevara were alive today he would be grinning at the lies and corruption of his socialist brethren.

    He engaged in class warfare so much that it would put the democrap party to shame.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:04 am

  20. If Che Guevara were alive today he would be very excited about the great values on sheet sets at Anna’s Linens.

    Comment by happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:07 am

  21. :lol:

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:08 am

  22. For these corruptocrats to continue this cycle of dependence on government, and justify it as Gods work is just wrong. It has all been for the gain of those in power, and to the detriment of people truly aggrieved.

    Every1 from top to bottom who willingly chose to defraud the US and taxpayers should be questioned on this. The pain and suffering of great Americans was literally hijacked to line a few pockets and get a few votes. DEPLORABLE!

    Shame on the NAACP, congressional black caucus, Al Sharpton, J. Jackson, and all those who purport to care for the black community. They appear to be abscent as usual.

    Comment by Shaughn (82ec24) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:17 am

  23. Shaughn, the NAACP is a little busy dealing with vote fraud prosecutions, and perhaps planning more vote fraud. Sharpton and Jackson have burnt their credibility to a crisp years ago, so it’s likely they won’t come out except to rally the devoted. They would only hurt the cause with the rest of the public.

    Seems like the real civil rights leaders are in the Tea Party these days.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:20 am

  24. Could the next administration use the RICO laws to go after both plaintiffs and attourneys in the Pigford scam? Seems pretty clear it was a conspiracy to defraud the government. Could probably catch a few politicians and DOJ lawyers in the same net.

    Comment by Callawyn (bab74a) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:24 am

  25. Can you post the transcript?

    Comment by jasonc (dde5b7) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:36 am

  26. Wow…

    This is unprecedented! JD is usually the denouncer, not the denouncee.

    The world really is upside down!

    Another great post Lee. Keep up the pressure and exposes, sooner-or-later the public at large will come to realize the pigford morass for what it is. It would help, of course, if the MBM would, you know, actually pay some attention to the matter, but ultimately societal intertia will be overcome.

    My guess is this issue will become more “public” during the 2012 Republican primaries.

    My Regards.

    Comment by Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:42 am

  27. ‘dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteris, and of course, human sacrifice,’ it’s a case of the mondays

    Comment by narciso (79ddc3) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:51 am

  28. Che is smiling at the corruption and persecution.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:59 am

  29. I do not know how yo could listen to that, and come away with the Ida that he was doing anything other than coaching them to answer yes to the questions. Congress really is a bunch of imbeciles.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:02 am

  30. Guys

    JD was being very sarcastic – he’s all for the pigford investigation

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (5b75a5) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:05 am

  31. Let me get this straight Opposition to Pigford is racist.

    And also opposing the war on libya is unpatritotic……coming from the same people who opposed iraq because they insist Saddam was good for religion.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:07 am

  32. Damn I wish I could delete comments from here.

    LOL. You guys are turning me into a fascist.

    Anyway, JD’s right that there is no honest way to interpret this other than coaching lies. I’d like to see a jury take a stab at it.

    I haven’t seen any lefties deny the truth. Jason C wants a transcript, but no denials. I’m not sure a transcript would help. There’s so much talking over eachother that you would lose a lot.

    Better to just wait until you can listen.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:15 am

  33. Burrell deserves a tasty cupcake and a buy-one get-one free coupon from Waffle House for working so hard.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:15 am

  34. jharp, Big Median and jasonc are no longer arguing about whether fraud took place in the Pigford Settlements. They have been reduced to quibbling about the size of the fraud.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:19 am

  35. Dustin – he wants a transcript because the actual audio is pretty self evident. He is hoping to find something that he thinks is wrong, or something he can parse in a transcript.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:20 am

  36. JD, it may not even be possible to transcribe this is a way where some douche couldn’t leap to a “this wasn’t exactly right.” I guess the only card they have to play is to claim there was an error in reporting the evidence.

    That’s what’s great about a recording. Just listen or watch and decide for yourself. In this case, you must decide that Burrell is trying to get people to lie and steal from the United States if you are honest. It sure would be convenient and predictable to find something else to focus on.

