Counter to NY Times on Pigford

The Federation of Southern Cooperatives has a response to the NYTimes article I linked to previously.

It's a more detailed response than others I've seen.  It ends with a repudiation of one of the figures mentioned in the Times article:

"The Network of Black Farm Groups and Advocates was created at the beginning of the Pigford lawsuit. Tom Burrell, mentioned in the April 26 New York Times article, was never a part of the Network. His Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association (BFFA) in Tennessee is not the same as the group in North Carolina. Burrell speaks for himself.

Thomas Burrell and his organization never served as representatives of class counsel in the Pigford settlement or the Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation (BFDL), known as Pigford II.

Burrell and his organization were not active in the Pigford claims process, and class

counsel in BFDL has not worked with him or his organization on claims nor accepted any claimshe or his organization might have prepared. In fact, class counsel had reported his activities tothe U.S. District Court in an effort to prevent him from spreading false information about theclaims process, and in opinions rendered on January 3, 2005 and September 6, 2005, DistrictCourt Judge Paul L. Friedman charged that Burrell had “given false hope to thousands of AfricanAmerican farmers.”

What Burrell has done, but which the article does not make clear, is hijack the claims

process for his own self interest. Burrell’s actions have been detrimental to the legitimate claimsprocess, yet the New York Times would have readers believe that those who oversaw the claimsprocess condoned his efforts to undermine the integrity of the process. This is blatantlyfalse. By indicating a connection between Burrell and the claims process, the New York Times is showing a grave disregard for the truth and seriously misleading the public.