UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

In re BLACK FARMERS DISCRIMINA nON 

LITIGATION 

FILED 

AUG 26 2011 

Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy 

Courts for the District of Columbia ) 

) 

) 

) Misc. No. 08-0511 (PLF) 

This document relates to: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ALL CASES 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING FAIRNESS HEARING 

On May 13, 2011, the Court entered an Order conditionally certifYing a plaintiffs' 

class in this matter and granting preliminary approval of a settlement agreement proposed by the 

defendant, the United States Department of Agriculture, and a large group of plaintiffs. Before 

granting final approval of a settlement agreement that would resolve the claims of the members 

of a certified class, the Court must determine that the terms of the settlement are fair. See FED. 

R. CIY. P. 23(e); Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82,98-99 (D.D.C. 1999). Members of the 

class have been notified of the conditional class certification in this matter and of the material 

terms of the proposed settlement agreement. They were also informed that objections to the 

proposed settlement by any class member would be considered by the Court if filed by August 

12,2011. Class members were invited to present any objections they might have at a fairness 

hearing to be held on September 1,2011 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 20, the Ceremonial 

Courtroom on the sixth floor of the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse. 

A. Objections and Other Correspondence 

The Court, as well as counsel for the plaintiffs' class and for the defendant, 

received a large volume of correspondence in response to the circulation of notices announcing 
the proposed settlement. A number of individuals who sent letters concerning the case asked to 

be added to the list of plaintiffs, requested legal advice, or explained why they believed they are 

entitled to relief under the proposed settlement agreement. These individuals should be aware 

that the Court cannot grant any of the requests made in those letters. Under the proposed 

settlement agreement, neutral third parties - not this Court - will determine who is a member 

of the plaintiffs' class and who is eligible to receive an award. No one can "sign up" for this 

lawsuit or submit a Track A or Track B claim by writing a letter to the Court, and neither the 

Court nor its staff may give any legal advice about how to participate in this action. Any 

questions about the proposed settlement agreement or requests to participate in the claims 

resolution process should be addressed to class counselor to another attorney - not to the Court. 

The Court has also received hundreds of copies of a document entitled "Pro Se 

Petition/Objection to Pigford 2." Although each copy of this document is signed by a different 

individual or set of individuals, it appears that the content of the document was prepared by one 

person, Ms. Thedford A. Rowser-Bey, an individual who styles herself a "legal researcher" and 

who has repeatedly attempted to inject herself into this case and its predecessors, Pigford v. 

Glickman, Civil Action No. 97-1978, and Brewington v. Glickman, Civil Action No. 98-1693. 

The Court has been informed that a large number ofpeop1e have paid Ms. Rowser-Bey a fee in 

exchange for her submission of a copy of her "Pro Se Petition/Objection" on their behalf. The 

Court is concerned that any money paid to Ms. Rowser-Bey by potential class members in this 

case may have been wasted because the "Pro Se Petition/Objection" drafted by Ms. Rowser-Bey 

achieves nothing at all for those individuals. It does not present a coherent objection to the 

proposed settlement agreement, nor does it serve as a means of "signing up" for this case. 

2 
While potential class members are entitled to seek assistance where they please, 

the Court advises them that Ms. Rowser-Bey is not a lawyer, and she has previously caused 

widespread confusion among Pigford litigants by "misstat[ing] the legal importance of various 

Orders and Opinions issued by this Court, and misinterpret[ing] the meaning of words and 

sentences in those Orders and Opinions." Pigford v. Johanns, 505 F. Supp. 2d 174, 175 (D.D.C. 

2007). Based on her submissions in this case and in Pigford v. Glickman, it does not appear that 

she understands the law or the facts involved in either matter. Her interference with the 

proceedings in Pigford v. Glickman was so severe and persistent that the Court was forced to bar 

her from filing documents in the case. See id. It is highly unlikely that she can be of any help to 

potential claimants in this matter. 

B. Procedure for September 1 Fairness Hearing 

In addition to the correspondence discussed above, the Court has received timely 

written objections to the proposed settlement from the following individuals or groups: Justin 

and Willa Fouts; Booker T. Woodard; Diahann C. Stevens; Thomas Burrell, President of the 

Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association; Larry Morgan, M.C. Moore, Willie Parker, Sr., 

Vernon Ross, Sr., Blanche Ross, Lewis Walker, Thomas Walker, Inez Washington, Steven 

Bailey, and O.C. Anthony (all represented by attorney Precious Martin); Errol Von Hart; Eddie 

Lee Gray; Muhommad Rabbalaa and Henry Burris; Karla K. Adams and Terrie L., Theodore B., 

Brad E., Kerry F., and Ava L. Bates; Lillie M. Wingard; Robert E. Walker; and M. Murline 

Price. The Court also will consider the late-filed objections of Ralph Paige, Executive Director 

of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives Land Assistance Fund, and Dr. Dewayne L. 

Goldmon, Chairman of the National Black Agricultural Alliance. Finally, the following 

3 
individuals have submitted timely requests to speak at the fairness hearing, although those 

requests were unaccompanied by any written objections: Bernice Atchison; Joyce A. Smith; 

Doris Gray; William Paramore; and Gloria Davis Gilmore.] In light of the foregoing, it is hereby 

ORDERED that at the start of the fairness hearing, Class Counsel and government 

counsel will each make short presentations explaining why their client or clients are moving for 

final approval of the settlement, after which Class Counsel will explain how the proposed 

settlement will be implemented if approved; and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that for each person or group listed as having filed a 

written objection or a request to speak, a representative will be allotted time to present oral 

objections at the fairness hearing. Precious Martin, on behalf of his clients, and representatives 

of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives 

Land Assistance Fund, and the National Black Agricultural Alliance will each be permitted to 

speak for up to fifteen minutes. All other objectors will be allotted five minutes to speak. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATE: tS' I~ f.a I " 

~.JL ~cX;.IL.. PAUL L. FRIEDMAN 

United States District Judge 

The Court has also received requests to speak from Gregory K. Chestnut and John 

Boyd, President of the National Black Farmers Association. The Court has not yet decided 

whether to grant those requests. 

4