    Anyway, I am curious if someone can tell me if this rises to ‘procuring perjury’ unless you can prove be brought it about (I guess you’d have to prove that someone lied on a form and also attended this meeting first). In my opinion, what’s in this video should be enough to sentence Burrell to five years in prison, but I’m saying that’s what ought to happen rather than what the law is.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:31 am

  37. Jasonc and his sockpuppets Big Median and Jharp have no problem with fraud unless the big bad bush does it.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:35 am

  38. -jasonc are no longer arguing about whether fraud took place in the Pigford Settlements. They have been reduced to quibbling about the size of the fraud.

    Here’s a guy that’s used to not being corrected.

    -Dustin – he wants a transcript because the actual audio is pretty self evident

    No speakers at work. Plus it’s useful if we can cut and paste and discuss what is the problem. No?

    -JD, it may not even be possible to transcribe this is a way where some douche couldn’t leap to a “this wasn’t exactly right.”

    Lee said he made a transcript.

    Comment by jasonc (5e6f6f) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:43 am

  39. Meanwhile, there are no standards:
    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463690530&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

    Comment by narciso (79ddc3) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:45 am

  40. jasonc, I can’t reply to you because you apparently don’t even know how to quote properly.

    There’s a button right there^^^ that says “quote” . Use that, and also, try not to quote me as saying what JD did, and he as saying what I did, or either of us saying what daleyrocks did.

    It’s just too time consuming to even get you straight on this stuff.

    You’re right that Lee says he spent a lot of time transcribing this. I still say that such a transcript is just not as good for evidence as the audio itself.

    So, did you listen to the short audio? If you did, you have to admit he’s coaching them, right? Even over their comments that the truth isn’t what he’s coaching them to say, right? As he notes that they have to deal with the moral implications.

    So, how many years in prison would you sentence him to?

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:53 am

  41. Here’s a better question”

    In addition to taking back the money, how many years in prison would you sentence him to?

    Comment by ropelight (5adb70) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:58 am

  42. -So, did you listen to the short audio

    I repeat what I said earlier: no speakers at work

    -As he notes that they have to deal with the moral implications.

    See if we had a transcript we could cut and paste and quote and this type of discussion would be useful.

    But first let me unroll my jump to conclusions mat.

    Comment by jasonc (059a24) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:02 am

  43. The more important issue is that the Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General and the FBI have been muzzled on this issue.

    Comment by Federale (161898) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:03 am

  44. Jasonc is a marxist.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:09 am

  45. “Lee said he made a transcript.”

    jasonc – No. What he said was:”I spent hours transcribing this 10 minute section of a meeting led by Tom Burrell….”

    Whether or not he has a usable transcript is an entirely different question. If you were able to listen to the clip, you would understand that.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:09 am

  46. I repeat what I said earlier: no speakers at work

    First, you said no such thing in this thread.

    Second, I told you to listen to it when you can. In other words, I realize some people can’t watch youtube at work, so they should not bother discussing this until they get home. That’s you. Is it so hard for you to read the discussion thread? You can’t even quote people accurately.

    No, you just want to dissemble. It’s pretty clear you’re not capable of reading a transcript.

    For the record, his transcription is text over the youtube video. So you can actually play the video without audio, and read what he’s saying. It’s accurate. So there you go, you have your transcript.

    Again, please try to quote people more accurately in the future, JasonC.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:10 am

  47. JasonC should take his lunch hour and buy some headphones for his computer. If he’s spending his work debating this content of a youtube video, the very very very least he can do is listen to it first.

    But then, he can’t even tell how to quote someone.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:12 am

  48. the SPLC considers conservatives racist.

    But they defend the Black Panthers.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:13 am

  49. Dustin – You’re 100% right. You don’t need sound. jasonc is just being an anklebiting douchenozzle.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:13 am

  50. If the Department of Injustice will look the other way for New Black Panther thugs and CAIR terrorist enablers, no one should be overly surprised the Obama Administration isn’t hot on the trail of grifters.

    Comment by ropelight (5adb70) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:13 am

  51. -First, you said no such thing in this thread.

    Use ctrl-f. There’s a comment with timestamp of 9:43 am.

    -If he’s spending his work debating this content of a youtube video, the very very very least he can do is listen to it first.

    I haven’t said anything about the content of a youtube video. I did promise to unfurl my jump to a conclusion mat, but haven’t gotten around to it yet.

    Comment by jasonc (f450ba) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:18 am

  52. Yes, Jason, you eventually said you have no speakers at work, but initially, you asked for a transcript without that explanation, and as several have tried to make clear to you, you already have access to what transcription there is. As I’ve told you several times now, I think you need to listen to this to get the best grasp on what happened. I don’t think we need to send this raw information through a filter of any kind.

