MARYLAND BLACK FARMER LAWYERS : Issues and Updates

Charles Jerome Ware, Attorneys and Counselors, LLC, is a Maryland-based national law firm that features as one of its core practice areas the representation of Black farmers in Maryland and throughout the United States.  For an initial courtesy consultation to discuss your legal issues , contact us at www.charlesjeromeware.com,  charlesjeromeware@msn.com, (410) 730-5016  or  (410) 720-6129.  We are "here to make a difference."

The firm has been successfully involved in several major cases and issues regarding the welfare of Black farmers, including the major Black Farmers Class Action Cases :  TIMOTHY PIGFORD, Et AL.,  v.  ANN VENEMAN, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,  and  CECIL BREWINGTON, ET AL.  v.  MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,  Civil Class Action Cases, Numbers 97-1978 (PFL) and 98-1693 (PLF), 1977 -1999, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

There are still multi-millions of dollars set aside by Congress for the benefit of Black farmers and farms who can survive the arduous and difficult process outlined in the U.S. District Court  Order and Consent Decree of the parties of April 14, 1999 to recover it.  Most unfortunately, too few Black farmers have been able to survive this difficult process to receive their just compensation for the severe wrongs suffered by them and their ancestors.

Attorney Charles Ware was one of the few select attorneys who filed motions to modify the Court's flawed Order and Consent Decree of the parties.  However, the fight for justice goes on ; particularly since the fund is still there for disbursement.

As a reminder to the readers of this blog,  the  PIGFORD class action consent decree and order established a two-track dispute resolution mechanism for those Black farmers and their families seeking relief. The most widely used option has been "Track A", which provides a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability.  It is a cumbersome and difficult process.  An even more difficult option is the so-called "TRACK B" process., in which claimants must prove their claims and actual damages by a preponderance of the evidence ( i.e., it is more likely than not that their claims are valid). The documentation to support such a claim and the amount of relief are reviewed by a third party arbitrator, who makes a binding decision. The major problem with this process, however, is the difficulty in finding and producing the necessary documentation to get relief. The advantage here is the fact that the claimant is not restricted to just $ 50,000 in relief.