    The very least you can do is listen to it. I do not care about your computer at work. Stop polluting an interesting discussion forum by repeatedly complaining about it. No one cares. This discussion is for people who have the courtesy to consider the evidence, rather than complain about irrelevant things.

    Again, it wouldn’t kill you to use the “quote” feature, or quote people accurately. You still haven’t acknowledged your error. What good is a transcript in your hands, if you can’t figure out this stuff.

    So, you’ve had plenty of time to read the transcript on the youtube. Have you? If not, why did you ask for a transcript in the first place? If so, how many years in prison do you think Burrell deserves?

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:24 am

  53. “The very least you can do is listen to it”

    Dustin – As you point out, all he has to do is play the video to see what words were said, he can listen to the sound later.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:27 am

  54. That’s right, Daley, but we both know exactly what he’ll do at that point. He’ll say he doesn’t know that the transcript is authentic.

    What kind of person spends all this time explaining to us that he can’t get to the information right now? Why bother us with that? JasonC has spent a lot of time dissembling in bad faith. Whether he meant to or not, the result of his comments is that we’re no longer talking about whether Burrell’s coaching people to committ perjury is a crime.

    JasonC obviously is unable to offer an opinion on that, no matter what he has access to.

    You’d think he’s go to the drugstore near his workplace and pick up some $3 headphones if he’s this upset about having to wait until quitting time to listen in.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:32 am

  55. Yesterday facts did not matter to “jasonc”. Today he wants to parse a transcript.

    Comment by JD (109425) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:34 am

  56. -Yes, Jason, you eventually said you have no speakers at work,

    Nice recovery. Did you ctrl-f ?

    -What good is a transcript in your hands, if you can’t figure out this stuff.

    You and I could read it and cut and paste from it. You could tell me things like ‘Even over their comments that the truth isn’t what he’s coaching them to say, right? As he notes that they have to deal with the moral implications.’

    And then cut and paste the sections you’re talking about.

    You earlier asked whether actual perjury has to be shown. An element of subornation of perjury is showing that an actual perjury occurred. So if the video doesn’t show that, then no conviction and no years in prison.

    Comment by jasonc (0c4757) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:34 am

  57. So if the video doesn’t show that, then no conviction and no years in prison.

    As best as I can tell, this is correct. You have to prove that perjury occurred, and that the lies Burrell is asking people to tell were material.

    But there are other charges available in the event it’s impossible to prove that anyone who attended one of these meetings perjured themselves.

    And yes, I acknowledged I was in error about you whining about your speakers. That’s because you type your posts in a very unclear manner. I see you’re being obnoxious and refusing to fix the formatting. And again, I explained why you didn’t need speakers before you even said you lacked them. You just didn’t care.

    Anyway, have to read the transcription that’s available yet?

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:43 am

  58. You earlier asked whether actual perjury has to be shown. An element of subornation of perjury is showing that an actual perjury occurred. So if the video doesn’t show that, then no conviction and no years in prison.

    We all now know that perjury is alright, depending on who it is, and what the topic is.

    Comment by JD (338ec8) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:55 am

  59. Yesterday facts did not matter to “jasonc”. Today he wants to parse a transcript.

    Comment by JD

    And he’s been made aware of that transcript and how to read it for some time now. He’s spent much more time complaining about it and his computer’s speakers than it would have taken him to read it.

    Why hasn’t he done so yet? I think it’s because the transcript is damning, even if it’s really better to listen.

    I still think this is suborning perjury. I’m assuming it can be shown someone in that audience lied on their forms, though. Certainly, everyone who went to a Burrell meeting should have their Pigford claims carefully investigated.

    As far as I can tell, you have to show that the crime did occur, also with fraud or conspiracy. It’s not enough that Burrell clearly coached people to lie and defraud the government unless they eventually did so.

    Am I in error on this? I wish more people would chime in, because I’m no authority on this kind of matter.

    Does Jason C disagree that to coach people to say things they are claiming the opposite of, in order to get money, should land a person in prison? Maybe he’ll never bother to listen to the video, but let’s agree on the underlying issue.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:56 am

  60. -We all now know that perjury is alright, depending on who it is, and what the topic is.

    Ok my mat is unfurled now.

    Comment by jasonc (970646) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:18 am

  61. It is okay to perjure yourself if the topic is sex, adultery, or if the lawsuit is political in nature.

    Comment by JD (338ec8) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:24 am

  62. You can take your proverbial mat and shove it, jasonc.

    Comment by JD (338ec8) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:25 am

  63. Do we know where that mats been..

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (5b75a5) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:26 am

  64. Rebuked…Reprimanded…Hauled before a “Captain’s Mast”…Given a stern talking to…Condemned…

    DENOUNCED! as racists! Allayez…

    Comment by Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:26 am

  65. Wow, so Jason C still hasn’t read the transcript?

    He spent two hours complaining about the transcript, but now he’s not talking about it anymore. It’s three hours later, and he hasn’t read it.

    It’s almost as though he was insincere.

    It’s particularly cute how he just can’t bring himself up to the level of quoting people correctly after making a real mess of it. Why bother, right, JasonC? It’s only manners.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:27 am

  66. Anyway, does someone other than JasonC want to talk about the legality of Burrell’s coaching people to lie to the government? I think that’s more interesting than yet another troll trying to be annoying.

    BTW, there is a very amusing biography of Burrell if you google his name. He’s got “power and prestige” he never would have imagined. Sounds like quite the douche.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:30 am

  67. Dustin

    Happens every day – thi is going on constantly for example a large Canadian Bank is giving symposiums to small business owners on how to set up fake holding companies to wash domestic income as foreign to avoid taxes.

    If its illegal to game the system (as I firmly believe it should be) then they havent even tried to enforce it and the manhours and dollars to spend on forensic accounting would be staggering.

    This is the problem with entitlements and income taxes the more you promise or take the more gaming is done

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (5b75a5) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:36 am

  68. That’s probably true, EPWJ. I imagine a lot of people try to cheat in various ways. I’m not sure that your example, setting up a fraudulent tax shelter, is any better than the Burrell Boyd scam.

    Certainly, though my accountant wouldn’t let me lie if she suggested X would save me money, and then I said, well, I’m definitely not X. Perhaps if there was a legal way to make me X, that’s a distinction, but she wouldn’t tell me to just lie. If she did, I’d think she was a criminal scumbag.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:40 am

  69. dustin

    To many these are legit tranactions – its in the code – after all the definition of a farm and the activity of farming can widely differ from state to state

    In Texas there are definitions such as an ag exemption on your land and the actual owning or leasing of land.

    Pigford may amount to something – but it pales in comparison to the offshore accounts and international subsidiaries that are nothing more than tax credit sumps

    And the fraud just in the eitc, the Fannie and Freddie are in the 100′s of billions

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (5b75a5) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:48 am

  70. EricPW – Tax avoidance is not illegal. Tax evasion is. Please use the words correctly.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:50 am

  71. Well, if it’s legit, in the code, and someone just changes their usage to save taxes, that’s a hell of a lot different from claiming you wanted to be a farmer when you didn’t.

    I’ve given gifts or changed plans for improving my backyard based on tax implications. It’s a little annoying, but not really the same as defrauding the government.

    I think it’s already quite clear that many Pigford claimants have lied and defrauded a huge sum of money. Does that pale in comparison to other frauds, scams, and crimes? I suppose, but it’s still billions. It’s still hard to accept. People still need to go to prison over this.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:52 am

  72. Frankly, when someone changes their behavior because of taxes, that’s actually compliance. That’s usually the entire point of the tax provisions being the way they are.

    EPWJ has a point, though. There are many other frauds out there. I bet the most scrutiny we have of Burrell’s crimes (and I think it’s absolutely obvious such crimes occurred) the more we learn about how coaching fraud works. It’s just particularly great that Lee is focused on one example. We can’t get anywhere without that kind of journalism.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 11:56 am

  73. Dustin – he doesn’t have a point, he has a pointy head. He is simply saying LOOK BUNNIES OVER THERE! Noting that there are bigger wastes of money is one of those DUH points.

    Comment by JD (338ec8) — 4/25/2011 @ 12:57 pm

  74. Jesus, no wonder he wants a transcript!

    Jason, you’ve made a cardinal sin of engaging with the peanut gallery with regard to a 12 minute heavily edited tape by the “Breitbart foundation of lies about liberals” Who still trusts Breitbart’s stable of editors?

    After all, who the hell knows what is actually on the tape? All we know is that it was clear enough to need a narrator for the first 2 minutes to tell us what we’re need to listen for and then clear enough for about 700 audio splices, courtesy of an editor who splices (complete with a “clock” to reassure you they ain’t lying!) and dices the conversation to make a legal education seminar look like it suborns perjury.

    You don’t need a legal expert, Lee, you need a hobby. Without an actual transcript of the tape, you, as usual, Lee, have proved nothing.

    PS please stay away from CLE classes because there lawyers tell each what answers win cases too! Cases are about applying the facts to the law and a legal education class for lay or professionals which doesn’t tell you what the factual record should say isn’t doing anyone any good.

    PPS parse away, Dustin

    Comment by timb (449046) — 4/25/2011 @ 1:05 pm

  75. Nothing like the creepy stalker liar’s weekly 5 minutes of hate.

    Comment by JD (338ec8) — 4/25/2011 @ 1:09 pm

  76. Trying to remember the last CLE I had that explained how to commit fraud …. nope, never had one.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 4/25/2011 @ 1:11 pm

  77. Does this mean that these black farmers are now excluded from any future slave reparations ?

    Comment by Neo (03e5c2) — 4/25/2011 @ 1:31 pm

  78. Sorry, JD.

    The transcript IS the video — doing all the titles. There’s no easy way to transfer them all to Word (or vice versa)

    Comment by Lee Stranahan (708cc3) — 4/25/2011 @ 1:42 pm

  79. Lee – I will include /sarc tags next time. You can safely ignore the hate filled trolls like jharpy and timmah. If they did not have their hatred, anger, and contempt, they would be left with only their mendoucheous twatwafflery.

    Comment by JD (3ad5b9) — 4/25/2011 @ 1:50 pm

  80. timb please piss off.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 1:58 pm

  81. Hey, I just got $50,000.00 from a Pigford settlement. I’m white, never farmed, and I followed those instructions to the letter.

    Comment by Jack (f9fe53) — 4/25/2011 @ 2:11 pm

  82. OK, just kidding.

    Comment by Jack (f9fe53) — 4/25/2011 @ 2:12 pm

  83. What would a thread regarding an ersatz reparations scandal be without timb doing his white-boy-capriciously-tossing-about-the-race-card while actually maintaining the bigotry of low expectations.

    Comment by Bob Reed (5f2db5) — 4/25/2011 @ 2:38 pm

  84. HEAVILY EDITED !!!! RACISTS !!!! Misleading deceptive heavily edited racist propaganda.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 4/25/2011 @ 2:40 pm

  85. EDITED!!!HATES BLACK PRESIDENT!!! OH MY GOD MOM GLENN BECK GAVE ME PSORASIS!!eleventyone!!!

    That is sarcasm obviously

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 2:49 pm

  86. -Anyway, does someone other than JasonC want to talk about the legality of Burrell’s coaching people to lie to the government?

    Another element of subornation of perjury is that the defendant has to know they were suborning it. So if someone goes out and says ‘my father attempted to farm’ and this speaker has no way of knowing whether that is perjury or not, then you haven’t met that element.

    I think you’d have a hard time making something like this criminal.

    Comment by jason (5e6f6f) — 4/25/2011 @ 2:54 pm

  87. Jason — did you see the reaction when people in the audience answered ‘no’? Burrell knows the answer is no, and then goes on to explain why they shouldn’t answer that way…

    Comment by Lee Stranahan (708cc3) — 4/25/2011 @ 3:35 pm

  88. Gay Patriot doesn’t seem to want me to post.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 3:45 pm

  89. Another element of subornation of perjury is that the defendant has to know they were suborning it. So if someone goes out and says ‘my father attempted to farm’ and this speaker has no way of knowing whether that is perjury or not, then you haven’t met that element.

    Could you please explain?

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 4/25/2011 @ 3:49 pm

  90. Another element of subornation of perjury is that the defendant has to know they were suborning it.

    I think you’d have a hard time making something like this criminal.

    Did you watch this? He reacted specifically to contradict honest answers.

    Yes, I agree with your point, but not with your facts. In fact, it’s this specific point, that he knows they don’t qualify, that leads people to not he’s asking for perjury. All that’s left is for someone in that audience to have filled out the paperwork as he told them to.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 3:50 pm

  91. timb, it’s clear from your comment that you actually did watch the video. That means you know you’re defending a fraud telling people how to steal from my country. That’s sad.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 3:52 pm

  92. Who could put it to the test in court?

    That’s the relevant question.

    Comment by Amphipolis (e01538) — 4/25/2011 @ 6:32 pm

  93. -Could you please explain?

    What’s to explain? He has to know it’s perjury. Besides proving an actual perjury, you’d have to prove he knew it was a perjury too. Going to be hard.

    -Jason — did you see the reaction when people in the audience answered ‘no’?…

    I read it scrolling. I didn’t see it. It was a while ago so I don’t remember people saying their fathers didn’t attempt to farm. But even if some in a crowd did, that doesn’t mean he necessarily knows a given person who says their father attempted to farm is committing perjury.

    - Burrell knows the answer is no, and then goes on to explain why they shouldn’t answer that way

    He’s very good at explaining the difference between answering yes and answering no. You’re going to have a hard time making something like this illegal.

    Comment by jasonc (e9ef3a) — 4/25/2011 @ 6:51 pm

  94. “is what Burrell is doing here illegal?”

    Burrell and his group have been trying to shake down the taxpayers for years. A few years back they, in company with a bunch of other freeloaders, tried to file a $20 billion dollar suit against the USDA (aka the people of the United States), claiming, as usual, that they weren’t being given enough handouts.

    That got shot down, so now it’s a different scam.

    Same old, same old.

    Is what they’re doing legal? Who cares?

    It’s a scam whether it’s legal or not.

    Comment by Dave Surls (6e6d01) — 4/25/2011 @ 6:56 pm

  95. Jasonc – what other names have yu been banned under?

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 4/25/2011 @ 6:57 pm

  96. Daley

    Actually, there is no such thing as tax avoidance. The changing legal behavior to avoid taxes can be disallowed

    JD

    No, I’m not, the whole Pigford thing is a study in why the government should not be in the business of giving away money and should be a stark lesson in the real dollars that are totally wasted everyday in our current structure.

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (5b75a5) — 4/25/2011 @ 6:58 pm

  97. Federal “process” crimes such as obstruction, perjury, and suborning perjury are charged relative to particular cases, e.g., you cannot be charged for obstruction until a particular criminal investigation has been initiated, and you interfered with it in one of the pertinent ways.

    Otherwise..lets say I wrote a book called “How To Get a Big Earned Income Tax Credit by Claiming Your Dogs As Dependants on Your 1040.” A million people read the book and claim their dogs. Does that mean I can be charged a million counts of suborning perjury? No.

    At the other extreme, where a charge of suborning perjury is viable, is where the defendant in a one-on-one setting goes over the 1040 with the perjurer, and encourages him to place “Rover” in the box for defendants.

    The example in the YouTube clip is somewhere in the middle, and can be argued both ways, but IMO looks like a pretty good case for the prosecution if one of the audience members who the seminar leaders was talking to goes on to follow the advise specifically given in that particular interaction.

    All of the above is absolutely correct with a 58% confidence level.

    Comment by Brian (b7286d) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:28 pm

  98. “Actually, there is no such thing as tax avoidance.”

    EricPW – Ha! Care to prove that in some way?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:36 pm

  99. “The changing legal behavior to avoid taxes can be disallowed.”

    EricPW – The IRS can attempt to disallow a lot of things, but they have to abide by the law as well.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:40 pm

  100. I’m afraid I share Brian’s confidence level. I was hoping someone with criminal law experience would share their opinion.

    EPWJ, I don’t think the IRS would mind if I told them I modified my behavior in such a way as to avoid more taxes. That is normal. As long as you either do so legally or are nominated to a cabinet position, it’s OK.

    Hey, you’re right in the larger point that the government needs to be out of the handout business, but once they entered it, with USDA loans, it was too late. There is no doubt they screwed some black farmers over. IIRC (and perhaps I do not) you questioned whether that’s true, but Pigford and those like him actually deserve justice.

    Sure, I’d much prefer the government never got involved in the business of guaranteeing loans beyond the VA loans perhaps. But Pigford and those like him paid into our system and deserved to be treated like anyone else. We probably can’t have the system you envision, but I think it’s a legitimate concept that would avoid these problems.

    It’s just a huge shame that once this injustice was done to Pigford that Boyd and his pals saw a quick opportunity. What a mess.

    I see JasonC never did acknowledge the obvious reality that this is coaching fraud. What a douche.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 7:47 pm

  101. Typical fascist lefty trying to lie and oppress people who speak the truth.

    To you JasonC.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:41 pm

  102. Is Mr. Aaron all good? nobody tells me anything

    Comment by happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/25/2011 @ 8:58 pm

  103. feets, let’s hope Kman didn’t finally get him.

    Comment by Dustin (c16eca) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:04 pm

  104. that would be awful

    Comment by happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:06 pm

  105. What happened if the mud people possessed him?

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/25/2011 @ 9:23 pm

  106. Lee,

    I can’t give you a “legal” opinion on anything. But my layman’s opinion (constitutionally protected, I might add!) is that this guy was training people to say what they had to say, and the truth be damned.

    In fact, I’m hard pressed to see how any rational and unbiased person could come to any other conclusion.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:16 pm

  107. happy,

    Aaron is alive and well. Thanks for asking.

    Comment by Patterico (c218bd) — 4/25/2011 @ 10:32 pm

  108. good good

    Comment by happyfeet (760ba3) — 4/26/2011 @ 6:04 am

  109. Dustin

    > feets, let’s hope Kman didn’t finally get him.

    Lol, don’t worry. i am well armed.

    And alive.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 4/26/2011 @ 6:15 am

  110. And alive.

    I’m telling you people, NEVER hire a hit-man off of Craig’s List.

    Kidding. Glad yer still around, Aaron…

    Comment by Scott Jacobs (98018d) — 4/26/2011 @ 6:44 am

  111. Man, with all the racists in this house, it’s no wonder I don’t see JD anymore.

    Comment by Dan Collins (99ab45) — 4/26/2011 @ 3:02 pm

  112. Racists in the house?

    How the heck did Shirley Sherrod get into our house???

    Comment by Dave Surls (92f486) — 4/26/2011 @ 3:06 pm

  113. DAN COLLINS IN DA HOUSE !!!!!!!!!

    Comment by JD (6b92bd) — 4/26/2011 @ 3:06 pm

  114. I take it there’s a whole lot of denunciation going on.

    Comment by Dan Collins (99ab45) — 4/26/2011 @ 3:18 pm

  115. Ladies and germs, I present to you Mr Dan Collins, the dark and tortured soul that coined the term mendoucheous twatwaffle. Smothers. Denounced and condemned. That is all.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 4/26/2011 @ 3:42 pm

  116. We’re racists?

    And notice how the left wanted the death penalty for Jonathan Pollard but not for Mumia-Abu Jamal.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 4/26/2011 @ 3:49 pm

  117. I’m a racist. I’ve always been biased in favor of members of the human race and biased against members of the Democrat race.

    Character flaw, I guess.

    Comment by Dave Surls (92f486) — 4/26/2011 @ 3:54 pm

  118. Most racism is covert, hard to show and impossible to prove. And, indeed, the gratuitous allegations of racism over mere banalities only make it easier for actual bigots to hide among the merely big-mouthed. Still, the lame, moronically redundant sarcasm here about racism only shows that its perpetrators at least know they can’t simply ignore the perception that they’re bigots.

    Comment by Big Median (2b1825) — 4/26/2011 @ 4:20 pm

  119. We are openly mocking you, big median. You are just too thick to recognize it.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 4/26/2011 @ 4:35 pm

  120. “Still, the lame, moronically redundant sarcasm…”

    I understand your bitterness and resentment. No one likes being reminded that they’re members of the inferior leftard race.

    Comment by Dave Surls (92f486) — 4/26/2011 @ 4:36 pm

  121. “Most racism is covert…”

    Some is, but if you form an organization called the Black Farmers Agricultural Association, then your racism is on display for all to see, and is thus quite overt, rather than covert.

    Comment by Dave Surls (92f486) — 4/26/2011 @ 4:41 pm

  122. You know, what I most like about Metamucil is his utter and complete lack of self-awareness. As when writes:

    “…And, indeed, the gratuitous allegations of racism over mere banalities only make it easier for actual bigots to hide among the merely big-mouthed….”

    Oh, my. Cue Inigo Montoya. It’s like he hasn’t been watching the way the Left talks about race since 1975 or so.

    As for racism being impossible to prove, perhaps Metamucil should re-enact “Amos and Andy” in blackface in South Central. His education about racism would be overt, painfully demonstrable, and filmed via cell phones from the excited crowds.

    Comment by Simon Jester (08af0a) — 4/26/2011 @ 4:53 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4490 secs.